NE ,2 i 5:; g m

 

 

 

fiO$il '151-‘ I‘llll.
«J
.- n u
I. I. ‘
. N , 4 .
T n.
‘. a V.
_ "A n r.
. n p ..
I ‘.. \
fl. '1-
.‘
~ ..

_ .

in!" IItIlItII'II‘Il-II.

 

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN Box to remove this checkout from your record.
To AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DAIEDUE

DAIEDUE

DAIEDUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/07 p:lCIRC/Date0ue.indd-p.1

 

 

7“? 1"."
'4 D p41 “pt

I
an“ o

 

“‘7‘ A T" T!?--P“$
Dam. D 1’. TT ‘I"1r

3.4.41- '94

Advisory Comfiittee

 

Professor Keith Honey, Chairman
isor Sanford Farness
Dr. earl Goldschmidt

Plan B Program

 

~\'\ 0.10 "-3. .-,_,fi fi. "A. ._.,_>. '5 .. ...'. , ,-
..u \IV/ 1.x» vwaa... thUVW‘J‘J L.LV‘IU1'L_L"tJ

RD 890 Reeion 1 Resource Development

UP 800 Special Problems

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment
Of tue'Requirements For the
Hester of Urban Planning Degree

(1972)

School of Urban Planning
and
Landscape Architecture

‘l' 1 ‘ ‘t , UV 0 ‘0 v
5 chlgan Sta 4 onlversttj

 

KO
(‘
O

K)

CI“.

3 cr.

FORWARD

The simple facts are that while it

is not imrerative for industry and
subdivisions to occupy the best
farmland, it is imperative that these
lands be reserved for agriculture.
There is little or no point in attempt-
ing to farm second-rate soil. 1

AGRICULTURAL LANDS AND THE PRESSURES FOR CONVERSION:

THE CASE FOR PRESERVATION

I. INTRODUCTION

The importance of the subject matter treated in this paper cannot
be underestimated. 'For it is a self evident fact that the American people,
as most peoples of the world, are highly dependent upon their national
heritage of land for the production of foodstuffs which in turn provide
the necessary nutriments to sustain life. In light of the above, it would
seem quite reasonable to expect that Americans would strive strivefto pre-
serve their most fertile lands for agricultural use and would allow, only
with great reluctance and on account of compelling reasons, significant
reductions in this valuable landed resource. However, the experience of
the current century and the continuing trends indicate that such a judicious
concern has not manifested itself to any great degree. Important losses
in America’s bounty of good agricultural lands have occured and are contin-

uing to occur. These depletions have been due to various factors. Among

, the most prominent factors are ecologically unsound farming methods which

have left lands in a wasted state and the outright withdrawal of fertile
lands from agricultural use for purposes of development principally of an

urban nature.

It is the task of this paper to examine the issues relating to the
latter mentioned factor responsible fer the depletion of the nation's
agricultural resources. Although both factors merit serious attention,

it is not possible to deal with each of them in the confines of this

particular paper. Consideration of the first aspect involves the matter
of the deterioration of the fertility of farmable land due to such things
as inadequate erosion control, ostensive removal of soil minerals through
excessive cropping Without provision for minerals replacement and chemical-
ized farming practices with their heavy reliance en artificial fertilizers,
herbicides, and pesticides.2

Discussion of the second aspect, the topic of this paper, focuses
in upon the competing demands for land space between the urban development
sector and the agricultural production sector, and the consequent wasteful
loss of fertile lands from the agricultural resource base. Since there is
not much use in resolving the problems owing to detrimental farming practices
if the land itself is no longer available for farming by virtue of being
converted to alternate use in behalf of urbanization, then mayoe there is
some justification fer opting to discuss the secbnd factor here and leaving

the first fer another opportune time.

The issues relating to the preservation of fertile lands for agri-

cultural use will be taken up on two basic levels of geographic scale, is.

