1 | Updated June 10th, 2021 – Adopted June 24th, 2021 PURPOSE Colorado’s agricultural lands are incredibly diverse, including rangelands, croplands (irrigated and non-irrigated), pasturelands, and woodlands.1 Agricultural lands of all types and water are necessary for most farming and ranching today and will be essential into the foreseeable future. Across Colorado, however, agricultural lands and water are under threat from development, as well as from economic, regulatory, and environmental pressures. Colorado has prepared for many of these challenges with multiple agricultural land and water conservation tools, but current tools fall short of addressing the scale of the threat. This Issue Brief outlines threats to Colorado’s agricultural land, reviews Colorado’s tools for agricultural land protection and conservation, identifies limitations to those tools, and recommends next steps for the State of Colorado. This Issue Brief builds on two previous COFSAC Issue Briefs: Preparing for Food Security in an Age of Limited Natural Resources Part I: Water (2015)2 and Preparing for Food Security in an Age of Limited Natural Resources Part II: Land Use (2015).3 In this Issue Brief, we have excluded a detailed exploration of several closely related issues, including strengthening agricultural viability AGRICULTURAL LANDS & WATER CONSERVING and financial sustainability (including farm product pricing, input costs, market access, etc.), training programs supporting new and beginning farmers, educational programs facilitating farm transitions/succession, value chain infrastructure development initiatives, and on-farm natural resource conservation programs like Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), which invested $156M on over 3,500 projects across 1.8M acres of Colorado from 2014-2017.4 We also acknowledge the essential role that private land owners play in conserving on- farm natural resources and in keeping land in agriculture. Additional tools are likely needed to adequately compensate private landowners for the full public value they create and steward, and still more additional tools are likely needed to help producers capture the full value of their production practices and product attributes. We expect future Issue Briefs to explore one or more of these in detail. F R COLORADO’S FUTURE
PURPOSE
Colorado’s agricultural lands are incredibly diverse, including
rangelands, croplands (irrigated and non-irrigated), pasturelands,
and woodlands.1 Agricultural lands of all types and water are
necessary for most farming and ranching today and will be essential
into the foreseeable future. Across Colorado, however, agricultural
lands and water are under threat from development, as well as from
economic, regulatory, and environmental pressures. Colorado has
prepared for many of these challenges with multiple agricultural
land and water conservation tools, but current tools fall short of
addressing the scale of the threat. This Issue Brief outlines
threats to Colorado’s agricultural land, reviews Colorado’s tools
for agricultural land protection and conservation, identifies
limitations to those tools, and recommends next steps for the State
of Colorado. This Issue Brief builds on two previous COFSAC Issue
Briefs: Preparing for Food Security in an Age of Limited Natural
Resources Part I: Water (2015)2 and Preparing for Food Security in
an Age of Limited Natural Resources Part II: Land Use
(2015).3
In this Issue Brief, we have excluded a detailed exploration of
several closely related issues, including strengthening
agricultural viability
AGRICULTURAL LANDS & WATER CONSERVING
and financial sustainability (including farm product pricing, input
costs, market access, etc.), training programs supporting new and
beginning farmers, educational programs facilitating farm
transitions/succession, value chain infrastructure development
initiatives, and on-farm natural resource conservation programs
like Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), which
invested $156M on over 3,500 projects across 1.8M acres of Colorado
from 2014-2017.4 We also acknowledge the essential role that
private land owners play in conserving on- farm natural resources
and in keeping land in agriculture. Additional tools are likely
needed to adequately compensate private landowners for the full
public value they create and steward, and still more additional
tools are likely needed to help producers capture the full value of
their production practices and product attributes. We expect future
Issue Briefs to explore one or more of these in detail.
F R COLORADO’S FUTURE
2 |
CURRENT AGRICULTURAL LAND AND WATER PRESERVATIONS TOOLS IN COLORADO
.......................... 7
A. FEDERALLY-LED PROGRAMS
........................................................................................................................
7
FEDERAL INCENTIVES FOR PRIVATE LANDS
...............................................................................................
8
Agricultural Conservation Easement Program
..........................................................................................
8
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP)
.........................................................................................................
9
FEDERAL INCENTIVES FOR KEEPING LAND IN AGRICULTURE THROUGH
TRANSITIONS ............... 10
USDA FSA Beginning Farmer Loans
...........................................................................................................
10
Federal Estate Taxes
......................................................................................................................................
10
B. STATE-LED PROGRAMS
................................................................................................................................
11
STATE INCENTIVES FOR PRIVATE LANDS
....................................................................................................11
Colorado’s Purchase of Agricultural Conservation Easement (PACE)
Programs .............................. 12
Great Outdoors Colorado
...........................................................................................................................
12
STATE INCENTIVES FOR KEEPING LAND IN AGRICULTURE THROUGH
TRANSITIONS .................... 15
Colorado Agricultural Development Authority
.......................................................................................
15
Colorado’s Beginning Farmer Loan Program and Aggie Bonds
...........................................................
16
Beginning Farmer Farm & Equipment Lease Income Tax Deduction
Pilot ........................................17
3 |
COUNTY TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS PROGRAMS
.............................................................
18
AGRICULTURAL LAND USE PLANNING
.......................................................................................................
19
LIMITATIONS OF CURRENT TOOLS
......................................................................................................................19
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
...................................................................................................................23
COLORADO IS LOSING 15,660 ACRES OF AGRICULTURAL LAND PER YEAR
Colorado currently has 39,534,800 acres of public and private
agricultural lands, of which 62% is rangeland, 20% is cropland, 4%
is pastureland, and 9% is woodland.5 Between 2001 and 2016, 234,900
acres (or, about 15,660 acres per year) were converted from
agricultural uses into residential or moderate to high-density
commercial/industrial use.6 Most of this development is occurring
in the rapidly developing Front Range urban corridor, which also
contains some of the best remaining farmland in Colorado. Of the
converted farmlands, 48% was considered by the American Farmland
Trust (AFT) to be Colorado’s best land, which AFT defines as land
with high productivity, ability to support production of a wide
range of crops, and ability to adapt to extreme weather.7 Of
remaining highly productive farmland, a significant portion resides
in the Eastern Plains region which is facing increasing
vulnerability to extreme weather, drought, declining groundwater
supplies, and development pressure.
RATE & LOCATION OF AGRICULTURAL LAND CONSERVATION UNABLE TO
KEEP UP WITH RATE AND LOCATION OF LOSS
While voluntary incentive-based easements are not the sole, nor
universally acceptable form of conservation, a 2017 analysis based
on the Colorado Ownership, Management and Protection Database
(COMaP)8 documented that Colorado had roughly 2.5 million acres
held under conservation easements.9 An estimated 2.1 million of
those acres have been conserved using state funding (approximately
$280 million from GOCO and $772 million from the Colorado
Conservation Easement Tax Credit program since 1995); this land
includes 1.5 million acres of crucial habitat, 300,000 acres of
prime farmland, 270,000 acres of elk winter range, 4,100 miles of
stream, creek, or river frontage, and private lands critical for
the Gunnison Sage-
Grouse.10 However, GOCO support for agricultural land conservation
is subject to the priorities of the GOCO Board, which shift over
time. Additionally, conservation organizations and government
entities have directly purchased agricultural lands for
conservation, which may remove opportunities for future private
market transactions. For example, federal ownership of Colorado
land increased 1.1%, or 261,700 acres, from 1997 to 2017.11
Aggregate data on these fee simple ownership efforts is not
currently available, but taken together, it appears conservation
efforts have not kept pace with
KEY THREATS TO AGRICULTURAL LANDS AND WATER IN COLORADO
Colorado is losing 15,660 acres of agricultural land per year
The rate & location of agricultural land preservation is
outpaced by the rate & location of is loss
The rate of agricultural water preservation is also outpaced by the
rate of its loss
Over the last 5 years, public support for maintaining land and
water in agricultural production has declined
Irrigated agricultural land costs 4-6 times more than other
agricultural land and its value is increasing 40% faster
Young and beginning farmers are struggling to find affordable land
to start/expand operations
Farmers, especially young and beginning, are less likely to own
their land
One in three Colorado farmers is over 65 and the state’s average
farmer age is higher than the national average
5 |
development pressures. The net loss in agricultural land noted
above and the locations of protected lands does not always target
regions with the highest rates of urban development. For example,
current COMaP data shows limited agricultural land conservation
activity in the Northern Front Range, which is perhaps the most
rapidly developing urban corridor in Colorado12.
