Testimony in support of the Farmland Protection Program Ralph Grossi July 21, 1999
Mr. Chairman, American Farmland Trust (AFT) appreciates this opportunity to provide your committee with our views on the merits of the Farmland Protection Program. I am Ralph Grossi, president of AFT and the managing partner of a family farm that has been in the dairy, cattle and grain business in California for more than 100 years. American Farmland Trust is a national, non-profit organization with 40,000 members working to stop the loss of productive farmland and to promote farming practices that lead to a healthy environment. The Farmland Protection Program has been enormously successful. In just three years, the FPP has leveraged state and local funding sources to permanently protect more than 127,000 acres of America's best farm and ranch lands from sprawling development, while leaving it in private ownership and productive agricultural use. This program is a good start to solving a national problem, but it is only a start. Unless additional funding is authorized its success cannot continue. Today I will highlight the positive benefits of the FPP, the pitfalls of letting it expire, and highlight how S. 333 - a bill with broad bipartisan support - would make some improvements. The Farmland Protection Program addresses a vital national need: the need to protect soil and other agricultural resources that are the backbone of America's world-class food production system. For the last 60 years America has sought to prevent the erosion of topsoil from wind and water, and through concerted action we have for the most part succeeded. Yet we continue to lose soil -- to asphalt. In fact, the volume of topsoil lost to urbanization is roughly equivalent to the soil saved by the Conservation Reserve Program! The public is demanding that farmland be saved and is willing to share the cost. The recent surge in local and state efforts to protect farmland suggests rapidly rising national concern over the loss of farmland and the environmental benefits well-managed farmland provides. In last November's elections 72 percent of 240 initiatives to protect farmland and open space were approved by voters across the nation. In recent years Governors Engler, Voinovich, Ridge, Pataki, Wilson, Whitman, Weld, Glendening and others have supported or initiated farmland protection efforts to address this problem (see Appendix A). But none of this welcome activity is enough by itself to stem the loss of our country's most productive farmland. Nearly every day this year major newspapers have carried articles about sprawl and "smart growth", frequently citing farmland protection as one of the key components of the latter. Farmers are eager to participate in this program. In its first year of operation, demand for matching grants outstripped supply by 900 percent. We believe that there are three reasons for this popularity.
The Farmland Protection Program provides financial support for family farms. A year-long study by AFT surveyed 75 protected farms in the Connecticut River Valley. The farmers' experiences show that these programs not only protect the land, but they also improve the likelihood that it will remain in agriculture. Many of the farmers interviewed said that without a farmland protection program, they would no longer be farming or would have had to sell some of their land for development to stay in business. Farmland protection programs give landowners a choice without compromising agriculture. Almost all farmers reported that they planned to keep the land in agricultural use themselves. The FPP is an investment in the future of American agriculture. Our studies demonstrate a positive relationship between farmland protection and the implementation of management, operation and ownership changes on farms to improve their long-term futures. Protected farmland creates a psychological "permanence syndrome" among farmers, meaning that those who believe their land is safe from development feel more secure about investing in their land and farms. Landowners thus use these funds to make investments in their operations, including upgrading to more efficient facilities, expanding operations, paying down debt, and improving pollution control systems. The bottom line: conservation easement funds have largely been reinvested, contributing to the economic health of local communities. That is why national organizations representing agricultural interests support the protection of farmland. The National Corn Growers Association , the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture , and the National Farmer's Union have policy positions that support the approach of the FPP. It's balanced approach to land use is also supported by some organizations representing developers. American farmers are proud of the abundant supply of food and fiber they have provided millions of people around the world; and are pleased that they also "produce" scenic vistas, open spaces, wildlife habitat and watershed integrity for our communities to enjoy. These are tangible environmental goods and services that farmers should be encouraged to produce and appropriately rewarded for. It is only fair that the public shares the cost of producing and maintaining these goods that benefit so many Americans. Mr. Chairman, the Farmland Protection Program is money well spent. By rewarding local initiative, FPP funds have been leveraged nine-times over at the state and county level. Thus for a federal investment of only about $275 per acre, the Farmland Protection Program has helped to permanently protect more than 127,000 acres of America's best agricultural land from the bulldozer, while leaving it in private ownership and in productive use. The FPP has also encouraged a number of states - including California, New Hampshire, Kentucky and Ohio - to initiate their own state-level purchase of development rights programs. This expanded activity at the state level will perhaps be one of the most enduring and important legacies of the FPP. Of course, every new program can be improved. The need for matching grants is so large that a significant boost in authorized funding levels is sorely needed. More flexibility could be achieved by giving states greater leeway to draft easements that reflect local concerns. And more could be done to promote participation by states that have not yet taken advantage of the FPP. Mr. Chairman, we strongly urge you to work with your committee to pass S. 333, which will remedy these shortcomings. S. 333 has with 23 cosponsors from both parties and will provide additional funding for this popular and effective program. The bill would also increase the effectiveness of the program by increasing partnerships. 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 - like species or farmland protection, for example - 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.
|
||||||||||