’ the national and the.regional. Most of the analysis will be dene at the

regional scale since current problems are most pressing at this level and

also since this level lends itself to more detailed analysis. The trends

in agricultural land conversion will be assessed as well as the needs and

desirability for preservation. The concluding section of this paper will

cover the various measures which have been used and are being proposed for
effectuation of agricultural land preServation policies developed at the

various levels of government.

II. THE NATIONAL DIMENSION

§upply Situation

 

a

In attempting to arrive at some assessment of the need for agricul-
tural land use preservation at an aggregate national scale it would be most
helpful to review some relevant data regarding the land resources which pre-
sently exist within the boundaries of the United States. The best data
which are currently available are the result of the National Inventory of
Soil and water Conservation-Needs conducted by the U.S. Department of Agri-
culture ’v~ during 1957-58.3 Regarding this survey, our particular interests

lies in the data which describe statistically the nation's agricultural land

according to land capability classes and actual land use as of 1958. (Tables

offering a detailed presentation of this data are included in the Appendices

of this paper.)

Relying on the data source just cited, a summarization of certain
pertinent information has been made by this writer and supplied in the table

on the following page. The land classification categories labeled with Roman

_ numerals which are used in the table are the familiar Soil Conservation Ser-

vice’s method of classifying lands based upon field studies of such aspects "
as soil' depth, soil materials, slopes and other relevant features. Using
the field survey data, the lands, or more specifically soils groupings, are
mapped according to various soils capability classes which are assumed to be
sufficiently uniform so as to (a) produce similar kinds of cultivated crops

and pasture plants with similar management practicesi (b) require similar

conservation treatment and management under the same type and condition of

L;

vegetation; (c) and have comparable potential productivity.

TABLE 1

(48 Contiguous States)

Cumula-

 

Land Acreage
Class (millions ' tive
of acres) Acreage
Total
'3 I 36.2
.11 ' 290.1 326.3
TIII 310.8 637.1
IV 168.? 805.8
V 43.0 848.8
VI 276.8 1,125.6
'VII . 294.2 1,419.8
VIII 26.7 1,446.5
Federal
”Land
(VI-VII) 396.0 1,842.5
Urban,
Built_Up 51.0 1,893.5
Water ‘
Bodies 7.0 1,900.5
Other 1.4 1,901.9
(TatalS) 1,901.9
Source:

°Classification of U.S. Land Area

 

 

 

 

 

 

Class Cumulaé Acreage % of
Acreage tive Used as Class
as % of % Total Crepland Lend
Total U.S. (millions Used as
Land Area of acres) Crepland
2% 27.4 75%
15% 17% 192.8 66%
16% 33% 152.9 50%
9% 42% 48.9 4%
2%1 -44% 1.8 4%
a __
15% . 59% 17.9 5%
l6°oi 7570 5 o 6 2%
21% ’ . 7670 o 1 -'
__§1% 97%
3%
- lb'%
100% - 447.4 281

Compiled from the Tables in the Appendices Of this Report.

In so far as limitations for crop production are concerned, the lands
in the various classes are rated as follows:
Class I- have few limitations that restrict their use.
Class II- have some limitations that reduce the choice of plants
or require moderate: conservation practices.
Class III- have severe limitations that reduce the choice of plants
- or require special conservation practices, or both.
Class IV; have very Severe limitations that reStrict the choice of
plants, require very careful management, or both.
Class V- are impractical for cultivation.
Class VI- are unsuitable for cultivation.
Class VII- are unsuitable for cultivation.
Class VII~ preclude cultivation.5
( For a more complete interpretation of the classification categories

consult the Appendices of this paper.)

Generally speaking the lands in Classes I—IV are considered to be
the arable classes. The different regions of the U.S. vary considerably
. in terms of their respective endowments of farmable land. (A general
viSual presentation of the distribution of lands in Classes I-IV through-
out'the U.S. is supplied in the Appendices of this paper.) This is one
reason why it is essential to consider agricultural land use preservation

from the regional as well as the national dimension.

From the data included in the table on the previous page, it can be

seen that the Class I lands are in very meager supply, comprising only

4.4 u - o o 9 o o ‘
’Zw of the continental U.S. (excluding Alaska, Hawaii, and the territories.)