RATE OF AGRICULTURAL WATER CONSERVATION ALSO UNABLE TO KEEP UP WITH
RATE OF LOSS
Working lands conservation strategies in Colorado often require
ensuring that agricultural water stays with and on the land; this
is essential, as these irrigated agricultural lands (1) are often
the most productive working farms and ranches and (2) provide
critical ecosystems for wildlife, as well as raw commodities. Water
is essential for these functions. The Technical Update to the
Colorado Water Plan projects that approximately 450,000 acres of
irrigated agriculture could come out of production between now and
2050 due to various water- resource management issues including
urbanization, groundwater sustainability, and planned ag-to-urban
water transfers which traditionally involve separating land and
water rights, also known as “buy and dry”.13 The amount of
irrigated agriculture anticipated to come out of production due to
water-resource drivers could substantially increase, depending on:
i) decisions by municipalities to continue pursuing traditional
water acquisitions, ii) climate change impacts that may decrease
water supply while increasing demands, iii) impediments to water
storage projects, iv) curtailing new supplies of water that are
currently lost to other states, and v) other factors, such as
interstate water requirements. With these water-resource challenges
in mind, policy and programming recommendations will need to
reflect the challenges and opportunities of both agricultural land
and water conservation. The state has already begun addressing
questions around speculative water and land purchases; Colorado’s
Senate Bill 20-048 established an Anti-Speculation Law Work Group
to explore ways to strengthen current anti-
speculation laws and to report recommended changes to the Water
Resources Review Committee by August 15, 2021.14
OVER THE LAST 5 YEARS, PUBLIC SUPPORT FOR MAINTAINING LAND AND
WATER IN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION HAS DECLINED
In the 2016 public attitudes survey about agriculture in Colorado,
94.8% of respondents indicated that maintaining land and water in
agricultural production was somewhat or very important.15 However,
this level of support was down from the previous 5 years, during
which as much as 97.6% of respondents indicated the same opinion.16
In 2016, the most prevalent “very important” reasons for
conservation cited by respondents were “Open Spaces/Wildlife
Habitat” (62%) and “Food and Fiber Production” (55%). Again such
support for all “very important” reasons for conservation had
dropped between 2011 and 2016 - “Heritage” remained the lowest
reason for supporting conservation across all categories and
dropped the most (41%). Supporting conservation for “Jobs” dropped
by 35% and for “Food and Fiber Production” dropped by 33%.17
IRRIGATED AGRICULTURAL LAND COSTS 4-6 TIMES MORE THAN OTHER
AGRICULTURAL LAND AND IS INCREASING IN VALUE 40% FASTER
According to the USDA Land Values report, the cost of agricultural
land in Colorado ranged from a low of $845/acre for pasture land,
to $1,370/acre of non-irrigated cropland, to a high of $5,300/acre
of irrigated cropland in 2020.18 Additionally, while the value of
pasture land and non-irrigated cropland has increased by about
$11/acre per year over the past five years (1.3% annually), the
value of irrigated cropland has increased about 10 times more
(e.g., $103/acre per year, or 1.9% annually).19 Colorado data
reflects a similar agricultural land trend that is seen across the
Kansas City/Tenth Federal Reserve District service area, which
includes Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Wyoming, the
northern half of New Mexico, and the western third of Missouri).20
Importantly, however, land values vary
6 |
substantially across regions in Colorado. land values, especially
in the Front Range and other pockets like Grand Junction, have
exceeded these averages and rates of growth.
YOUNG, BEGINNING, AND EXPANDING FARMERS ARE STRUGGLING TO FIND
AFFORDABLE LAND TO START/EXPAND OPERATIONS
Of Colorado’s 69,032 producers about 31% (e.g., 21,157) are
beginning farmers and about 8% (e.g., 5,427) are under 35.21 A 2017
national survey from the National Young Farmer Coalition found
that: “land access was the number one challenge faced by young and
beginning farmers and ranchers. Importantly, in this survey, 39% of
respondents who are current farmers cited land access as a
significant challenge, with 17% calling it the most significant
challenge they face. Both first-generation and multigenerational
farmers cited land access as their top challenge.”22
Young and beginning farmers and ranchers most often start and grow
their business operations through Direct to Consumer (DTC)
marketing like Community Supported Agriculture (CSAs) and farmers
markets.23 Research suggests that DTC marketing, however, is most
effective for farms within 25 miles of their customers24 - a
considerably shorter distance than previously assumed.25 Given land
prices and development pressures near urban and other population
centers, young and beginning direct market farmers often face
additional barriers to accessing land closer to their
markets.
Additionally, young, beginning, and expanding farmers seeking to
expand their operations often seek larger parcels of land further
from population centers. These lands are also important targets for
conservation in order to support the wide diversity of scales,
production attributes, and aspirations of current and future
farmers and ranchers. Colorado specific information about land
access needs for young, beginning, and expanding farmers, however,
is not currently available from state, university, or nonprofit
partners.
FARMERS ARE LESS LIKELY TO OWN THEIR LAND, ESPECIALLY YOUNG,
BEGINNING, AND DIVERSE FARMERS
Nationally, nearly 40% of U.S. farmland is rented or leased.26
Since 1964, the percentage of leased farm land has increased
slightly (with a peak in the farm crisis of the 1980s and early
1990s).27 Based on 2014 Tenure, Ownership, and Transition of
Agricultural Land (TOTAL) survey data, young farmers under the age
of 35 are most likely to fully-lease their land (about 26% of
operators).28 Non-white farmers are also substantially less likely
to own farmland. In 2012–2014, across the U.S., white people owned
98% and operated 94% of all farmland.29 Unfortunately, updated
national data have not been published since 2014 and Colorado
specific data is not available due to USDA ARMS30 protocols
intended to protect producers’ privacy. While land ownership can be
an important tool for long-term stability, stewardship, and wealth
building, it is important to note that leasing land - particularly
for young and beginning farmers- can enable them to be more nimble
and more quickly pivot their production and/or business
models.
ONE IN THREE COLORADO FARMERS IS OVER 65 AND THE STATE’S AVERAGE
AGE OF FARMER IS HIGHER THAN THE NATIONAL AVERAGE
According to Colorado’s state demographer, one in three producers
were over 65.31 In the most recent data available, the average
farmer in Colorado was 57.6 years old, slightly above the national
average age of the American farmer: 57.5. Importantly, succession
between farm owners appears to be happening faster in Colorado than
in other states, as nationally the average age of the American
farmer increased 1.2 years from 2012 to 2017, whereas the average
age of farmers in Colorado actually decreased 1.3 years from 2012
to 2017. Regional variation on the age of farmers likely exists in
Colorado, but data are not currently available.
Despite what appears to be an increased frequency in farm
succession in Colorado, information about
7 |
familial and non-familial farm succession/transitions specific to
Colorado, including data on prevalence, frequency, geography,
cause, and/or “success rates” is not currently available from
state, university, or nonprofit partners. The Colorado Department
of Agriculture is, however, currently “gathering data specific to
Colorado this year as part of [their] outreach and
education.”32
CURRENT AGRICULTURAL LAND AND WATER PRESERVATION TOOLS IN
COLORADO
Agricultural land and water conservation in Colorado is supported
by important programs led by the federal, state, and local
governments.
A. FEDERALLY-LED PROGRAMS
The federal government primarily supports agricultural land and
water conservation through offering grazing leases on public lands,
financially supporting agricultural conservation easements,
providing beginning farmers loan programs, and structuring estate
taxes to avoid unintentionally forcing the sale and division of
agricultural property to meet estate tax requirements.
FEDERAL PUBLIC LAND GRAZING LEASES AND PERMITS
The total land area of the state of Colorado is over 66 million
acres and 36% is owned by the federal government.33 Specifically,
about 22% of Colorado land is part of the National Forest System
and an additional 13% is administered by the Bureau of Land
Management.34 See Table 1 for more detail.
Both the National Forest System (NFS) and Bureau of Land Management
(BLM) administer agricultural lease programs important to
agriculture in Colorado. For example, BLM reports that grazing on
its lands created $142M in economic contributions and 2,077 jobs in
FY 2018.35 Grazing permits and leases generally cover a 10-year
period and are typically renewable. Grazing fees are set
annually
“to represent the fair market value of grazing to the livestock
owner”.36 Over the past 20 years, the fee has ranged from $1.35 to
$2.11 per animal unit month (AUM), but has been $1.35/AUM from 2019
through 2021.37 Fees are also shared with state and local
governments, though Colorado only received $79,107 from BLM FY2019
leases.38
The NSF39 in 2016 (the most recent data available online) supported
633 permittees in Colorado and authorized 809,861 head months
(HMs). In 2019 (as most recently documented), the BLM supported
1,278 unique users and authorized 269,564 animal unit months
(AUMs). The BLM data does suggest a slight decline in unique users
(-0.54%) and a potentially substantial decline in authorized AUMs
(-11.72%) compared to the prior year, but more research is needed
to explore these trends over time. To note, animal unit months
(AUMs) and head months (HMs) are treated as equivalent measures for
determining fees; these indicators reflect land use by one cow and
calf, one horse, five sheep, or five goats over one month.
Allocations of AUMs/HMs are based on rangeland conditions and can
decline due to drought pressure.
There are, however, multiple limitations to the efficacy of federal
grazing permits and leases in meeting the state’s agricultural land
conservation needs. Federal public land grazing leases and permits
are limited to rangelands that support animal agriculture and,
thus, do not apply to rangelands for cropping or other mixed
production practices. This limitation exists partially because most
public leases prohibit, or substantially limit, any on-site
infrastructure development (e.g., irrigation systems, fixed
foundation sheds, etc.). Public lease termination can also be
politically and administratively complex, and there can be a lot of
uncertainty and logistical barriers for farmers and ranchers when
moving between consecutive lease agreements.
There are concerns that, in general, land leases are not conducive
to best practices for long-term agricultural
land conservation (i.e. leases may facilitate temporary thinking
that can motivate tenants to maximize shorter-term economic
benefits and utilize more ecologically harmful farming
practices).40 However, federal agricultural land leases actually
stipulate conservation agricultural practices as part of each
lease41. For example, each 10-year grazing lease includes a
resource-based management plan that is developed in accordance with
a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) assessment (conducted
every 10 years) and that establishes lease criteria while taking
into account other surrounding land uses. The resource-based
management plan is implemented through annual operating
instructions which further dictates amount of use, season of use,
management practices, etc. along with providing considerations of
other species, riparian, invasives, fire, etc. These grazing leases
are extremely valuable assets that banks loan against. Additional
fees, fines, or loss of lease may occur if the lease agreements are
not followed.
FEDERAL INCENTIVES FOR PRIVATE LANDS
The federal government also seeks to support private landowners in
conserving the quality, viability, and use of agricultural lands.
Two important tools used in Colorado are the Federal Agricultural
Conservation Easement Program (ACEP) and the Federal Conservation
Reserve Program (CRP).
