Copyright 2000 eMediaMillWorks, Inc.
(f/k/a Federal
Document Clearing House, Inc.)
Federal Document Clearing House
Congressional Testimony
September 18, 2000, Monday
SECTION: CAPITOL HILL HEARING TESTIMONY
LENGTH: 2080 words
COMMITTEE:
SENATE AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION AND FORESTRY
HEADLINE: TESTIMONY FARMLAND PROTECTION ACT
TESTIMONY-BY: MARY HEINRICHT , REGIONAL DIRECTOR
BODY:
September 18, 2000 Mary Heinricht Regional
Director, Mid-Atlantic Region American Farmland Trust Testimony in -support of
the Farmland Protection Program Before the U.S. Senate Committee on Agriculture,
Nutrition and Forestry Senator Santorum, American Farmland Trust (AFT)
appreciates this opportunity to provide the Senate Agriculture Committee with
our views on the merits of the Farmland Protection Program. I am Mary Heinricht,
Mid-Atlantic director for AFT. American Farmland Trust is a national, non-profit
organization with 50,000 members working to stop the loss of productive farmland
and to promote farming practices that lead to a healthy environment. I will keep
my remarks brief and submit additional information for the record. First, I
would like to recognize you, Senator Santorum, for being a champion of the
Farmland Protection Program since its inception. Along with Senator Patrick
Leahy, you have kept up the drumbeat for new funding ever since the authorized
funds ran out in 1998. Hopefully, the inclusion of another $ 1 0 million for the
program in the crop insurance reform bill by Senator Leahy this spring is an
indication of increasing interest in both houses of Congress. The inclusion of
at least $50 million for farm and ranchland conservation easements in the
Conservation and Reinvestment Act (CARA) is also a positive
sign for the Farmland Protection Program and I hope you will support its passage
in the Senate this month. The debate over CARA made two things very clear:
Congress strongly supports the dedication of new resources to conservation and
many members are wary of significant increases in public land acquisition. Next
Congress, members will quickly jump into discussions on the 2002 farm bill and
emergency income assistance for farmers. AFT urges you to make farmland
protection funding a key part of those discussions. With almost 2 million acres
of farmland lost to development each year, we cannot wait any longer. Many
communities are facing land conversion rates that have doubled in the 1990's.
These areas contain some of our best agricultural land, producing almost 80
percent of fruit production and half of our dairy products. Of course, numbers
don't tell the whole story. Loss of these lands also changes the economic and
social character of communities. As residential development increases and
agricultural production declines, communities see a dramatic shift in their
local tax revenues. Over 70 "cost of community services" studies by AFT and
others have shown that residential development costs a community more than it
contributes in local property tax revenues. And, for every farm that is
converted to a housing development, business park or shopping mall, there are
the farmers who struggle with the new problems development brings, such as
traffic congestion, nuisance complaints, and disintegrating agriculture
infrastructure. Conservation easements give communities a weapon to save
farmland and fight back sprawling development. Unfortunately, states, counties
and municipalities have had to fight this battle on their own. Although
governors and county supervisors across the country have initiated farmland
protection efforts, federal funding has fallen short. Last year alone, state and
local governments committed over $160 million to farmland protection efforts. By
restarting the Farmland Protection Program, state and local programs would
receive desperately needed matching funds to stretch their dollars. And, they
have proven to be very good at leveraging federal funds. The $35 million sent to
local communities as a result of your good work in the 1996 Farm Bill leveraged
an additional $190 million in state and local contributions. Both you and
Senator Leahy have asked for more than $50 million a year for the program.
Although that is a good start, it will not be enough in the face escalating land
prices. Just a few weeks ago, a farmer in New Jersey was paid $300,000 for half
an acre of land by a developer. This is an extreme example, but some of the best
farmland in areas with urban influences has an average real estate value of more
than $5,000 an acre. In Pennsylvania, the average is $2,600 an acre. At these
prices, it's difficult for states or land trusts to find enough funding for
easements to compete with developers or meet farmer demand. For every farmer who
sells an easement, there are six more waiting for funds to become available. At
a minimum, $150 million a year is needed to help states meet the growing need
for easement purchases and to keep pace with development pressures. However, in
reality, farmland protection should be elevated to the same level of priority as
soil erosion control and wetlands restoration for which billions of dollars have
been committed. It is only fair to share the cost of protection between farmers
and the rest of society who so greatly benefit from well-managed farms. In
addition to increasing the funding for farmland protection, Congress should make
several changes to the program to increase its effectiveness and expand state
participation. First, Congress should recognize the sophistication of existing
state programs and local needs by making the program more flexible. Currently,
easements must comply with many federal criteria and be approved by USDA.
Instead, similar to the Forest Legacy program, USDA should allow states to
determine priorities and criteria for easements. The criteria and priorities
could be approved by NRCS up front rather than approving each individual
easement. USDA also needs to streamline the program and deliver the funds more
quickly. Often, state and local programs have already put an easement offer
together, bundling many different sources of funding and look to the federal
program to fill the gap. USDA has expressed its preference for collaborative
projects like this but needs to recognize that such partnerships are more
precarious because of competing needs of each partner. Also, landowners
frequently enter into easement discussions because of their own financial
burdens or estate negotiations. Waiting a year for federal funding does not
work. Again, if USDA gave states more leeway in distributing a block of funding
to meet their needs instead of receiving awards for specific projects this
problem would be alleviated. USDA could also streamline the review process to
make awards quicker. Finally, more should be done to promote participation by
states that have not yet taken advantage of the FPP. Including eligibility for
non-profit entities, while maintaining state program approval, is one way to do
this and will help leverage private dollars. The program should also be expanded
to help protect ranchland as well as farmland. Currently, the program is written
to focus on prime soils, limiting states' ability to use it to protect
ranchlands. Although this should remain a priority for the program nationally,
it excludes too many areas of the country that face considerable development
pressure where ranching is an important component of the local economy. In
closing, I want to underscore that for the past quarter century conservation and
environmental objectives in our country have been largely achieved by either
imposing regulations or through government purchase of private land. However,
these actions have failed to resolve conflicts over important environmental
problems that rely on the participation of thousands of private landowners. In
the 21st century, new approaches to land conservation that respond to the desire
of private landowners to improve stewardship will be needed. The FPP is an
excellent example of how to govern in a better way, a way that involves
communities and local and state government, a way that empowers farmers and
ranchers rather than imposing on them. Thank you for your leadership on this
important national issue, and for providing me with the chance to share our
perspective with the committee. We look forward to working with you to ensure
that America's best agricultural lands continue to produce food and fiber.
LOAD-DATE: October 21, 2000, Saturday