Class II lands are also not abundant, accounting for only about 15% of the
total land area. Class III and IV lands comprise 16% and 9?, respectively,
of the total land area. Although the importance of the lands in the above
four classes is relative depending upon the demand situation and regional
distributions, the lands in Classes I and II are normally thought of as'the
"best” or ”prime" agricultural lands. This is understandable in view of
their excellent suitability for agricultural use. However, together they

amount to only 326.3 million acres or 17% of the total land area.

Additional information from the table shows that about 75% of the
Class I lands were actually being used as of 1958 for cropland, 66% of

the Class II lands, and 50% of the Class III lands. Since the total land

acreage in eropland as of 1958 amounted to ##7.h millions and the total

acreage of the three most suitable land classes isr cultivaticn (Classes
I-III) was 637.1 millions,there evidently was not a pressing shortage of

agricultural land at that time in terms of gross national acreage needs.

1"reliminaI"r deductions which can be construed form the above analysis

are these: lands in Classes I-II are in minimal supply at the national

Iaggregate level and though their ultimate worth depends heavily on the

extent of national demand fer foodstuffs, it could be expected that they
‘Will be required for fOOd production uses in the future; the U.S; does“;
possess a bounty of good agricultural land which proved sufficient for
national fbodstuff needs as of 1958. However, in order to gain a more.
realistic appraisal of the worth and need for agricultural lands in the
U.S. it is neceassary to consider the demand side of agricultural produc-

tion especially regarding future trends and projections.

Demand Situation

 

It is obvious that any attempt to project future land use require-
ments fer agricultural production (as well as other land uses) far into
the future would be beset by a multitude of complexities and impenderables.

’ 6

However, the authors of the voluminous work, Resources In America's Future,

 

have played the role of visionaries up to the year 2000, and have derived
the most comprehensive set of projections for future land use requirements

that are currently available.for the U.S. on a national basis.

Tables 2 and 3 appearing on the following page contain the results
of these researchers' prognostications for the target years of 1980 and
2000.. Table 2 represents a meshing of varying demand levels with assumptions
regarding crop yields which in turn castles son; rzug; apprsxintticn as to

cropland requirements. Table 3 is an attempt to bring together all the

. basic land use requirements for the U.S. in an effort to arrive at a com-

posite mosaic of land use needs. It should be understood that these pro-

jections only represent broad guidelines as to what would be required in

terms of land uses i£_certain assumptions are taken as ivens. No direct

attempt is made to state specifically what will be the actual situation in

the target years of 1980 and 2000.

Regarding Table 3, the base cropland (and pasture)'figure which is
being used as,the”referenee'point is.u70‘s11110n acres. This acreage amount
is the rounded halfway choice between the recorded cropland acreage of the

two census years 1950 (#78 million acres) and l95b (#65 million acres). It

has no physical connotations such as suitability for growing crops, but

merely represents the actual land area used for crops and pasture at that

TABLE 2

CrOpland Requirements for Crops and Pasture under Various Assumptions,
1960 and Projections for 1980, 2000
I (Mutton acres)

 

 

 

 

. Cropland required Cropland excess over Cropland excess over com-
Y'dd for pasture crop necds‘ bined crop 3c pasture needs
Demand assump-
~mode1 tion 41960 1980 .2000 1960 1980 2000 1960 1980 2000
1. Extreme Low H - . - - - 200 216 - 200 216
2. Extreme Low M - - - - 176 187 - 176 187
3. Extreme Low L — 15 - - 137 134 - 122 134
4. Modified Low L - 103 107 - 106 102 — 3 ~ ----5
5. ' Medium M 79 75 58 102 ‘ 102 52 23 27 -—6
6. Modified High H -, 35 6 - 102 14 - 67 8
7. Extreme Iligh H - 173 258 -- 70 .——34 - -—-103 ~292
8. Extreme High M - 192_ 285 - 30 ——102 - —162 —387
9. Extreme High L — 210 312 - -—20 ~215_ -- --230 ~527
Source: Appendix Tables A1841 and 12. tracted from 470 million acres estimated as total suitable
1. Creptaud rcquircd for crops (as calculated) sub- for crop production.