Agricultural Conservation Easement Program
The Agricultural Conservation Easement Program - Agricultural Land
Easement (ACEP- ALE) program is administered by the National
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) of the U.S. Department of
Agriculture.42 Under the ACEP-ALE, NRCS may contribute up to 50% of
the fair market value of an agricultural conservation easement43 or
may contribute up to 75% of the fair market value for easements
where grasslands of particular ecological importance will be
protected.44
An agricultural conservation easement (ACE) is an elective, legally
recorded deed restriction placed on a property that prohibits
practices that would damage or interfere with the agricultural use
of the land, such as commercial or residential development45. As
the easement is a restriction on the deed of the property, the
easement remains in effect even when the land changes ownership.46
ACEs can be controversial as they are permanent for both current
and subsequent owners, which can reduce the full market value of a
specific property. However, the lower costs of conserved
agricultural land can be helpful in keeping the cost of farmland
more affordable for young, beginning, and expanding farmers.
In order to compensate the landowners for selling certain
development rights on their land, ACE programs seek to pay
landowners based on the difference between the land’s current
“highest and best use,” which is often residential or commercial
development, and the value of the land after the ACE and the
restricted development rights are in place. The landowner can sell
or donate an easement to the easement holder, or a combination of
the two (e.g., a “bargain sale”).47
Agricultural conservation easements aim to ensure land is primarily
devoted to active, agricultural production and is not subject to
development pressures.48 ACEs are also specifically written to
allow agriculture uses and farm structures, but to limit other
types of on-site construction and physical development.
Ironically, the more valuable agricultural production is on a
parcel, the lower the potential conservation easement compensation,
ceteris paribus, as agricultural value (value in use) approaches
the real estate (best and highest use) value. This limits the
efficacy of ACEs in conserving the highest value agricultural
lands. This issue underscores a core limitation of ACEs as a tool -
easement programs are focused on reducing development, not
explicitly on conserving agriculture. Certainly revenues from the
sale of a conservation easement may be important for farmers
and
9 |
ranchers as income or as a means to defer capital gains taxation.
The proceeds may also allow retiring farmers/ranchers to fund
his/her retirement which may indirectly benefit the successor(s).
But, overall, these outcomes are not the primary motivation of
easement policies and programs and this lack of alignment leaves
gaps that may need to be filled by new tools that are specifically
focused on conserving agriculture itself.
While providing immediate liquidity for the landowners, ACEs can be
controversial because the purchase of an ACE can trigger federal
and state capital gains taxes, which diminish the immediate cash
opportunity. Some landowners, however, are able to defer capital
gains taxes by using the proceeds to acquire additional land (using
a like-kind 1031 exchange49).
Between 2009 and 2017, approximately 122 parcels of land in
Colorado were enrolled in a federal agricultural conservation
easement program.50 Across this time, easement payment facilitated
changes in agricultural practices by 32% of participants.51 Such
changes included improved irrigation, increased acreage, and
adjusted crop mix and rotation.52 Researchers also found that
easement participation was correlated with increased crop yields
and facilitated the addition of outdoor recreation to agricultural
operations.53 A press release about a recent study by Colorado
State University54 highlighted that “if $88.9 million in federal
ACEP payments (the estimated current need for active conservation
projects in Colorado) were secured, this funding would generate up
to $195 million in economic activity and create more than 1,200
jobs in Colorado”.55 The research also estimated that up to 80% of
the resulting economic activity would directly benefit rural
communities, further highlighting the essential role of the state
in helping to attract and capture federal dollars to benefit
Colorado communities.56
While rangeland, cropland, pastureland, grassland, and
nonindustrial private forest land can be eligible for ACE programs,
not all land is considered
equal in the application process.57 The Natural Resources
Conservation Services prioritizes land that already protects
agricultural uses and implements conservation practices for ACE
selection over those lands that don’t already do so.58 Land must
also be large enough and characteristically suitable for commercial
agriculture to be considered for selection.
Additionally, landowners report discomfort with the perpetual
nature of ACEs, as well as reluctance for any perceived external
management of their land.59 Skepticism of government influence and
unfamiliarity with conservation organizations also appears to
discourage landowners’ ACE participation.60
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP)
The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) is administered by the Farm
Service Agency (FSA) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Under
CRP, the FSA provides farmers and ranchers with annual rental
payments and cost-share assistance, in exchange for removing
environmentally sensitive lands from agricultural production and
planting environmentally restorative species. CRP helps to conserve
land and natural resources, but, as it takes land out of
production, it does not directly support food production. Contracts
under the Conservation Reserve Program are voluntary and last 10-15
years.
Primarily, the CRP aims to improve water quality, prevent soil
erosion, and reduce loss of wildlife habitat through incentivizing
farmer collaboration. 20.8 million acres are currently enrolled in
the Conservation Reserve Program and the maximum acreage that can
be enrolled is 25 million. However, the CRP acreage enrollment cap
will rise to 27 million acres in 2023.61 Overall, CRP participation
has shrunk substantially to 9.7 million hectares (24 million acres)
in 2017 down from its high of 14.9 million hectares (36.8 million
acres) in 2007.62
While CRP may help farmers improve their conservation practices and
generate sustainable revenues on their lands, CRP is not a
permanent
10 |
solution for agricultural land and water conservation. Research on
CRP has also found limited effects on rural economies63 and that
its payments may not adequately capture the program’s ecological
benefits.64
FEDERAL INCENTIVES FOR KEEPING LAND IN AGRICULTURE THROUGH
TRANSITIONS
As noted above, transitions between agricultural land owners
represent a critical risk to agricultural land conservation in
Colorado. The federal government primarily supports agricultural
land transitions by (1) underwriting Beginning Farmer Loans to help
new farmers and ranchers access agricultural land and (2) crafting
estate tax rules to ensure heirs are not unintentionally forced to
sell all or part of the family farm to meet inheritance tax
obligations.
USDA FSA Beginning Farmer Loans
The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Farm Service Agency
(FSA) makes and guarantees loans to beginning farmers.65 Beginning
farmer loans aim to make it more financially possible for new
farmers to start building new farms, especially as such new farmers
are not yet eligible for commercial loans.66 Beginning farmer loans
can be disbursed as a micro loan or be specifically intended to
facilitate farm ownership or operation.67 The FSA also provides
down payment loans to help new farmers purchase a farm and to help
transfer farmland from a retiring farmer to the next generation of
farmers.68
The USDA also extends Farm Ownership Loans to help farmers (1)
expand an existing farm, (2) buy a new farm, (3) cover closing
costs, (4) integrate water & soil conservation and protection
measures, and (5) improve farm structures and build new farm
buildings.69 In 2020, farmers could access financial assistance
through microloans or direct loans of up to $600,000 (this number
is adjusted annually).70 In 2020, the Farm Service Agency also
guaranteed up to $1,776,000 in farm ownership loans through a
commercial lender.71 Farmers have up to 40 years to repay for both
of these loan options.72
Over the past 4 years in Colorado, USDA FSA Beginning Farmers Loans
have helped 361 beginning farmers acquire farm/range land and
assets worth more than $95.5M73. See Table 2
There are also some critical limitations to the FSA Beginning
Farmer Loan program including limiting eligibility for who can
qualify as a “new farmer” to those who have not (1) owned a ranch
or farm bigger than 30% of the average U.S. farm, according to the
current Census for Agriculture, and (2) have not operated a ranch
or farm for more than a decade.74 Applicants must also be heavily
involved in the operation.75 Additionally, loan value limits can
create barriers to accessing affordable land when supply is limited
and competition is increasing from well- financed, non-tenant
investors.
Federal Estate Taxes
Enacted in 1916, the federal estate tax76 is a tax on property
(e.g. stock, real estate, cash, etc.) transferred from deceased
persons to their heirs.77,78 The tax is applied to the full value
of the estate and a credit is applied to the tax liability, and it
is currently $11.7 million for individuals and $23.4 million for
married couples.79 Between 2000 to 2020, the highest marginal
estate and gift tax dropped from 55% to 40%.80
High exemption levels, estate and succession planning tools, and
transfers of asset ownership before death ensure that the estate
tax impacts less than 1% of estates across the U.S.81 In 2020,
approximately only 0.6% of farm estates were required to file an
estate tax return, with only 0.16% of estates that filed accruing
any estate tax liabilities.82 From that 0.16%, approximately $130.2
million was collected in federal estate tax liabilities in
2020.83
Over time, the estate tax has been further adjusted to minimize its
economic burden on farmers and to encourage the transfer of farms
from one generation to the next. For example, provisions encourage
farmers and landowners
11 |
to donate easements or other restrictions for estate tax savings.84
Similarly, parts of the Internal Revenue code allow agricultural
real estate to be valued at farm-use value, rather than its
fair-market value. There are, however, restrictions and limitations
to valuing agricultural land at farm-use value. Lastly, the estate
tax also encourages agricultural land to be passed down across
generations by omitting farm real-estate value
appreciation.85
Some remain concerned, however, that estate taxes may
unintentionally encourage some farmers to sell their land and may
also discourage farmers and ranchers from investing in the growth
of their agricultural businesses.86,87 so as to minimize tax
liabilities and shore up reserves to cover anticipated estate tax
expenses.88,89
Additionally, the Internal Revenue codes that pertain to estate and
gift taxes may be changed in the coming months. The Biden
administration and some Congressional leaders are proposing (1)
discontinuing portability, (2) calculating capital gains taxes at
the time of asset transfer, (3) lowering the federal estate tax
exemption level from $11.7 million to $3.5 million, and (4)
eliminating the step-up in basis on death and the transfer of basis
in the case of gifts.90,91 However, it remains unknown when these
proposals will be signed into law, as well as when they might take
effect.
