UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
September S, 1978
THE ADMINISTRATOR
SUBJECT: EPA Policy
To Protect Environmentally Signlficsnt Agricultural Lands
TO : Assistant Administrators
Regional Administrators
Office Directors
PURPOSE
The purpose of this statement is to astafcnisn EPA policy t.^at will
recognize the -cod production and environmental value of agricultural
lands and theMecassity to protect "hem wherever imoactea DV Agency
programs, Thi; policy is intencsfl to guide Agency actions, regulations,
program guidarce and ~scnr">cal assistance *o rsducs ,or nitreats adverse
impacts, and to encourage farmland srotar.ticn efforts v/nicn are consistar
with environmental quality goals,
RATIONALE
Conversion and less of agricultural land, particularly prir.a f.«n~
lands to exoanding uroan uses, has significantly ai-ninisnea tna Nicion's
cropland base, and affects environ-ental quality, X'ith lass "prrre1'
quality agricultural land available, greater reliance on marginally
productive farmland will occur, resultinq in greater soil a*"osicn,
increased fertilizer requiregents, ^na increased environ;,lental damage.
Conversion of agricultural land also reduces our future food orccucticn
capability, tne viability of farming units, and causes adverse secondary
economic impacts on farming entarorise in Tiany metroool i tan srsas.
-------
Loss of agricultural land diminishes environmental quality by
reducing the beneficial role which the land itself can play. Agri-
cultural land reduces runoff by absorbing precipitation, aids in re-
plenishing groundwater supplies, buffers environmentally.sensitive areas
from encroaching development, and serves in waStewater treatment through
land treatment processes. These environmental benefits are predicated
on best management practices. Other benefits of retaining agricultural
land in or near urbanizing areas are the value of convenient sources of
food production in proximity to consumer markets enabling reduced con-
sumption of scarce fossil fuels for transportation, which in turn will
assist in protecting ambient air quality, and the open space, recrea-
tional, and aesthetic setting these lands may provide for fuller enjoy-
ment of cleaned waters.
Protecting agricultural land to maintain environmental quality also
is based on sound planning.practice which reduces sprawl development and
its' associated social, economic,, and environmental costs. Retaining
agricultural land can be a significant element of an environmental man-
agement strategy, and is consistent with the President's Initiatives to
limit urban sprawl.
In a recent report, the U.S. Soil Conservation Service pointed out
that 79.2 million acres have been converted from cropland since 1967.
While additional acreage has b»en converted to crooland during the same
period, the net loss to cropland has been 30.5 million acres, leaving
about 400 million acres in the nation's cropland base. Of the nearly
17 million acres converted to urban development, reservoirs, and other
built-up uses (often with federal assistance), mere than 8 million acres
was of prime quality. The^e losses to the cropland basa are absolute,
yet they also have a qualitative aspect. To maintain crop production,
land of lower quality is brought into cultivation requiring greater
input of crop production technology, with its potential negative impact
on environmental quality. In 1976, the Council on Environmental Quality
recognized these conditions and directed that federal agencies evaluate
the impacts of their actions on prime and unique farmlands in NEPA
reviews and environmental impact assessments.
Urban encroachment, unique economic problems faced by farmers, and
the impact of federal programs all influence the conversion of agricul-
tral land. The impacts which result from federal grants-in-aid for com-
munity infrastructure and new development are significant in the conver-
sion process. Decisions on federal grants for sewsrs, highways, and
other'capital improvements do not adequately reccgnrize that agricultural
lands are a finite productive and environmental resrource which is cumu-
latively and irretreivably diminished as a result o?f federal actions.
-------
Some EPA programs impact on farm management practices, economically
affsct farming operations, and can inadvertently cause conversion of
agricultural land to other uses. Cumulatively, there like-ly are signif-
icant EPA'program impacts which induce land use changes: unplanned urban
.development, remove land from agricultural production and reduce our
ability to maintain environmental quality.
A recently issued policy on land treatment of municipal wastewat^r
underscores our Agency's reliance on a variety of agricultural lands in
proximity to urbanized areas to enable the option of wastewater manage-
ment and beneficial utilization of municipal wastes 1n agriculture to
continue in the future. The land treatment systems fostered by this
policy involve'the use of plants and the soil to remove unutilized
wastes from wastewaters. The recovery and beneficial reuse of waste-
water and its nutrient resources through land treatment can contribute
to the productivity of farmlands. Thus, land treatment can enhance
production, and the availability of agricultural land in urbanizing
areas can enable land treatment to continue as a viable waste manage-
ment approach.
The Agency currently has no overall policy which assures that its
actions, regulations, and programs reinforce the retention and protection
of environmentally significant agricultural land. Since agricultural
land itself can play an important role in maintaining environmental
quality, it is in EPA's interest to treat it as an environmental re-
source, and to discourage its conversion to other non-agricultural uses.
EPA is in a strategic position to assist in the protection of the
Nation's vital agricultural land resources. It must, therefore, seek
to minimize the impact of its programs which may induce conversion of
agricultural land unless the proposed activity serves an essential public
need,
DEFINING ENVIRONMENTALLY SIGNIFICANT AGRICULTURAL UAMD
Soil capability for food and fiber production,, together with manage-
ment and technology are among the major factors governing the potential
of land productivity. The importance of agricultural land from an
environmental perspective> in addition to these factors, is determined
by its capability to contribute to maintaining or improving environ-
mental quality. Thus, the ability of agricultural land to directly or
strategically aid in maintaining environmental quality determines its
significance.
-------
For purposes of this policy, agricultural land types defined in
1, 2, ^3, and 4 are those set forth by the U.S. Department of Agriculture
in 7 CFR Part 657. Their environmental significance is based on their
own merits for productive capability and general environmental resource
value. Agricultural land types defined in 5, 6, and 7 are these iden-
tified for their specific environmental value. Their environmental
significance is based on their role in an EPA-required environmental
plan or management strategy. Under these definitions, prime fctrinlands
are to be considered as having the greatest environmental significance.
Environmentally Significant Agricultural Lands include:
1. Prime farmland is land that has the best combination of
physical and cnemical characteristics for producing food, feed,
forage, fiber, and oilseed crops, and is also available for
these use? (the land could be cropland, pastureland, rangeland,
forest land; or other land,.but not developed land or under
water). -It has the soil quality, growing season, and moisture
supply needed to economically produce sustained high yields of
crops when treated and managed.
2. Unj gue fannland is land other than prime farmland that is
used for the production of specific high value food and fiber
crops. It has the special ccmbination of soil quality, location,
growing season, and moisture supply needed to economically pro-
duce sustained high quality and/or high yields of a specific
crop when treated and managed according to acceptable farming
methods.
3. Additional farm!and_of .statawjde -importance is, in addition
to prime and unique farmlanas, significant for the production of
food, feed, fiber, forage, ornamental, and oilseed crops. Cri-
teria for defining and delineating this land is to be determined
by the appropriate State agency or agencies-
4. Additional farmland of local Importance, is not identified
as having national or statewide importance. In some local areas,
however, it is economically important and environmentally sound
for certain additional farmlands for the proouction of food,
feed, fiber, forage, ornamental, and oilseed crops. Where
appropriate, these lands may be identified by the local agencies
concerned.
-------
5. Farmlands In or contiguous to Envlronrngn tally Sensitive Areas
{ ESA 'si , such as f 1 oodp'lains , wetlands, aquifer recharge zones , or
natural scientific study areas ; these farmlands play a crucial
environmental buffer rcla to prevent development from encroaching
on ESA's, thereby protecting their capability to remain environ-
mentally productive *nd stable,
6. Faplands o^ jvaste_^ which may serve
in the land treatment pr~ocess~r"be"~used'""fdr" composting activities,
or for controlled beneficial application of sewage sludges or other
wastes.
7. Farmlands with significarvt Capital investments in Best
Management Practl ces j bHP ' s ) , wnicn serve as elements of an
~a rea"" s ( or st a te ' s } s oi 1 eras i on and non-point source pollution
. control plans.
BASIS FOR ACTION
>
The basis for Agency action to protect environmentally significant
agricultural land is found in several policy directives and statutes:
EPA final regulations implementing the requirements of the National
Environmental Policy Act in 40 CFR Part 6 direct the Agency to specifically
identify impacts affecting prime agricultural land or agricultural
operations on such land. A Council on Environmental Quality Memorandum
for Agency Heads (dated Aucust 30, 1976) seeks to assure that prime
farmlands" are not irreversibly converted to other usas as a result of
federal program impacts.
Impacts resulting from programs administered under the following
statutes can directly or indirectly influence agri cultural lands or
farming operations:
The Clean Water Act provides for waste treatment works and water
quality planning which impact on agricultural lands. It also
requires that comprehensive pollution control programs give due
regard to agriculture activities.
The Clean Air Act Amendments focus on air resources and consider
public welfare impacts such as effects on soils, water, crops,
and vegetation,
-------
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act calls for criteria and
guidelines to ensure that solid and hazardous waste disposal activ-
ities do not create adverse health or environmental effects, in-
cluding those which may affect agricultural activities.
The Safe Drinking Water Act enables the designation of areas con-
taining sole source aquifers which are likely to contain agricul-
tural lands performing groundwater recharge and natural cleansing
functions for those aquifers.
The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act enables
the Administrator to reclassify or suspend the registration of
a pesticide. This may lead to changes in crop patterns and
ultimately to conversion of prime farmland to other uses.
POLICY
It is EPA's policy to protect, through the administration and
implementation of its programs and regulations, the Nation's environmen-
tally significant agricultural land from irreversible conversion to uses
which result in its loss as an environmental or essential food production
resource.
IMPLEMENTATION
EPA will apply this policy to the full extent of its authorities in
implementing Agency actions. Each major Agency Office and Region will
review its programs and modify its policies and operations as necessary
to carry out the actions required in this policy. Headquarters Offices
and Regions shall designate staff responsible for seeing that required
actions are carried out.
Responsibility for implementing this policy rests with each Agency
program and Regional Office, Responsibility for monitoring the imple-
mentation of this policy rests with the Office of Federal Activities,
which will report its progress and recommend adjustments prior to the
next issuance of the annual EPA Policy Guidance.
ACTION REQUIRED
Assistant Administrators and Regional Administrators shall ensure
that their actions and those of their staffs clearly advocate protection
-------
of agricultural lands. Protection of environmentally significant
agricultural lands shall be carried out in the following Agency actions:
a. A consideration of impacts on agricultural land shall be
incorporated within the process of developing new or revised
Agency regulations, standards, or guidance.
b. Specific project decisions involved in the planning, design,
and construction of sewer interceptors and treatment facilities
shall consider farmland protection. Consistent with Agency cost-
effectiveness guidelines, interceptors and collection systems
should be located on agricultural land only if necessary to elimi-
nate existing discharges and serve existing habitation.
c. Agency permit actions which are subject to MEPA review shall
ensure that the proposed activity will not cause conversion of
environtncntally significant, agricultural land. The permit process
shall consider farmland protection alternatives, and ensure that
the least damaging environmental alternative is implemented.
d. Primary and secondary impacts on agricultural land shall be
determined, and mitigation measures recommended in environmental
assessments and reviews of environmental impact statements of EPA
decisions, and reviews of actions proposed by other federal agencies,
e. The regional or local significance and economic value of farm-
lands to communities shall be considered in Agency enforcement actions
f. Future environmental consequences, trends, and applications
of the environmental roles of agricultural land shall be studied
and research needs identified.
g. A public awareness, program which recognizes the environmental
value of agricultural land and its role as an environmental resource
shall be pursued.
h. Agency technical assistance activities i*n the development
of air quality, water quality, and solid waste plans shall sup-
port and encourage State and local government agricultural land
protection programs. Significant farmlands recognized in these
programs shall be incorporated into Agency-required environmental
plans and implementation approaches, wnenever appropriate.
-------
8
i. Agricultural land protection efforts of states, local
governments, or other federal programs snail be supported
through intergovernmental coordination and EPA project re-
views. Opportunities for review and comment on proposed
EPA actions which impact on agricultural land shall be
afforded.
j. Future EPA Policy Guidance shall reflect this policy
of protecting environmentally significant agricultural' land.
Dot
Costle
-------
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS - AGRICULTURAL PROTECTION POLICY
1. What will this policy do?
A. It will require EPA Regional Administrators and orogram officials to
consider the impacts of their activities and ruleoiaking (for example,
in deciding the location of an interceptor sewer) and ensure that the
effects of those actions minimize the loss of productive farmlands.
2. Why is it needed?
A. Unfortunately, for soma time Federal programs have unintentionally caused
a loss of valuable farmland. Recently Secretary of Agriculture Bergland
put it this way: "We have been losing a million acres of cropland a year
for the last 30 years. During the 50's we lost land to the interstate
highway system. In the 60's we lost land to suburban sprawl. In the 70's
we're losing land to sewage treatment facilities. All of which require
flat farmland." EPA wants to make sure that its programs have a minimal
impact on agricultural land loss. That is what the Council of Environmental
Quality wants us to do, that is what American fanners, and the State
Agricultural Departments want us to do, and that is what we want to do.
3, What does the policy mean for the" farmer?
A. It should provide some assistance to the fanner in hanging on to his property,
It does not dictate how a farmer can or can't use his land. It means there
will be less pressure coming from the EPA in terms of grants for treatment
plant construction that could provide the spark for other residential or
commercial development.
*
4. Is the loss of agricultural land really a problem?
A. Yes. Roughly 31 million acres of farmland have baen lost to development
and other uses during the past decade. Qf this, 17 million acres have been
eaten up by urban growth; 8 million has been converted to reservoirs,
ponds and other water bodies and the remaining is no longer being fanned
for various reasons,
5. Will the policy result in new regulations?
A. riot likely. But it is likely that rules now in effect or under development
increasingly will be administered in ways that don't contribute to the
problem of farmland loss.
-------
6. What is the status of this policy as opposed to a regulation or law?
Will it be changed from time to time?
A. This policy itself does not have the force of law. However, EPA will make
every effort to uphold the policy in carrying out activities, such as regu-
lation development and grant approvals. The policy is backed up the National
Environmental Policy Act. While the basic framework of the policy is not
expected to change, it will be further developed and refined as we gain
experience through its implementation.
7. Is it a "no growth" policy?
A- Definitely not. EPA air and water pollution control programs are designed
to accommodate projected growth. This policy is no exception.
8. Can the policy stop EPA from doing certain things?
A. It will affect how we do certain things. For example if we're facing a
decision on approving an interceptor sewer to be built in a rural area
or one already inhabited, this farmlands policy favors consideration of
alternatives which would limit the "spread" of urbanization unless there's
soroe overriding consideration that makes this impossible or environmentally
unsound.
/
9. Are State and local governments acting to preserve farmland?
A. New Jersey and Suffolk County, New York are experimenting with public
purchases of development rights from farmers that allow them to continue
using the land for agricultural or other purposes but not to sell or
lease it for development. Massachusetts has passed a law adopting this
approach, and California is considering it. Oregon has a comprehensive
program based on statewide planning goals and local zoning. Many other
States attempt to preserve farmland by using "differential tax assessments"
that price farmland for its food production value as opposed to its value
for urban development.
10. What causes the loss of agricultural land?
A. Urban encroachment, unique economic problems faced by farmers, and the
impact of federal programs all influence the conversion of agricultural
land. The impacts which result from federal grants-in-aid for community
infrastructure and new development are significant in the conversion orocess.
-------
Decisions on federal grants for sewers, highways, and other capital improvements
do not adequately recognize that agricultural lands are a finite productive and
environmental resource which is cumulatively and irretreivably diminished as a-
resylt of federal actions. Some EPA programs impact on farm management prac-
tices, economically affect farming operations, and; can inadvertently cause
conversion of agricultural land to other uses.
11. Why is farmland enviroreisentally important?
A, Farmlands play an envirorenentally active role as open space to:
absorb and filter snow and rainfall to maintain clean underground
water supplies;
serve as wildlife habitat ands In some cases, preserve wetlands
essential to the reproduction of certain fish and other aquatic
life;
can provide a way of disposing sewage sludge to condition soil
and fertilize crops;
provide a country experience for harried city dwellers.
12. Do you have examples on how, EPA programs impact on agricultural lands!
through decisions on the location of sewage treatment plants
and interceptor sewers that may make uninhabited areas attractive
for development,
through decisions as to where new sources of "industrial air
pollution may build (significant deterioration policy),-
through decisions on the siting of solid waste landfills,
through reviews of environmental impact statements of other
federal agencies activities that affect farmland (highways,
dams, etc,}
13, What is the relationship between the agricultural lands policy and the 20S
program?
A. The relationship is indirect. By protecting prime farmlands there will be
less need to raly on marginally productive farmland which often results
in greater soil erosion, increased environmental damage and increased
energy intensive fertilizers.
-------
14. What is the relationship between the agricultural lands policy and the
201 program?
A: EPA will review municipal waste treatment grants carefully to mitigate,
as far as possible, construction activities on significant agricultural
lands. Tha Regional Administrators and their staffs will be required to
carry out their 201 actions in accord with the EPA agricultural lands
policy,
15. How is agricultural land conversion caused by EPA programs?
A: Our investigations of case examples have confirmed the logic and causal
relationship of EPA program impacts on farmland loss. However* currently
available EPA data does not illustrate the full degree of program impacts
on farmlands. The Soil Conservation Service points out that some 79.9
million acres have been converted from cropland since 1967 a relatively
short period of time. Of the nearly 17 million acres converted to urban
development, reservoirs, and other built-up uses, more than 8 million
acres was of prime quality. Where EPA programs help support development
infrastructure, such as sewer construction grants, they serve to stimulate
farmland conversion. As such, farmland loss attributed to urbanization
or the "threat" of impending urbanization can be seen as the result of our
impact on this problem.