Sources Resources in America's Future, p. 351

 

TABLE 3

Land Requirements (excl. Alaska and Ha-
waii), 1950, 1960, and Medium Projections for 1980, 2000

(Million acres)

 

 

 

 

Category 1950 1960 1980 2000
Crepland. including pasture‘ " 478 447 443 476
Grazing land “ . 700 700 700 700
Farmland, non-producing 45 45 45 45

y ‘ Commercial forest land ’ 484 484 484 484
Recreation (excl. reservoir areas -

and city parks) 3 ' ' 42 44 76 134

Urban land (including city parks) 17 21 32 45

Transportation 25 26 28 30

Wildlife refuges -. 14 15 18 20

Reservoirs 10 12 15 20

Total specificd’ 1.815 , 1.794 1.8-11 1,954

Other land (residual) 89 110 63 —50

Total land area 1,904 1,904 1,904 1.904

 

1. All adjustments for feeding requirements are made in cropland. with
grazing land held constant.

2. Does not provide for increased acreage to meet projected commercial
forest demand. Requirements to close the projected cup in 2000 might run
as high as 300 million acres (Scc p. 364 abuse). to be put into forest use
at this time.

3. Toraled from unrounded figures in Chapter 11.

Source: Resources in America's Future, p. 373

 

 

7

selected point in time. Thus, a positive number for cropland estimated
for 1980 or 2000 would indicate that less land would be needed for crops
and pasture than was required in the base year and consequently the number
would represent the excess amount of cropland. Conversely, a negative
number would indicate that more land would be required in the target year

than was needed in the base year.

There are nine different models provided in the table. .At the low
extreme:it can be seen that the model combining extreme low demand with
the high yield assumption would result in an excess of 216 million acres
needed fer crops and pasture by the year 2000. In other words, only 25h
million acres would be needed for this use (#70 minus 216 equals 25h). At
the other end of the spectrum.'the model combining the extreme high demand
with the low yield assumption‘would mean that an additional 527 million
acres (over and above the base year amount of 470 million acres) would be

needed for crops and pasture by the year 2000.

It is obvious that the low extreme model would provide the least

problems in so far as reconciling the competing demands for land for the

‘ various land uses oflwhich agriculture is only one. albeit an important one.

Should the high extreme model prove to be the reality for the year 2000.

then it is just as evident that some serious problems would present them-
selves since a total of 997 million acres: would be needed for crops and
pasture and there are only 805.8 million acres categorized as arable (Classes
I-IV) which lie within the U.S. (b8 contiguous states only). Also. there
would be created an impossible situation in so far as reconciling agricul-

turall land use needs with the other land use requirements for the year 2000,

10

as projected for that horizon year. (To accomodate such an increase in
land use for agriculture would necessitate very substantial reductions in

the allotments to the other land use categories.)

As is the case with most of these efforts at offering a wide range
of hypothetical models for future possible conditions, the model incorpor-
ating the medium assumptions is usually considered to be the one providing
the most realistic portrayal of the probable futures. Thus, the researChers
in this particular study opted for the medium model in their planning exercise
of trying to integrate the various land use demands in the U.S. with one ana
other. (This is apparant in Table 3.) The medium model,as its appellation
implies, assumes a medium demand and medium crop yields. The result with
this model by the year 1930-is a small excess of 27 million acres of crop-
land. However, by the year 2000 the excess is turned into a deficit of
6 million acres- meaning that by the year 2000, #76 million acres for crop-
land and pasture would be required. It is worth bearing in mind that the
long range trend in the instance of the medium model calls for an increase
in land for agriculture rather than a decrease. This should Serve to create
. someiconcern for any existing trends which evidence substantial conversions
of important lands oht of agriculture.~ Although such trends may not seem

detrimental in the short term, over the long run they could prove to be quite

wasteful and costly.