B. STATE-LED PROGRAMS
COLORADO LAND BOARD’S AGRICULTURAL LEASES
In accordance with the U.S. Congress’ Northwest Ordinance of 1785,
the Colorado Land Board (CLB) was established by the Colorado
Constitution in
1876 to manage lands that the federal government provided to the
state in public trust.92 The CLB is the second largest landowner in
Colorado, owning 2.8 million surface acres.93
The CLB owns, manages, sells, and leases publicly- owned land
primarily to raise funds for Colorado public schools94 with two
focal areas: (1) creating consistent and satisfactory income over
time, and (2) providing reliable stewardship of the state trust
property.95 Lease payments have raised $1.7 billion since 200896
and the Colorado Land Board is entirely self-funded by its own
revenue.97 Most of the Land Board’s revenue is disbursed to the
Colorado Department of Education’s Building Excellent Schools
Program (BEST)98 though a portion of its revenue is also invested
in the Colorado Department of Education’s annual operating
budget.99
While not primarily focused on agricultural land conservation, the
CLB leases 98% of its 2.8 million acres for agriculture via a
combination of grazing, irrigated farming, and dry land crop
production leases.100 The Colorado Land Board also leases land for
a variety of other uses, including commercial real estate, mining,
recreation, agriculture, ecosystem services, renewable energy, oil
and gas, rights-of- way, water, tower sites.101 These multiple
types of leases, combined with the CLB’s prioritization of revenue
creation, sometimes render agricultural land conservation
unrealistic or incompatible with competing land uses.
Importantly, and unlike federal lands, some state agricultural
leases allow cropping or other mixed production practices, in
addition to animal agriculture. Additionally, the CLB promotes
conservation practices by explicitly requiring that lessees adhere
to “strict land stewardship guidelines.”
STATE INCENTIVES FOR PRIVATE LANDS
Similar to the federal government, the state also seeks to support
private
12 |
landowners in conserving the quality, viability and use of
agricultural lands through the direct Purchase of Agricultural
Conservation Easement Program (PACE) programs. The state also
offers the Colorado Conservation Easement Tax Credit program to
incentive conservation when the full purchase amount of an easement
is not available and seeks to reduce recurring property tax
expenses for agricultural lands through a reduced agricultural
assessment rate.
Colorado’s Purchase of Agricultural Conservation Easement (PACE)
Programs
Colorado is one of 30 states with a Purchase of Agricultural
Conservation Easement (PACE) Program.102 Nationwide, PACE programs
help pay landowners for keeping their land in agriculture. PACE
programs work by purchasing the development rights from land owners
(which is why they are sometimes called Purchase of Development
Rights, or PDR, programs) using a tool called an agricultural
conservation easement (ACEs). ACEs are described in detail above.
Colorado has one of the most successful PACE programs in the
nation, with over 872,167 acres protected as of January 2020103 and
state investments in ACEs have conserved almost 300,000 acres of
prime farmland.104
Colorado’s PACE programs are primarily funded by Great Outdoors
Colorado (described in detail in the following section), but the
Colorado Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and Colorado Parks
and Wildlife (CPW) also provide some direct funding for the
purchase of specific types of ACEs. CPW, for example, manages the
statewide Colorado Wildlife Habitat Program (CWHP), which offers
opportunities for private landowners to voluntarily protect
important wildlife habitat, and provide wildlife-related
recreational access to the public. CWHP is an incentive-based,
voluntary program that accomplishes strategic wildlife conservation
and public access goals using conservation easements, and in some
cases, fee title purchases. The Colorado Water Conservation Board
(CWCB), as part of the DNR, also provides financial support for
private land
and water conservation initiatives through several grant programs.
CWCB targets funding for land conservation projects with
significant water resource co-benefits such as the conservation of
riparian and wetland areas and protecting irrigated agricultural
lands from water resource development. Through the CWCB Alternative
Transfer Method Grant Program, CWCB has also supported the coupling
of conservation easements with temporary water leasing arrangements
that keep water in agriculture while also allowing water to be
leased or shared for other uses.
Image 1: Acres of Farmland Protected by State, as of January 2020 -
Source: American Farmland Trust, November 2020105
Great Outdoors Colorado Colorado’s Purchase of Agricultural
Conservation Easement (PACE) Program is funded in large part by
Great Outdoors Colorado. Created through a Colorado Constitutional
amendment in 1992, the Great Outdoors Colorado (GOCO) Program is a
trust fund (housed in the Treasury of the State of Colorado106) and
is completely funded by redirected lottery proceeds107.
The Great Outdoors Colorado Program aims to conserve, protect,
enhance and manage the state’s park, trail, wildlife, river, and
open space resources108 and, over the past 29 years, has committed
more than $1.3 billion to over 5,300 projects in all of
13 |
Colorado’s 64 counties.109 Counties, municipalities, Title 32
special districts with parks and recreation authority, Colorado
Parks and Wildlife, and political subdivisions of the state are
eligible to receive GOCO funds.110 These entities can also obtain
GOCO funding on behalf of foundations, nonprofits that are not land
conservation organizations, school districts, business owners,
private landowners, and community groups and volunteers.111
To date, GOCO has helped partners across the state protect 1.2
million acres of open space112 and added 66,200 acres to the State
Parks system.113 Since 2015, GOCO also invested $44.5 million in 11
large- scale projects that conserved 130,063 acres of land, which
included both working cattle ranches and agricultural
lands.114
Image 2: Acres Conserved by GOCO and the Conservation Easement Tax
Credit Program - Source: INVESTING IN COLORADO: Colorado’s Return
on Investments in Conservation Easements: Conservation Easement
Tax
Credit Program and Great Outdoors Colorado115
GOCO is constitutionally required to allocate its funds equitably
across multiple priorities: wildlife, local governments, open
space, and outdoor recreation, as well as youth outdoors
engagement, which further reduces the priority of using funds for
agricultural land conservation. Given limitations
on available dollars and the wide range of eligible grantees, there
is significant competition for GOCO funds. Additionally, GOCO
requires a minimum 50% match for its easement program, which in
effect requires that all other sources of support will consistently
match or exceed GOCOs contributions. GOCO priorities have shifted
over time, but more research is needed to understand how
agricultural land conservation has trended in terms of deal volume
and incremental conserved acres/dollars in recent years.
Colorado Conservation Easement Tax Credit
In addition to the outright purchase of agricultural conservation
easements (ACEs), 14 states, including Colorado, offer tax
incentives for conserved land.116 These tax incentives are
particularly critical when PACE programs are not able to pay for
the full value of the ACE as they help landowners recapture the
full value of their land.
In Colorado, the program aiming to financially incentivize the
enrollment of land into conservation easements is called the
Colorado Conservation Easement Tax Credit.117 First established in
1995, the Colorado Conservation Easement Tax Credit program
facilitates the enrollment of private lands into ACEs through the
buying and selling of income tax credit certificates.118 The
Conservation Easement Oversight Commission and the Director of the
Division of Conservation (housed within the Colorado Department of
Regulatory Agencies) verifies the tax credit certificate
applications, ensures the conservation easement donations meet
qualification appraisal requirements, and fulfils the Internal
Revenue Code’s 170(h) stipulations for a qualified conservation
easement donation.119 Despite such a rigorous screening system, the
Colorado Department of Revenue may still reject a tax credit claim
due to tax compliance concerns.120
Currently, tax credit certificates reimburse landowners for 75% of
the first $100,000 of donated land value and 50% of the remaining
donated value, up to a maximum of $5 million
14 |
per conservation easement donation.121 Credits greater than $1.5
million are disbursed in increments of up to $1.5 million per year
in future years.122 Landowners can sell such tax credit
certificates to any Colorado taxpayer at a discount through a Tax
Credit Connection entity.123 Buyers then use the tax credit
certificate to save money on their own income tax liabilities.124
Pending Colorado legislation may shift some of these program
parameters; one such bill is HB21-1233, which has been passed by
the legislature but awaits Governor Polis’ signature.125
Since its inception, the Colorado Conservation Easement Tax Credit
program has helped Colorado conserve over 1.2 million acres,
including 102,943 acres for agriculture.126 See Table 3.
Overall, as shown in Image 3, the value of tax credit investments
has far exceeded that of GOCO investments.
Image 3: Colorado’s Investments in Conservation Easements through
GOCO and the Conservation Easement Tax Credit Program, 1995-2016 -
Source: INVESTING IN COLORADO: Colorado’s Return on Investments in
Conservation Easements: Conservation Easement Tax Credit Program
and
Great Outdoors Colorado127
However, the Colorado Conservation Easement Tax Credit program has
not been without controversy. Between 2000 and 2013, calculations
of the Colorado Conservation Easement Tax Credit were challenged128
and led to that state seeking approximately
$220 million in back taxes from landowners.129 Additionally,
confusion about how certain business entities may claim the
credit130 and other nuances, led to instances in which Colorado
taxpayers received a federal income tax deduction for a
conservation easement donation, but were denied state income tax
credit for the same donation.131 Lastly, when landowners abandon
conservation easements, there are limited guidelines related to the
outcomes of the state tax credits.132
SB20-135 introduced a series of solutions created by the
conservation easement working group convened in accordance with
HB19-1264, but was postponed indefinitely once the legislature
reconvened after the COVID-19 outbreak.133 SB21-033, which again
sought to implement the conservation easement working group’s
recommendations, failed to get to a vote on the House floor of the
Colorado General Assembly.134
Agricultural Use Property Tax Assessment Rate
Perhaps an often overlooked tool in maintaining the economic
viability of agriculture is reducing recurring property taxes for
agricultural use.