EPA is one of several federal agencies (including EDA, FmHA, DOT, and HUD)
that provide financial assistance which induces urban development. In
addition to reducing the adverse impacts of our programs, careful compre-
hensive planning at local levels can reduce farmland conversions.
-------
BACKGROUND PAPER IN SUPPORT OF AN EPA POLICY TO PROTECT
ENVIRONMENTALLY SIGNIFICANT AGRICULTURAL LANDS
CONTENTS
1. Introduction and Statement of the Issue. .. .1
2. Environmental Consequences of Agricultural Land Conversion 2
3. The Environmental Case for Protecting Agricultural Land ,..,.6
4, Basis for EPA Concern , , 9
3. Trends in Agricultural Land Conversion 12
6. Environmental Variables in Agricultural Production 19
7, Defining Environmentally Significant Agricultural Land ,..21
8. Why Farmlands Are Lost ........24
9. State-of-the-Art Approaches for Farmland Retention 28
10. EPA Program Impacts on Agricultural Land. 31
Footnotes
Tabs 1 - 12
Prepared by the Office of Land Use Coordination
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
Revised: August 25, 1978
*Ncta: This background paper is an in-house EPA document subject to
revision before being published and made generally available.
-------
LIST OF TABS FOR BACKGROUND DOCUMENT
1. Abstracted texts of Administrator Costle's speeches referring to
farmland retention.
2. Letter of Massachusetts State Officials on interaction of sewage
treatment and agricultural land use.
3. Portion of Denver Regional Overview £IS Statement
4. USDA policy memorandum on Prime Farmland, Range, and Forest Land
5. Farmland Benefits outlined in State of Maryland Report.
6. CEQ Memorandum on Analysis of Impacts on Prime and Unique Farmland
7, Reprint of 7 CFR, Part 657 - Prime and Unique Farmlands Definitions
8. Article by Robert A, Norton on Value of Unique Farmlands
9. Newsclip of case example of Farmland Retention Efforts
10. Text of Massachusetts Law on Agricultural Land Development Rights
Purchase and California proposal for Farmland Retention
11. Considerations for Farmland Retention Strategies at State and
Local Government levels.
12. Newsclip describing the Jeffords Bill, H.R, 11122
-------
1. INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE
Administrator Cos tie's remarks before the Massachusetts Farm Tour
on August 25, 1977, and before the Annual Convention of the sNational
Association of Conservation Districts on February 6, 1978, stressed
the need to examine relationships between EPA Programs and the
Protection of Farmlands, (See Tab 1). In his words, "Because of
our sensitivity to the need for preserving our (prime) farmlands
and keeping them in production, I have directed that EPA examine
the effects of each and every one of its own programs and regula-
tions on the retention of agricultural lands,,.. And, I've direc-
ted that we develop an overall policy statement on the preservation
of these (environmentally significant) agricultural lands to give
general guidance for the implementation of EPA programs."
A recent exchange of letters among state officials in EPA's Regions
(See Tab 2 and Tab 3) similarly characterizes these issues. The
U.S. Deoartment of Agriculture has also articulated a policy exores-
sion on this issue (Sea Tab 4).
From this charge, an Agency-wide working group engaged to contribute
information on impacts and review the oroblems and opportunities
facing EPA on this issue. This background paper serves several
purposes: as an educational device for understanding relationships
between farmlands and environmental quality; as a basis for iden-
tifying the impacts of EPA programs on farmlands; and as a vehicle
for supporting an Agency policy proposal.
ISSUE
Well-managed agricultural lands oftsn olay environ-
mentally beneficial roles by providing assimilative
capacity, serving as buffer zones, and offering rela-
tive environmental stability whan compared to urban
or developed land uses. EPA programs are designed
to improve environmental quality but may induce land
use change and development, and remove agricultural
land from production. These losses of agricultural
land use reduce our ability to maintain environmental
quality, yet the Agency currently has no overall
policy which assures that its actions, regulations,
and programs reinforce the retention and protection
of environmentally significant agricultural lands.
-------
2. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF AGRICULTURAL LAND CONVERSION
Conversion of prime farmlands to urban uses induces a shift to
farming on less desirable land or more intensive use of existing
farmland. This shift would lead to a greater reliance on environ-
mental manipulation, which, given current levels of technology,
would tend to require additional land management and conservation
practices.
In addition to the outright loss of high quality land as an
agricultural and environmental resource, other consequences of
prime farmland conversion which raise environmental concerns are
the shift to less productive (non-prime) lands, and the implicit
requirement for greater application of technology and environ-
mental manipulation to achieve high levels of productivity on
less-productive lands.
Conversion of prime agricultural LAND to other (urban) uses often
leads to these consequences;2
A. Since over 90% of the highest quality land is currently in
production, land shifted out of agriculture is irretrievably lost
from the agricultural land resource base. This loss of "open
space" land also depletes a region's assimilative capacity. Such
losses are significant as more and more urbanized areas are covered
with impermeable surfaces, and more public investments are raade to
accommodate the adverse environmental effects of urbanization,
8. Urban sprawl, skip development, and fragmenting farms into
5 to 50-acre parcels has both direct and indirect affects on
agricultural production. There may be speculative idling of crop-
land, isolation of farming enterprises, increasing land values and
production constraints arising from regulations on odors, waste
disposal and other land-use incompatibilities.
C. Often, agricultural land in floodplain areas is shifted to
industrial or commerical development. Pressure is then created
for public investment to provide flood protection, where such
investments was not previously required.
D. Shifting agricultural activities to less productive (r.on-prime)
lands leads indirectly to these results:
1) "under-utilized land" being held in a natural or
undisturbed state is reduced. Such land provides one of
the very limited opportunities for natural ecosystems to
develop, and for natural diversity to be maintained.
-------
2) Use of non-prime land and marginal land implies the use
of land which has steeper slopes and poor soil quality. Such
lands are more vulnerable to soil erosion from either wind or
runoff.
Sediments carried by water runoff clearly represent the "dominant
form of soil loss in the Unitad States, delivering approximately
4 billion tons/year of sediment to waterways in the 48 contingu-
ous states".3 Three-quarters of these sediments come from agri-
cultural lands- Soil erosion also has a detrimental effect on
reservoirs, rivers, and lakes. About 1 billion of the 4 billion
tons of water borne sediments end up in the ocean, and the re-
maining 3 billion tons settle in reservoirs, river and lakes.*
One-quarter of the total sediments come from sources other than
agriculture, such as construction and logging. About 450 million
cubic yards (344 million cubic meters) of sediment are dredged
from U.S. rivers and harbors annually at a cost of about S250
million.5 Sedimentation materially reduces the useful life of
reservoirs, and costs the nation about $30 million annually,6
These and other sediment damages are estimated to cost the
United States about $500 million annually.7
Soil sediments, the associated nutrients (for example, nitrogen,
phosphorus, and potassium), and pesticides have an ecological
impact upon stream fauna and flora. The added nutrients rray
increase aquatic productivity resulting in eutrophication; in
contrast, when suspended sediments are present they reduce light
penetration, which reduces the productivity of aquatic ecosystems.
Fish food may then be lass abundant.
Wind erosion of soil is generally considered to be less severe
than water erosion, but may be significant in specific regions
of the United States. It is estimated that 850 million tons
of soil per year were moved by the wind in the western region
of the United States alone. For the United States as a whole,
it has been estimated that about one-quarter of the total
erosion that occurs is due to the wind.S
E. Use of marginal farmlands and attempts to maintain high crop
yields which causes greater reliance on artificial and technological
manipulation also results in environmental consequences;
-------
1} There is a greater dependency on soil conservation
measures to maintain agricultural productivity and environ-
mental stability. At the same time, increased burdens and
costs are placed on the farmers who undertake soil conser-
vation measures, reducing the likelihood that they will be
done effectively and completely.
Various methods are used for soil conservation. Contour
planting is probably the most common and can be extremely
effective. However, it results in a 5 to 7 percent increase
in both farming time and fuel use."
2) With low soil capability, increased applications of
fertilizer would be needed to maintain yields. Inevitably,
increased amounts of nutrients are fixed to soil particles
carried into streams in the more erodible soils of marginal
farmlands.
Additionally, farmland conservation results in secondary environmental
effects. The conversion of prime farmlands to urban uses implies the
provision of urban services (e.g.j sewer lines). Unless these increments
of change are carefully managed, poorly planned and staged development
could lead to adverse environmental effects as well as an inefficient
infrastructure and tax base from which to provide needed public
services.
These consequences, the secondary environmental effects they imply,
along with the specific environmental effects of increased runoff
and erosion and transport of particulates, the likely increase in
applications of pesticides and fertilizers in some areas5 reduction
of aquifer recharge capability, and the subsequent energy/pollution
effects, all suggest that shifts in agricultural land uses are en-
vironmentally significant.
/
Historically, most land-use decisions have been made by open pricing
in the market place. On this basis, land for agriculture can seldom
compete when the land is in demand for non-agricultural use. The
market place has not put a value on farmland's contribution to main-
taining environmental quality. Future actions will need to ensure
that the long-term environmental interest of the public is given due
consideration in agricultural land use decisions.
-------
More than even before, the conversion of high quality farmlands to
urbanized uses escalates the relative cost of new agricultural develop-
ment by placing greater reliance on fertilizers and technology. The
continuing cycle of agricultural land conversion and development of
alternative Gotten less productive and environmentally fragile} lands
will be costly for the farmer, for the consumer, and for the environ-
ment-
-------
3, THE ENVIRONMENTAL CASE FOR PROTECTINS AGRICULTURAL LAND
In addition to food and fiber production, agricultural lands of
all types (prime, unique, etc.) play an important environ-
mental role, the open space afforded fay farms acts to ameliorate
local fnicroclimate conditions. Farmlands absorb precipitation,
thereby replenishing the groundwatsr supply and reducing the
amount of runoff during periods of Nigh water. Insulation of
environmentally sensitive areas such as wetlands and floodplains
from incompatible uses is another function served by farmlands.
Agricultural land may also serve as a repository for sludge and
other wastes or be an appropriate application for spray irrigation.
While there are costs to farmers in terms of productivity and crop
quality, farmland open space acts beneficially as a sink for such
air pollutants as ozone, sulfur dioxide and fugitive dust.
It should be emphasized that these environmental benefits of farm-
lands are predicated on good farm management and soil conservation
practices. In light of this, a strong rationale for maintenance of
farmland is found in the open space and environmental benefit inherent
in cropland, woodland, and pasture. Some of these more readily iden-
tifiable benefits include: 12
A. Watershed protection can be an essential attribute of
well-managed farms. Water availability will become an in-
creasingly important issue in most regions as the population
expands and per capita use increases. Open lands, such as
farms, help maintain local water supplies by absorbing pre-
cipitation and transferring it to the groundwater system,
protect the hydrologic integrity of watersheds through the
control of storm water run-off and sediment damage, protect
aquifer recharge areas, and provide buffers for water supply
and other natural areas.
8. Insulation of environmentally sensitive areas such as
wetlands and floodplains are an important open space function
of farms, Many states and counties are now adopting regula-
tions to protect these valuable resources and nearly all of
the protective measures list agriculture as a compatible use,'^
As long as the farms remain, these areas are protected and
provide environmental benefits at no direct cost to the public.
C. Wildlife habitat is commonly associated with farmland
and particularly deer, grouse, quail, pheasant, rabbit and a
variety of non-game species equally important to the web of
nature.
-------
0. The value of agricultural land for waste treatment
is increasing, and will likely become wore important as the
population increases, as treatment plants become more expensive
and difficult to locate, and as the public more readily accepts
the idea of land treatment of municipal sewage. While there
are several health-related questions, concerning the heavy
metal content of sludge that must be answered before broad-
scale application will be permitted on cropland, the future
potential seems high and could evolve into a major benefit-
assuming there are farmlands remaining near cities to receive
the treatment.
E, Aesthetic relief from the pressures and living conditions
of urban areas; pleasure driving still remains a popular form
of outdoor relaxation.
F. Many areas of scenic or cultural value, such as unique
landscape or geologic forms, vistas or historic sites, can
be preserved with agricultural land,
G. Farmland-serves as a geographic buffer between expanding
jurisdictions, punctuating urbanized areas and affording an
opportunity to structure urban development, thereby reducing
and controlling urban sprawl.
H. The pollution absorption capacity of farmland open space
traps air pollutants such as ozone and sulfur dioxide. For
example, typical polluted air containing 150 parts per billion
(ppb) ozone would be filtered by a forest of trees 15 feet tall
so that air reaching the forest floor would contain only 30 ppb,
Expressed differently, one acre of woodlot vegetation will trap
the ozone from eight automobiles, or the carbon dioxide from
fifty. Studies of the ability of vegetation to trap spores of
various fungi show that vegetation is also a very effective
filter for particulate matter.'*
I. The value of farmland as a form of "landbank" for future
operations is yet another rationale for retention. Not only
as an approach for waste disposal, but possibly as the site
for a new college or health center. Although this view is
not consistent with other rationale that call for the permanent
retention of farmland, it does, at a minimum, keep a number of
development options open that might otherwise be foreclosed
through premature conversion of agricultural lands.
-------
Some significant secondary benefits (having environmental im-
plications) resulting from prime farmland preservation include:
A. Provision of fresh, high quality food at reasonable
cost located close to the consumer, reducing transportation
and energy costs;
B. Providing productive, tax-paying, privately maintained
agricultural open space with its environmental benefits, in-
cluding rural aesthetics and enhanced air and water quality;
C. Contributing to a stable economy by providing job oppor-
tunities, income, a market for farm production, and general
regional self-sufficiency,
0. Safeguarding reserve food production capacity to meet the
future needs of our population;
E. Preservation of the farming "'way of life" with its
unique cherished values as part of diversified metropolitan
areas;
F. Contributing to the Nation's balance of payments by
providing food and fiber for export;
G. Protecting potential mineral resources from being
prematurely exempted;
Several states have recognized these environmental values in
reports or Legislative Actions (See Tab 5), While each State
or region has unique political and economic circumstances, each
shares the common concern for the loss of productive agricultural
land, and with it, the benefits described above.
-------
4, BASIS FOR EPA CONCERN
Agency concern for protection of farmlands is based in the following
policy directives and statutes:
a. EPA's final regulations implementing the requirements of
NEPA in 40 CFR Part 6 published on April 14, 1975, direct
the Regional Administrator to "assure that an EIS will be
prepared on a treatment works facilities plan, 208 plan
or other appropriate water quality management plan when....
implementation of the treatment works or plan may directly
cause or induce changes that adversely affect significant
amounts of prime agricultural land or agricultural ooerations
on this land,"
b. A CEQ memorandum for Agency heads, dated August 30, 1975,
on "Analysis of Impacts on Prime and Unique Farmland in
Environmental Impact Statements" (See Tab 5 for text); this
memo seeks to " assure that such farmlands are not irre-
versibly converted to other uses unless other national in-
terests override the importance of preservation or otherwise
outweigh the environmental benefits derived from their pro-
tection," " Federal agencies should attempt to determine
the existence of prime and unique farmlands in the areas of
impact analyzed in environmental imoact statements prepared
in compliance with Section 102(25(c) of NEPA."
c. The following sections of the Clean Water Act apply:
i Section 102{a) requires the Administrator to develop
comprehensive pollution control programs which give
due regard to activities such as agriculture.
ii Section 201(d) states that the "Administrator shall
encourage waste treatment management which results
in the construction of revenue producing facilities
providing for(1) the recycling of potential sewage
pollutants through the production of agriculture,
silvaculture or aquaculture products or any combination
thereof-,
iii Section 201(f) states that the Administrator shall
encourage waste treatment management which combines
"open space"....with such management.
-------
10
iv Section 2Q8(b} says that areawide treatment manage-
ment plans shall include "a process to (i) identify,
if appropriate, agriculturally and silviculturally
related non-point sources of pollution, including
return flows from irrigated agriculture, and their
cumulative effects, runoff from manure disposal
areas, and from land used for livestock and crop
production, and (ii) set forth procedures and methods
(including land use requirements) to control the ex-
tent feasible such sources;"
v Section 212(2}{A} defines treatment works to include
"....site acquisition of the land that will be used
as an integral part of the treatment process (includ-
ing land use for the storage of treated wastswater in
land treatment systems prior to land application).,,,"
vi Section 304(f) states that the Administrator shall
issue "(1) guidelines for identifying and evaluating
the nature and extent of non-point sources of oollu-
tants, and (2) processes, procedures, and methods to
control pollution resulting from (a) agricultural
activities, including runoff from fields and crop and
forest lands;".
The following sections of the Clean Air Act Amendments apply:
i Section 101(b) states that the purposes of this
title are to protect and enhance the quality of
the Nation's air resources so as to promote the
public health and welfare and productive capacity
of its population. Wei fare as defined in Section
3Q2(h) includes "effects on soils, water, crops,
vegetation...."
ii Section 160 identifies purposes of the Act..."to
preserve, protect, and enhance air quality in.,,,
areas of special natural or regional natural...,
value".
iii Section 316(b) enables the Administrator to "with-
hold, condition, or restrict".,..construction of
treatment works which may cause or contribute to
an increase in emissions of any air pollutant.
