By Fred L. Dailey
By Fred L. Dailey
Even as we watch farmland
give way to continuing urbanization in Ohio, some people still don’t want to
believe their own eyes. I see evidence of this in occasional newspaper columns
or think-tank “white papers” – articles and editorials that reveal some
misconceptions about the problem of farmland loss in Ohio and Ohioans’ desire
to solve it.
It’s important for
everyone to know the facts about this issue. There are high stakes involved. We
are investing valuable state and federal resources to prevent further farmland
losses through Governor Taft’s Clean Ohio Fund and its Ohio Agricultural
Easement Purchase Program, and taxpayers deserve to know everything about that.
Conversely, if we should halt those efforts, and risk relinquishing forever so
valuable a natural resource (farmland is needed for farming), citizens should at
least know the possible consequences.
So that no one can say, “I
didn’t know,” let’s review the facts by revisiting the misconceptions.
Misconception
No. 1: Farmland is not disappearing.
Really? The U.S. Census of Agriculture, the most credible and non-biased source
of information on the subject, shows Ohio farmland acreage is, indeed,
disappearing. In 1950, Ohio had 21 million acres of farmland, compared to 14.2
million in 1997. The federal government recognizes farmland loss as a
significant national concern, as evidenced by the creation of USDA’s Farmland
Protection Program. Congress authorized the program in the 2002 Farm Bill,
signed by President Bush last May, with $1 billion to be distributed to states
to preserve farmland over a 10-year period.
Misconception
No. 2: While most of Ohio farmland was lost in the 1950s and has continued to
drop, agricultural productivity and harvested cropland have continued to rise.
This argument, popular among preservation opponents, misses larger, important
issues. Agriculture is a land-based industry, and we continue to lose the best
of this natural resource – more than 6 million acres of productive farmland
since 1950. That’s bad enough. But the state’s larger goal is to protect not
only farmland but also natural wildlife habitats, scenic views, and historic
landscapes – all to safeguard our rural economies and lifestyles and improve
our quality of life. Do we really want to throw that away?
Misconception
No. 3: Farmland at risk for development is located near large urban centers,
which could one day result in our cities being right next to large farms.
The state is not interested in haphazardly preserving every farm regardless of
location. Instead, the Clean Ohio program uses logical criteria prescribed by
the Ohio General Assembly to carefully rank and choose farms to be preserved.
These criteria specify that the state not
preserve farms directly in the path of cities, including urban expansion zones,
but instead target farms well outside our large urban centers. This is evidence
that Ohio’s farmland preservation program is not anti-development, it’s
about smarter development. We want to maintain a healthy balance between
Ohio’s urban and rural communities.
Misconception
No. 4: The state’s farmland preservation program is an unwanted waste of
taxpayer money.
That’s not what Ohio voters think. Rather than a case of big government
squandering money, the state’s new program is a bond issue that was voted on
and passed by the people in November 2000. The taxpayers decided that their
money would be put to good use by preserving Ohio’s farmland for future
generations. And it’s a grass-roots program to boot. The local response to
date has been overwhelming, and we expect greater demand for it in Northwest
Ohio.
The Ohio Agricultural
Easement Purchase Program is not a silver bullet to save all farmland or to
contain all of the five-acre ranchettes sprouting up in our soybean fields.
Urban revitalization, including brownfield redevelopment (also approved for
funding under the Clean Ohio Fund) and other managed growth concepts also need
to be pursued.
If we avoid significant
farmland loss in the coming years, agriculture will continue to be one of the
strongest economic engines in Hancock County and Ohio.
-30-
Fred
L. Dailey has been Director of the Ohio Department of Agriculture since 1991.
653 words