Property taxes and assessment rates are designed to promote optimal
use of land resources and to equitably distribute the land tax
burden across all property owners.135 Property tax assessments
assume that the property is used in its best and highest use.136
Property tax revenue funds stay within its respective county,
funding county and municipal governments, special districts, public
schools, junior colleges.137 No portion of property taxes are
diverted to fund state services.138
Agricultural land has a significantly lower tax burden than
residential or commercial properties,139 as both residential and
commercial property are valued according to the market.140
Agricultural land is taxed according to its earning or productive
capacity,141 and is capitalized at the statutory rate of 13%.142
The earning capacity of agricultural land is evaluated by
multiplying the 10-year
15 |
average price of the grazing or commodity rate by the yield
correlated with the property’s soil classification. That figure is
then multiplied with the landlord’s typical crop share to produce
the landlord’s gross income.143 Next, the 10-year average of the
landlord’s typical expenses are subtracted from the landlord’s
net-income to arrive at the landlord’s net income.144 This net
income is capitalized by the statutory 13% to produce the valuation
of the land’s actual value.145 Such actual value is multiplied by
the agricultural assessment rate (currently 29%) to obtain the
land’s assessed value.146
Residential property on agricultural land is assessed by its market
value and according to a separate, residential assessment rate.147
Agricultural structures utilized for agricultural production are
valued typically according to cost, and the actual value of the
structures is multiplied by the statutory 29% assessment rate.148
Agricultural equipment used primarily to create profit from food
production, as well as livestock, supplies, and agricultural &
livestock products, are exempt from taxation.149
A three-year process is required to determine if a plot of land
statutorily qualifies as agricultural land.150
Agricultural tax assessment rates are designed to reduce property
tax burden for ranchers and farmers, so as to facilitate the
economic viability of agriculture.151 Additionally, agricultural
assessment rates are also intended to protect the environmental
benefits of agriculture and also to discourage commercial,
residential or industrial development of agricultural
land.152
While farming produces a number of ecological benefits beyond crop
commodities (e.g., wildlife habitat, amenity value, etc.),
monetarily incorporating these benefits would be difficult and
would raise the assessed value and minimize the property tax
preference placed on agricultural land.153 Incorporating the
economic benefits of
agricultural land conservation could be similarly unappealing for
farmers.154
In the past, researchers have characterized various state
approaches to the income capitalization methods as inconsistent,
not transparent, excessively complex and ad hoc.155 Researchers
also recommend that capitalization computation methods should
account for default risk, liquidity constraints, inflation and
maturity risk.156
STATE INCENTIVES FOR KEEPING LAND IN AGRICULTURE THROUGH
TRANSITIONS
The state of Colorado also helps to keep farming economically
viable by smoothing the transitions between owners of agricultural
land. The state government primarily supports these agricultural
land transitions through a beginning farmer loan fund administered
by the Colorado Agricultural Development Authority (CADA).
Colorado Agricultural Development Authority
The Colorado Agricultural Development Authority (CADA) was
statutorily established in 1981 as an independent state entity.157
Its creation was also enabled through Title 26 of the U.S. Federal
Statute.158 CADA is governed by seven board members: one appointed
by the Governor, three by the Speaker of the House, and three
appointed by the President of the State Senate.159 The Commissioner
of Agriculture also serves on the Board as a non-voting
member.160
Currently CADA oversees the state’s beginning farmer loan program
(explored in more detail below). Historically, CADA also
administered the states value added development grants161 and a
3-year pilot of the state’s farm lease income tax deduction program
(also, explored in more detail below), but both of those programs
are currently idle due to a lack of resources.
16 |
Colorado’s Beginning Farmer Loan Program and Aggie Bonds
Colorado’s Beginning Farmer Loan Program, administered by The
Colorado Agricultural Development Authority (CADA), is a
federal-state partnership enabled by the federal Aggie Bond Loan
Program which began in 1980.162 Colorado is one of approximately 16
states that use this tax-exempt, beginning farmer agricultural
development bond program.163
Importantly Aggie Bond programs fall under the broader umbrella of
federal Public Activity Bonds (PABs) and are subject to the federal
government’s tax-exempt Private Activity Bond Cap authorization for
each state each year.164 For example, in 2020, the State of
Colorado was authorized $604,667,000 (equal to $105 per
resident).165 The state uses revenue from the sale of these bonds
to support a range of investments including infrastructure,
affordable housing and economic development projects. In addition,
Colorado law requires that up to 50% of the annual PAB
authorization goes to local authorities—counties and cities—with a
minimum population of 19,048 residents.166 This population
requirement immediately excludes 80% of Colorado’s rural counties
as only 11 out of 53 rural counties qualified for direct PAB
allocation authorizations in 2020.167 Counties that receive PAB
authorization allocations have the choice of: 1) using their bond
authorization on qualified programs, 2) assigning their
authorization to another local issuer, 3) assigning their volume
cap to the Colorado Housing and Finance Authority (CHFA), or 4)
doing nothing, at which point the cap will revert back to the
Colorado Department of Local Affairs (DOLA) to be included in the
statewide balance for future allocation.168 At this time, counties
are not able to assign their excess volume cap to CADA.169
Per state law, the remaining 50% of the total PAB allocation is
further divided, with 48% going to the Colorado Housing and Finance
Authority (CHFA), and 2% going to the CADA.170
With its allocation of PABs, the Colorado Agriculture Development
Authority issues tax-exempt bonds to private investors and then
uses bond proceeds to assist first time ranchers and farmers with
the purchase of equipment, land, and other capital expenditures.171
Since these bonds are tax-exempt, their interest rates are
typically up to 2% below commercial farm rate.172
Beginning farmer loans created using Aggie Bonds are, however,
subject to substantial restrictions from the federal government,
the state authority, and each specific lender.
Federal rules, under the guidelines established by the Agricultural
Bond Improvement Act,173 approved in 2005, limit the maximum funds
each applicant is eligible to receive, indexed to the rate of
inflation, which in 2020 established the loan ceiling at $552,500.
Additionally, the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) has established a
$62,500 cap on the amount allowed for use on used equipment
purchases. Federal requirements also stipulate that a “first-time
farmer” (and also, a “first-time- rancher”) is defined as any
individual who has not at any time had direct or indirect ownership
of, and material participation in, “substantial farmland,” and who
has not received more than $250,000 in tax-exempt financing,
including any proposed financing. In this case “substantial
farmland” means any parcel of land unless: it is smaller than
30%
Colorado’s General Assembly established the Colorado Housing and
Finance Authority in 1973, to address the shortage of affordable
housing in the state. In 1982, CHFA’s mission expanded to include
loans to businesses. Today, CHFA serves a dual mission, 1) increase
the availability of affordable, decent and accessible housing for
lower- and moderate- income Coloradans, and 2) strengthen the
state’s economy by providing financial assistance to
businesses.
17 |
of the median size of a farm in the county where it is located, and
the value of the land does not exceed $125,000. Importantly, first
time farmers and ranchers can combine funding from Colorado’s
Beginning Farmer Loan Program with the U.S. Department of
Agriculture’s (USDA) Aggie Bond program, operated by the Farm
Service Agency. However, under the current Internal Revenue Code,
section 147(c)(2), first-time farmer bonds cannot be aggregated
under a single ownership in order to purchase large blocks of
land.
State rules, under the Colorado Agricultural Development Authority,
further restrict who can receive beginning farmer loan
support.
Also, these bonds are dispersed through a three- way transaction
between the borrower, lender and CADA,174 where the lender provides
all of the capital and bears all of the associated risk.175
Accordingly, the beginning farmer loan program requires that
borrowers: (1) independently qualify with a lender; (2) be a
resident of Colorado; and (3) actively involved with agricultural
production on the land they seek to buy. Since the liability for
this federally insured program rests entirely with the lender,
banks or others that take part in this program must assess a
borrower’s credit history and ability to meet down payment
requirements. For new producers entering into farming and ranching,
an income and credit review can create one of many potential
barriers to entry.
Overall these restrictions contribute to the successes attributed
to Aggie Bond programs. According to a whitepaper published in the
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics (JAAE), “the
proportion of beginning farmers who are full land owners is 2.5%
higher in counties of states with Aggie Bond programs than in those
without, and on average, beginning farmers operated 143.3 more
acres in the program counties... .” The authors of the JAAE study
further state, “We find limited evidence that the program may have
led to a greater Proportion of Full Land Ownership and greater
Acres Operated... .”
Colorado’s Beginning Farmer Loan Program reflects these findings,
with 6 loans for $1,040,000 disbursed to beginning farmers and
ranchers in 2020176 and 27 loans awarded over the past three years
(2017 – 2019) for an additional $7.5MM dispersed to qualified
applicants (an average of $260,000 per loan). As of December 31,
2020, 390 loans for a total of $62,151,909.34 have been made to
individual borrowers over the full life of the program.177
Personal communications with CADA confirmed that maps of loan
locations were not available, nor was information by county or by
producer type.178 However, CADA reported that “the vast majority of
bonds were to assist farmers in eastern Colorado, as unfortunately
the cost of land along the front range and in western Colorado
often prohibits farmland purchases by first time farmers.”179
Beginning Farmer Farm & Equipment Lease Income Tax Deduction
Pilot
While no longer active, the Colorado Agricultural Development
Authority (CADA) also administered Colorado’s Beginning Farmer Farm
Lease Income Tax Deduction pilot program. Colorado Beginning Farmer
Tax Deduction was designed to encourage private land owners to
lease agricultural land and other assets to new farmers and
ranchers using a personal and corporate state income tax deduction.
