A Mitigation Strategy for Agricultural Land Loss

Agricultural land loss is a growing problem in this country and across the globe as our world population increases. The ironic thing about agricultural land loss is that the land is going away because of a growing population that will require more agricultural products to sustain it. The causes of agricultural land loss are often rooted in the growth strategies of urban areas and are facilitated by politics and economics. The mitigation strategy for the problem can be found in the same places.

As urban areas worldwide continue to grow, the population centers spread to the surrounding rural and suburban areas. This puts pressure on farmers to give up their croplands and fields so that houses in subdivisions can be 'grown'. Many farmers give in to the economic pressures when they realize that the land that they are farming can provide them with substantial cash and they would no longer be engaged in a practice that is at the mercy of weather conditions and economic conditions.

Urban sprawl is a derogatory term that is used to describe the low density populations on the outskirts of cities. The loss of agricultural land to urban sprawl often means an increase in environmental problems such as air quality, transportation problems, loss of critical habitat and green space, and a degradation of water quality. The water quality problem is typically the result of nonpoint source pollution that has diverse sources. The increased runoff from impervious surfaces such as streets, sidewalks, and roofs, can carry with it the pollutants that are found in an urban environment, including petroleum products and harmful chemicals and toxins.

To give an idea of the magnitude of the problem of agricultural land loss in the United States, the Department of Agriculture publishes a census every 5 years. According to the 2007 Census, the United States lost approximately 16 million acres between 2002 and 2007 and another 16 million acres between 1997 and 2002. This averages out to more than 3.2 million acres per year of agricultural land that is lost (USDA, 2009). However, the loss of agricultural land is a global problem. In China between the years 1987 and 1992, urban expansion was to blame for the loss of about 2.5 million acres of agricultural land (Hinrichsen, 1997).

Another reason that agricultural land is lost is because of soil degradation. Soil degradation is the loss of a soil's natural fertility. As this occurs, the productivity of the land decreases without the added use of fertilizers and other chemicals. The International Food Policy Research Institute published a study in 2000 that stated that approximately 40% of the world's agricultural land is suffering from soil degradation. In addition to being more difficult to find new productive agricultural land, there is often more competition for water resources in areas where new agriculture could be established.

Areas such as Fresno County in California have been able to quantify the loss of agricultural land problem in terms of lost production value. In a report by the Southeast Growth Area (2008), more than 130,000 acres of agricultural land is expected to be lost by the year 2040. This represents a total loss in production value of more than $3.9 billion. Implementing plans for future smart growth and population planning is believed to be able to preserve about 9,300 acres of agricultural land.

The loss of agricultural lands has effects that extend beyond production levels. Regionally, farmers rely on other industries such as those that provide fuel, herbicides, insecticides, fertilizers, vehicles, farm equipments, and irrigation equipment. This can have economic impacts on the local and regional levels.

In order to mitigate for the problems associated with agricultural land loss, a sustainability plan is needed. Part of the sustainability plan can be implemented on a local or state level, while other parts of the plan would need to be addressed at a federal level. One of the first tasks that would need to be addressed in a sustainability and mitigation plan for the loss of agricultural land is to quantify the problem. The United States Department of Agriculture is already doing this in part with their census reports every five years, but more can be done with the use of GIS and other technology tools to identify specific areas of concern.

British Columbia, Canada, was one of the first areas to develop a plan with the intent of protecting agricultural lands. As early as the 1970's, they implemented a program called the Agricultural Land Reserve. Based on the idea that once agricultural land is lost, it cannot be restored, the legislation that implemented the Land Reserve set aside land with the specific purpose of using it for agriculture. One of the major criticisms of this legislation is that the land set aside is located mainly in the northern part of the province which is inferior to the southern part in terms of productivity (David Suzuki Foundation, 2007).

Another possibility for a portion of a sustainability and mitigation plan is to establish a mitigation bank for agricultural lands. With a mitigation bank, any developer who wants to change the land use of a parcel from agriculture to some other use type would need to pay to replace the agricultural land. Some ratio would be established to serve as a guideline on the amount of land to be purchased based on the amount of agricultural land taken out of commission. Federal and state guidelines currently exist for the use of mitigation banks when wetlands and other critical habitats are destroyed. With the mitigation bank, land is set aside for preservation of a certain use type and developers are allowed to pay a mitigation fee and purchase some portion of the preserved land to mitigate for agricultural land that has been developed.

There are several benefits to establishing an agricultural land mitigation bank. One of the most important is that it shifts the financial responsibility from the government sector to the private sector. Because of the fees involved, developers may change their plans and choose to develop land that has the fewest impacts possible. In 2003, the City of Davis, California, changed its Agricultural Land Mitigation Plan so that the required ratio for mitigation was increased from 1:1 to 2:1. This change means that for every one acre of agricultural land that is lost due to development, two acres of preserved land can be purchased in its place.

