Agenda - 08-10-1994 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

2.1 ) INTRODUCTION This nation has always had abundant food production, but part of the reason is that we've always had a new frontier available to us. When we used up the land in the Northeast, we simply moved south and west, down through the Ohio Valley, out across the Plains and on to the West Coast. When we ran out of new geographic frontiers,we relied on mechanical,chemical,and technological frontiers to enhance production. But, there is reason to believe that those rapid productivity gains of the last 50 years are tapering off. National average yields in corn production in 1991 were about equal to what they were 10 years ago - the first decade in this century when we have not had a continuing upward trend in productivity. Is the apparent leveling off of the yield curve a temporary occurrence? Or, is it an indicator that technology is running up against the natural limits of the land?In any case, it seems risky to count on continuing technological advances for future food production. Biotechnology holds great promise.A new generation of genetics, chemical, and other production enhancers may be just around the corner, but can we take the chance? It is therefore prudent to protect the land, especially our best land, as insurance. Ralph Grossi American Farmland Trust The reasons for increased interest in farmland preservation cited by Ralph Grossi, a California farmer,are not always connected to food supply. Quality of life and protection of the natural environment are increasing in importance to the public,especially to people moving from urban to rural areas.Expanded transportation networks have made the move easier, making cities and employment centers more accessible. As the shift to the countryside continues, the result is inevitable - sprawl. Whether it takes the form of half-acre or two-acre lots, whether it takes five years or five decades, the most productive lands for farms and forest are lost. The fiscal impacts of such development are painfully evident all across the country as tax rates increase to pay for the demand for public services. Farmland preservation offers a solution to this dilemma,for farmland pays more in property taxes than in demands for such services.The savings in avoided costs for future public services to developed farmland may alone be greater than the cost of preserving it. As Ralph Grossi put it - Cows don't go to school. Ultimately land use is an issue decided at the local level. If farmland is to be preserved, how do local citizens and government officials decide which land has highest priority in terms of preservation?The land evaluation and site assessment (LESA) system offers a solution. It was created in 1981 by the Soil Conservation Service as a tool to determine which lands should be given the highest level of protection. As noted previously,a LESA system consists of two parts.The first part focuses on land evaluation and provides a method for evaluating the quality or productivity of a given site. The second part, site assessment, examines specific characteristics of a site to assess its continued economic viability. A LESA system can be used to assign priorities in acquiring development rights,identify important farm and forest lands,and potential agricultural districts, and prepare and update comprehensive land use plans.The real benefit of such a system is that the most productive and economically viable farm and forest lands are preserved for future generations. The LESA system proposed for Orange County in this section is based on the premise that a "farm" is more than a farm. It provides a method for ranking the significance of any site as a farm, as a site characterized by significant natural, scenic, and/or historic resources, or as the "best of everything". 2.1.1 2.1.1