-------
e. The following sections of the Resource Conservation amT^ecovery
Act apply:
i Section 1002{b}{2) states that disposal of solid
waste and hazardous waste in or on the land with-
out careful planning and management can present a
danger to human health and the environment;"
ii Section 1008(a){3) calls for solid waste management
guidelines which "provide criteria....and define
practices" for disposing of solid waste in landfills.
iii Section 4004(2) requires criteria for sanitary land-
fills which insure there is "no reasonable proba-
bility of adverse effects on health or the environ-
ment (through the food chain) from disposal of solid
waste at such facilities".
iv Section S002(g) calls for a comprehensive study on
sludge, including the analysis of ,(1) alternative
methods for the use of sludge, including agricultural
applications,..,"
f. The following section of the Safe Drinking Water Act apply:
i Section 1424(b) states that: "the Administrator may
so designate an area within a State if he finds that
the area has one aquifer which is the sole or principle
drinking water source for the area and which, if con-
taminated, would create a significant hazard to public
health.'"
g. The following sections of Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act apply:
i Section 3(b}(2) states that "if the Administrator deter-
mines that a change in the classification of any use of
a pesticide from general use to restricted use is neces-
sary to prevent unreasonable adverse effects on the en-
vironment, he shall notify the registrant "
ii Section 5(e) states that "the Administrator may revoke
any experimental use permit, at any time.,,,"
iii Section 6(c)(l) states that "if the Administrator deter-
mines that action is necessary to prevent an imminent
hazard...,he may suspend the registration of the pesti-
cide immediately."
-------
12
5, TRENDS IN AGRICULTURAL LAND CONVERSION
Changes from agricultural lands to other uses, particularly prime
farmlands to expanding urban uses, have received considerable
attention in recent years. Several racent CEQ Annual Reports
have expressed concern about the environmental consequences of
these trends J5
The Soil Conservation Service (SCS) has recently completed a study
of non-federal land that provides up-to-date statistical data at
national and regional levels on (1) land use changes and trends,
(2) the potential for converting land in other use to cropland,
(3) the extent of land that can be readily converted, and (4) the
problems related to developing this land for crop production. Some
of its major findings are described below,
A. Significant changes in land use have taken place on American's
non-federal lands between 1967 and 1975. About 17 million
acres have been converted to urban and built-up areas, and
about 7 million acres have been inundated by water. During
that 8-year period, nearly 2.1 [nillion acres were converted
to urban and built-up areas each year. About 30 percent of
the land converted to urban and' built-up areas each year comes
from cropland.
B. Cropland actually farmed declined from 431 million to 400
million acres. This decline occurred in 3 of the 10 farm
production regions. The exceptions were the Delta states
region, where there was a slight increase in cropland acre-
age, and the Mountain region, where the acreage remained
about the same. Forest land declined from 445 million to
375 million acres. The major decline occurred in the Mountain
region. Pastursland and range!and increased significantly,
from 507 million to 571 million acres. Sains occurred in
every region. Land in other uses also increased from 57
to 70 million acres.
C. A "reserve" of about 111 million acrss now in pasture and
range, forest, or other land uses have high or medium po-
tential for conversion to cropland. Of this land, 35 million
acres can be converted to cropland simply by beginning till-
age. The remaining 76 million acres have impediments that
will require additional expense and effort to convert them to
cropland. Examples of these impediments are high density
forest, seasonal high water table, or high erosion hazard.
-------
Changes in land use at the national level indicate that about
79.2 million acres have gone out of cropland since 1967, and
48.7 million acres have been converted to cropland during the
same period. The net loss to cropland has been 30.5 million
acres, leaving a total of 400.4 million acres in cropland.
D. Of the nearly 17 million acres converted to urban and built-up
areas during the 8-year period, about 60 percent was land in
capability Classes I - III'7 Of the nearly 7 million acres
converted to water during the same period, about 40 percent
was land in capability Classes I-III. The flow of these land
use conversions is illustrated in Figure 1 on the following
page.
Nearly 30 percent of the land converted to urban and built-up
areas each year comes from cropland, indicating a cropland loss
of about 0.6 million acres each year. About 10 percent of the
land converted to water areas each year comes from cropland,
Most comes from land in other uses. The conversion to urban and
built-up areas and water is occurring at a greater rate than
previously estimated.
An important question to be addressed in determining the signifi-
cance of prime farmland conversion is: How much (uncultivated)
land has the potential for conversion to cropland and with what
degree of effort and investment? The SCS study points out some
of the problems associated with converting pastureland and range-
land, forest land, and land in other use to cropland.
A. Of a total of nearly 1 billion acres of non-cropland in the
United States, only about 111 million acres have high and
medium potential for conversion to cropland. The production
by farm production region is shown in Figure 2. In 1967 there
were 266 million acres of non-cropland in Classes I - III
which have been called potential cropland. Much of this land
may have the physical capability, but location, ownership, or
other factors make it unavailable for crop production.
8. One hundred eleven million acres of land with high and medium
potential for conversion to cropland as of 1975 is shown in
Figure 3. If new cropland is needed, most would be drawn from
land in pasture and range. For all practical purposes, the
present forest land and'land in other use would yield insignifi-
cant amounts of new land for cropping.
-------
14
FOREST LAND
1967-445
1975-375
CROPLAND
1967-431
1975-400
1967-57
1975-70
PASTURELAND & RANGELAND
1967-SQ7
1975-571
' 1967 acnsage
1975 acreage
FIGURE 1:
4 ^ Acres diangcd to inoth*r land use
ifc idl« iand, rurai rssiderica, etc,
A Water & urtsan buiit-up since 1967
Land ia« caivafstons between 1967 and 1975 (fr»(lion acres).
(SOURCE: POTENTIAL CROPLAND STUDY, SCS, USDA)
-------
15
TABLE!Undusa by faun production rtgion1958, 1967, and 1975
[thousand acres ]
1958
Cropland Pasture and range ftxest Qtner land
1967 1975 1358 5967 1975 1958 19S7 1975 1953 1967 1375
Northeaai ....
Lake stales . . .
Com Belt
Northern Plains. .
Appalachian , .
Souifieast . . .
DtHia states
Southern Plains. .
Mountain
Pacific ,
AK, HI, PR. VI .
20,907
14.387
94.720
93,895
27,362
20.385
20,719
56,251
42,^39
25.776
338
31.169
46,538
92,427
94,138
23,406
19.238
19,145
48,023
4Q.S23
25.337
1,063
17,344
44,194
96.729
30,754
20,303
16,519
20.239
41.062
40.333
21.92S
$69
7.991
3.811
21,935
33,902
15.657
13.930
9,331
109,447
132.533
31.130
543
5,334
7,914
23,492
31.553
18,412
13,553
12.166
119.437
138,533
33.306
1.383
7.345
7,989
39,252
85,043
21.874
13,810
12.475
139.227
308, 65S
37.998
2.220
S5.313
43,474
28.073
3.372
64.014
70,392
48,559
33.737
42.185
46,547
3.079
75,170
46.024
23,502
2.336
55,230
73,293
47 199
31,056
35.813
43,029
3,300
52,955
42.519
25,516
1.511
53,066
SS.235
44,401
16.S65
14,559
-35,403
2.533
7,832
9,101
8.533
2.4S7
6.148
8.313
4.724
2,94$
8,680
7.528
772
5,318 9,065
7.44311,876
6.212 7.502
3,323 4.132
4,060 3,410
5,325 5.006
4,115 4,585
2.651 1,782
9.545 9. 345
7,002 10.915
1,667 2.232
FIGURE 2:
(SOURCE;
production regions in tfw-Umwd SbMW.
POTENTIAL CROPLAND STUDY, SCS/USDA)
-------
T»aui 2,Land capability ctass oi tna 1975 craoiand acrssga by
/aim orocKJCtioft region
i million awes 1
r*3fnT QIQC3UCtTonT C&SSSS
ragion !-
Norths
Lane 3
Corn =
NortHs
i;t
|St . 14
tsies . . . . 35
]e,t 3{
)
3
5
Aapaiachian 1 a
Soutneaa. is
Data statas. . ... <9
Sowrs
\dount;
Pacific
AK HI
nso
1000
aoo
600
400
209
tn Rains. . 3J
iin - 3C
t"
PR. V) . . , (
~~" 1967
286
Wft^^^^i.
Wl^^^SSS^-
I
r
w
Class Classes
iV V-VHI
2.0 1.3
3-7 1.5
4.7 1.6
9.Q 4,2
1.4 1.3
2.7 ,S :
3 .9 :
3.4 1.3
73 2.3
4.3 1.0
.1 2
73S
fteSiisilg^e
^SSf^Jlp^K*
^^i'j^?^^^^.^^;^..-
^'"^'^^'cVuV-^'K-'-'^-l'^n.^-1'
I to 111
tV to Vttl
1200
1000
300
i
S aoo
400
aoo
1975
90S
Lowor^trc
FIGURE 3:
Total noniederat land in usas otner *nan qropiana in '967 ay capacility class
ay potanttai (dr conwarsion in 1975.
SOURCE: POTENTIAL CROPLAND STUDY
-------
17
C. Of the 78.3 million acres of land with high potential for
conversion to cropland, 34.9 million acres have no problems
and conversion can be accomplished by simply beginning till-
age. The remaining 43.4 million acres have one or more
problems that must be considered before conversion to crop-
land. For example, 14.1 million acres have a wind and water
erosion hazard that will require installation of conservation
practices. Such practices are, however, relatively Inexpensive
and can be installed by individual landowners.
D. Although nearly 33 million acres have medium potential for
conversion to cropland. Most of it will require significant
investments if converted to cropland.
E, About 905 million acres have low or zero potential for con-
version to cropland. Some of this land is committed to non-
cropland use (220 million acres), has a high erosion hazard
(224 million acres), or supports a high density forast (179
million acres). About 20 percent of the low and zero potential
land is in capability Classes I - III, but problems with con-
version are such that it is unlikely that this high-quality
land will be used for cropland.
Overall, farmland conversion trends have resulted in a cropland
base of 400 million acres in 1975, There were 111 million acres
with high and medium potential for conversion to crooland, of
which only 34.9 million acres can be converted without the appli-
cation of significant conservation practices.
Although the total cropland in the United States remains about
the same as it was in 1967, there is a continuing shift^S of land
going in and out of production. When new land with a potential
for conversion to cropland is brought into production, nearly
two-thirds of it will have conservation problems that must be
addressed. Shifts of 1967 cropland to urban and built-up by
1975 suggest that the investment in conservation has been lost
on much of the 17 million acres converted to that use. This
may also be true for another 24 million acres being held for
future urban use.
The availability of land that can be converted to cropland and
the rate of land lost to irreversible uses suggest that the scarcity
of land and the pressures on existing cropland will be greatest
in the Northeast, Appalachian, Pacific, and Lake state regions.
-------
18
The reasons that suitable land hasn't been converted to cropland
In the 150 to 200 years of cropland development Include: Fragmented owner-
ship, size and location of an area, and commitment to other uses
set the pace of conversion. For instance, more than 24 million
acres of land ara now held for urban and built-up use. At least
one-half of this acreage is of good quality, but because it is
isolated by urban development, zoned for development, or not
economically feasible to crop, it remains underused.
In conclusion, increasing national and world needs for agricultural
products indicate that cropland will be used more intensively and
that other land, some of it marginal, will be converted to crop-
land. Urban development is taking place on some of the Nation's
best cropland but energy and environmental requirements may limit
the use of the marginal land for cropping. Together, these
factors will affect our future cropland base, our potential for
growing food and fiber, and the overall significance of agricultural
lands as an environmental resource.
-------
19
6. ENVIRONMENTAL VARIABLES IN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION
Many variables enter into and affect agricultural activities in
our country. Some can be thought of as "internal" variables
which directly affect the biological process of the food or fiber
production. Examples of these "internal" variables might include
the quality of soil, tilling methods and fertilizer used, amounts
of available water, etc. Other variable, can be considered exo-
genous and outside the bounds of the biological production process,
but cause direct and secondary effects which result in changes
in agricultural activities. Examples of such "external" variables
include foreign food demands, expanding U.S. population, urban
development pressures, price supports, transportation and market-
ing effects, etc.
In an effort to illustrate agricultural activity as a set of inter-
related components, a simplified operating formula'^ is presented,
Reducing the basic relationships to their simplest terms, it can be
said that agricultural production (P) is a function of climate (C)
(in all its aspects), plus various forms of environmental manipula-
tion through technology (I), consumption of energy (t), and invest
ment (I) of capital and labor by the former, together multiplied by
the amount and quality of the land (1), under cultivation. Hence,
P is a function of L (C + T + E + I),
For production to remain constant in this formula, a decline in
the amount and quality of land, (within limits), can easily be
balanced by improvements in climate and technology. This has been
the case up to now. If, however, climate is unfavorable there is
no improvement in technology, or energy efficiency, (or if there
is even a degree of unpredictability}, then land of high capability
must be cropped, or land of lower capability must be improved with
conservation measures if a given level of production is to be main-
tained.
Uncertain weather patterns, competition for water and air, effects
of pollution (e.g., acid rain and salinity), increasing costs and
scarcities of fertilizers, fuels and other supplies, and environ-
mental management constraints on farming practices have all affected
production. It is becoming apparent that if high levels of pro-
ductivity are to be maintained, and if yields per acre are not in-
creasing, then land supply itself becomes the critical variable..
-------
20
A shift in the supply of prime farmlands to marginally produc-
tive lands could lead to a greater reliance on environmental
manipulation through technology, which in turn will place greater
demands on energy supply and environmental modification of land.
Increasing the use of and dependency on lower-capability crop-
lands, despite careful management practices, has nearly always
led to environmental degradation.
Thus, an adjustment in the variables of this formula will pose
trade-offs between agricultural productivity, our national economy,
the economy of agricultural support industries, and environmental
quality. At a time when world food supplies appear to be more
important than ever before, the United States^could actually be
diminishing its productive farmland reserves. Environmental
significance stands as one of several important roles along with
food production and the economy, played by farmlands in the pro-
duction cycle.
-------
21
7. DEFINING ENYIRORMEHTAU.Y SIGNI-FISAHT AGRICULTURAL LAND
From an agricultural perspective, soil capability emerges as the
most important characterization of farmland types. Categories
of "prime" ana "unique"2' connote productive capacity, while
categories of "state-wide" and "local importance" connote an
economic and land value role which supports agricultural activi-
ties in a community.
From an environmental perspective, all farmland is important in
serving as a natural filter and buffer role, and farming on prime
lands enables high production to be achieved with relatively low
environmental damage.22 Likewise, certain farmlands, by virtue
of their location in urbanizing areas, their particular soil
structure, and their strategic proximity to environmentally sensi-
tive areas, facilitate non-structural solutions for environmental
management.
In order to provide a basis for understanding the environmental
significance and importance of farmlands, several categorical
definitions are set forth below, (See Tab 7 for detailed
definitions of types A - 0).
A. Prime farm!and is land that has the best combination of
physical and chemical characteristics for producing food, feed,
forage, fiber, and oilseed crops, and is also available for these
uses (the land could be cropland, pasture!and, rangeland, forest
land, or other land, but not built-up land or water). It has the
soil quality, growing season, and moisture supply needed to
economically produce sustained high yields of crops when treated
and managed, including water management, according to acceptable
farming methods. In general, prime farmlands have an adequate
and dependable water supply from precipitation or irrigation, a
favorable temperature and growing season, acceptable acidity or
alkalinity, acceptable salt and sodium content, and few or no
rocks. They are permeable to water and air. Prime farmlands are
not excessively erodible or saturated with water for a long period
of time, and they either do not flood frequently or are protected
from flooding.
B. Unique farmland is land other than prime farmland that is
used for the production of specific high value food and fiber
crops. It has the special combination of soil quality, location,
-------
22
growing season, and moisture supply needed to economically produce
sustained high waulity and/or high yields of a specific crop when
treated and managed according to acceptable farming methods. Ex-
amples of such crops are citrus, tree nuts, olives, cranberries,
fruits, and vegetables,
C. Additional Farmland of Statewide Importance is, in addition
to prime and unique farmlands, of statewide importance for the
production of food, feed, fiber, forage, and oilseed crops. Cri-
teria for defining and delineating this land are to be determined
by the appropriate State agency or agencies. Generally, Additional
Farmlands of Statewide Importance include those that are nearly
prime farmland and that economically produce high yields of crops
when treated and managed according to acceptable farming methods.
Some may produce as high a yield as prime farmlands if conditions
are favorable. In some States, additional farmlands of statewide
importance may include tracts of land that have been designated
for agriculture by State law. (See Tab 8 for an illustration of
unique farmlands).
0. Additional Farmland of Local Importance are not identified as
having national or statewide importance.!7T some local areas,
however, it is economically important and environmentally sound
for certain additional farmlands for the production of food, feed,
fiber,-forage, and oilseed crops. Where appropriate, these lands
are to be identified by the local agencies concerned. Additional
Farmlands of Local Importance may include tracts of land that have
been designated for agriculture by local ordinance.
£. Farmlands in or Contiguous to^jnvir_onmentallySensitive Areas
(ESA'sT, such as floodpTains, wetlands, aquifeF7ecnarge zones, or
natural scientific study areas; these farmlands play a crucial
environmental buffer role to prevent development encroachment on
ESA's thereby aiding in maintaining their capability to remain
environmentally productive and stable.
-------
23
F. Farmlands of Waste Utilization Importance which may serve in the
land treatment process, be used for composting activities or
for controlled beneficial application of sewage sludges or other
wastes.