In addition, Davis had passed local ordinances like the "Right to Farm and Farmland Protection" that designates where mitigation land should be located. This ordinance puts the mitigation land on the fringes of the urban area and ensures that it will be protected from further urban expansion. The city has also passed protection measures for conservation easements and deed restrictions that prevent agricultural land from ever being developed (2009).

States such as Massachusetts have also passed legislation that is designed to protect agricultural land. An Executive Order signed by the Governor in 1981 stated that no state funds could be used that would lead to the development of agricultural land if there were other, non-agricultural sites available. Despite the state's efforts, more than 57,000 acres of agricultural land was lost between the years of 1985 and 1999 (Breunig, 2003).

Wisconsin has implemented its own sustainability plan that incorporates economic incentives for the preservation of agricultural land. The state has implemented programs such as the Purchase of Development Rights, the Wisconsin Future Harvest Program, and the Wisconsin Working Lands Zones, in an effort to protect land from permanent loss. The Purchase of Development Rights is a grant program that provides matching funds to purchase and preserve agricultural land that is at risk from development. The Wisconsin Future Harvest Program is designed to target farmers who are relatively new to farming in the state. If the farmers keep farming the land, they are provided with capital improvement assistance as well as assistance from other state funding agencies, and discounts on their crop insurance. Other tax credits are also available to farmers as a means to encourage farmers to preserve their cropland (State of Wisconsin, 2008).

Other entities such as the North Carolina Association of Black Lawyers have developed programs to assist farmers and to curtail the loss of agricultural lands. The Land Loss Prevention Project was founded in 1982 to provide assistance and legal support to farmers and land owners in the state of North Carolina who might otherwise not have the resources to address sustainable agriculture on their own. A main component of the program is to provide education to the land owners regarding and loss. Small farmers tend to be at greatest risk to the pressures from development and this program specifically targets the small farmer (Land Loss Prevention, 2009).

A sustainability plan for agricultural land loss needs to start with data collection. While the United States Department of Agriculture has a census that collects data every five years, it could be enhanced with GIS and other technology to identify those areas of the country that are at greatest risk for the loss of agricultural lands. At the state and local levels, incentives can be provided to farmers to encourage them to keep farming and to reduce the urge to sell the land to developers. In addition, educational programs can be put into place that would allow farmers to address the problems associated with the degradation of soils. Preservation, conservation easements, and mitigation banks can all provide a means for the government to preserve the lands as they exist today or to replace the land that has been or will be lost to development. In terms of urban growth, local governments can place restrictions on the type of development that is allowed to occur in the rural fringes of the urban center. Smart growth can not only protect the agricultural lands, but can also address issues such as urban runoff, water quality degradation, air pollution, and transportation problems.

Given the potential impact to global food supplies, federal governments must also give the problem of agricultural land loss a higher priority in order to ensure that the food supplies for a growing population are not put into jeopardy. A great deal of effort as well as funding is placed on other natural resource problems, but the issue of agricultural land loss deserves to be addressed at a higher level given its potential negative impacts.

References

Breunig, K., 2003. Losing Ground: At What Cost? Retrieved September 22, 2009, from

http://www.massaudubon.org/PDF/advocacy/losingground/LosingGround_1.pdf

City of Davis, California, 2003. Staff Report. Retrieved September 23, 2009, from

http://www.city.davis.ca.us/meetings/councilpackets/20030804/04_Agricultural_Land_Mitigation_Requirement.pdf

Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 1981. Executive Order 193. Retrieved September 23,

2009, from http://www.lawlib.state.ma.us/ExecOrders/eo193.txt

David Suzuki Foundation, 2008. Protecting Farmland and Local Food: Agricultural Land

Reserve. Retrieved September 22, 2009,

from http://www.davidsuzuki.org/Economy/Sustainability/alr_report.asp

Land Loss Prevention Project, 2009. Retrieved September 23, 2009 from

http://www.landloss.org/

Southeast Growth Area, 2008. Can We Preserve Agricultural Land? Retrieved

September 23, 2009, from http://www.fresno.gov/NR/rdonlyres/DB41F259-98AF-4D40-9E15-064BCAE2E189/9868/10June2008AGRegionalAgricultureIssues.pdf

United States Department of Agriculture, 2009. 2007 Census Publications. The Census

of Agriculture. Retrieved September 23, 2009, from

http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/Full_Report/index.asp

State of Wisconsin, 2008. Working Lands. Retrieved September 23, 2009, from

http://datcp.state.wi.us/workinglands/