As established by HB16-1194,180 taxpayers that rented an
agricultural asset (e.g. livestock, land, crops, farm equipment,
grain storage, or irrigation equipment) to a beginning farmer or
rancher for at least three years qualified for the 20%
deduction.181
The program was a pilot that provided tax deductions beginning in
the years after 2017 and before 2020.182 While more than one
deduction certificate could be offered to a qualified taxpayer, the
related possible deductions were limited to no more than $25,000
per taxpayer, per year.183 Additionally, the taxpayer was required
to lease to a beginning farmer or rancher who: (1) resided in
Colorado; (2) farmed or ranched full-time; (3)
18 |
was responsible for most of the management and labor on the
agricultural asset most of the time; (4) already had some
experience or education or experience in ranching or farming; (5)
had less than a decade’s worth of farming or ranching experience;
(6) had a net-worth of less than $2 million; and (7) participated
in a financial management educational program endorsed by the
Colorado Agricultural Development Authority.184
Further, the program had a statutorily-established maximum of 100
tax deductions that could be issued to taxpayers each year185,186.
While the program provided zero (0) actual deductions,187 some
believe the restrictive nature of its potential tax deductions may
have dissuaded potential participants.
Beginning farmer tax credit programs in Minnesota188,
Pennsylvania189, Nebraska190, and Iowa191 offer some evidence that
a tax credit may have been more effective than a tax deduction. For
example, an economic analysis of Iowa’s Beginning Farmer Tax Credit
Program conducted by the Iowa Department of Revenue192 suggests
that ”program participants had statistically significantly
increased average farm income net profits” and were 10% more likely
to stay in business. The Iowa program started in 2007 and supported
1,004 beginning farmers with a total of $40.8 million in tax
credits claimed through 2019193.
C. COUNTY AND MUNICIPALITY-LED PROGRAMS
While not the focus of this issue brief, it is important to
acknowledge the important role that Colorado counties and
municipalities play in helping support the conservation of
agricultural lands for Colorado’s future through leases, transfer
of development right programs, and land use planning. Despite these
strengths, local programs provide a checkerboard approach where
some high-value lands may fall into gaps between
jurisdictions.
OPEN SPACE AGRICULTURAL LEASES
Several counties and municipalities currently offer agricultural
leases on public open space lands (often using elective taxpayer
funds). Starting with Boulder in 1967, Jefferson County in 1972,
and the City of Westminster in 1985,194 at least 16 counties and 7
municipalities across Colorado currently have excise, sales, or
other taxes that support the expansion of their open space
programs; These areas include the counties of Adams, Arapahoe,
Boulder, Broomfield, Chaffee, Denver, Douglas, Eagle, Grand,
Gunnison, Jefferson, Larimer, Park, Pitkin, Routt, and Summit; the
municipalities of Breckenridge, Boulder, Colorado Springs, Crested
Butte, Durango, Fort Collins, and Westminster;195 as well as, the
Ute Mountain Ute tribal lands near Towaoc, Colorado.
While not allowed by all programs, many open space programs in
Colorado do offer agricultural leases on appropriate parcels. The
size of some programs is perhaps surprising, for example, the City
of Thornton owns 18,751 acres of agricultural property of which
about two thirds are leased to local farmers.196 Similarly, the
City of Boulder leases approximately 13,000 acres and Boulder
County leases approximately 25,000 acres, most of which are
irrigated.197 Readers can learn more about “Land Leases for New and
Beginning Farmers in Colorado” here:
https://s3.amazonaws.com/arena-
attachments/2341965/23e0ddca14f520aacf8c1a ccde354e51.pdf, but at
this time a comprehensive assessment of county and municipal acres
is not available.
COUNTY TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS PROGRAMS
In addition to tax-financed growth of open space programs, several
Colorado counties (e.g. Boulder198, Summit199, Pitkin200,
Larimer201) also have transferable development rights programs that
can function to offset incremental development in one location with
added conservation in another, more suitable location.202 These
programs allow
AGRICULTURAL LAND USE PLANNING
Colorado state law, as well as the Local Government Land Use
Control Enabling Act,203 delegates substantial land use,
conservation, and planning authorities to counties and
municipalities. Through tools like comprehensive plans and zoning,
local authorities exert significant control over which lands can be
used for what purposes204. Counties and municipalities make
explicit and implicit decisions about the values of population
growth, density, industry development, natural resource protection,
and agricultural land conservation. While the vast majority of
zoning regulations include certain allowances for agriculture, the
inclusion of agriculture as a valued, priority land use in
comprehensive plans is more mixed. Agricultural land conservation
proponents strongly advocate that local land use plans
intentionally embrace agricultural uses, rather than allow them to
be intentionally or unintentionally displaced.205
LIMITATIONS OF CURRENT TOOLS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR COLORADO
Despite the wide range of tools currently and historically
available in Colorado, the diversion rate of land from agriculture
to other non- agricultural uses reveals critical limitations to
Colorado’s current toolset. Financial limitations make it difficult
to increase the scale of agricultural land conservation, and these
limitations are exacerbated by data limitations, widespread
omission of agricultural conservation from local comprehensive
plans, and limited incentives for agricultural land ownership and
succession.
A. FINANCIAL LIMITATIONS
With billions of dollars in estimated farmland transfers
anticipated in the coming decade, as well as an increasingly
strained water supply, successful land and water conservation will
require additional dedicated public and philanthropic dollars.
Supporting market rate acquisitions of Colorado agricultural lands
and water, especially for young, beginning, and expanding farmers,
will also require additional support to overcome capital creates
challenges due to high debt burdens, agricultural business
volatility, and limited access to affordable capital. Moreover,
while investor dollars continue to move into farmland and water
assets across the nation,206 it is increasingly difficult to
attract private funding that conserves local ownership of
agricultural lands, water, and operations. Additionally, investment
capital moves faster than public dollars, which disadvantages
public funding and tools like agricultural conservation
easements.
More flexible public capital is also needed to address gaps in
funding levels and restrictions that are built into current state
and federal programs. These dollars should also be rapidly
deployable to help buy time for conservation deals to come together
and to better compete with time pressure of the current
agricultural land market - particularly in high value geographies.
That said, agricultural conservation easements should also be
required on appropriate agricultural lands purchased with public
funds after a period of no more than five years.
RECOMMENDATION 1: EXPAND THE FLEXIBILITY OF PUBLIC CONSERVATION
DOLLARS TO BE QUICKLY DEPLOYABLE
RECOMMENDATION 2: AGRICULTURAL CONSERVATION EASEMENTS SHOULD BE
REQUIRED ON AGRICULTURAL LAND PURCHASED WITH PUBLIC FUNDS.
Additionally, the state should seek novel methods to incentivize
farmland conservation using the public-
private partnership (P3) investment paradigm. Land For Good (LFG),
a New England based nonprofit, for example, provides a leading
model for the potential of P3s. Founded in 2013, with funding from
the USDA’s Land Access Project, Land For Good helped launch five
values-based investment companies including Dirt Capital Partners
and Local Farms Fund. Over the first three years, the value of
farmland appreciated significantly which generated positive returns
to investors. The organization and operational models vary across
each of the Land For Good P3 investment firms, in terms of capital
investments (accredited vs. non-accredited), board structure and
operations, as well as whether ownership shares are extended to
farm tenants. However, all five nonprofits in LFG’s report based
their companies on a shared desire to revitalize and expand--on a
large scale--agricultural land ownership across the Northeast.
Importantly, both Dirt Capital Partners and Local Farms Fund allow
farmers to begin operations under an agricultural lease arrangement
and offer a buyout option at a specified time in the future.
As a unique variation of the public-private partnership (P3) model,
Colorado should explore the formation of an Agriculture Land
Preservation Cooperative, structured to offer preferred and general
stock to interested investors. Through the use of a farmland
appreciation investment model, the preferred investor position in
the cooperative (a non-voting role) would secure their investment
using land and associated assets - such as water rights and
structures - as collateral, until paid off, with interest. The
co-op model could also provide that common stockholders, but not
preferred stockholders, are eligible to vote on the organization’s
business matters, as well as receive annual patronage dividends.
The common stock share structure could also lower the cost per acre
for a farm or rangeland purchase by the co-op by providing
incentives that would replace up-front cash with a transferable
income stream, similar to an annuity. This pilot initiative could
leverage other public support, as it meets the requirements for
the
USDA’s Conservation Innovation Grant, as well as the the Economic
Development Administration’s Revolving Loan Fund and Economic
Development Integration Grant Program. State entities with
substantial reserve fund balances should be encouraged to provide
seed capital as early stage investors in the Agriculture Land
Preservation Cooperative.
RECOMMENDATION 3: FACILITATE MARKET- DRIVEN APPROACHES TO FARMLAND
CONSERVATION BY INNOVATING PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP MODELS THAT
RETAIN LOCAL CONTROL OF FARMLAND (E.G INVESTMENT GRADE AGRICULTURE
LAND PRESERVATION COOPERATIVES)
Additionally, any new financing for beginning farmer land access
should deploy flexible capital including: (1) fixed-rate loans with
very low interest and a substantial initial grace period; (2)
revenue- based financing that provides graduated repayment when
producers can pay as they earn more revenue and have aligned
payments in years where revenues are uncharacteristically low, and
(3) provide “lease to own” terms when credit or collateral is
insufficient to meet more traditional underwriting. Furthermore,
new programs should seek to address the critical limitations of
current farmland programs for beginning farmers, including allowing
aggregations of multiple co-located sites, financing costs above
FSA limits, and incentivizing other P3 capital wherever possible.