G. FarmlI andsjnth__Sj.gnifi.cant Capi tal Investments in Best
Managenientr PT'actTces"(BMP'sj, which serve as elements of an area's
(or"state's) soil erosion and non-point source pollution control
plans.
While the categorical term "prime land" means the best productive
land, it is not the only category of environmental significance.
Categories of prime and unique farmlands connote productive capa-
city, and farmlands of state-wide and local importance connote
economic and land value. The relative environmental value of
farmland in an urbanizing metropolitan area is also significant,
especially as it becomes a smaller fraction of the toral land use.
All farmland is important, however, in serving assimilative
functions which aid in maintaining environmental quality.
-------
24
8. WHY FARMLANDS ARE LOST
Comfining urbanization to limited areas might appear to preserve
agricultural land fry avoiding dispersion and sprawl, but history
shows us that cropland is twice as likely as non-cropland to be
urbanized. For several reasons, cities have tended to grow in
precisely those areas wfiere some of the best farmlands occur.
Throughout the world, civilizations have tended to develop in
river basins, where rich, deep soils, level topography, and ample
water were available. Urban centers developed close to farm
populations, and, as they expanded, tended to cover level, well-
drained land. Most major cities are located on major waterways
that provided water for municipal use and transportation, as well
as a disposal system for sewage and industrial wastes. Highways
and railroads within and between urban areas also generally fol-
lowed the flat river basins which contain some of the best agri-
cultural land. Thus, our evolutionary patterns of urban growth
tended to have built-in land use conflicts which fostered con-
version of our best farmlands.
Many factors can lead to premature conversion of farmland. One
set of factors surrounds the use of federal grants-in-aid which
provide financial assistance for community infrastructure and
new development. All too often these capital improvements (which
guide future growth) are planned and built on the assumption that
farmlands are not the highest and best use. In other words,
federal infrastructure grants for sewers, highways, and other
capital improvements do not recognize that farmlands are a finite
agricultural and environmental resource which is absolutely, cumu-
latively, and irretreivably diminished as a result of .federal actions.
Another set of factors has to do with the unique economic problems
faced by fanners on the urban-rural fringe. As urbanization pressures
emerge, the cost of land begins to rise, often pushed upward by
speculation. The dilemma is that good farmland is also good for urban
development. As the cost of adjacent land increases, so do property
taxes and estate and inheritance taxes. Soon the urban development value
outweighs the productive resource value of the land. Thus} the
farmer-owner is burdened with taxes which often bear no relationship
to the profitability of fhis agricultural enterprise, and is induced
to profit from changes in land value.
A third set of factors24 has to do with encroachment of urban-
oriented uses and their impacts on agricultural activities:
pilfering and needless destruction of crops and farm equipment
-------
25
by people, increased traffic making it difficult and dangerous to
drive farm machinery on the roads, and complaints from neighbors
concerning the application of manure, fertilizer, and pesticides,
In some cases* as suburbanites gain political power, their com-
plaints have been enacted into ordinances which restrict normal
farming practices. Further, farmers are often assessed for new
water and sewer lines which run through their property, even though
they don't use them.
All these factors change the individual farmer's view of the future,
and once he is convinced that his area will eventually be urbanized,
he stops investing in improvements to his farm. An "impermanence
syndrome' sets in and a transition from farming activities is
almost assured. This phenomenon may precede a change in land use
by as much as 20 years. Figure 4 illustrates the range of farmers'
responses to urbanization.
As urban pressures begin to weigh on agricultural operations, a
chain of events is set in motion. Rising taxes and development
pressure begin to take their toll on neighboring farms; as the
number of farms begins to decline, the important support industries,
such as feed and grain dealers, farm equipment outlets, ate,, begin
to leave the area because there simply isn't enough business; in
dairy areas the milk processors often begin to leave for more pro-
ductive "milk sheds" that can continue to provide adequate sources
of raw milk. In time, farm labor becomes more expensive and scarce
as higher paying jobs "in the city" come within reasonable commuting
distance for the rural labor force; the farmer slowly feels his
political strength drain away as country and local governments
become dominated by suburban, non-farm residents who often begin
passing "nuisance" ordinances which keep slow moving vehicles (such
as tractors) off local roads during certain hours of the day, or
"health ordinances" which prevent the spread of manure during certain
weather conditions.
Eventually, farmers often begin to make management decisions based
on the opinion that they will not realize a return on further
investment in farming. Conservation improvements such as terracing
and soil conditioning which are environmentally beneficial tend to
be neglected. Consequently, no new investments in improved and more
efficient farm equipment are made, nor is available land purchased
for expanded operations. Typically,-the farmer's profit margin
begins to shrink. For example, feed and grain often becomes more
expensive because remaining suppliers have to travel further for
delivery and no longer deal in cost-saving volumes, and farm cofimod-
ities must be shipped to more distant processorsa direct cost to
-------
Figure 4:
FARMERS' RESPONSES TO URBANIZATION IN THE CONTEXT OF
OTHER EXOGENOUS FORCES AND CONSTRAINTS
SOURCE: SAVING THE GARDEN, CQUGHUM,,_ET. AL. , PAGE 75
EXOGENOUS FORCES
AND CONSTRAINTS
SPILLOVER
EFFECTS
CHANCES IN
1 ATTITUDES
CHANCES IH LANDSCAPE
AND FAftHING ACTIVITY
rl I-
u u
e
' o
Urbanifcfltlbn and j
on |
population
Soil characteristics
Land surface focra
Climatic variation
Etc.
shift in
In Iran true tut a
o o
C 1*.
Oi'H
a ^
»J -«
u.-vu] .11,inn of ajjr icul tur*
I'axal i"(i
Jtu! .w,n;[ :,111 () p:icLuiri:.
fu.
Regulation of farming
Incceasutl taxation
Pollution d(image
Duatructlon of crops
Etc,
in demand
agricultural products
SWOttOHE
Speculation in land
Uls liwciKBiiot iu iJrras
1>1 s>:jiifji^tMiiiJUt u£ youagtr
fjcintrs
U.iii|;t' in f ntmc-i'S ' sttiL\>a
Uiffcttnttat ability to copu
Conversion of land
[Large f>o
-"1 of, Ijn
portion
d
in crop and
ns
of relatively
Changes in crop and
patterns
Uct 1 1 euiL'nr of icelatl
in farm
Exfj;inr-t on o£ farming onto
pr<-*utouaty unfarraed land
-------
27
the fanner. This is ironic, since many fanners in these situations
have marketing advantages of being in close proximity to consumers,
and have an option to grow crops such as vegetables for local high-
value markets.
For those who wish to remain in farming, the choices come down to
hanging on for as long as possible and then selling to the highest
bidder, usually a developer, or selling out and moving the operation
to an area that has a stronger agricultural community.
The underlying point to these illustrations is that once the im-
permanence syndrome takes effect within an agricultural communitys
it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. A county which has a number
of farms may point with pride to the active, producing areas but
those who farm the land may be preparing for what they view as
inevitable abandonment of fanning. Those that do remain most often
farm as a hobby. Young people interested in fanning simply can't
buy in unless they are prepared to make a several hundred thousand
dollar investment.
Under these constraints, farming as an industry can't survive in
the area, leaving scattered remnants of hobby farming or estates
which may or may not remain open land over time. A "critical
mass" of farming activities must be maintained in order to keep
an agriculture functioning viable in a community.
-------
28
9. STATE-OF-THE-ART APPROACHES FOR FARMLAND RETENTION
?fi
A wide variety of approaches for farmland retention have been
tried and discussed extensively. This is a reflection of the
many-faceted nature of the problem, the differing characteristics
of agriculture, urban development, and political attitudes in
various regions, and of the relatively short time during which
the loss of agricultural land in the urban-rural fringe has been
recognized as an important public issue. This diversity is further
compounded by the variable involvement of different levels of gov-
ernment {e.g., federal, state, and local) and the agricultural,
environmental, and infrastructure-development programs directed to
the individual farmer. The loss of agricultural land is influenced
by the marketplace as well as by the complex pattern of programs
which sometimes induce farmland conversion (e.g., federal grants
for sewer interceptors or highways) or sometimes foster farmland
retention (e.g., state development rights purchase legislation).
The intention here is to identify current approaches for farmland
retention, their role in mitigating the environmental effects of
farmland conversion, their general effectiveness, and the apparent
void created by a lack of applicable tools at the federal level
to address the problem.
The major approaches to farmland retention may be classified as
either "Direct" or "Indirect" methods.'' Direct methods are those
which directly control what the land can be used for, either by
the purchases of rights in land or through the regulatory power
of government. Indirect methods are focused primarily on allevi-
ating the problem of the farmer caused by nearly urbanization,
One example of a "Direct Method" uses market interventions such as
the purchase of development rights in land by a public body, leaving
the private owner the right to use his land for agriculture and
other uses but not to develop it, the right to keep others off it,
the right to sell or lease it, and the responsibility to pay real
estate taxes on it. Important demonstration projects using this
method are now being conducted by
Suffolk County, New York {see Tab 9 for newsclips of these case
examples). Massachusetts has just passed a law implementing this
approach and the California legislature has recently considered a
similar proposal (see Tab 10 for 'description of these lav/). Be-
cause of the public cost involved, however, it may be possible to
apply such methods to only a limited portion of endangered farmland.
-------
29
"Indirect Methods" of farmland retention include taxes and other
measures which help the farmer to continue to farm or which re-
duce the profit incentive of the speculator or developer. Tax
concessions are the most widely adopted of these measures. Dif-
ferential assessment of real estate for property tax purposes has
been instituted by some 42 states. Under it, farmland is assessed
at its value as a factor in agricultural production rather than at
its market value for urban development, which in urban-rural fringe
areas tends to be much higher.
Tax concessions and agricultural districting can protect the farmer
from many but not all of the problems caused by nearby urbanization,
They make it easier for him to continue farming, but do not prevent
him from developing his land. It seems safe to say that to retain
farmland both direct and indirect measures will be necessary: In-
direct measures to insure that farming is economically viable, and
direct measures to prevent farm owners from selling to developers to
reap financial gain much faster than they could by continued farming.
A third ingredient must also be considered as a "measure" of influ-
ence on farmland retention: The impact of federal program policies
and decisions, which affect farmland conversion and are not easily
controllable by Direct or Indirect Measures. Neither direct measures
alone nor indirect measures alone are likely to be effective in re-
taining farmland for a significant period of time.
Historically, efforts have-.been devoted to pursuade
farmer through indirect measures, but to shy away from restricting
the possibility of development (direct measures). As a result,
states often favor some form of differential assessment. An advan-
tageous Federal estate tax is enjoyed by all farmers in the United
States, and participation in New York's Agricultural Districting
Program has been high, but only a handful of states have instituted
any kind of direct measure to retain farmland under pressure of
urbanization.
Several emerging trends in agricultural open space-land use policy
in this country will affect the future ability to employ various
"measures":
o There is increasing recognition of the need to control
the forces stimulating urban/suburban expansion. Effective
growth management programs may help reduce urban/suburban
pressures on the rural landscape and thereby increase the
effectiveness of well designed farmland retention programs.
-------
30
o As is true in the case of general land-use management
programs, the role of the state in agricultural and open-
space land-use planning and policy has increased. An
increased state role will stimulate local governments to
increase their land-use management capabilities.
o Public policy makers are more aware of the need to
exploit the interdependence among different land-use
control techniques.
o The issue of what is "fair" compensation for regulation-
induced reductions in property value will become more important.
As the need for accommodation of the legitimate interests of
both government and private landowners becomes increasingly
evident, the search for programs based on compromise will
intensify.
o The virtues of incremental ism in land resource protection
programs are becoming more widely appreciated.
The conclusion drawn from the effectiveness of current efforts is
that marketplace intervention techniques alone will not halt the
conversion of prime and environmentally significant farmlands. An
outline of important considerations for farmland retention strategies
at the State and local government level is listed in Tab 11. While
hope is held out for .approaches like the one in Suffolk County,
New York, or though enactment31 of the Jeffords Bill (see Tab 12)
at a national level, other avenues must be sought at each government
level concerned with maintaining the environmental value of farmlands.
-------
31
10. EPA PROGRAM IMPACTS ON AGRICULTURAL LAND
In an attempt to assess the potential positive or adverse impacts
of EPA programs on agricultural lands, several factors which ulti-
mately affect environmental quality are drawn from the previous
discussion; first, those factors which directly (or indirectly)
induce conversion of agricultural land to another use; second,
those factors which might cause increased costs of fanning activi-
ties leading to premature conversion, third, those factors which
might affect farmland productivity leading to premature conversion,
fourth, those factors which might affect and/or complicate agricul-
tural practices, and f_ifth_» those factors which affect the farming
way of life or the scaTe~~of farming activity leading to premature
conversion.
32
EPA program impacts affecting each of these factors are outlined
be!ow:
A. Program Impacts Which Hay Induce Change ina Farmland Usj
Air Programs: Air Quality Standards in Non-attainment
Areas may limit location of new industries, reduce urban
development density, lead to a lower density distribution of
growth, and conversion of farmlands on metropolitan fringes.
Agency decisions affecting air quality plans may encourage
the dispersal of air pollution sources, or may unwittingly
encourage secondary urban development in agricultural areas.
Agricultural lands classified under PSD could be protected
with a higher degree of air quality.
Water Quality Planning: Land Use Elements of 208 plans
could affect land uses on farms as well as land adjacent to
farmlands, inducing conversion;
Facilities Planning: Induces land use change directly
by providing reserve sewage capacity, and may increase land
values for agricultural lands as a secondary effect; land
treatment systems for municipal wastewater could aid in re-
taining farmlands where in proximity to urban areas.
Water Supply: Sole source aquifer identification and
designation could give greater consideration to retention
of farmlands within the aquifer recharge zone. Competition
between urbanizing areas and agricultural uses for limited
water supplies can induce farmland conversion.
-------
32
Solid Waste: Site selection factors for landfills
could fnduce farmland conversion; Application of high
cadmium municipal sludges, or other heavy metal-laden
sludges, could "permanently" remove farmlands from food
production.
Toxic Substances: Program decisions may cause changes
in pesticides which could change crops grown in certain
areas, or the "feasibility" of growing certain crops in
certain areas, leading to a conversion of farmland.
NEPA Review: NEPA reviews and environmental assess-
ments could lead to grant conditioning which could affect
agricultural land use changes. NEPA review activities may
substantially modify the outcome of other program and
project decisions, particularly facilities planning and
water quality planning.
IncreasedFarming Costs
Air Programs: Fuel changes for improving air quality
made in response to an SIP would be passed on to farmers
and could increase operating costs;
Water Quality Planning: Best Management Practices
(SMP's) required to implement a 208 plan may increase
capital or operating costs in the short run, but serve to
protect the land base which permits profitable agricultural
use in the long run. BMP's prevent or abate pollution,
having a positive economic benefit for surrounding communi-
ties. Also, BMP's such as no-till or minimum tillage serve
to reduce farming costs.
Facilities Planning: Installation of a facilities
treatment plant or interceptors in or near farmlands usually
imposes assessment increases for farmers.
Water Supply: In scarce water regions where potable
water is used for agricultural irrigation, expansion of
community water supply facilities and service imposes greater
competition for water and can lead to increased farming costs.
Solid Waste: Land application of sludge (if readily
available and if risks are removed) could be economically
beneficial;
-------
33
Toxic Substances: While yields are increased, use of
pesticides generally increases costs; additional controls
add to these costs;
Integrated Pest Management (IPM) could lead to reduced
costs for crop production, and therefore, net fanning income*,
NEPA Review: Mitigation measures may affect costs.
Effects on Farm]and Productiyity
Air Programs: Aimed at reduction of acid rain and
oxidants, generally limiting the adverse effects of pollu-
tants on crops, and improving productivity;
Hater Quality Planning: Aimed at reducing soil erosion
and salinity thus improving productivity;
Facilities Planning: Sludge application and spray
irrigation could increase productivity, but potential
danger of heavy ratals build up and up-take exists;
Water Supply: Agency policies on the supply of irri-
gation water would affect productivity;
Solid Waste: Control of landfill sites should prevent
soil contamination, and protect productivity;
Toxic Substances: Controls should prolong soil
productivity;
NEPA Review: Mitigation measures may affect productivity,
Effects on Agr|cuVtu_ra1 Practices
Air Programs: Possible effects from fugitive dust
controls;
Water Quality Planning: BMP's can call for a change
in agricultural practices, structural controls, relocation
of production units, or even land use change; NPDES permit
program may have similar impacts. Non-point source controls
will result in reduction of agricultural-related pollutants,
(sediment, nutrients, pesticides, salts, etc.);
-------
34
Facilities Planning: May indues greater lancfspreading,
wastewater reclamation and reduced demand for Irrigation
water;
Water Supply: No apparent impact;
Solid Waste: Greater emphasis on recovery and recycling
of agricultural Cand other) wastes may change practices;
Toxic Substances; Tends to induce more sophisticated
farming practices; could foster integrated pest management;
NEPA Review: Mitigation measures may affect practices;
E. Effects on the Scale of Farming Activity
Air Programs: No apparent impact;
Water Quality Management: Application of BMP's for
small farms could be burdensome and cause pressure for change,
especially those that are marginally profitable;
Facilities Planning: Potential assessment charges could
adversely affect small farms;
Water Supply: No apparent impact;
Toxic Substances: Could favor larger farms over smaller
ones if, pesticides and application techniques become highly
sophisticated;
NEPA Review: No apparent impact.
