HOW TO KEEP LAND IN HOW TO KEEP LAND IN AGRICULTUREAGRICULTURE

If That’s Your Goal If That’s Your Goal

Lawrence W. LibbyLawrence W. LibbyC. William Swank Professor of Rural-Urban PolicyC. William Swank Professor of Rural-Urban Policy

The Ohio State University The Ohio State University

THE ALABAMA PICTURETHE ALABAMA PICTURE

Land use changeLand use change

PolicyPolicy

STATE RANKINGS BY ACREAGE AND RATE OF NON-FEDERAL

LAND DEVELOPED

1992-1997 State 1992-1997 1992-1997 1982-1992 1982-1992 1982-1992

Rank   Change in Total Average Annual Rank Change in Total Average Annual

   Land

Developed Conversion Rate   Land Developed Conversion Rate

    (1000 Acres) (1000 Acres/Year)   (1000 Acres) (1000 Acres/Year)

1 Texas 893.5 178.7 1 1387.0 138.7

2 Georgia 851.9 170.4 5 738.4 73.8

3 Florida 825.2 165.0 2 1088.2 108.8

4 California 553.4 110.7 4 764.7 76.5

5 Pennsylvania 545.1 109.0 6 619.3 61.9

6 North Carolina 506.6 101.3 3 933.1 93.3

7 Tennessee 401.9 80.4 7 464.0 46.4

8 Ohio 364.8 73.0 8 463.7 46.4

9 Michigan 364.1 72.8 9 456.1 45.6

10 South Carolina 362.0 72.4 11 386.4 38.6

11 Virginia 343.5 68.7 10 441.0 44.1

12 New York 317.6 63.5 24 230.2 23.0

13 Alabama 315.3 63.1 13 320.4 32.0

14 Illinois 246.5 49.3 19 245.8 24.6

15 Washington 240.8 48.2 17 287.0 28.7

16 Kentucky 237.1 47.4 12 355.1 35.5

17 Minnesota 231.8 46.4 21 233.8 23.4

18 Missouri 224.2 44.8 25 209.3 20.9

19 New Mexico 217.2 43.4 28 154.5 15.5

20 New Jersey 213.6 42.7 15 299.1 29.9

21 Massachusetts 211.8 42.4 22 233.4 23.3

22 Mississippi 206.4 41.3 29 147.4 14.7

23 Indiana 195.3 39.1 23 230.3 23.0

24 Wisconsin 188.2 37.6 20 240.5 24.1

25 Maryland 177.6 35.5 31 145.1 14.5

26 West Virginia 176.8 35.4 34 112.9 11.3

27 Oklahoma 176.7 35.3 27 156.1 15.6

28 Arkansas 168.9 33.8 37 96.8 9.7

29 Louisiana 133.6 26.7 18 256.3 25.6

30 Arizona 113.8 22.8 16 289.0 28.9

31 Colorado 112.5 22.5 14 302.7 30.3

32 Puerto Rico 112.4 22.5 33 120.7 12.1

33 Maine 111.1 22.2 38 91.4 9.1

34 Oregon 103.9 20.8 26 162.8 16.3

35 Kansas 96.5 19.3 32 124.9 12.5

36 Idaho 91.9 18.4 35 112.8 11.3

37 Utah 81.3 16.3 36 110.2 11.0

38 Montana 76.3 15.3 41 77.4 7.7

39 Iowa 69.1 13.8 45 50.8 5.1

40 New Hampshire 62.6 12.5 30 147.0 14.7

41 South Dakota 57.8 11.6 42 64.5 6.5

42 Nebraska 55.1 11.0 46 39.3 3.9

43 Connecticut 39.4 7.9 39 83.9 8.4

44 Wyoming 34.4 6.9 44 59.4 5.9

45 North Dakota 32.8 6.6 49 24.8 2.5

46 Nevada 26.7 5.3 40 82.5 8.3

47 Delaware 23.1 4.6 47 35.4 3.5

48 Vermont 11.5 2.3 43 63.3 6.3

49 Hawaii 6.8 1.4 50 23.7 2.4

50 Rhode Island 6.6 1.3 48 26.5 2.7

  Nation 11217.0 2243.4   13788.9 1378.9

Source: 1997 National Resources Inventory, revised December 2000.

Data for Alaska are not yet available.