Lastly, land support programs for young and beginning farmers/
ranchers may be best paired with training programs, like
experiential learning mentorships, that help qualify farmer/rancher
readiness to access publicly financed land. More research is needed
into the best practices for designing land access programs for
young and beginning farmers in order to ensure that public
resources are utilized responsibly and to address any potential
tradeoffs, given the scale and viability of operations.
21 |
RECOMMENDATION 4: NEW GRANT/LOAN PROGRAMS FOR BEGINNING FARMERS
SHOULD ADDRESS GAPS FROM FSA RULES AND LEVERAGE FLEXIBLE FINANCING,
LIKE REVENUE-BASED FINANCING WITH “PAY AS YOU EARN” REPAYMENT
MECHANISMS
Colorado should (1) continue to learn from the limits of the
beginning farmer tax deduction and (2) explore the potential of
beginning farmer tax credit programs in Colorado.
RECOMMENDATION 5: EXPLORE TAX CREDIT PROGRAMS TO BENEFIT BEGINNING
FARMERS
B. DATA LIMITATIONS
Due to the lack of high quality, relevant, and timely information
about agricultural lands and water, local and state policy makers
are limited in their ability to proactively conserve the highest
value agricultural lands in Colorado. Maps of “farmlands of
national importance”and “farmlands of statewide importance” are
available along with maps from the American Farmland Trust that
retroactively identify high quality lands that have been lost to
development. However, existing mapping tools must integrate
important information on high quality agricultural land, water
resources, and crop/market opportunities. Enhanced mapping tools
would support proactive prioritization of agricultural lands for
conservation.
RECOMMENDATION 6: ENHANCE COMPREHENSIVE LAND AND WATER MAPPING
TOOLS THAT INTEGRATE INFORMATION ON HIGH QUALITY AGRICULTURAL LAND,
WATER RESOURCES, AND CROP/MARKET OPPORTUNITIES WOULD BE ESSENTIAL
FOR PROACTIVELY PRIORITIZING AGRICULTURAL LAND FOR
CONSERVATION.
Additionally, local and state policy makers are limited in their
ability to design optimal programs to support beginning farmers due
to the lack of information about beginning farmer needs. No
Colorado specific data were available to understand the land assets
and needs of beginning farmers, nor was data available about the
prevalence, frequency, geography, cause, and/or “success rates” of
farm succession/transitions.
RECOMMENDATION 7: DEVELOP BEGINNING FARMER LAND ACCESS DATA SET
INCLUDING INFORMATION ABOUT PRESSING NEEDS AS WELL AS THE
PREVALENCE, FREQUENCY, GEOGRAPHY, CAUSE, AND/OR “SUCCESS RATES” OF
FARM SUCCESSION/TRANSITIONS.
Lastly, local and state policy makers are limited in their ability
to proactively intervene to support farms and ranches that may be
experiencing an unwanted, unplanned farm transition due to the lack
of an early monitoring program. An agricultural land transition
early monitoring program would highlight risk indicators that high
value land is under threat and provide sufficient alert time to
mobilize conservation resources and supportive partners (e.g.,
Extension, trade associations, etc.), as well as time to protect
agricultural land and water for Colorado’s future. These innovative
tools would leverage publically available data to map farmland
transition risk using variables like proximity to the path of
development, size of household, age of producer, and regional
economic data. Tools would need to carefully protect the anonymity
of individuals and private businesses, but could help target
critical agricultural regions for enhanced farm support. Through
this program, new, rapidly deployable tools could also be designed
and engaged to help support farms and ranches at risk of an
unwanted transition.
RECOMMENDATION 8: DEVELOP AN AGRICULTURAL LAND TRANSITION
MONITORING PROGRAM THAT HIGHLIGHTS RISK INDICATORS AND PROVIDES
EARLY WARNING SIGN FOR HIGH- VALUE LAND UNDER THREAT
22 |
C. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LIMITATIONS
Recent state plans have begun to turn the tide of integrating
agricultural conservation into state- level, strategic, and
integrative resource plans. For example, the 2020 Colorado
Resiliency Framework207 included “Agriculture & Food” as one of
its six resiliency priority areas and emphasized the importance of
promoting and protecting working lands. However, more opportunities
remain to integrate voluntary and incentive-based tools to conserve
agricultural lands and water within comprehensive plans.
RECOMMENDATION 9: INTEGRATE THE CONSERVATION OF PRIME AND
HIGH-PUBLIC VALUE AGRICULTURAL LANDS AND WATER AS A GOAL INTO
STATE, REGIONAL AND LOCAL COMPREHENSIVE PLANS.
For example, the Colorado Water Plan Update represents a critical
opportunity to deepen integrated resource planning for the future
of water and agriculture in Colorado. Given (1) that the Colorado
Water Plan identifies that 450,000 irrigated acres might come out
of production, and (2) the unique importance of irrigated
agriculture land to socio-economic outcomes, it is essential to
develop cross-cutting land and water conservation strategies. It is
also essential to target additional state financial support for
these innovative approaches to land and water conservation.
Colorado is also missing a comprehensive statewide agricultural
plan to integrate land and water conservation with a
forward-looking perspective on natural resources, value chains and
market development.
RECOMMENDATION 10: PROACTIVELY PRIORITIZING AGRICULTURAL LAND FOR
CONSERVATION IN A COMPREHENSIVE STATEWIDE AGRICULTURAL PLAN THAT
INTEGRATES LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION WITH A FORWARD LOOKING
PERSPECTIVE ON NATURAL RESOURCES, VALUE CHAINS, AND
MARKET DEVELOPMENT.
Similarly, local and regional plans lack mechanisms for
landscape-scale strategic coordination. As no clear entity has
developed a shared framework to prioritize conservation of
agricultural working land, many county and municipal efforts are
creating a disjointed approach. Based on research from the
University of Kentucky,208 as well as work in Humboldt County,
CA209 and East Park County, WY210, the NRCS “Land Evaluation and
Site Assessment” (LESA) model211 has emerged as a potentially
beneficial tool for counties, municipalities and land trusts.
RECOMMENDATION 11: DEVELOP MECHANISMS FOR REGIONALLY COORDINATED
AGRICULTURAL LAND CONSERVATION ALIGNED WITH THE STATE AGRICULTURAL
LAND CONSERVATION PLAN.
D. AGRICULTURAL LAND OWNERSHIP AND SUCCESSION LIMITATIONS
Unlike several states, Colorado does not have strong restrictions
on farmland transfers, not incentives for succession/transition
planning.
Nine other states, including South Dakota, North Dakota, Oklahoma,
Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Nebraska, Missouri, and Kansas have
sought to protect their agricultural lands through statutes (or,
less commonly, through constitutional amendments) that restrict who
can own and control land that is used or usable for agricultural
production.212 While these laws can be useful in limiting certain
types of foreign and corporate ownership, more research is needed
to assess the comprehensive impact, and unintended consequences, of
these measures, as well as to understand its potential implications
for Colorado.
RECOMMENDATION 12: EXPLORE REGULATIONS THAT RESTRICT CERTAIN TYPES
OF CORPORATE OWNERSHIP AND CONTROL OF AGRICULTURAL LANDS
23 |
Alternatively, 17 states213 (including Alabama, Arkansas,
Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Mississippi,
Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, South Carolina,
Texas, and Virginia) have implemented protections to limit
unnecessary partition of heirs property sales.214 By increasing due
process protections for all heirs of agricultural land owners,
states are able to help prevent the further unnecessary division of
viable agricultural lands. In an era where many farms need to add
acreage to remain viable, forced sales and partitions can be
uniquely harmful to farmers, including beginning farmers and
ranchers.
RECOMMENDATION 13: EXPLORE NEW LAWS THAT LIMIT UNNECESSARY
PARTITION OF HEIRS PROPERTY SALES
Lastly, the state could pursue new succession/ transition planning
incentives, including providing free and reduced-cost legal counsel
for retiring farmers, families developing transition plans, and
beginning farmers navigating land leases and land purchases.
Recommendation 14: Provide free and reduced- cost legal counsel and
financial planning for retiring farmers, families developing
transition plans, and beginning farmers navigating land leases and
land purchases.
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Expand the flexibility of public conservation dollars to be
quickly deployable
2. Require agricultural conservation easements on agricultural land
purchased with public funds.
3. Facilitate market-driven approaches to farmland conservation by
innovating public/private partnership models that retain local
control of farmland (e.g investment grade Agriculture Land
Preservation Cooperatives)
4. New grant/loan programs for beginning farmers should address
gaps from FSA rules and
leverage flexible financing like revenue-based financing with “pay
as you earn” repayment mechanisms
5. Explore tax credit programs to benefit beginning farmers
6. Enhancing comprehensive land and water mapping tools that
integrate information on high quality agricultural land, water
resources, and crop/market opportunities is essential for
proactively prioritizing agricultural land for conservation.
7. Develop a beginning farmer land access data set including
information about pressing needs, as well as about the prevalence,
frequency, geography, cause, and/or “success rates” of farm
succession/transitions.
8. Develop an agricultural land transition monitoring program that
highlights risk indicators and provides early warning sign for high
value land under threat
9. Integrate the conservation of prime and high-public value
agricultural lands and water as a goal into state, regional and
local comprehensive plans.
10. Proactively prioritize agricultural land for conservation in a
comprehensive statewide agricultural plan that integrates land and
water conservation, with a forward-looking perspective on natural
resources, value chains, and market development.
11. Develop mechanisms for regionally-coordinated agricultural land
conservation efforts that are aligned with the state agricultural
land conservation plan.
12. Explore regulations that restrict certain types of corporate
ownership and control of agricultural lands
13. Explore new laws that limit unnecessary partition of heirs’
agricultural property sales
24 |
14. Provide free and reduced-cost legal counsel and financial
planning for retiring farmers, families developing transition
plans, and beginning farmers navigating land leases and land
purchases.
