1. HOW TO KEEP LAND IN AGRICULTURE If That’s Your Goal Lawrence W. Libby C. William Swank Professor of Rural-Urban Policy The Ohio State University

2. THE ALABAMA PICTURE Land use change Land use change Policy Policy

5. STATE RANKINGS BY ACREAGE AND RATE OF NON-FEDERAL LAND DEVELOPED 1992-1997State1992-1997 1982-1992 Rank Change in TotalAverage AnnualRankChange in TotalAverage Annual Land DevelopedConversion Rate Land DevelopedConversion Rate (1000 Acres)(1000 Acres/Year) (1000 Acres)(1000 Acres/Year) 1Texas893.5178.711387.0138.7 2Georgia851.9170.45738.473.8 3Florida825.2165.021088.2108.8 4California553.4110.74764.776.5 5Pennsylvania545.1109.06619.361.9 6North Carolina506.6101.33933.193.3 7Tennessee401.980.47464.046.4 8Ohio364.873.08463.746.4 9Michigan364.172.89456.145.6 10South Carolina362.072.411386.438.6 11Virginia343.568.710441.044.1 12New York317.663.524230.223.0 13Alabama315.363.113320.432.0 14Illinois246.549.319245.824.6 15Washington240.848.217287.028.7 16Kentucky237.147.412355.135.5 17Minnesota231.846.421233.823.4 18Missouri224.244.825209.320.9 19New Mexico217.243.428154.515.5 20New Jersey213.642.715299.129.9 21Massachusetts211.842.422233.423.3 22Mississippi206.441.329147.414.7 23Indiana195.339.123230.323.0 24Wisconsin188.237.620240.524.1 25Maryland177.635.531145.114.5 26West Virginia176.835.434112.911.3 27Oklahoma176.735.327156.115.6 28Arkansas168.933.83796.89.7 29Louisiana133.626.718256.325.6 30Arizona113.822.816289.028.9 31Colorado112.522.514302.730.3 32Puerto Rico112.422.533120.712.1 33Maine111.122.23891.49.1 34Oregon103.920.826162.816.3 35Kansas96.519.332124.912.5 36Idaho91.918.435112.811.3 37Utah81.316.336110.211.0 38Montana76.315.34177.47.7 39Iowa69.113.84550.85.1 40New Hampshire62.612.530147.014.7 41South Dakota57.811.64264.56.5 42Nebraska55.111.04639.33.9 43Connecticut39.47.93983.98.4 44Wyoming34.46.94459.45.9 45North Dakota32.86.64924.82.5 46Nevada26.75.34082.58.3 47Delaware23.14.64735.43.5 48Vermont11.52.34363.36.3 49Hawaii6.81.45023.72.4 50Rhode Island6.61.34826.52.7 Nation11217.02243.4 13788.91378.9 Source: 1997 National Resources Inventory, revised December 2000. Data for Alaska are not yet available. StateState

9. Why Keep Land in Farms? Not trivial – has to be a case Not trivial – has to be a case Not food scarcity, but long term food security Not food scarcity, but long term food security Economic importance of agriculture, high secondary economic impacts Economic importance of agriculture, high secondary economic impacts Avoid fragmentation of farmland Avoid fragmentation of farmland Avoid linear development – costs more Avoid linear development – costs more

10. More on the Why Agriculture and character of rural Alabama Agriculture and character of rural Alabama Ecological services – groundwater recharge, nutrient recycle Ecological services – groundwater recharge, nutrient recycle Amenity services – landscape, habitat Amenity services – landscape, habitat

11. Current Policy in Alabama Deferred tax on farmland Deferred tax on farmland Right to farm Right to farm Planning effort for Farmland Protection Program under 2002 Farm Bill Planning effort for Farmland Protection Program under 2002 Farm Bill Private land trusts Private land trusts Conservation easement enabling law (97), includes ag, 30 years is default or change in ownership Conservation easement enabling law (97), includes ag, 30 years is default or change in ownership

12. HOW TO KEEP LAND IN FARMS State policy position on farmland retention State policy position on farmland retention Can acknowledge, support local action Can acknowledge, support local action Try a Governor’s Farmland Commission Try a Governor’s Farmland Commission Broadly representative Broadly representative Land use changes, pressures Land use changes, pressures Unintended impacts of existing law Unintended impacts of existing law What makes sense for Alabama? What makes sense for Alabama?

13. HOW -- continued County or other local action County or other local action Farmland committees to describe present, chart future, eg. Population change in rural areas Farmland committees to describe present, chart future, eg. Population change in rural areas Establish network of county farmland committees, informed constituency Establish network of county farmland committees, informed constituency

15. How – Policy Change Incentive-based, keep land in farms Incentive-based, keep land in farms Enable purchase of farmland easements Enable purchase of farmland easements Scoring system will reflect priorities Scoring system will reflect priorities Appraisal Appraisal Land-Link program to help young farmers Land-Link program to help young farmers Try “transfer of development rights” Try “transfer of development rights” Development right mitigation area Development right mitigation area Higher density in return for open land Higher density in return for open land Cultivate urban interest in farms Cultivate urban interest in farms Farmers markets, agri-tourism, compost, access for hunting, etc. Farmers markets, agri-tourism, compost, access for hunting, etc.

16. CONCLUSIONS Urban people value farms and farmland, need to be reminded Urban people value farms and farmland, need to be reminded Find ways for farmer to capture these additional benefits Find ways for farmer to capture these additional benefits Local action, with state level endorsement Local action, with state level endorsement Policy change is incremental, don’t expect or seek big changes Policy change is incremental, don’t expect or seek big changes Only acceptable policy is good policy in Alabama Only acceptable policy is good policy in Alabama

17. Larry Libby C. William Swank Professor of Rural-Urban Policy The Ohio State University 614-688-4907 (P) 614-688-3622 (F) Libby.7@osu.edu http://aede.osu.edu/programs/Swank/