3.2ONGRESS|ONAL RESEARCH SERVICE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS \\umTI|°ii[1in flu T O-1038‘ 'ijuj:I1ijjiI‘i\iII\\In\ FARHLAND PROTECTION LEGISLATION ISSUE BRIEF NUMBER IB78013 AUTHOR: Zinn , Jefirey Environnent and Natural Resources Policy Division THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CONGRESSIONAL REEARCH SERVICE MAJOR ISSUES SYSTEM DA'IE ORIGINATED gzggggzg DATE UPDATED gutgzggg FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION CALL 287-5700 0408 ans. 1 1373013 UPDATE-O14/07/80 T§$E..Q§§ll7.I.IlQ. The conversion of cropland into housing subdivisions, water reservoirs, highways, and other land uses that preenpt agriculture has become the subject of increasing debate at all levels of government. Between 1967 and 1975, . according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Soil Conservation service (SCS} , such uses consumed a total of about 2&1 million acres of rural land (a land area about the size of the State of Indiana) —- about half of which was _ either cropland or high-quality rural land that‘ could be turned into‘, productive cropland with relatively little investment- During the 1950s and 19605 -- an era of recurrent and predictable crop surpluses when the government regularly paid farmers not to plant part of their land - few people considered cropland conversion to be an important agricultural problem. During the mid-1970s, however, American farmers braxght most available acreage back into production in response to escalating world demand for 13.5". food and a temporary suspension of federal farmland set-aside programs. Since 1976, bumper crops and surpluses have again occurred, but concern about farmland conversion has continued to mount. some feel ‘ that continued conversion of cropland to other uses, when combined with soil erosion and V other factors affecting the quality of farmland could hinder the achievement of 11.5. agricultural production goals over the long run. This view is discounted by others who feel that advances in agricultural technology can offset production losses resulting from cropland conversion. Still others ‘eel that the situation needs to be more closely monitored and studied before changes in federal policies are adopted to deal with the problem on a national level. The new urbanagrowth policy, announced in 1978, has been designed to reduce conversion of agricultural lands in the urban fringe, as one result of focusing Federal assistance to encourage redevelopment in >7 downtown portions of urban areas. Legislation addressing this issue has been proposed in the Congress. The F legislaticzz would establish a commission to study agricultural land conversion and to make recommendations for possible modification of federal policies. The legislation would also set up a demonstration program to finance innovative state and local efforts to protect farmland. Finally, the legislation would require Federal agencies to adopt policies that would factor farmland protection concerns into agency decisions affecting farmlands. ' §.AEK;§B.QP.E2.£l.!P..13Q.I;lQI-;l1lA3_aZ§l§ The conversion of farmland to other uses has been a concern of urban planners, who have sought to curb the problems created by the "sprawl" pattern of metropolitan growth that has characterized the American land development process since World War II. This pattern has sometimes involved diseconomic and environmentally damaging "leapfrogging" of new development beyond established communities to cheaper, less controlled farmland at the _ :ban fringe or beyond. The urban growth policy is designed to encourage: Federal programs to foster redevelopment and new development in urbanized aras. Examples of this policy include limiting sewer planning grants for systems in the urban fringe that could lead to greater rural development, greater emphasis on application of EDA section 302 grants to distressed urban CR5‘ 2 IB78013 UPDATE‘-Oil/07/80 areas, and a Department of Transportation policy to encourage improvement of existing highways over new locations. These initiatives are new. It is unclear how Federal agencies will encourage State and local grant recipients to comply with these policies or what penalties might be involved. But while indiscriminate land development has been perceived to be a serious urban growth problem, little thought has been given to the impact of this process on agricultural production until quite recently. In fact, during much of the Post-World war II paiod, the importance of land in the production equation seemed to be diminishing. Between 1950 and 1972 the 13.5. experienced a rapid increase in its agricultural production while actually 9 reducing the amount of land harvested. Despite the fact that the federal government was paying farmers to idle between 37 and 65 million acres per year, surpluses remained a problem. By 1972, total crop production was 1£&9% of the 1950 level, and yields per acre reached an all-time high -- 167% of 1950 levels. Yet, American farmers were planting about 50 million fewer acres than those planted in 1950. A number of factors contributed to this "era of surpluses," but the two most widely mentioned are good weather and widespread application of improvements in agricultural technology {such as increased use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides). Given this context, there appeared to be little basis for national concern about the loss of 7 farmland to development -- particularly since, as often as not, newly irrigated croplands were being added to the farmland base even as other land was lost. ' Since 1972, however, different circumstances have focused attention on the loss of farmland and its possible implications for long-range agricultural . production. Between 1972 and 1975, world demand for 13.5. food drew down the surpluses characteristic of the previous decade, and the federal government