-------
FOOTNOTES
1. For a more elaborate narrative description of these operational
interrelationships, see Section 6, Environmental Variables in
Agricultural Production.
2. No specific piece of literature has outlined all the consequences
listed here. However, many are found in "Conservation of the Land,
and the Use of Waste Materials for Man's Benefits", a Committee
Print prepared for the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry,
March 25, 1975. Also, the works of Charles Little and Dallas Miner
(cited later) were used to identify these consequences.
3. National Research Council Committee on Agriculture and the Environ-
ment, ProductiveAgriculture^ and a Quality Environment, National
Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C. 1974.
4. From a National Program of Research for Environmental Quality -
Pollution in Relation to Agriculture, prepared by USDA, Washington,
D.C., 1968
5. G. Nelson, in "Food for Billions", special publication No. 11,
pp. 27-30, American Society of Agronomy, Madison, Wisconsin,
1968
6. J. 8. Stall, in "Public Works", Vol. 93, Mo. 3, page 125, 1962
7. G. H. Wadleigh and R, S. Oyol, in Agronomy and Health, pp. 9-19,
American Society of Agronomy, Madison, Wisconsin, 1970
8, U.S. National Resources Board, "Soil Erosion, A Critical Problem
in American Agriculture", page 5, Washington, D.C., 1935
9. David Pimentel, et. al., "Land Degradation: Effects on Food and
Energy Resources", in Sclence, Volume 192, 3, October 1976
10. See The Growth Shapers, prepared for CEQ by Urban Systems Research
and Engineering, U.S.G.P.O., Washington, D.C, May, 1976
11. See Section 7 for a description of various types of farmland and
their environmental significance.
12. The most useful single source which discusses benefits of farmland
is Farmland Retention in the Metropolitan Washington Area by Dallas
Miner, prepared for the Metropolitan Washington Council of Govern-
ments, June, 1976, pp. 32-33
-------
13. See the 1977 edition of Summary of Sjate Land:JJse Controls published
by Land Use Planning Reports^ Silver"Tprlng,"Maryland for a survey
of agricultural lands retention regulations currently enacted.
14. See Open Space As An Air Resource Management Measure, by the EPA
Office of Air and Waste Management, October 1976 (EPA-45Q/3-76-Q28),
for sink and emission factors for soil and vegetative open space,
15, See CEQ's-Eighth Annual Report (1977)s pp. 90-91, CEQ's Seventh
Annual Report (1976), pp. 73-74, and CEQ's Fifth Annual Report
(1974), pp. 68-72.
16 Potential Cropland Study_, by Raymond I, Dideriksen, et. al., Soil
Conservation Service, USDA, Statistical Bulletin No. 578, October,
1978
17. See Potential Crop!and Study (Ibid), Appendix III, for definition
of Soil Capability Classes.
18. Agricultural land use shifts occur through principles of substitution
and competition. For example, high wheat prices, particularly
when accompanied by low feeder cattle prices, induce increased wheat
production on marginal land fragile lands. The same reasoning applies
to corn, soybeans, cotton and feed-grain lands. Most land uses are
interlinked and shift back and forth in response to changes in pro-
duct prices and factor costs emanating from foreign and domestic
demands and supplies.
19. This formula was originally articulated in simpler terms by Charles
E. Little of the Congressional Research Service for a Library of
Congress Workshop held on February 8, 1977. Publication available
from the author.
20- Potential Cropland Study, op cit
21. Farmland categories were defined by the Soil Conservation Service,
USDA, in 7 CFR Part 557 Prime and Unique Farmlands
22. See reasoning in Section 2, Environmental Conferences of Farmland
Conversion, and the efforts of shifts from prime to marginal crop-
1ands.
23. See Origins of the St ate and Civilization, by E.R. Service, Norton
Publishing Co, New York, 1975
-------
24. These factors are described in more detail by Robert E, Cough!in,
at. al., in Saving the Sarden: The Preservation of Farmland and
Other Environmentany Valuable Land,' a 'preliminary Report to the
National Science foundation, ""'(RANK)", August, 1977, pp. S3-55
25. Some of the spinoffs of the "impermanence syndrome" cited by
Coughl^n, ibid, include: land speculation, disinvestment in farms,
discouragement of younger farmers starting out, a differential in
the farmer's ability to cope, and legal and political reacting,
26. The often-used phrase "farmland preservation" Is avoided in this
paper, in favor of "farmland retention". The term "preservation"
suggests an absolute inflexibility in saving farmland regardless
of cost. Farmland retention implies that options are kept open
and that future community goals might be best served by develop-
ment on croplands under one set of circumstances, and permanent
dedication to agricultural use under another,
27. This taxonomy of methods is described in some detail in Coughlin
Saying the Garden, op cit, and in "Land Use Policy and Farmland
Retention: The United States Experience", NRE Working Paper No.
28, by Greg S. Gustafson, ERS, USDA, Corvallis, Oregon.
28. See the 1977 edition of Land Use Planning Reports Summary of
State Land Use Controls, available from BPI, P.O. Box 1967,
Silver Spring, Maryland
29. See Tab 4 for examples in New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and
Maryland
30. See NRE Working Paper No. 28, by Greg G. Sustafson, (cited in
Footnote 27), page 28
31. The so-called Jeffords Sill is currently being considered in
Committee by both the House and Senate. Likelihood of its passage
is unclear, and the Administration has developed alternative legis
lative proposals which eliminate the roll of federal funding to
support State or local government purchases of development rights
on agricultural lands.
32. These program impacts were identified through a survey instrument,
draft discussion paper, review comments, and follow-up interviews
held with the Agency's Program Office and Regional Staff. The
format for arranging program impacts was developed by the Office
of Land Use Coordination. For a detail discussion of secondary
impacts on Agriculture, see Evaluating Secondary Impacts of feste-
Mater_ Treatmen11_Faci1itias, by ABT Associates, January 27, 1977»
Contract No. 68-01-3268, for EPA.
-------
Environmentally Speaking
The Role of i
Agriculture in
the Environment
By Administrator Dougias M. Costie
We live in an age of industrial and chemical pollution
on farms as weft as in cities.
In the early 1 970*3, national environmental efforts
concentrated on controlling the highly visible water and
air pollution coming from our cities and their great
industrial complexes. These battles against municipal and
industrial point sources of pollution are by rso means.
won. As a Nation, however, we have made very con-
siderable progress in cleaning up both our air and water.
This progress brings into focus a less visible, but more
widespread problem, that of non-point sources of pollu-
tion, primarily runoff.
As farming has become more technologicaland as
our understanding of natural systems grows more
completethe relationship of non-point source pcfiution
to water quality is becoming clearer. On the smaller scale,
we must team to control sediment runofffrom urban
areas as well as agricultural ones. On the larger scale,
we must protect entire watersheds and our underground
water supplies.
Generally in the treatment of non-point source pollu-
tion in agricultural areas, voluntary cooperation will get
the job done. Clearly there is a great deal yet to be
accomplished. Thirty-seven States have already indicated
to us that non-point source pollution couid prevent attain-
ment of the statutory goals of fishable, swimmabie
waters.
As an example of how a non-point source problem
can be handled, 1 can report that as early as 1972, EPA
funded what became known as the Black Creek project,
through the Allen County soil and water conservation
district in Indiana. The project was designed to assess
and heip solve the problems of sediment runoff in the
Maumee River Basin. Careful assessmentsupported
by scientific help from a local universityproved that the
major source of the water quality problem in BSack Creek
was restricted to a small portion of the land. The local
farm community then cooperated by applying several
traditionalas well as some innovativeapproaches to
solve the problem. One lesson everyone learned was that
a solid assessment of the problem is a critical first step
to solving it.
! might add, parenthetically, that runoff is not exclu-
sively agriculturally caused. Poorly planned urban
development, poorty managed construction, the paving
over of our fandsare each, in their way, a real problem
needing focus and attention,
A challenge we aft face today is the control of toxic
substances in our land, air, and water. Modern agricul-
ture, like the rest of our civilization, has benefited greatly
from chemicals that increase production. But we're going
to have to face up to the fact that we are living in an age
of industrial and chemical pollutionon the farm as well
as in the citiesthat is far more serious than anyone had
imagined. As President Carter has said, "The presence
of toxic chemicals in our environment is one of the grim-
mest discoveries of the industrial era," In the last few
years science has been teiiing us in no uncertain terms
that some chemicals, including some pesticides, have
totally unexpected side effects which increasingly
threaten human health.
The production of synthetic organic pesticides has
risen 8OO percent in the last 30 years. We, as a Nation,
now use 1.6 billion pounds of these chemicals a year.
Of course, there are also toxic chemicals that occur in
nature. But whether created synthetically or naturally,
it is essential that we do whatever we can to control
them.
The alarming and steadily increasing rate of cancer
in our society and the growing evidence that much of it
may be induced by cancer-causing agents in our air, soil,
and water, as well as in our workplaces, is alarming.
Congress responded to this threat by passing the
1976 Toxic Substances Control Act, EPA is now moving
to implement that Act. In doing so, we are just beginning
to define the dimensions of the problemand those
-------
dimensions are enormous. For example, we are now
compiling an inventory of ail chemicals presently in com-
mercial production or use in this country. We started
with an estimate that there would be 30,000 such chemi-
cals. Today we ara up to 70,000 and the list keeps
growing.
Not af! these chemicals are cancer-causing, of course.
The list includes common, necessary items like tabfe salt,
but the point is that many of these chemicals are wide-
spread in our environment, and some of them are
dangerous.
Another major challenge facing the U.S. is the preser-
vation of agriculturai land.
All across the United States today, peoplecity
peopleare beginning to realize what farmers have
known for too long a time. One of America's great re-
sources is in danger: agricultural land is rapidly going
out of production. More than one-and-a-half million seres
are being lost each year. We simply cannot afford that.
As Will Rogers ones said, "The one thing they aren't
making any more of Is land.'r
The pace of suburbanization increasingly threatens
farmland. With the growth of suburbia, too many farm-
ers find land values, taxes, and the price of labor sky-
rocketing, making it almost inevitable that the onfy solu-
tion left is to sef! their farms, causing the fabric of one
farming community after another to be torn apart.
EPA has its own vested interest in this problem. The
U.S. needs those farmlands, not only in terms of food
production, but also for their value as natural fliters and
buffers. While EPA programs in the past have not always
been sensitive enough to any potential adverse effects
on farmlands, today we realize how valuable preserving
farmland is to carrying out our own responsibilities.
Among other steps, we are:
Revising the construction grant program for buiiding
sewage treatment facilities so as to minimize the pressure
to take farmland out of production.
Seeing to it that there is a thorough review of environ-
mental impact statements on any actions that will affect
agricultural lands.
Ctearfy, as the 208 planning program moves forward.
some tough choices lie aheadat the local. State and
Federal levels. Even with the new monies that Congress
has authorized, there will not be sufficient Federal funds
to pay for the control of practices needed in every soil
and water conservation district. We will need to encour-
age achieving the goals of the Water Act by voluntary
means. If and when those means do not succeed, we
need to ensure that there is an effective, reasonable
regulatory back-up to get the job done in a timely fashion
On the local level conservation districts in six States
to date have played a crucial political roie in shaping such
fail-back regulatory systems. In another dozen States.
conservation districts are now playing a major role in
working out sensible regulatory procedures.
I believe that conservation districts are moving rapidly
and effectively to enlarge their role. A quotation from
Vanes Ehmke, Newsletter Editor, Kansas Association of
Conservation Districts, lays it pretty much on the line.
What he says of Kansas conservation districts is likely
to be true for many cither States.
"Like it or not," says Ehmke, "Kansas Conservation
Districts will have to face some tough problems in the
next few years. The day of voluntary compliance by
farmers in stopping erosion from their land may be
drawing to a close.
"Sut let's face facts: No farmer is going to appreciate
being tofd to control his non-point sources of pollution
such as fieid runoff. Farmers are one of the most fiercely
independent racss of people on the face of the Earth.
But there's not much of a correlation between inde-
pendence and our pollution problem. And again, let's
face facts: Silt and sedimentation are the biggest sources
of pollution in this country," C
'973
-------
dimensions ara enormous. For example, we are now
compiling an inventory of ail chemicals presently in com-
mercial production or use in this country, Wa started
with an estimate that there would be 30,000 such chemi-
cals. Today we are up to 70,000 and the list keeps
growing.
Not ail these chemicals are cancer-causing, of course.
The list includes common, necessary items like table salt,
but the point is that many of these chemicals are wide-
spread in our environment, and some of them are
dangerous.
Another major challenge facing tbe U.S. is the preser-
vation of agricultural land.
All across the United States today, peoplecity
peopleare beginning to realize what farmers have
known for too long a time, One of America's great re-
sources is in danger: agricultural land is rapidly going
out of production. More than one-and-a-half million acres
are being lost each year. We simply cannot afford that.
As Will Rogers onea said, "The one thing they aren't
making any more of is land."
The paca of suburbanization increasingly threatens
farmland. With the growth of suburbia, too many farm-
ers find land values, taxes, and the price of labor sky-
rocketing, making it almost inevitable that the only solu-
tion left is to sell their farms, causing the fabric of one
farming community after another to be torn apart,
EPA has its own vested interest in this problem. The
U.S. needs those farmlands, not only in terms of food
production, but also for their value as natural filters and
buffers. White EPA programs in the past have not always
b«n sensitive enough to any potential adverse effects
on farmlands, today we realize how valuable preserving
farmland is to carrying out our own responsibilities.
Among other steps, we are:
Revising the construction grant program for building
sewage treatment facilities so as to minimize the pressure
to lake farmland out of production.
Seeing to it that there is a thorough review of environ-
mental impact statements on any actions that will affect
agricultural lands.
Clearly, as the 208 planning program moves forward,
some tough choices lie ahead-at the local. State and
Federal levels. Evan with the new monies that Congress
has authorized, there will not be sufficient Federal funds
Co pav for the control of practices needed in every soil
and water conservation district. We will need to encour-
age achieving the goals of the Water Act by voluntary
means. If and when those means do not succeed, we
need to ensure that there is an effective, reasonable
regulatory back-up to get the job done in a timely fashion
On the local level conservation districts in six States
to data have played a crucial political role in shaping such
fall-back regulatory systems. In another dozen States,
conservation districts are now playing a major role in
working out sensible regulatory procedures.
I believe that conservation districts are moving rapidly
and effectively to enlarge their role. A quotation from
Vanca Ehmke, Newsletter Editor, Kansas Association of
Conservation Districts, lays it pretty much on the line,
What he says of Kansas conservation districts is likely
to be true for many other States.
"Like it or not," says Ehmke. "Kansas Conservation
Districts will have to face some tough problems in the
next few years. The day of voluntary compliance by
farmers in stopping erosion from their land may be
drawing to a close.
"But let's face facts: No farmer is going to appreciate
being told to control his non-point sources of oollution
such as field runoff. Farmers are one of the most fiercely
independent races of people on the face of the Earth,
But there's not much of a correlation between inde-
pendence and our pollution problem. And again, let's
face facts: Silt and sedimentation are the biggest sources
of pollution in this country," d
VIAPCH i 973
-------
'RESERVING FARMLAND
r"jj~lhe Environmental Protection
A Agency has begun an intensive re-
view of its programs and regula-
tions to assure that they will encourage
the preservation of America's prime farm-
lands.
The actions come at a time when the
American farmer is beset by pressures on
every side to sell out and iet his land be
converted to other uses.
Every year the Nation experiences a
net kiss of more than a million acres in
valuable croplands. Some of this acreage
is eaten up by urbanization[he spread
of streets and houses and shopping cen-
ters across once productive fields. Other
farmland reverts to grazing and forest.
And still other acreage is prone to erosion
and dust storms and other natural forces
that cause rapid soil depletion.
The trend would be serious enough by
itseif. but it conies at a period when the
Nation arid indeed a hungry world needs
the American farmer's products. EPA in-
tends to shape its policies with the
farmer's interests in mind.
As Administrator Douglas M. Cos tie
recently told the Essex Agricultural and
TechnicaI insti1111e in Danvers, Mass.:
"EP.\ has what might be called a vested
interest in preserving farmland. It also
carries out a series of mandates thatif
not carefully thought out and managed
couid conflict with that vested interest."
Why is farmland lost? What are the
factors thut conspire to change a farmer's
view of the future and convince him,
despite his own !ove of the land, to sell
out and either retire or find work in some
other walkoflife?
"Almost every aspect of modern life
conspires to destroy the farmer's incen-
tive to keep on farming." Mr. Costle said,
"Costs have risen. Labor is tough to
come by. Prices for farm products have
not kept pace. Taxes have skyrocketed.
And many a farmer is caught between
the difficulty of making a living, the temp-
tation to sell out to developers who have
been offering top price for his acreage.
and lack of support from his neighbors
iind local representatives who too often
would dearly love to see his farm become
a source of greatly increased tax revenues
through development. Yet the added costs
of meeting the resource needsroads.
sewers, schoolsof such development al-
most inevitably offset the gutn in tuxes,
nut to mention the to?* us in quality ot'Iifo."
Thcry arc obvious reasons why many
EPA irn;HNAi
observers are concerned user the shrink-
ing supply of prime agricultural land. Al-
though the kiss of a miition acres annualiy
seems smali compared svith the 470 mil-
lion acres in cropland, the land going out
of food production often is the best in
terms of quality and accessibility. Also.
the change in !and use can have a major
local impacteconomically, environmen-
tally, and socially.