Several'comments could be made in regards the assumptions which form
the bases of the various models. The researchers, in Opting for the medium:
demand model as the most realistic for planning purposes, have probably

overestimated somewhat the population increases which can be expected in

11

the next several decades. Recent population trends in the U.S. have
shown a significant decline in the fertility rate. The 1970 census re-
vealed that the number of children 5 years of age declined 15.5% between
the years 1960-70. This is the greatest drop for the entire 120 years of
census recording? Should this trend continue, the U.S. population could
possibly be stabilized within a few decades. Relating this development
with the model, it would appear that domestic demand for foodstuffs might

be at a lower level in the year 2000 than would be the anticipated level or-

demand called for in the medium demand model.

However, the researchers may have also overestimated in their medium
model the capacity for increased crop yields per acre. They have assumed
that technology as applied to crop production would invariably result in
higher quantity yields per acre than are Currently being achieved. lhis
assumption has been built into the model. This writer would tend to think
that this may be a faulty assumption in view of the mounting evidence that
prevelant chemicalized farming methods which have artificially forced high
quantity yields from farmlands are in the long run quite detrimental to the
. continued fertility of the soils.9 Rather, it seems that the more probable
prospect for the .ture would be a trend toward organic farming methods and
away from chemicalized farming practices with their abnormal yields. Such
a conversion process in methods would most likely, at least in the initial

Stages,result in a decrease in crop yields rather than an increase. Thus,

maybe a low yield assumption for the year 2000 is a more reasonable estimate.

Overall. this writer would tend to think that the most realistic

N
O

model of the nine listed by the reasearchers would be the model incorporatin~

modified low demand (to account for the growing evidence of a significant
population growth rate decline in the U.S.) and the low yield assumption
(to account for the changeover to organic farming methods). Actually, the
resulting land use requirements of this model just described and the medium
model are almost identical- the former requiring an additional 5 million
acres fer cropland and pasture by the year 2000 while the latter requiring
an additional 6 million acres. However, in the modified low demand- low
yield model the need for agricultural land is evidenced sooner than in the
medium model. (For the former, the 1980 excess is only 3 million, while for

the latter it is 27 million.)

The viewpoint of this writer offered above regarding the most probable
model for the future‘ is proposed with one important qualification. This is
that the model 'is assumed to be orientated toward satisfying primarily the
domestic U.S. demand for foodstuffs without any great increases in produc-
tion assumed to supply (at a much higher level thin is currently undertaken)
foreign food consumption needs. Should the U.S. be called upon to assume
a much greater role than presently in terms of providing foodstuffs to
. other nations, avricultural land use requirements could escalate dramatically
due to the incresed demand for food. That such an eventuality is not merely
idle speculation, is seen from the statement of a noted food expertgsuch as

Dr. George Borgstrom of Michigan State University who remarked recently
that;

More than half of the world's population is now on the

other side of the hunger gap, and this at a time when we

are in the unprecedented situation of adding almost a

billion people in the 1970's. There is already a serious 10
food shortage of a dimension the world has never seen before.

13

Although no attempt will be made here to assess the dimensions of such a
foreign consumption demand which might possibly be partially satisfied

through U.S. agricultural resources, it is just another important reason
for the judicious preservation of fertile agricultural lands in the U.S.

in the coming decades.

There are some additional observations regarding agricultural land
use needs in the next several decades and their relationship to land use
needs projected for other categories of land utilization that bear mention-
ing. From Table 3 it can be seen that the greatest increases in land needs
during the period 1960-2000 have been projected for the categories of recrea-
tion and urban land. (It should also be noticed that the researchers held
forest land needs constant over this period even though they could forsee
a possible need for 303 million additional acres devotetho'this use. How-
ever, they felt that it would not be feasible to expect that such increases
in forest land could be accomodated and that alternate products would have
to be devised to relace the need for‘WOod products.) Recreation land needs
are projected to increase 90 million acres between 1960-2q00 and urban land

\

.needs are expected to increase by 2M million acres for that same period.
Since the pressures for agricultural land conversion can be expected to be
exerted by primarily urban land eXpansion needs, it is this aspect which

will be pursued at greater length.