emporarily suspended its farmland "set-aside" programs. At the same time, the annual pattern in yields per acre has been less predictable in the 1970s than during the previous two decades, when steady annual growth in yields per acre was the norm. By contrast, in the first half of the 19705, yields per . acre fluctuated greatly from year to year. For example, in 19714, just two years after reaching record levels, productivity per acre barely matched levels reached in 1967. This variability in yields has made forecasting of crop needs (and, hence, cropland needs) more difficult. Since 1975, yields per acre have again climbed -- reaching record proportions in 1978 and contributing to bumper crops in the last three years. The bumper crops also reflect the increased acreage that farmers have planted. Consequently, cropland set asides were reinstituted by the Agriculture Department for 1978. Under the set-aside program, participating farmers agree not to plant part of their land in certain crops. Participation in the set aside is one of the criteria for eligibility both in . USDA's price and income support programs and for crop disaster payments. The recent swings and shifts in yields per acre have led to increasing concern on the part of some agricultural experts about the stability of the agricultural. land resource base. They feel that world demand for 0.5. food is likely to remain high in the years to come and may even increase if less developed countries can find funds to purchase 13.5. food for their growing populations. Since some of these countries are oil-rich, some analysts ’ zlieve that a substantial increase in U.S. food esports is likely. These analysts also fear that environmental and materials supply difficulties could dampen future 0.5. groduction at a time when it is most needed. Some climatologism, for example, believe that we may be entering a CRS- 3 31378013 UPDATE-01$/07/80 peri.od of more variable weather, and that the favorable weather pattern of the 19505 and 1960s may have been abnormal and not likely to recur during the 1980s. Moreover, higher energy costs and stricter pollution controls could also reduce the use of productivity enhancers such as fertilizels and pesticides. At the same time, soil erosion remains a very significant ,roblem. An estimated 5 billion tons of soil is lost to erosion each year. One effort to assess the costs of erosion suggested that farmers would have to spend $28 billion per year to replace essential nutrients lost to erosion, assuming the acreage loss of one-tenth of an inch of top soil per year. Another factor that affects yields is air pollution, which may have a greater impact on crop yields in the years to come. This problem could become especially acute if air pollution standards are eased to facilitate achievement of energy goals. Given this context, considerable interest has been focused on recent findings by the 13.5. Department of Agriculture's soil Conservation Service that the nation has far less reserve land that could be cheaply and easily brought into crop production than had previously been thought. In 1967, the USDA Soil Conservation Service estimated that the nation had about 266 million acres of potential cropland in reserves -- most of it in pasture, range, or forest at the time. However, the SCS greatly reduced its estimate in 1975. on the basis of a partial updating of its 1967 survey SCS concluded that only 111 million acres of reserve land had a high or medium potential for addition to the £100 million acres the agency estimated was already used for cropland. Of this reserve land, 35 million acres could be converted to cropland simply by beginning tillage. The remaining 76 million acres would be difficult and expensive to convert to farmland because of dense forest cover, seasonal high water, high erosion hazard, or other factors. The SCS repcrt also found that more cropland was being converted to other uses than had previously been thought. It found that 24 million acres (about 3 million acres per year for the period 1967-1975) of rural land (not just cropland) had been put to urban use or had been innundated to create reservoirs. of this, about 13 million acres -- more than half -- were in soil capability classes I through III (land with a high or medium value for crop production). The conversion of actively farmed cropland during the period was estimated to be 700,000 acres annually. The reduced estimate of potential cropland coupled with conversion of existing and reserve cropland to other uses has led some to question whether it will be possible to expand the cropland base much beyond the current 400 million acre level. of the land farmers could easily bring into production, much is already being used for pasture, range, or tree farming. Conversion of this land to crops could create additional pressures on other sections of the agricultural and silvicaltural economy. Also, the new cropland is not. likely to be as productive as the land already in production. The national outlook is not necessarily gloomy however. Crop production in 1977 has been estimated to be 125% of that in 1967 and productim per acre is 114% of the 1967 level. Continuing improvements in agricultural technology and new discoveries in basic research could fuel another boom in farm production akin to that which occured during the 1950s and 1960s. If there is increasing concern about our agricultural land the cause of ,.{13.