WhyWhy Keep Land in Farms? Keep Land in Farms?

Not trivial – has to be a caseNot trivial – has to be a case NotNot food scarcity, but long term food food scarcity, but long term food

securitysecurity Economic importance of agriculture, Economic importance of agriculture,

high secondary economic impactshigh secondary economic impacts Avoid fragmentation of farmlandAvoid fragmentation of farmland Avoid linear development – costs moreAvoid linear development – costs more

More on the More on the WhyWhy

Agriculture and character of rural Agriculture and character of rural AlabamaAlabama

Ecological services – groundwater Ecological services – groundwater recharge, nutrient recyclerecharge, nutrient recycle

Amenity services – landscape, Amenity services – landscape, habitat habitat

Current Policy in AlabamaCurrent Policy in Alabama

Deferred tax on farmlandDeferred tax on farmland Right to farmRight to farm Planning effort for Farmland Protection Planning effort for Farmland Protection

Program under 2002 Farm BillProgram under 2002 Farm Bill Private land trustsPrivate land trusts Conservation easement enabling law Conservation easement enabling law

(97), includes ag, 30 years is default (97), includes ag, 30 years is default or change in ownershipor change in ownership

HOWHOW TO KEEP LAND IN TO KEEP LAND IN FARMSFARMS

State policy position on farmland State policy position on farmland retentionretention Can acknowledge, support local actionCan acknowledge, support local action Try a Governor’s Farmland CommissionTry a Governor’s Farmland Commission

Broadly representativeBroadly representative Land use changes, pressuresLand use changes, pressures Unintended impacts of existing lawUnintended impacts of existing law What makes sense for Alabama?What makes sense for Alabama?

HOWHOW -- continued -- continued

County or other local actionCounty or other local action Farmland committees to describe Farmland committees to describe

present, chart future, eg. Population present, chart future, eg. Population change in rural areaschange in rural areas

Establish network of county farmland Establish network of county farmland committees, informed constituencycommittees, informed constituency

Figure 3: Population of Ohio Townships, Villages and Cities 1960-2000

0.75

2.62

3.64 3.58

2.71

3.17

0.82

3.58

3.04

3.30

0.85

3.15

3.493.36

0.84

3.04

3.62

0.86

2.99

3.86

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

Village Small Cities* Large Cities* Townships

Popu

latio

n (in

Mill

ions

)

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 Year:

Change 1960-2000:+11.4%

Change 1960-2000:+33.2%

Change 1960-2000:-15.2%

Change 1960-2000:+27.9%

*Small Cities categorized as cities with population less than 50,000, Large cities contain population greater than 50,000

Note: Classification of small city and large city based on 2000 population levels, classification of villages based on 2000 political classification.

How How – Policy Change– Policy Change

Incentive-based, keep land in farmsIncentive-based, keep land in farms Enable purchase of farmland easementsEnable purchase of farmland easements

Scoring system will reflect prioritiesScoring system will reflect priorities AppraisalAppraisal

Land-Link program to help young farmersLand-Link program to help young farmers Try “transfer of development rights”Try “transfer of development rights”

Development right mitigation areaDevelopment right mitigation area Higher density in return for open landHigher density in return for open land

Cultivate urban interest in farmsCultivate urban interest in farms Farmers markets, agri-tourism, compost, access for Farmers markets, agri-tourism, compost, access for

hunting, etc.hunting, etc.

CONCLUSIONSCONCLUSIONS

Urban people value farms and farmland, Urban people value farms and farmland, need to be remindedneed to be reminded

Find ways for farmer to capture these Find ways for farmer to capture these additional benefitsadditional benefits

Local action, with state level endorsementLocal action, with state level endorsement Policy change is incremental, don’t expect Policy change is incremental, don’t expect

or seek big changesor seek big changes Only Only acceptableacceptable policy is good policy in policy is good policy in

AlabamaAlabama

Larry LibbyLarry Libby

C. William Swank Professor of Rural-Urban PolicyC. William Swank Professor of Rural-Urban PolicyThe Ohio State UniversityThe Ohio State University

614-688-4907 (P)614-688-4907 (P)614-688-3622 (F)614-688-3622 (F)Libby.7@osu.eduLibby.7@osu.eduhttp://aede.osu.edu/programs/Swank/http://aede.osu.edu/programs/Swank/