For purposes of speculation, considered in gross national terms, it
might not seem overly deleterious if urban expansion did remove about 2h
million acres from agricultural use in ’those“2 several decades since the

total acreare for the U.S. in Classes I and II, for instance, is roughly

in

326 million acres. However, the simplicity of treating’ agricultural lands
from such a gross aggregate perspective can tend toward the glossing over
of some important considerations. Should the removal of 24 million acres
from agricultural use be at the eXpense of all Class I lands it would be
a serious loss indeed since'theitCtal U.S. acreage for that Class amounts
to only 36.2 million acres. Moreover, as the quote in the Forward of this

paper so aptly put it, it is not necessary for industry and urban residences

'to occupy the best farmland; nor is it sensible to farm second-rate soil.

The conclusion to be drawn is that urban development should be channeled

so as to cause the least depletions in the bounty of the better agricultural
lands. Finally, the importance of agricultural lands cannot be considered
only from the national standpoint of gross U.S. (and foreign) food consump-
tion needs. There are significant regional aspects to agricultural land
use which should receive appropriate consideration in terms of the needs
and desirability of preserving agricultural lands in the decades ahead.

These will be discussed in the succeeding sectiOn of this paper..

15

III. THE REGIONAL DIMENSION

As was implied in the Introduction of this paper and should be evident
as a consequence of the discussion in the preceeding section, the more press-
ing demands currently for agricultural land use preservation are are not ‘
yet a concern of national scope but are rather localized to certain regions
and metropolitan areas of the U.S.. In this section an attempt will be made
to delineate trends in agricultural land conversion for selected regions of
the U.S.; to describe the nature of the pressures which are being exerted
for conversion of agricultural lands to other use" mainly of an urban nature;

and finally to outline the need and desirability of agricultural land uSe'

preservation as it relates to regional and local areas.

Trends_in Azricultural Land Conversion

 

The regions in the U.S. which are presently faced with problems of
agricultural land use preservation are generally characterised by a burgeon-
ing urban sprawl, a high'population growth rate,due primarily to in—migration,
a proximity of important agricultural lands to existing urban centers, and
_ certain limitations in the supply of good agricultural lands within the
regional area. The Ctate of California is perhaps the best current illustra-
tion of an area possessing such characteristics and beset by problems of
agriCultural; land use preservation. Host of the analysis which ensues will
be devoted to the situation in California since it offers a good exemplifica-
tion of the scope of the relevant issues to be encountered in agricultural
land use preservation. In addition. good data sources are available for
some of the‘régionS'in Galifornia, whereas this is not so true of other

geographic areas in the U.S. .

16

The State of California comprises approximately 103,000,000 acres

of land. The acreages assigned to Classes I-IV as of 1958 are as shown

11
below.
Class I - 2.3 million acres
Class II - 5.0‘ C."
Class III - 6.4 "
Class IV - 5.8 "
9. 5 '0

Comparing distribution of land class types in California with the nation
as a whole (#8 contiguous States), it can be seen that about 8.3% of land
in California is in Classes,I-II, whereas the national percentage is 17;
the land in Classes I-IV in California amounts to only 201 of the State
land, whereas the comparable percentage for the nation is bZE. Thus. it.
is apparent that Californiafs supply of arable land is more limited than
in other parts of the U.S. , and it could be expected that this would be

a pertinent factor in behalf of agricultural land use preservation.

The following is a general picture of the shifting of crop land to
urban uses in California expected for the 1958-75 period. A total of
1,672,800 acres are expected to be developed for urban uses, of'which
_ 1,217,100 acres (about 73% of the total) are in Classes I-IV. Of the
1,217,100 acres, 758C900 acres were-in cropland as of 195812

In order to depict the trends of land conversion in iner detail for
California, it would be helpful to consider the situation in the San Fran-
cisco Bay Bay Area Region. Much of the material relevant to this regional

13
area is contained in the publication. Agricultural Resources Study, which

 

was commissioned by the Association of Pay.Area Governments. The series

H

of tables and maps included in this paper relating to the :ay Area Region

17

are taken from this publication.