‘t concern is not the capacity of American agriculture to supply domestic food needs. Rather, the concern is that the nation may not be able to respond to burgeoning world demand for U.S. food with export levels that may be desirable to meet national humanitarian, diplomatic, and economic CBS-* 4 T378013 UPDA1'E"’Oli-/07/80 objectives. The United States is the world's largest agricultural exporter, and farm exports have become an increasingly important aspect of American agriculture and the (1.5. balance of trade. For example, in 1976 about one out of every three acres of cropland harvested by American farmers was used 3 grow food for export -- double the acreage used for export production in the 19505 and half aga.in greater than the acres so used during the 1960s. The growth in agricultural exports has also been seen as an important factor in partially offsetting the high costs of importing foreign oil into the United States. In ‘I977, for example, net agricultural exports were $10.6 billion, whereas the nation experienced a $27 billion total trade deficit. Despite the importance of exports in American agriculture, however, it doa not necessarily follow that farmers will frequently plant as much land in crops as they have during the mid-1970s. The great increase in land used for crops since 1972 occurred during a time of world crisis brought on by bad weather and escalating energy costs. Some feel that this period of exceptional world demandand low U.S. reserves should not be used as a yardstick for determining cropland needs, but should be seen as an extreme case that may not be repeated soon. The decision to re-impose the cropland set-aside program for some commodities in 1978 demonstrates how quickly the supply levels can change. Although the national significance of the farmland loss problem is subject to debate, an increasing number of State and local governments have considered the loss of farmland to be a significant enough problem from their own perspective to adopt farmland protection programs. Unlike earlier efforts to simply preserve open space or to curb urban sprawl, most of these programs also focus on protection of farmland for the purpose of keeping land available for farming in addition to attaining aesthetic and environmental bjectives. In fact, a recent survey prepared for the Concil on Environmental Quality showed that only two States, Georgia and nississippi, do not have State programs for preservation of farmland. one of the most publicized of these programs is an initiative effort being taken by Suffolk County on Long Island to purchase development rights for prime farmlands from those farmers who elect to sell those rights. Purchase of the development rights - in effect a form of negative easement -- precludes farmers (or future purchasers of the farmland) from subsequently developing the land for non-farm use. The farmers, however, continue to own the land and may continue to farm it. moreover, the assessment "runs with the land" and is not extinguished with a change in ownership. Because land value is thus permanently reduced, the Suffolk program provides farmers with reduced property taxes based on appraisal of the land for its farm value, not its potential development value. The Suffolk program is a pioneering effort that is also being attempted in other areas -- notably New Jersey and Maryland -—- and is under intense discu$ion elsewhere. other areas are attempting to dal with what has been called the "impermanence syndrome." A rural area that is a likely candidate for development in the relatively distant future -- ten, fifteen, or even twenty years hence -- often begins to lose a favorable environment for farming even- before much land has been converted. As urbanization advances, farmers become increasingly reluctant to invest in improvements. Farm support ndustries may begin to move elsewhere or go out of business. Pockets of leapfrog" development naybegin to occur, thus causing a mixture (and sometimes a clash) of urban and rural land uses. Farmers may find their taxes rising, their crops damaged by trespass, and even their farm animals zoned from the land. In response, New York and some other states have cns- 5 F IB78013 UPDATE-on/o7/so developed or are considering "agricultural district" laws that permit farmers to band together in order to protect themselves from this "impernanence syndrome.“ Farmers in such districts agree not to develop their land for a specified period and thus become eligible for certain benefits such as referential property taxes and other protections designed to mitigate the ..::pact of urbanization on the farmer. Still other localities and Stats are experimenting with land use regulation as a means of protecting farmland. For example, Black Hawk County, Iowa; Pueblo, Colorado; and Marin County, California, restrict farmland development through such techniques as limiting development of prime, farmland or through specialized controls to protect large agricultural districts. Several States -- such as Vermont, Oregon, Florida, and Colorado -- have multipurpose statewide regulation programs that involve varying degrees of control over major land use decisions. The protection of prime food and fiber production lands is a goal of some of these programs. In addition, all thirty coastal states are in the process of developing land use planning programs for their coastal regions, as participants in the Federal Coastal Zone nanagenent Programs. Protection of prime agricultural lands is a goal in many of these State programs. Reacting to proposed legislation and the growing number of State and local programs, the 13.5. Department of Agriculture and the Council on Environmental Quality decided to initiate a study on all aspects of the question. This study, the joint effort of 12 Federal agencies, is designed to improve. definition of the problem and seek solutions.. The Department of Agriculture and the Council on Environmental Quality have listed three purposes of the tudy. (1) determine the nature, rate, extent, and causes of these losses in the land base of American agriculture; * (2) evaluate the ecazomic, environmmtal, and social consequences of these losses: and ~ (3) recommend administrative and legislative actions, if found necessary, to reduce the losses suffered by the nation as a result. A draft report will be circulated for review early next fall. A final report, containing findings and recommendations, will be submitted to the President in January 1987. V In response to these concerns, and to the initiatives being taken at the state and local levels, legislation was proposed in the 95th Congress that ~ relates to the Federal role in the protection of agricultural land resources. This legislation includes H.R. 11122, the proposed Agricultural Land Retention Act, and similar Senate bills, 5. 