Once the farmland is lost to urbaniza-
tion, particularly in industrialized areas
such as the northeastern United States, it
cannys be retrieved. And when enough
land is taken out of farm production,
related industries such as local feed mills,
farm machinery outlets, and farm supply
stores also must close.
There are other undesirable side-ef-
fects, A recent Congressional report noted
that agricultural land in fluodptain areas
often is shifted to industrial or commercial
development, with pressure-then created
for pubfic investment to provide flood
protection.
One of the social effects, of course, is
the loss of the farmer himself and the
enduring, sturdy vulues that he histori-
cally has contributed to the national char-
acter. Such things cannot be weighed in
dollars and cents, but they have been
known and honored for many centuries.
As Oliver Goldsmith wrote in "The De-
serted Village" two centuries ago:
"!II fares the land, to hastening ills
a prey.
Where wealth accumulates.
and men decay."
The Environmental Protection Agency
has an interest in preserving prime farm-
Sand and keeping it in food production for
other and more specific reasons,
"The drought and water shortages of
this past summer," Mr. Costie poinsed
out, "have underscored one of the essen-
tial attributes of farmland; the protection
of watersheds. Open lands such as farms
maintain local water supplies by absorbing
precipitation and transferring it to the
ground water system. They aJso protect
aquifer recharge areas and provide buffers
for water supply and other natural areas,"
In addition to protecting such environ-
mental entities as wetlands and flood
plains, farms furnish a habitat for wildlife,
including game such as deer, grouse and
quail, as well as songbirds and other
nongame species, he noted. Equally valu-
able are the emotional, aesthetic and so-
cial benefits of our verdant fields and
valleys.
Because of the Agency's specific con-
cern for preserving and protecting such
valuable land, Co«!e has directed EPA to
take a fresh look at the way its pro-
grams may affect the future of farmland.
He listed these steps the Agency now is
taking;
* An examination of tand use changes
which may be induced by-EPA programs.
"We have already begun revising the con-
struction grant program for building sew-
age treatment facilities, for example, in
order to make sure that we are minimizing
pressure to take land out of food produc-
tion," he declared.
£R\ is becoming increasingly sensitive
to regional variations in water and land
availability in implementing Agency pro-
grams that affect farmlands.
The Agency is working to bring about
closer cooperation with the Soil Conser-
vation Service through joint technical as-
sistance projects.
ERA is seeking to assure thai there is a
thorough review of environmental impact
statements on any actions that will affect
agricultural lands,
» The Administrator has directed that
EFft develop an overall policy statement
on the preservation of prime agricultural
lands to give general guidance for the
implementation of EPA programs.
The English pcai Goldsmith was not
the first to warn of the serious social side
effects that can result svhen farmland is
squeezed out and the "bold peasantry"
disappears.
As Costle noted. 'Two thousand years
ago the Roman poet, Virgil, warned his
countrymen that the loss of agriculture
would be the destruction of the nation.
He was right. Just as an army becomes
vulnerable when its supply lines grow too
long, a city, a state, or a nation is weak-
ened when it is no longer capable of
producing most of its basic fotxj supply,"
!n announcing the new policy, the Ad-
ministrator concluded;
"1 wouid like to assure you that EPA,
both nationally and regionally, will do
everything in its power and within its
mandate to preserve and protect our farm-
lands. We will devote our best efforts to
developing a common-sense awareness of
the very real problems and opportunities
that our policies and progress can create
for farmers. We will work to minimize
the problems und expand the -opportuni-
ties,"*
-------
of {onvi
t
t
ff
DAVfD STANDLEY
COMMISSIONER
TO:
FROM;
DAT?:
SUBJECT:
_M_£J1JDJI_A_KJD_0_M_
Mr. William Adams, Regional Administrator
EPA, Region I
Commissioner Standley
January 5, ^973
The inter-af tion of sewerage^ s-s
agrXcuTcufa" "land use.
I cake the liberty o; enclosing a memorandum frae
Frederick Winthrop, Jr. , Commissioner of the Mass/tchtisatcs Bepantaent
of Food and Agriculture, dated November 22 which ! find provocative
and worthy of serious concern. It is tay hope thai afcer sta£f review
at both che Massachusetts and EPA. Region I levels, wa could meet with
Coouaissioner Vinthrop and explore further his coarerns and suggested
xeaedies. If you would advise ae of a suitable time and place, I will
nake arrangements for attendance by appropriate Scate parties.
DS:eb
Enclosure
CC: Commissioner Winthrop
Mr. Kcr-tahon
-------
MEMORANDUM
TO: Secretary Evelyn F.'Murphy
Commissioners Standley, Kendall, Sn.edeker & Gullion
William Hicks
FROM: Commissioner Frederic Winthrop,' Jr.
DATS! November 22, 1977
SUBJ: Agricultural Land, Agricultural Preservation Restriction
(H-6491), Flood Plain Management, Sewage Systems, and
their interrelationship,
Enclosures: 1. President Carter's Executive Order 11988,
May 24, 1977.
2. Excerpts from speech of E.P.A, Administrator
Douglas H. Castle, Mass. Farm Tour,
Danvers, August 25, 1977-
3. Excerpts from "the Rivar'a Reach-Flood Plain
Management in the Ct, River Basin, N,E,£.3.C.
^Ck^vOz*-'
The three enclosures plus the uassage of Ho4gi "fths Agricul-
tural Preservation Restriction Bill) by the Legislature have re-
inforced ny previously expressed concern over the placement and
scope o£ sewage systems through or near agricultural lands, es-
pecially, those prona to flooding.
The secondary effects of excess sewage capacity accessible
to currently undeveloped faraland is well known, \fners the land
is flood prone and septic tanks are marginal, the increase in land
values can be dramatic. This not only tends to accelerate the
demise of agriculture, but by raising the development increment,
would raise the subsequent cost of purchasing the development rights,
Were this to happen the net effect would be to subsidise with
public funds a windfall to the landowners which, were it still
possible, would be bought back by further public funds for the
restriction - hardly a parsimonious use of taxpayers' money.
-------
Referring particularly to the projects in Hatfield, Northamp-
ton, Kadley, and South Hadley areas, there is also the problem of
increasing the potential for flood damage through encouragement of
development in flood prone areas. H.E.R.3.C., in "The River's Reach",
makes a strong case for nan-structural flood control methods, pro-
poses that the compatible uses of agriculture and recreation be
actively promoted as the most cost-effective method of ^maintaining
these areas for flood storage, and makes specific recommendations
for the towns in question (see end. 3).
In my opinion the most cost-effective method of achieving these
several environmental goals would be to:
1. Restrict Ia_gej3ietuity^ all sever connect jong^in prime
farmland anoT^Tood prone a?ea~^~ T"BeSIeve"'"tilis~~snouid be possible
without delaying current projects. S.P.A. has some precedents such
as "Bl.ocJt Island", as described in their publication on "Mitigating
Secondary Efi'ects", and Costle*s statements in enclosure 2 Indicate
an understanding of the situation and a willingness to act,
2. Encourage the implementation of the__N.E.R.B«C. recosssestd-
ations as delineate\I"^~tTT^entIvert s Reach1*.
.. 3. Investigate the availability of Federal flood control
funding to sutrplement state funds, for the purchase or Agricurtm-aa
Preservation Restrictions on laraland within the flood plain, (This
D,F.A. is doing),
4, Investigate the possibility of and encourage where appro-
priate the utillsatlon__gf agyijailtural IrrHi ^°-r«- sevage plants for
the disposition of effluent and/or sludp-3 fcorn-post) to the benefit
of both agriculture and tirs~e"nv2T;onr3e&t. (The Organic Waste Re-
cycling Commission headed by Dr. Clave Willis, U. Mass, has started
to puUL together some useful information on this score),
To save the states agricultural land resource will require a
multi-faceted approach and action on many fronts* The A.P.R. program
will not in itself be sufficient, especially if it has to compete
for the. same land with othez^pub.llclv fiztanc_ed goals and prgt^^fe^-
(Vater Xinea^'^tinty corridors and Jiighvays^ as veli~'as~ Wa2T5~₯at?T"
Treataea1:~pla3SLii, fall in""iHls cafegOry.)
The preservation of our local agriculture currently enjoys
wide popular support and I b^X^y_g_a_^o£p^lgjig^tarT_apprgaeh__to the
sewage treatment_issue__would engender wide support for SOEA and
the "
2 «
-------
AgricuU'jral Land
In the period, between 19CO and 1970, land devoted to urban uses
in the Denver region Increased by 12.3 percent while land devoted to
agriculture declined by 6.8 percent. In all, about 33,60" acres
were lost to agricultural production. Most new urban land-came out
of the agricultural category, and the decline in agricultural use
affected every county. How much of this loss was prime agricult-
ural land is not known.
About 134,000 acres of aaricultural
land in the five county Denver Re-
gion will be converted to other uses.
Of that, about 30,000 acres is
classed as prime agricultural land.
The 13A,inn acres represents 29 per-
cent of the agricultural land in the
region, whert>a-s the 38,3nr! acres of
prirne agricultural land represents
about 23 percent of the pri"ie agri-
cultural soils of the region. The
bulk of loss of prine agricultural
land would be in Aaar^s County.
The U.S. Council on Environmental
Quality has stated that "efforts
should be made to assure that such
farmlands are not irrsversitjiy con-
verted to other uses unless otnpr
national interests override the importance of preservation or other-
wise outweigh the environmental benefits derived from their protec-
tion." The benefits cited include provision of open space, scenery
and wildlife habitat; it is also pointed out that prime lands by
their nature produce more food with less erosion and lower fertilizer
and energy requirements.
The forecasted sharp declines in agricultural land use in the
five county area represent only part of the likely future state of
agricultural activity in the region. As the agricultural lands on
the fringe of the Denver urbanized area are gradually converted to
urban use, there will be increased pressure to exoand and intensify
agricultural activity in areas just beyond the metropolitan region.
These pressures would be felt most strongly in eastern Adams and
Arapahoe counties, southern Weld County and northern Douglas County.
If supplies of water for agricultural use permitted, increased agri-
cultural production tn those areas would take place, with little
loss in overall production despite urbanization of some cropland.
However, water is a far more important constraint on agricultural
activity than is land in this region, and local agricultural experts
report that urbanization threatens continued agricultural activity,
less because it absorbs agricultural land than because of competition
with domestic water users in the allocation of water. The condem-
nation of water rights may make farming economically infeasibls long
before pressures for conversion of agricultural land are experienced.
Markets for agricultural products have not been good the last
few years and farmers have had great difficulty in just breaking
even. This, coupled with a drought caused intensification of com-
petition for available watar, and urbanization pressures, has sapped
the basic strength of the agricultural sector of the region's eco-
nomy.
-------
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
OFFICE OF TH=T SECRETARY
WASHINGTON, 0. C. 2325O
Jane.? 1, 1975
SECRETARY'S KEKORANDUM
Ho. 1S27, Supolesent 1
StaCesienC _of ^Prige_ Farmland , Range, and Forest Land
The continued loss of lands wall suited to che production of food,
.forsge, fiber., and debar, and the degradation of the environment
resulting from those losses is a natter of growing concern to che
Nation. Major consideration, aust be given to pric:a lands ar.d the
loug-r-ange need to retain the productive capability and environmental
values of Acerican agriculture and forestry. Devalop-ents that result
in irreversible land use changes represent a loss a? valuable natural
resources. The process is dramatic in some local arsas, At tha
national level, individual lossas appear snail, but the cumulative
affect can adversely impact doraescic and international production,
The concerns about wise use of oriaa lands are local, Statewide,
and national in .scope. The loss of land suitable for sustained crop
2nd wood production in a region or ^ocrlity-csn influence the via-
bility of supporting supply, processing and izarksting facilities,
Continued _loss of farmland, range, and forest land production
affects the aconou;? locally, influencing esipioynrsnt and income
levels. In addition, it linits other qualities essential to che
well-being of our people.
Land use alternatives ara generally available that can tr.inisii.zs
impacts on prinie lanes. Such alternatives should be explored care-
fully, particularly vr.era Federal funds are involved. When possible,
laiid use decisions should ba avoided which irrevocably co:mit prise
lands to nonfamland, nonrange, and n.cnforestlar.d uses, cheraby
foreclosing the options of future generations. USD.\ viil urge all
agencies to adopt the policy that Federal activities that take arias
agricultural land should be initiated only when there ara no suitable
alternative sires and when the action is ir. response to overriding
public need. The long-tisra implications of these land use conversions
on the productive cepncity of our farmland* rar.gs, and forest land, as
well as on envi.rcn^-encal impacts, should be Evaluated and sade kr.own
to the public.
The Department, chrauch the Land I'se Cocnitt.ee, counterpart State
and local ccrrr.ii;tbes , and tha activities of all concerrsd isencies,
groups, a^d j*rg;ini^^rici:is will
unique far-lar.d.-, rar.c-i, ir.d foriirr. l.ir.ds ;r:.r. pri.r.itur;: or -jr.:i=C£?
conversian to tv_T.^L-ficuIci_-rsl ianc -.is;-..- l'r~:ir. »-r built-up uaas ar.ri
watfjr inpour.dzic.r. ts chat prcclune .cilitar.io--. cr r-icc'-'^r'-' to hisbi
quality agriculture or forestry purpc-irei -r. ct particular concern.
-------
-2-
State and local interests in retaining price farmland, rar.ge, and
forest land for production, are often based on concerns ochsr than
the demands for food, forage, fiber, or tiaber. Open space, environ-
oehtal quality, visual quality, and local economic ispaccs are ofcen
cited as reasons for protecting chase lands. Many of these lands
have modest production capability, but are va..ued because of location
and other unique factors that make them of State or local importance,
Retaining famland, range, and forest land anhances local values and
protects resource options for the future- The Bepartnsnt will =aka
specific efforts to assist States and locaiities to identify lands of
State and local concern and support efforts to protect these lands
from prenature or unnecessary conversion to other uses,
i
Tha Statement on''Land Use Polirv (Secretary's Memorandum Ho. 1827} and
thefollowing specific policies are set forth for the guidance of the'
agencies in this Department in regard to prime lands:
1- Advocate the protection of prise lands froa premature or
unnecessary conversion to other land uses. Priority will be given
to prine lands threatened by conversion to irreversible land us&s.
2. Assure that environmental impact statement procedures and
review processes thoroughly consider and evaluate the impact of
major Federal actions on priae farolaad, range, and forest lands-.
3. Ssphasis.-wil'l be placed on programs to inventory, assess and
ev?luata the Nation's farmland, rang'a, and forasc lands to assisc
decision makers and the general public's understanding of tha kins,
extent, location, and current-status of prina lands.
'4. Cooperative efforts with States, local governments and uni-
versities will be initiated to assure concerns for food, fiber, and
wood production are recognized and aaphasirsd in the identification
of priac lands.
5. USBA ags-ncy actions and prograss will give thorough con-
sideration, to the local, State, and national concerns for the retention
.of prine lands, the necessity of conversion of thase lands to ochar
uses will be considered only after a determination that feasible alter-
natives do not exist or that overriding public needs warrant the action,
6. The agencies in tha Departaient will review their programs ta
Insure consistency with the incent of this supplement.
4..
John A. ;:r.e
Acting Secretary
-------
The quality of Life for citizens of the State is enhanced
in the following ways;
1, Preserves a way of life with its unigue cherished values?
2. Provides fresh, high guality food at reasonable cost at
locations close to the cansuajer,-
3. Contributes to a stable economy ij7 Maryland by providing
jojb opportunities, income, and a raariet fox the resources
of production;
4. Contributes to tie Nation's balance of payments by pro-
viding food and flier for e-vport,-
5. Provides reserve food production capacity to seat the future
needs of our population;
6. Provides wood products from fans wood lots;
7. ifaintains the quality and ieauty of the environment tAroug-A
frAe clsansing effect of growing plsints on tJie supply of oxy-
gen and tne filtering effects of plants and soil on water
S. Maintains farm associated wildlife habitats and provides for
private outdoor recreational areas, camping-, fishing, hunt"
ing, etc./
9. Provides areas for recycling of solid and liquid waste;
10. Protects aineral resources frora Seiner pra snptsd/
11. Provides productive, ta^paying, privately maintained agricul-
tural open space with its en-^ixomaental Sen exits, includingr
rural aesthetics and enhanced air and water
12. Provides for orderly development and grrowtLft,- and
U. Protects the hydrologic integrity of watersheds tArougn the
control of storm water run-off and sediment damage, protects
aquifer recharge areas, and provides buffers for wacer supply
and other natural areas.
Jt is for these reasons that the conzaittee studying the need
for preservation of agricultural land believes it is imperative for the
citizens of Jfaryland to preserve and protect its agriculture resources
for the Senefit of present and future generations of the State /
*' "Final .Report", CcranuCtree on the Preservation of .Agricultural Land,
Maryland Department of Agriculture: 1974.
-------
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
COUNCIL. ON ENVIRONMENTAL. QUALITY
722 JACKSON ?UC£, N. W.
WASHINGTON. 0. C. 20006
!
August 30, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOB, HEADS OF AGENCIES
SUBJECT; Analysis of Impacts on Prime and Unique Farmland
in Environmental Impact Statements
This memorandum, provides guidance to Federal agencies on how-
to 'carry out evaluation of the impact of major agency actions on prime
and unique farmland in the course of preparing environmental impact
#
statements (EIS),
Paragraph 101(b)(4} of National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
establishes a Federal policy to preserve important historic, cultural
and natural aspects of oar national heritage and maintain, wherever
possible, an environment which supports diversity and variety of
individual choice. This policy should be understood to include highly
productive farmlands.