NEXT STEPS
Moving forward, Colorado should urgently prioritize developing the
data and comprehensive planning infrastructure needed to align
efforts on conserving the most important agricultural land and
water resources for Colorado’s future.
Colorado should also accelerate its efforts to slow down
development in the clusters of the best farmlands in the state by
(1) increasing public funding and (2) continuing to explore best
practices that leverage public-private partnerships and innovative
financing vehicles to bring more capital into the conservation of
Colorado agricultural
lands and water. These efforts should also operate alongside
efforts to conserve local control and to create opportunities for
beginning farmers and ranchers.
RECOMMENDED CITATION
Blake Angelo, Ida Cossitt-Glesner, Alex Funk, Andrew Seidl, and
Greg Thomason. Preserving Agricultural Lands for Colorado’s Future.
Colorado Food Systems Advisory Council Issue Brief. TBD 2021.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
COFSAC would also like to thank the generous support and feedback
provided by Micah Schwalb, Dawn Thilmany, Jeff Tranel, Martha
Sullins, Adrian Card, Kevin Jablonski, Terry Fankhauser, Travis
Rollins, Callie Hendrickson, Brian Coppom, Jennifer Benson, Julie
Moore, Nicole Franklin, and William Woolston.
USDA Forest Service Bureau of Land Management Total Federally Owned
Land
Total US Acres 192,919,130 acres 244,391,312 acres 615,311,596
acres
Total CO Acres 14,487,064 acres 8,352,437 acres 24,100,247
acres
% of Total Acres in CO 21.79% 12.56% 36.2%
Table 1: Federal Land Ownership in Colorado215
TABLES 1-3
Direct Ownership $ 18,433,925 (n= 89 farms)
$ 14,997,040 (n=72 farms)
$ 14,324,850 (n=70 farms)
$ 18,857,710 (n=59 farms)
$ 66,613,525 (n=290 farms)
$ 7,326,568 (n=22 farms)
$ 19,486,540 (n=83 farms)
$ 21,651,418 (n=92 farms)
$ 28,265,290 (n=77 farms)
$ 95,571,774 (n=361 farms)
Table 2: FSA Beginning Farmer Loan Program Totals for
Colorado
25 |
Acres Acres Conserved by Both
Programs*
Woody Wetland 15,336 26,239 41,575
Deciduous Forest 66,093 110,647 176,740
Evergreen Forest 68,587 233,214 301,801
Mixed Forest 4,244 9,280 13,523
Scrub/Shrub 206,937 264,981 471,918
Grassland/Herbaceous 370,725 471,345 842,070
11,025 12,894 23,918
Agriculture 68,640 102,943 171,583
Total Acres Conserved 826,515 1,254,525 2,081,040
Table 3: Acres of Each Ecosystem Type Conserved by GOCO and the
Conservation Easement Tax Credit Program
*We developed our inclusion criteria to prevent double counting of
acres. Therefore, acres included in the GOCO summaries would not
also be in- cluded in the Colorado State Tax Credit program
summaries even if the donated portion of a GOCO supported project
qualified for a tax credit.
Source: INVESTING IN COLORADO: Colorado’s Return on Investments in
Conservation Easements: Conservation Easement Tax Credit Program
and
Great Outdoors Colorado216
5 U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resources Conservation
Service. (October, 2020). 2017 National Resources Inventory:
Colorado Land Use. Available at:
https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/NRCS_RCA/
reports/nri_co.html
6 American Farmland Trust. (2020). THE STATE OF THE STATES
Agricultural Land Conversion Highlight Summary Colorado. Available
at:
https://storage.googleapis.com/csp-fut.appspot.com/reports/spatial/
Colorado_spatial.pdf
7 Id.
8 “The Colorado Ownership, Management and Protection (COMaP)
service delivers the state’s premier map of protected lands. COMaP
features over 28,000 entries of protected lands parcels from over
300 different data sources, each of which contains a suite of
attributes such as owner, manager, easement holder, public access,
and more. Since its inception in 2004 at Colorado State University,
COMaP has become the go-to resource for land managers, land owners,
and the conservation community”. Available at:
https://comap.cnhp.colostate.edu/
9 Seidl, A., Anderson, D., Bennett, D., Greenwell, A., and M.
Menefee. 2017. Colorado’s return on investments in conservation
ease- ments: Conservation Easement Tax Credit program and Great
Outdoors Colorado. Colorado State University, Fort Collins,
Colorado. Available at:
http://www.cnhp.colostate.edu/download/documents/2017/
ColoradoStateU_CE-ROI-study_web.pdf
10 Seidl, A., Anderson, D., Bennett, D., Greenwell, A., and M.
Menefee. 2017. Colorado’s return on investments in conservation
ease- ments: Conservation Easement Tax Credit program and Great
Outdoors Colorado. Colorado State University, Fort Collins,
Colorado. Available at:
http://www.cnhp.colostate.edu/download/documents/2017/
ColoradoStateU_CE-ROI-study_web.pdf
11 NRCS - https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/NRCS_RCA/reports/
nri_co.html
12 https://comap.cnhp.colostate.edu/comap/
13 Technical Update to the Colorado Water Plan (2019). Available
at:
https://cwcb.colorado.gov/colorado-water-plan/technical-update-to-
the-plan.
14 https://dnr.colorado.gov/anti-speculation-law-work-group
16 Id.
17 Id. Author calculations.
18 USDA NASS. (2020). Land Values 2020 Summary. Available at:
https://www.nass. usda.gov/Publications/Todays_Reports/
reports/land0820.pdf
19 Id. Author calculations.
22 Sophie Ackoff, Andrew Bahrenburg, Lindsey Lusher Shute. (2017).
Building a Future with Farmers: Results and Recommendations from
the National Young Farmer Survey. National Young Farmers Coalition.
Available at: https://www.youngfarmers.org/resource/building-a-
future-with-farmers-ii/
23 United States Department of Agriculture National Agricultural
Statistics Service. (2014). Beginning Farmers Characteristics of
Farmers by Years on Current Farm. Accessible at: https://www.nass.
usda.gov/Publications/Highlights/2014/Beginning_Farmers/index.
php#:~:text=In%202012%2C%20the%20United%20States,the%202.1%20
million%20U.S.%20farms (Table 4 highlights that Beginning Farmers
are 15% of total ag sales but 22% of direct sales (almost 50%
higher) and therefore relatively more focused on those
channels)
24 Jeffrey K. O’Hara* and Jeffrey Lin. (2020). Population Density
and Local Food Market Channels Applied Economic Perspectives and
Policy, volume 42, number 3, pp. 477–496.
doi:10.1093/aepp/ppy040
25 O’Hara, J.K., and S.A. Low. 2016. The Influence of Metropolitan
Statistical Areas on Direct-to-Consumer Agricultural Sales of Local
Food in the Northeast. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review
45 (3): 539–62.
26 https://newfarmers.usda.gov/usda-work-issue
28 Daniel Bigelow, Allison Borchers, and Todd Hubbs. (2016). U.S.
Farmland Ownership, Tenure, and Transfer. USDA ERS. Available at:
https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/74672/eib-161.
pdf?v=7196.3
29 Horst, Megan & Marion, Amy. (2019). Racial, ethnic and
gender inequities in farmland ownership and farming in the U.S..
Agriculture and Human Values. 36. 10.1007/s10460-018-9883-3.
30 Agricultural Resource Management Survey (ARMS). https://www.ers.
usda.gov/data-products/arms-farm-financial-and-crop-production-
practices/
31 Colorado State Demography Office. (Jan 29, 2020). Crosstabs - A
Closer Look at the Economics & Demographics of Colorado:
Highlights from the 2017 Census of Agriculture. Available at:
https://demography.
dola.colorado.gov/crosstabs/Census%20of%20Agriculture%20
2017/#:~:text=Considering%20that%20rural%20Colorado%20
tends,over%20the%20age%20of%2065.
32 April 23, 2021 email communications with Mark Gallegos and
Jennifer Benson, Colorado Department of Agriculture.
33 https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42346.pdf with author
calculations
34 https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42346.pdf
35 https://www.blm.gov/sites/blm.gov/files/documents/files/BLM_
CO_COSO_FY18_EconomicRackCard.pdf
36 https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS21232.pdf
37 https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS21232.pdf
38 Public Land Statistics 2019. (June 2020). U.S. Department of the
Interior Bureau of Land Management
39 https://www.fs.fed.us/rangeland-management/documents/
grazing-stats/2010s/GrazingStatisticalSummaryFY2016.pdf
40 The National Agricultural Law Center. Agricultural Leases: An
Overview. Accessible at: https://nationalaglawcenter.org/overview/
agleases/
41 National Wildlife Federation. (2016). Public Land: Improving
Environmental Performance on Agricultural Leases. Accessed at:
https://www.nwf.org/~/media/PDFs/Misc/Public-Lands_LOW%20
RES-080216.ashx
42 Seidl, A., Swartzentruber, R., & Hill, R., Colorado State
University. (July 2018). Estimated Economic Impact of Federal
Agricultural Conservation Easement Programs (ACEP) on Colorado
2009-2017. Accessible at:
https://cowestlandtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/
csu307173-RuralLandResearch-bk-www-1.pdf
43 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation
Service. (2021). Agricultural Conservation Easement Program (ACEP).
Accessed at: https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/
national/programs/easements/acep/
44 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation
Service. (2021). Agricultural Conservation Easement Program (ACEP).
Accessed at: https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/
national/programs/easements/acep/
45 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation
Service. (2021). Agricultural Conservation Easement Program (ACEP).
Accessed at: https://www