1616 and S. 2757. No legislation ‘LS enacted. . CRS-’ 6 IB78013 EIPDATE-Oil-/07/80 _ On Mar. 1, 1979, H.E. 2551 was introduced by Representative Jeffords. The purpose of the bill was to establish Federal policy for protection of agricultural land and to establish a demonstration program of methods to prevent land conversions. H.R. 2551 was reported out of subcommittee to the 11.1 House Committee on Agriculture on May 31 as a revised bill. The full House Committee on Agriculture reported out H.R. 2551 on November 16. After considerable floor debate <11 this bill, the House rejected it on Feb. 7, 1980, by a vote of 177-210. The Administration supported rejection at this time, pending recommendations from the National Agricultural Lands Study. On March 27, senator Hagnuson introduced 3. 795, which would establish a Federal policy of assisting state and local governments in efforts to reduce loss of farmland to non-farm uses. With full House rejection of H.R. 2551, no further action is anticipalted on S. 795 in the Senate this session. The Senate hill (5. 795) and House bill (H.R. 2551 revised) contained similar provisions. Title I of the Senate bill defines Federal policy concerning farmland and requires compliance of Federal actions. It proposes that Federal agencies take the lead in protecting the productive capacity of Federal agricultural lands and assist to protect private lands from conversion. This Title states that decisions on proposed Federal actions would include consideration of impacts on the conversion of agricultural land. The House bill did not contain a similar Title. Both bills propose a Farmland Review Study, already initiated by USDA and the Council on Environmental Quality. The Senate bill allows 42 months for the study, while, under the House bill, the study and demonstration projects were to be completed by Apr. 1, 1985. The next Title of both bills enables the Secretary of Agriculture to provide assistance to state and local governments to demonstrate and test methods that will reduce the rate of agricultural land conversion. The senate bill would also allow USDA to develop new methods. The Secretary is required to report findings in 1983. The Senate bill calls for the report to include legislative and administrative recommendations. The Senate bill contains a separate Title describing technical and financial assistance. The House bill incorporated these topics within Title , II. The final Title includes general provisions. The Senate bill would have become effective on Oct. 1, 1979. The Senate bill would appropriate $49.51*! _ over three yearsfor the demonstration projects and such funds as are necessary to provide the necessary technical assistancel of Title IV. The House bill would have authorized $60.51!, to carry out the demonstration program and necessary technical assistance. An additional $3.551! would have been provided to complete the study and report. u.s. Congress. House. Committee on Agriculture. subcommittee on Family Farms, Rural Development, and Special Studies. CRS- 7 IB78013 tmnarr-on/07/30 Agricultural Land Protection Act of 1979. Congress, 1st session, on H.R. 2551. May Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1979. "Serial no . 96 -H" Hearing, 96th 17, 1979. 179 p. 11/16/79 -- House Committee on Agricllture reported H.R. 2551, H.Rept. 96-6514. 11/O8/79 -— House Committee on Agriculture approved H.R. 2551. 07/10/79 —- A subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Agriculture concluded hearings on S. 795. -— Senate Select Committee on Small Business held hearings on the control and reservation of farmland. O6/1t:/79 —-- Secretary of Agriculture and the Chairman of CEQ signed a Memorandum of Agreement to undertake the National Agricultural Lands Study. 05/31/79 -- A House subcommittee of the Committee on Agriculture approved a clean bill. ' O5/17/79 --— A House subcommittee of the Committee on Agriculture held hearings on H.R. 2551. 03/27/79 -- S. 795, Farmland Protection Act. was introduced by Senator Hagnuson. O3/O1/79 -— H.H. 2551, to establish Federal policy for protection of agricultural alnds and to establish demonstrations programs of methods to prevent conversion to other uses, was introduced by Representative Jeffords. é22.1...'3Il.0NA1-.§.1?ZE.E§§. §.13:..§QI.7.1iQ 35 American Land Forum. Land and food —— the preservation of 11.5. Davies, Bob and Joe Belden. Regional Science Research Institute. Soil Conservation Society of America. land. U.S. farmland. Report 1. Washington, 1979. A survey of state programs to preserve farmland. Prepared for the Council on Environmental Quality. April 1979 . Untaxing open space: an evaluation of the effectiveness of differential assessment of farms and open spam. Prepared for the Council on Environmental Quality. April 1976. Retention of agricultural Special publication no. 19. Ankeny, Iowa, 1978. Department of Agriculture. State programs for the differential assessment of farm and open space land. Economic Research Service. Agricultural economics report CRS- 8 IB78013 UPDATE-04/07/80 no. 256. U.S. Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service. Environment and Natural.Resources Policy Division. Agricultural land retention: an analysis of the issue [by] W. Wendell Fletcher. [Washington] 1978. Report no. 78-177 LIBRARY OF WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY gr. LOUFS — MO.