Efforts should be made to assure that such farmlands are not
irreversibly converted to other uses unless other national interests
override the importance of preservation or otherwise outweigh the
environmental benefits derived from their orotection. These benefits
* Prime farmlands are those whose value derives from their general
advantage as cropland due to soil and water conditions. Unique farmlands
are those whose value derives from their particular advantages for
growing specialty crops.
-------
.2-
sfcem from the capacity of such farmland to produce relatively more
food with less erosion and with lower demands for fertiliser, energy,
and other resources. In addition, the preservation o£ farmland in
general provides the benefits of open space, protection of scenery,
wildlife habitat and, in some cases, recreation opportunities and
controls on urban sprawl,
As part of its policy to preserve the Nation's prime farm, range,
and forest lands, the Department of Agriculture (USDA) has recently
announced a general policy to establish and keep current an inventory
of prime and unique farmland. Recent estimates conclude that of
1. 4 billion acres of privately owned lands in the United States, approxi-
mately £75 million are classed as prime farmlands.
Federal agencies should attempt to determine the existence of
prime and unique farmlands in the areas of impact analyzed in environ-
mental impact statements prepared in compliance with Section 102(2}(C)
of the NEFA. This should include threats to the continued use and
viability of these farmlands not only from direct construction activities,
but also from urbanisation or other changes in land use that might be
induced by the Federal action.
-------
-3-
The Department of Agriculture, at its field locations throughout
the country, is committed to assisting Federal agencies in the identi-
fication of prime or unique farmlands, and in nearly all cases has
complete information on land areas which may be impacted. This
should simplify and reduce the burden on other agencies in carrying
out their impact analysis. Initial contact should be made with the
USDA Land Use Committee in the state where the lands under con-
sideration are situated. This Committee can be located by contacting
either the Chairman of the USDA Rural Development Committee in
the state, or any nearby USDA office. The State Land Use Committee
will then help facilitate contacts with the appropriate USDA office and
personnel so that all available information on prime and unique farm-
lands within the project area, is accessible to the agency preparing an
EJS.
Finally, the Department of Agriculture has agreed to place a
major new emphasis on the review and evaluation of draft environmental
impact statements with respect to impacts on prime and unique farmland.
In undertaking these reviews, USDA will use soil, range, forest, water
resource, and other surveys and information which may be applicable,
This service of the Department should help improve the quality of all EISs.
-------
-4-
Further information on where agencies may obtain assistance in
identifying prime and unique farmland and analysing significant impacts
on it from agency activities can be obtained from State Soil Conserva-
tion Service (SCS) offices shown on the attachment, ^formation on
new USD A procedures to review impact on prime and unique farmlands
in draft EISs can also be obtained from these sources.
/7- -
Russell W, Peterson ,
Chairman
Attachment
-------
PART 657 - PRIME AND UNIQUE "*
FARMLANDS §
Subpart A - Important Farmlands Inventory *"~
Sec. 657.1 Purpose,
657,2 Policy.
657.3 Applicability
657.4 SCS Responsibilities.
657.5 Identification of important farmlands.
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 590a-£, q; 7 CFR 2.62; Pub. L. 95-S7; *2 U.S.C.
fr321 et seq.
Subpart A - Important Farmlands Inventory
$ 657.I Purpose.
SCS is concerned about any action that tends to impair the productive
capacity of American agriculture. The Nation needs to know the extent
and location of the best land for producing food, feed, fiber, forage, and
oilseed crops. In addition to prime and unique farmlands, farmlands that
are of statewide and local importance for producing these crops also need
to be identified.
i 657.2 Policy.
It is SCS policy to make and keep current an inventory of the prime
farmland and unique farmland oi the Nation. This inventory Is to be carried
out in cooperation with other interested agencies at the national, State,
and local levels of Government. The objective of the inventory is to identify
the extent and location of important rural lands needed to produce food,
feed, fiber, forage, and oilseed crops.
i 657.3 Applicability.
Inventories made under this memorandum do not constitute a designa-
tion of any land area to a specific land use. Such designations are the re-
sponsibility of appropriate local and State officials.
I 657.* SCS Responsibilities.
(a) StateJZgnservationist. Each SCS State Conservationist is to:
(1) Provide leadership for inventories of important farmlands for
the State, county, or other subdivision of the State. Each is to work with
appropriate agencies of State government and others to establish priorities
for making these inventories.
(2) Identify the soil mapping units within the State that qualify as
prime. In doing this, State Conservationists, in consultation with the cooper-
ators of the National Cooperative Soil Survey, have the flexibility to make
local deviation from the permeability criterion or to be more restrictive
for other specific criteria in order to assure the most accurate identifica-
tion of prime farmlands for a State. Each is to invite representatives of
the Governor's office, agencies of the State government, and others to
identify farmlands of statewide importance and unique farmlands that
are to be inventoried within the framework of this memorandum.
{3} Prepare a statewide list of:
a) Soil mapping units that meet the criteria for prime farmland;
(ii) Soil mapping units that are farmlands of statewide importance
if the criteria used were based on soil information; and
{iii} Specific high-value food and fiber crops that are grown and, when
combined with other favorable factors, qualify lands to meet the criteria
for unique farmlands. Copies are to be furnished to SCS Field Offices
and to SCS Technical Service Centers (TSC's). (See 7 CFR 600.3, 600.6.)
-------
(4) Coordinate soil mapping units that qualify as prime farmlands
with adjacent States, including the States responsible for the soil series.
Since farmlands of statewide importance and unique farmlands are desig-
nated by others at the State ievei, the soii mapping units and areas identi-
fied need not be coordinated among States.
(5) Instruct SCS District Conservationists to arrange local review
of lands identified as prime, unique, and additional farmlands of statewide
importance by Conservation Districts and representatives of local agencies*
This review is to determine if additional farmland should be identified
to meet local decisionmaking needs.
(6) Make and publish each important farmland inventory on a base
map of national map accuracy at an intermediate scale of 1:^0,000 or
1:100,000, State Conservationists who need base maps of other scales
are to submit their requests with justification to the Administrator for
consideration.
(b) Technical Service Centers. Field Representatives are to provide
requested technical assistance to State Conservationists in inventorying
prime and unique farmlands (see 7 CFR 600.2). This includes reviewing
statewide lists of soil mapping units that meet the criteria for prime farm-
lands and resolving coordination problems that may occur among States
for specific soil series or soil mapping units.
(c) National Office. The Assistant Administrator for Field Services
(see 7 CFR 600,2} is to provide national leadership in preparing guidelines
for inventorying prime farmlands and for national statistics and reports
pf prime farmlands.
1657.5 Identification of important farmlands.
(a) Prime farmlands.
(1) General. Prime farmland is land that has the best combination
of physical and chemical characteristics for producing food, feed, forage,
fiber, and oilseed crops, and is also available for these uses (the land could
be cropland, pastureland, rangeland, forest land, or other land, but not
urban built-up land or water). It has the soii quality, growing season, and
moisture supply needed to economically produce sustained high yields of
crops when treated and managed, including water management, according
to acceptable iarming methods. In general, prime farmlands have an ade-
quate and dependable water supply from precipitation or irrigation, a favor-
able temperature and growing season, acceptable acidity or alkalinity,
acceptable salt and sodium content, and few or no rocks. They are per-
meable to water and air. Prime farmlands are not excessively erodibie
or saturated -with water for a long period of time, and they either do not
flood frequently or are protected from flooding. Examples of soils that
qualify as prime farmland are Paiouse silt loam, 0 to 7 percent slopes;
Brookston silty clay loam, drained; and Tarna silty clay loam, 0 to 5 percent
slopes.
(2) Specific criteria. Prime farmlands meet all the following criteria:
Terms used in this section are defined in USDA publications: "Soil
Taxonomy, Agriculture Handbook &36"; "Soil Survey Manual, Agriculture
Handbook l-S"j "Rainfall-Erosion Losses from Cropland, Agriculture Hand-
book 282"; "Wind Erosion Forces in the United States and Their Use in
Predicting Soil Loss, Agriculture Handbook 3&6"; and "Saline and Alkali
Soils, Agriculture Handbook 60."
(I) The soils have:
-------
3
(A) Aquic, udic, ustic, or xeric moisture regimes and sufficient avail-
able water capacity within a depth of 40 inches (1 meter), or in the root
zone (root zone is the part of the soil that is penetrated or can be penetrated
by plant roots) if the root zone is less than 40 inches deep, to produce the
commoniy grown cultivated crops (cultivated crops include, but are not
limited to, grain, forage, fiber, oilseed, sugar beets, sugarcane, vegetables,
tobacco, orchard, vineyard, and bush fruit crops) adapted to the region
in 7 or more years out of 10; or
(B) Xeric or ustic moisture regimes in which the available water
capacity is limited, but the area has a developed irrigation water supply
that is dependable (a dependable water supply is one in which enough water
is available for irrigation in 8 out of 10 years for the crops commonly
grown) and of adequate quality: or,
(C) Aridic or torric moisture regimes and the area has a developed
irrigation water supply that is dependable and oi adequate quality; and,
(ii) The soils have a temperature regime that is frigid, mesic, thermic,
or hyperthermic (pergeiic and cryic regimes are excluded). These are soils
that, at a depth of 20 inches (50 cm), have a mean annual temperature
higher than 32 F (0 C). In addition, the mean summer temperature at
this depth in soils with an O horizon is higher than £7° F (8° C); in soils
that have no O horizon, the mean summer temperature is higher than
59 FU5 C); and,
(iii) The soils have a pH between 4.5 and 8.4 in all horizons within
a depth of 40 inches {1 meter) or in the root zone if the root zone is less
than 40 inches deep; and,
(iv) The soils either have no water table or have a water table that
is maintained at a sufficient depth during the cropping season to allow
cultivated crops common to the area to be grown; and,
(v) The soils can be managed so that, in all horizons within a depth
of 40 inches (1 meter) or in the root zone if the root zone is less than 40
inches deep, during parr of each year the conduciivity of the saturation
extract is less than 4 mmhos/cm and the exchangable sodium percentage
(ESP) is less than 15; and,
(vO The soils are not flooded frequently during the growing season
(less often than once in 2 years); and,
(vii) The product of K (erodifaility factor) x percent slope is less than
2.0, and the product of I (soils erodibiiity) x C (climatic factor) does not
exceed 60; and
(viii) The soils have a permeability rats of at least 0.06 inch (0.15
crn) per hour in the upper 20 inches (50 cm) and the mean annual soil temper-
ature at a depth of 20 inches (50 cm) is iess than 59° F (15° C); the per-
meability rate is not a limiting factor if the mean annual soil temperature
is 59 F (15 C) or higher; and,
(ix) Less than 10 percent of the surface layer (upper 6 inches) in these
soils consists of rock fragments coarser than 3 inches (7.6 cm),
(b) Unique f arm 1 and.
(1) General. Unique farmland is land other than prime farmland that
is used for the production of specific high value food and fiber crops. It
has the special combination of soil quality, location, growing season, and
moisture supply needed 10 economically produce sustained high quality
and/or high yields of a specific crop when treated and managed according
to acceptable farming methods. Examples of such crops are citrus, tree
nuts, olives, cranberries, fruit, and vegetables.
-------
(2) Specific characteristics ol unique jarmland.
(i) Is used for a specifichigh-Value I'ood^oTTIBer crop.
(ii) Has a moisture supply that is adequate for the specific crop.
The supply is from stored moisture, precipitation, or a developed irrigation
system.
(iii) Combines favorable factors of soil quality, growing season, temper-
ature, humidity, air drainage, elevation, aspect, or other conditions, such
as nearness to market, that favor the growth of a specific food or fiber
crop.
(cJ Additional farmland of statewide importance. This is land, in
addition to prime and unique farmlands, that is of statewide importance
for the production of food, feed, fiber, forage, and oilseed crops. Criteria
for defining and delineating this land are to be determined by the appropri-
ate State agency or agencies. Generally, additional farmlands of statewide
importance include those that are nearly prime farmland and that economi-
cally produce high yields of crops when treated and managed according
to acceptable farming methods. Some may produce as high a yield as prime
farmlands if conditions are favorable. In some States, additional farmlands
of statewide importance may include tracts of land that have been desig-
nated for agriculture by State law,
{d) Additional farmland of local importance. In some local areas
there is concern for certain additional farmlands for the production of
food, feed, fiber, forage, and oilseed crops, even though these lands are
not identified as having national or statewide importance. Where appro-
priate, these lands are to be identified by the local agency or agencies
concerned. In places, additional farmlands of local importance may include
tracts of land that have been designated for agriculture by local ordinance.
-------
YOU CAN'T MOVE SXAGIT VALLEY'S AGRICULTURE TO THE COLUMBIA BASIN,
Robert A. Norton ^
Superintendent and Horticulturist §
Northwestern Washington Research and Extension Unit *~
Driving through the Columbia Basin from Othello down to Pasco, one
can't help but be tremendously impressed with the growth of agricultural
enterprises in that area. Gigantic circle irrigation systems, as well as
the more traditional systems are bringing thousands of acres of desert into
production. With all of this development it's easy co see why some people
wonder why we even bother with farming in the Skagit Valley, or anywhere
else in western Washington, for Chat natter.
Like most of us, farmers keep on farming because they are attached
to their land, have a big investment in buildings and equipment and, not to
be underestimated, they just like it here, rain and all! Some are staking a
good return on their investment but a lot more have quit for a variety of
reasons, eg. age, unprofstability, urban pressures and taxes.
What about the majority of us that don't farm for a living? What
would happen if all of Skagit Valley's farmers sold out and moved to the
Basin? Let's look at it both from the farmer's and then the nonfarmer's
standpoint.
First, although the farmer might be able to sell his land, he'd
have to leave much of his equipment behind. Our smaller tractors are like
toys to Basin farmers who generally farm much larger acreages,
But more important, our farmers generally would have to grow entirely
different crops. Peas, our mainstay in the Skagit, require irrigation in the
Basin and can't be grown all summer long because of the heat. Our yields on
the Coast average over two tons per acre with no irrigation, just twice the
yield obtained in eastern Washington or anywhere else in the 0, S,, Western
-------
-2-
Washington farmers can boast chat they have never lost a pea crop from Che
weather, nor have yields aver fallen below 75% of vhac they expected. No
other area can make this claim. An equal quantity are grown in eastern
Washington, usually in rotation with wheat or other cash crops. Strawberries
can be grown fairly well in parts of the Basin but only one or two growers
have made a go of it. No processing industry exists, nor is contemplated.
Except in California where strawberries are picked primarily by migrants, most
strawberries are grown in moderately populated areas where help is available
for picking. Many people feel that it's a real asset to have an opportunity
for our young people to earn their own money and develop good work habits.
Raspberries thrive in the moist coastal areas of the Horthwest.
Like peas, yields are double those possible anywhere else in the world. In
the Basin, however, they ripen too fast and are subject to winter injury and
diseases that don't exist on the Coast.
Flower bulbs, like the berries, can't be grown successfully in the
Basin. Bulbs were first grown in. Whaecom County but the Dutch growers exper-
ienced severe winter damage and had to move south to the Skagit. Can you
imagine how well they would survive in takiaa's 20 below sera? In addition,
bulb growing requires many workers, not readily available in Che sparsely
settled Columbia Basin, The bulb crops provide the single largest source of
youth employment of any agricultural enterprise in this area. The largest
bulb grower in the world, William Roozen, is a Skagit farmer,
Vegetable seed crops are produced on both aides of the mountains fauc
they are not interchangeable. Skagit Valley produces up Co 35% of the
nation's red beet, spinach and cabbage seed. These crops require either a
mild winter (cabbage and beet) or cool temperatures during the growing
season (spinach) to get top yields. On the other hand, the Skagit Valley is
-------
-3-
not adapted co heat-loving crops like corn, beans and onions. Several seed
companies based in Mount Vernon have seed crops in both areas.
A. similar story can be told about many of the other crops grown on
the fertile Skagit flats, or elsewhere in western Washington - blueberries,
broccoli, cauliflower, cucumbers, rhubarb or blackberries. These crops seem
to thrive in the unique combination of climate and soil we have here.
And this climate is truly uniquel What other area do you know
that has a summer temperature seldom exceeding 80 F and a winter which rarely
goes below 20 ? I know of only a few relatively small areas like our own -
the Salinas Valley of California and other smaller valleys along the West
Coast. Even the great Willamette Valley in Oregon does not have the climate
or soils for large scale pea production. Our almost nightly dew makes ic
tough for rolling out the sleeping bag on the lawn like I used to do back
East, but the peas really like it, in fact they depend on it.
What is all that newly irrigated land ia the Basin being used for?
Mostly for potatoes* alfalfa (hay), sugar beets and wheat. Though we have
quite a bit of wheat in western Washington this year, it Is not likely Co
remain important if wheat supplies continue to increase.
Let's get back again to the effect of Skagit Valley agriculture on.
those of us not directly involved in farming or ranching. Is there anyone
among ua who does not somehow benefit - either from a job tor someone in our
family on the farm or in some related industry - processing, feed, fertilizer,
farm equipment, fuel or marketing farm products ? Who does not benefit from
being able to enjoy the greenness of the fields, the pollutionfree air, the
beauty of the tulips and daffodils in May, the ability to watch the sun
setting over a relatively unobstructed landscape?