Table h on the following page provides a statistical description of
the land capability classes distribution for the Pay Area Region. In the
nine Bay Area counties, only 17.5% of the land is in Classes I and II which
are the best or prime agricultural lands. Figure 1 on the page after Table
h indicates visually the situation with regard to soil capabilities for
agriculture and urban development. What is evident is that the lands with
no limitations for urban development are generally speaking also the lands
most suitable for agriculture. The land portions suitable only for urban
development are quite limited. Obviously, an inevitable competition for
land between urban and agricultural uses would be precipitated by these
circumstances. In order to retain prime lands in agricultural use, it
'would be necessary to forego short term economic benefits of lower urban
development costs by selecting alternate urban development sites not in
conflict with important agricultural uses but which at the same time incur
higher initial development costs. (In effect this would mean generally
that urban development would be oh nneled to leer ground areas,

leaving the valley floors for agricultural use.)

C

However, the trends to date have shown that agricultural uses have
been steadily losing ground to urban uses in the competition for land.
Tables 5,6,7 and Figure 2 appearing after Figure 1 amply document these
trends. Data from Table 5 reveal that urban uses as of 1965 already occu-
pied 21.5% of the land suitable for agriculture. moreover, one-third of
the prime agricultural land was in urban uses as of 1965. Figure 2
clearly demsnsirafcs the extent to which urban development has already

.‘v’iIUHit A14 5 l A a :‘i Um.

scwm m ';-: ‘
Aug-:1 I “‘1‘ '7 x‘ “ I“ ‘
I- :1 VT '| I" N

County

Alameda 16 .

Acres

Contra Costa 16
Acres

Marin 96
' Acres

Nap: %
Acres

San Fr. 16

San Motto 1‘
Acres

Santa Clara 1‘

Acres

Salem 1‘
Acres

Sonoma .‘ 96

Acres

Bay Ann 16
Total Acre:

TABLE 4

ACRES OF LAND BY SOIL CLASS GROUPS IN THE BAY REGION

Total

100
469.120

100
469.760

100
332.800

100
505.800

100
28.800

100
290.560
- 100
833.280

100
529.160

100
1,010,550

100

4,469,840

21 .5
100.860

30.5
143,280

10.0
33,280

10.0
60.580

6.2
18,010

19.0
158,320

29.0
1 53,460

' 122
123.290

17.5
781.080

III-IV

1 0.6
49.720

28.2
1 32,470

.I

6.8

. 22,630

10.0
50,580

67.0
19.300

10.4
30,220

8.5
70,830

33.0
174,620

15.0

_ 151,590

15.7
701,960

VI-VII

58.5

274,440

34.3
161.130

75.2
250,270

71 .0
359.120

_ 33.0
9,500

73.1

. 212.400

43.5
362,480

35.0 '

185,200

70.4
71 1 .430

56.5

2.525.970

1Leonard R. Wholetz and Edward F. Dolder, Know California’s Land. Sacramento, 1952.
Source: U. S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Association of Bay Area Governments;

op. cit. Report and General Soil Map. Nine Bay Area Counties. Berkeley, 1966.

Source:

Agricultural-Resources Study, p. 1.5

- VIII

9.4
44,100

7.0
32.880

8.0
26,620

9.0
45.520

1 0.3
29.930

29.0
241,650

3.0
15,880

24

24.250

10.3
460,830

. — - 0---- r - ‘ \o dv‘-
usuoociuo ‘* *‘. '. ‘. \I
' ' ' ~' ( ‘7, ‘- ' I.J ‘

.1 FIGURE} _ . . . '. 19

A \ “152‘ '~:“\ ‘ “ ‘ L A K E

 
  

SACIIAKIFNTl)

      
 
 
 
  
  
 
   

FRANCIE-
g AEDA
\ o ':
%’.
‘ ’\
We 4 Source: 0
AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES STUDY
SOIL CAPABILITIES FOR AGRICULTURE t“
AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
Soils with no limitation
Soils with no limitation Ior agriculture
___—-=-;-_;. Soils with no limitation for urban
:- develooment _
‘ O :ogljnwggwlggz‘tggztn Ior agrioulture and

ASSOCIATION OF BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS

 

n

10 20 30 4O ' \‘ «‘1; . :._
miles _ - \_ i ‘

O

Fruit Trees

~8I-Vinoyerds
ALAMEOA 5
CONTRA COSTA 21
MARIN ..
NAPA 19
sAN FRANCISCO -
SAN MATEO ..
SANTA CLARA 51
SOLANO 18
SONOMA 40
BAY REGION 152
16 . 10.3.

