The Myth of Farmland Loss

More documents

Recommendations

Info

The Myth of Farmland Loss http://tbrum.ra.utk.edu!tM199//hrmland%201oss.htm warrant interventions in the land market through statewide growth-management laws. At the same time, there are several market-based reforms that can be implemented, for the most part at the local level. These reforms harness tendencies within the real estate market to allocate land in a socially and economically efficient way through the price mechanism, a feature that would be lost if land development were subject to intrusive statewide growth-management laws. Farmland Debate Most farmland task forces and proponents of growth management have based their case for slowing development on an empirical review of farmland trends mad productivity. However, since most task forces were established with an explicit advocacy mission, these recommendations are inevitably marketed with slogans and supported by exaggerated estimates of the amount of farmland lost over a recent period.4 For example, growth management proponents in Michigan cite farmland loss rates of 10 acres an hour to justify special tax treatment for farmland, publicly funded programs to buy the future development rights for farmland, and special land-use categories to preserve agricultural land within local land-use plans. In Ohio, supporters rallied around the cry of 5 acres an hour, and in Colorado, the claim was 3 acres an hour. These and other claims are used to instigate government intervention to preserve open space and the local agricultural industry. As policy advocates for farmland and open-space preservation, these task forces do not necessarily provide a balanced approach to the issues. In fact, the data and evidence on open space and farmland loss suggest that the nation, or at least the agricultural industry, is not facing a land shortage or a crisis in open space. Myth Number One: The nation faces a farmland crisis. For many, the loss of farmland is the most important indicator of a declining agricultural industry. Land in farms fell from 1.2 billion acres in 1950 to 968 million acres in 1997._5 At first glance, this decline seems startling: farmers are growing food on about 20 percent less land. However, a more detailed analysis of trends in farmland loss presents a less alarming picture. The 1960s saw the most significant loss in farmland, when the nation lost 7.3 million acres per year, or 6.2 percent during the decade. After the 1970s, farmland loss moderated in absolute terms. The nation lost about 6.3 million acres per year, or 5.8 percent during the 1970s and 5.2 million acres per year or a total of 5 percent for the 1980s. Then in the 1990s farmland loss was cut almost in half, averaging just 2.6 million acres per year, or 2.7 percent for the decade. Thus, projections of future farmland losses based on historical patterns are unreliable. Take the case of Michigan. After losing 2.7 million acres in farmland during the 1960s, Michigan had 12.7 million acres left in farmland in 1970. If that rate of loss had been sustained, Michigan would have run out of farmland within 50 years, that is, by the year 2020.6 Farmland losses, however, moderated to 1.3 million acres during the 1970s.-Even at that pace, Michigan would have run out of farmland in about 100 years. At the 1990s loss rates, Michigan has more than two centuries of farmland left. In fact, based on historical trends, Michigan will stop losing farmland by the end of the next decade. Ironically, farmland losses were moderating while newspaper headlines in Michigan were highlighting the effects of urban sprawl, and a governor’s task force recommended legislative action to protect farmland from land development. 2 of 9 l 1/30/00 11:22 AM C--058770 C-058770
The Myth of Farmland Loss http://tbrum.ra.utk.edu/thl199/thrmland%201oss.htm While farmland loss is highly variable from state to state, a general trend toward moderating farmland loss is evident in the 1990s. In California, farmland loss increased through the 1980s and then dropped to 3.7 percent in the 1990s, while Minnesota lost almost 5 percent of its farmland in the 1960s, but just 1 percent in the 1980s and 1990s. In Ohio, however, farmland disappeared at a more rapid pace, about 8 percent per decade during the 1960s and 1970s. Though the trend then moderated to below 4 percent during the 1980s, it picked up again in the 1990s. The current rate of 4.7 percent, however is still less by almost half than the loss rate of earlier decades. Thus, historical patterns of farmland loss are not reliable predictors of future farmland loss. Myth Number Two-" U?banization is the primary cause of farmland loss. While conventional wisdom claims urbanization -- or dense development -is the primary culprit in farmland loss, the reality may be quite different. Urbanized land area increased by 8.8 million acres in the United States from 1982 to 1992, a 17.4-percent increase.7 Yet total cropland, grasslands, and pasture declined by 14.4 million acres-during the same period._8 Urbanization, then, accounts at most for a little more than half of the nation’s farmland loss. Other causes include idle land, fallow, and land that reverts to forest. Another supposed detriment of urbanization is the national decline in forests, 8.5 million acres from 1982 to 1992 of lost open space. Even if you add lost forest and farmland, urbanization still could account for only about 36 percent of the loss in rural open space. Agricultural economist Luther Tweeten, who examined changes in cropland from 1949 to 1992, found that urbanization accounted for about 26 percent of agricultural land converted from cropland._9 Changes in forest land present an even murkier statistical picture. While in New Jersey, total land lost to urbanization appears to parallel the decline in forest and farm-related acreage, Maryland actually added 54,000 acres of forest. Thus, while urbanization consumed 188,000 acres in Maryland, urbanization and forestry consumed less than half the total loss of agricultural land. The amount of cropland -- the land used to grow food -- changes over time, sometimes increasing and sometimes declining depending on the demand for food and the productivity of agriculture. Cropland declined from 1954 to 1964, then increased by 6.3 percent from 1964 to 1969, declined again by 1.5 percent from 1969 to 1974, and increased from 1974 to 1978 --a period of significant outmigration from central cities -- and then fell modestly through 1992. Despite rapid urbanization, the agricultural industry has increased its efficiency and kept up with the ever-changing demands of the market. It’s not j ust the total acreage lost that worries some people. Many are also concerned about the loss of prime farmland, which depends on irrigation, location, soil type, and other criteria. "Prime farmland," notes the U.S. Department of Agriculture, "has the growing season, moisture supply, and soil quality needed to sustain high yields when treated and managed according to modern farming methods." Nationally, 24 percent of rural nonfederal land and half of all cropland is classified as prime. About 28 percent of urbanization affects prime farmland, while one-third of converted land is nonprime forestland and another 24 3 of 9 11/30/00 11:22 AM C--058771- - C-058771
Page 1: The Myth of Farmland Loss http://tb
Page 5 and 6: The Myth or" Farmland Loss http://t
Page 7 and 8: The Myth of Farmland Loss http://tb
Page 9: The Myth of Farmland Loss http://tb

The Myth of Farmland Loss

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?