We all know chat overnight our farmers aren't going to leave the
-------
the Skagit even though ehey might make taore money fanning in. the Basin,
But, don't you think we all have a stake in keeping agriculture strong and
profitable 30 that all the benefits we now enjoy will continue? What can we
do? Here are a few possibilities:
1. Support good land use decisions at the local leveL Attend Planning
Commission Meetings and voice your Opinions, especially when you can speak
impartially on an issue,
2, Eelp educate others as to the uniqueness of our agricultural resource and
how residential development is detrimental to continued agricultural
development. We can use che example of aerial spraying which is much
cheaper and more efficient than ground application. Houses, power lines,
children, pets are causing increased interference with profitable farming
operations.
3. Promote the idea that agriculture and industrial growth are not_ seriously
competitive. Industry requires relatively little land and. can afford
land closer to the urban areas or land act suitable for farming. It is.
residential development thae seriously -Ieooardi2e9_3griculcural land. There
is plenty of land for homes away from the "flats", land free from the threat
of flooding! spray planes or dust.
4. Finally, support our farmers. They are the key to Skagit Valley's and
Washington's most important industry. This dairy-berry valley is a great
place co live. Let's not be too much in a hurry to change it.
5/17/76
-------
<7»
as
Assam's
reservm
Long Island County Buying Land to Save It
By William Gillea.
KI72BHEAD,N.Y.-Suffotk County,
a once-rural county inundated since
the 1950s by waves of urban emigrants,
is spending millions of dollars to keep
thousands ot acres farmland forever, '
Under the most car-reaching pro-
gram of its kind in the country, county
residents ha?e approved a $55 million
bond issue to purchase the develop-
ment rights to as many as 15,000 of the
55,000 acres now used as farmland,
Federal, state and local officials
around the country are watching the
Suffolk program as an example of how
a suburban area, in tbs path at urban
spillover, can retain its traditionally
rural character.
James Jobnson, a soil conservatio-
nist with the U-S, Soil Conservation
Service, quoted one study as showing ;
that the t/imed. States "lost," during-
the period 1967-1975, a total of 5- mil-
lion acres of farmland a year.
This figure, according to Johnson,
consisted of 2 million acres converted
to suburban development and 1 mil-
lion converted to lakes, ponds and-
reservoirs, Another 2 million acres, ne
said, were rendered, inefficent by the
strip-type nature of most suburban de-
velopment.
In the first phase of tba program,
the Suffoik County Legislature ap-
propriated 521 million last September
to buy the development rights to about
4,000 acres some 75 miles east Of New
York City.
program, are paid the difference be-
tween what rheir land, is- worth for
tanning and what it is worth, for ex-
ampie. for housing. The first two far-
mers to sell their development rights
were paid SS1S,873 for 215 acres, or an
avecasa of 92,800 an acre. *
Once the farmers have wid these
rights to the county, they retain own-
ership of the land but may use it only
for agricultural purposes.
Many Suffolk residents emigrated
from neighboring Nassau County,
which was largely rural itself before
ths Influx of 1 million residents atter,
World War U. Today Nassau, once
New York City's backyard vegetable-
garden, has about 1,600 acres of work-
ing farmland.
Surfolk County Executive John N.;
Klein, who backed farmland preserva-
tion soon aitsr his election in 19T2, said
in a rscent interview: "If 1 had en-
dorsed this concept 10 years ago, !
"would have struck" out. But today toe1
voters realize that ths county's farms
'are important economically, environ-
mentally and reereat ioaaily."
Suffolk's mirror-flat fields have
more than just |cenic appeal. The
county produces more than 370 million
a year is agricultural crops -
The Maryland Legislature enacted
an agricultural preservation law sn the
1977 session that would allow the state
to purchase development rights lo
farmland located in designated agri-
cultural districts. However, no funds
Vno participate la the _ havs been voted for the program.
-------
Notes on the Law:
A N$v/Way to Save
Our Farmland
Chapter 730 oi !he Acs si 1977 represents
th& ia!!5?$t snort tc hsit ihs ^bflnsonmsnt 5ndi
?r ^s?? Tr::= new ,aw
r~35:=,*Y;;.rr. rs~ncr^c"?'r ^ APR? ' snci crcv^c^s
3? rruihcr *: :r.e M-issacnufsrta Dscirrmerit c:
,-vT. njr'r' is 5 r**w r^u ct ccns&r/
"ar:: prortiis^a ir.g stat^ tr3t x&
vr.ar. recc-r^ec;, T*^ covenant
rur^rs c^Tners c* tr.s ion ui os
.^T'.S. ma*/ Tr'.&r. c^ sci- ^rr czhsnvi
TSHf-.tTy^T. n drs
cs tec rstucn *cr t^
SOURCE: METROPOLITAN AREA PLANNING COUNCIL
BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS
Cr^pisr 73C will be adrn:rtarftrs3 by ar* az
r-.r-rai iar.c:^ crsservaucn c^nmittes "he:r
'AT.i"^ 'A"ii CMS- puoiishincj recrj^^oris ss.r;v
.
-"3: wner. evasuar^c prcccsed svirchasas +
.*»r* '**.-!' ** c «rcr". ss^sd w.tri, st^T^r r_, nr^s cdHT-r*c~
tr.e T^rss" vaius ct :r.s A?r it !.r.e ::rr.5
ra.ssss. This oo'jid mean pa'.~j:a back T.-
ses a: raies not :c «K;«*
^r.ss o: ;r.e ueparrmer.t c:
sxancr.
In order to be considsrsc tor :he proor
!and must be 5hc:ib!6 ;;r L r^rrrJdnci
rr.sr;; ^nder General L^'.vs Chapisr
d.:r.o-jcr. :; need rvct -a ?jbiect ;
p.-sgrar::- This means >.=: cis propar
ccr.:;rra to !he regUkrerr.sr.s of the -"
secr^oris ct Chapter 6 1 A. i~a: is, it mLSt
:: at Isasr five acras o~;ve!y -dsvc
:arrr.;.'M ^r to jorestf" unssr an ap
:::s::ry pisn ar.d c rnur r.dve gross*-
55J'2 2 year ior the pin r.vc years .-.
*u.~5l ^sas are d?*'^!^ v^r1-' brc?acv+~
^m1^:? :^ ir.ci^ci^ cr^vr.r.^ ^1 fur^cis cr
tcrsaia
51A,
that
-------
LU? Reports/February 9, 1376 _ , Page _5
s2.5 MILLION ACRES
QF FARMLAND PASSES CALIFORNIA ASSEMBLY
A bjjrt aimed at preserving California's 12.5 million acres of prime agri-
cultural land and indirectly halting urban sprawl has passed Che California
General Assembly and been sent to Che Senate.
The bill (AB 15), sponsored by Assemblyman Charles Warren, D-Los Angeles,
calls for the creation of an Agricultural Resources Council that would be
charged with protection of such priine farmland. It would require all cities and
counties, with the exception of chose consisting of less than 1,600 acres, to
map prime agricultural land wichin their boundaries, or have the state do it
for them. These maps will chen. be sent to the Agricultural Resources Council
for certification and recommendations for types of permissible use.
California, which provides 40 percent of the fresh vegetables and fruit
consumed in the nation and 25 percent of all the nation's table food, has been
losing an estimated 20,000 acres of priae agricultural land to urbanization
each year.
The Warren bill would permit this condition to continue for only ten. more
years. He estimates that land presently exeapted under his bill would amount
to between. 200,000 and 250,000 acres, including: land already committed to
urban development (e.g. that with existing sewer lines); land that cities can
show to be required for a public welfare use more urgent than preserving it for
agricultural use; and that land available to cities to grow to 1,600 acres.
With 20,000 acres being urbanized each year, Warren estimates cities have lit-
tle more than ten years to plan for the growth moratorium.
A staff member of Warren's Cotmaittee on Resources, Land Use, and Energy,
told LUP Reoorts the measure was an extension of the principle or agricultural
land preservation begun under the Williamson Act of 1965. That act sought to
preserve farmland on the fringes of communities by means of voluntary agreements
between the state, county, and local governments and the property owner. Such
agreements would call for land to be taxed on its agricultural income racher
than its development potential with the difference between the new cax rate
and the old being paid'to the city by the state.
Under the Warren bill, the state would'not compensate communities for
losses in property taxes because Warren expects land within the city to gain
value as fringe lands are placed in the prime agricultural lands category,
Warren is said to be optimistic about the bill's chances. He has accepted
amendments that have mollified opponents who charged Che bill with being too
rigid in its classification categories and lacking in local government input.
One amendment ramoved from che bill a moratorium on any new development
until land-classification maps ware produced. Another amendment granted
special consideration co land-owners who might not receive che irrigation water
for their land they had otherwise planned on. And, the composition of the
Agricultural Resources Council has been changed to reflect the state, councy,
and local government involvement in che program.
-------
CONSIDERATIONS FOR FARMLAND RETENTION STRATEGIES
AT STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT LEVELS
SOURCE: NRE/ERS WORKING PAPER NO. 28
The 13. S. experience with land «se controls co retain land in agricultural
and other open space uses suggests sorae common elements essential to effective
agricultural land-use policy:
t It perhaos goes without saying
that sound land ass planning is an important prerequisite for
effectiveness. ?ublic policy affairs CD guida private land-use
decisions cowards public goals cannot b* affective unless public
land-use goals aea well articulated and translated into definitive
and specific designations of where farmland retention is in Ehe public
interest.
E^^tcact/ Implicit to tha notion of effectiveness is the requirement
that a land use policy instrument hava tha capacity to achieve che
desired end- The importance of this rsouiraraent is ease evident in
the context of incentive programs. If the incentive offered is
insufficient: to alter private land use decisions (as is apparently
che case uith use value assessment) , che allocation of land between
uses will noc be affected. Beyond this, however, ie is not enough
to merely prevent development on farmland. "the economic vitality
of agriculture1 in th« rural-urban fringe- also requires programs
sensitive to the need for agricultural infrastructure, tax policy
consistant vich sustained agricultural uss of land, and reduced aconomic
uncertainty.
cCftito£--Most land-use analyses probably aould agrse with
Libby (1974) that local governments "have inportant strengths
bat retaining agriculture and open space is not; ane of chant". Factors
of core than local concsm need to be brought into the land-usa dacision
making process, ttanca, there is a need for land-use policy instruments
vhich place some (but clearly act all) administrative authority at
the state level.
The management of economic growth and land-use change
is, by its very nature, a dynamic process. Sines there will always
b« uncertainties preventing accurate predictions of future conditions,
policy instruments aust be flexible enough so that land-use decisions
can bs reviewed and revised when changing conditions warrant.
Constitutionality is a aost important element in
che contsxt of noncompensatory regulation. While some analysts
argue that the scope of public regulatory powers is braaiier than is
typically assumed, there is QO consensus on how far regulation with-
out compensation can go and not be interpretad as a "taking" under
the U . S . Constitution . Policy siakers and the public wiil jresaain
sensitive to this issue,.
Economic fea&4.bJM~&/ The fiscal burden of alternative land-use
control approaches is clearly an inportant criterion. For exaaple,
it seems apparent that the nassiva public expenditures required
for public purchase Q£ development rights programs has been a aajor
Impediment to their implementation.
a.o.C3,pti&i£iM} The political acceptability of any land-use-
policy instrument is dependent largely upon its anticipated impacts,
the certainty and clarity uich which these impacts are perceived,
and the political influence of those affected. This factor is
particularly important in the context of regulatory approaches.
Because of the political backlash generated among property owners
by noncompensatory regulation, it is argued chat at least partial
compensation aay be necessary to nake broad based regulatory programs
politically acceptable. This factor tnay limit (for che time
being, at least) che scope of noncompensatory open-space regulation
in che United States to very sharply focused, limited-purpose
programs in which the public purpose is obvious, tangible, and widely
supported. Puolic decision makers, nevertheless, Bust also recognise
that what is politically acceptable say change over ciae due to
changes in social values, citizen awareness, and the intensity
of political participation among different Interest groups.
-------
SOURCE:
;}f "''".: f.:: 'f..4 t _ Harch 2Q, 1973
r !' Int J = - L; '-s t: ju .'t- '-' ? i -ts " ' -: P":? arH lr-aL' > 35 rar farmland
ervr uxi -. '11. '"'. ^ fi^"-^ ' : '. ." rvr-..::-" ,l, M fa^-f' .:> losses becoae criti-
cal, -»'. r tdi-'ja 'i '."'sp. Jji.'-:1; T-', -'-',", \ r !->-. = ' )» i^k "aerore the
Nat:^r:>l i\'3 = -:- rj-t^'i i--f "" ;'i"-i~--.,
joff-t-ig »-c'." r ,^t LI-nl ^ ^'UTrnictt*.'. ,: ;? '-'.Lilt che urbanization of
pri' 2 f;.,'Tl,-.' ";f?"-rl3 ;:'>-. -I " -. L---;:'s->.' \i-creased concern at
che " ~~^'~~ - 'i , f7- ';' ' -!>~ . r '. ".TS ji":?" "1-- 'J.;--T^ : iuse" of fara-land urbani-
zat ' , ' " : : ~ I .
<»-'fi
*.!i^ 'i' ^-U'T-.F f i "?.ilinu Losses, the problea
'fir~; ."if,L-'->, J>?i-'fcro? III.LI n-i ; i . ^.c^LsIation should be dasi|aec
Co i * r > ;i, -i1"" " 'ic * ' i. i'i'iy "f ''if, q;i'''t'i L-! <-,r:?^ ar^as co increase Congressiona]
-,: ": , ';>: I 'rl, u-u'-r,;; ".'... k -.'i: :H supports the legislation,
; " '' "" r,T -. ."fi.i^r.t t.h- : f, '.-? i.jj-'- '-r:':n --:."i'j b- id-7pc«it (.''I-s for the Federal gcvarrjnenc in
cons f1 ' ! ; ' *:. 3i. i -ult'u's ' '"]? " - ,
J»f f'T-is - "- i - L<; - '; hy "--;i,iv. /',;':'. Tit ' t.j7 : C^rn ' f " ": aide Stuart Karay, who
agr ^-rfd *tT,-i'; ,-h? ie»,i,>i "' " ; i sr. -.,''? ^^c- :::* '"'j -^: ;,issaga. However, additional
fun" ,"E fhouJ J t? 3f*,-!sd ".c .'.tir. ;:rAf;f, p r '--;"> :M , Harj1 sail, noting that 5en. Warren
Magna^Jif >0 , -t-i^sh. ) p'lj'.-s t:?- ir i'r3'"U;c -3 i-'^is- L > *icn :. reviling 5500-aillion for jrancs,,
cw1"e vha ame1'"'" nnv L.-fiaf-^rf in Jeffords' ^1^', Taj 'Uigivison bill will have a more
narr,,,_, f^c;jSt -\;if''i4s {.f, it - rifL>f*e-;t Iv'i cf " i^il-^nd '*> "b^ isrban L:riage "where "he real
In L "rp.'-.i is. tc .i=,ie-! ;i/r,r- , JeCfj'r'ls 'Vr'-5-' *. i': . > a" ^nt^ tna.t Federal agersciss
iCR "5>grj '."ir1'. ' -V.ICT. j*--, * --"^'.its'1 "«'c-r-'1 -?;;r/^.'i -3 prtjeccs. Such a procedure,
!r ("* df.".n." th9 =" ) * ; .cr*. ii L"."'V'-.i -r j-.v-.^r-- t r -; ,s, woald be curabersccie and
pol i t i :*il!y ' "t"" fui 'V , *.' ^t^s ">ic,<;f"'clir! ,
in i"hftr .^\--?i^n\, "iii D?ti'1"l"ni!3fil: of ^^'"'n^ 'ir-4 Urban Development drew quali-
fied .'jrT1'^0 ''o. *,"ACc ;,'.f:(iir ;,'i ra^pcr.^e' ^" .'« .;>' in1 ;r Isveloped Cotumunity Develop
sier'<* ° !;: '>'-::>-. --»?. ",;.<";*s '»Jlli3_"> ^~,i-3 rr-~irri'' !'"' ?n~c developing
-n-i3 Le' ^'iia«ili ;-, "J.IL Iia '.-I'-r-n :".i(_ l,--^L * ;"5fmr.encs should closely monitor
!fl;!; ^ per !;'<. ..: D'",i ?j--. n rv , :, ar? rs i ".''e !c;pir '-it'c ' 5 '"'' !" '.HI that GDBG aid
'd r-* t'-jM'l .'.' b it i ?'>'' ' - - i i-i TO-'.^ra^a- incjrr.» i^isons. Although the initial ~5*i
'is,. :-taT> c-l.ix^'?. ';.t' --I*', -Li',1 s;:;bjj2t a,3p-i.-3ticv.s to close scrutiny if a,
i j',; " j.3 1 "?,?;Tit" ?: f .-'i-! . LL :,r">t ue''^fl*: I :'-' -jns persons. "Xegociaciotis
will c-e "-;qui: "i r^r » i -jprL. ati:n?, r /."h HDC?.". D^.'I^e was critical of HUD ' s de-
cision *"- *n-:- f'«». r.ij-- ri'ia 2r'u;f;j - - , mt;j; ; '" 'rhi h u r/c- "oc . icT.i "t--".! "i);ir requests. N'ACo also sought
as,ci' r?Tt>r, d-> i:u,ct ro'.iiu'jj ill '-a "hie, tu a-jin bi."'r):,.1 P^-f^i jptnent Action Grants, since
------- |