1Calitornia Department of Agriculture. County Commissioners' Reports. 1966.
2Association of Bay Area Governments 1965 Land Use Survey. Preliminary Regional Plan, November 1966.

TABLE 5

1965-66 USES OF LAND SUITABLE FOR CULTIVATION

1

BY COUNTY (in 000 Acresl

Other

Cultivated

--‘ Agriculture

34 .

50

13

131

37

309

20.8

1

Non

Cultivated
~~Agriculture

41
um
'40

72

14
54
174

173

'Nn

47.4

All

Urban
- Uses

70

70

12

19

21

90

25

318

21.5 '

20

Total
Land in
Chwnlwa
150 I 501
276 (1321
56 I 231
101 (.511
19 I 191
48 I 301
229 _( 711
323 £1741
275 (1511
1.482 (7011

100 (47.31

3See Table 1 (figures rounded to the nearest 1.000 acres) given in parenthesis are the ecreages in Soil Classes Ill and IV which are

less desirable Ior cultivation than Soil Classes I and II.

Non-Cultivated Ag

Note:

iculture refers to pasture and

range which occur essentially in Soil Classes III
and IV.

Source:

Agricultural Resources

Study, p. 1.12

 

 

vcuoocvuc "

\ -\ FIGURE 2 ' 21
' ' \ LAX} I,

 
  

C
h
2
I.
:2
<
I:
c
we 1'
U
0'.
7

From 5 Source:

AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES STUDY

EXISTING USE OF LAND SUITABLE
FOR AGRICULTURE

 

_ Soil Classes
lend ll llland IV

 

 

 

Urban

 

 

Fruit trees and vineyards

“1?." 1111mm Other cultivated agriculture

0 Q Uncultivated agriculture

“fig-’1": -* Ifii ....... v.0; .............

assocurioir or BAY AREA oovefiuueuas .

__I

 

o .10 26‘ so 40

Q?

ALAMEDA

CONTRA COSTA

MARIN

NAPA

, SAN FRANCISCO

SAN MATEO
SANTA CLARA
SOLANO

SONOMA

_ TOTAL

BAY REGION

CULTIVATED

ACRES1
1980 1966
81.803 39.382
82.984 71,019
5,113 3.641
29,889 25,098
36 29
23.955 12.571
99.225 84,825
150,900 147,058
83,017 77,020'
537,723 450,443

1Excludes pasture. and range land

TABLE 6-

CHANGEIN
CULTIVATED
ACRES
Acres Percent
-22,221 —36.1
241.955 -14.4
- 2,472 -40.4
-. 4.791 -15.0
-— 7 —19.4
-11,385 «17.5
—14,500 —14.7
— 3.842 - 2.5
£- 5,997 - 7.2
-77,280 -14.4

BAY AREA AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION BY COUNTIES 1960 - 66
ACREAGE HARVESTED - PRODUCTION VALUE

PRODUCTION
VALUE $0002
1966in
1960 1966 Const. S
1950_
35,159 38,035 33,066
‘ 22,324 35,892 32,934
13,427 12,754 . 11,703
18,194 21,807 20,010
2,000 1,229 1.128
17,397 19.524 18.007
90,091 70,982 65,133
35,689 48,483 44,488
73,498 78.012 71.583
305,777 324,818 298.052

20509 the wholesale price index by commodities (farm products) U.S. Bureau of the Census,
Statistical Abstract of the United .States. 1967 I88th 911.). Table 499. Washington. O.C.. 1967.

Source: Agricultural Commissioners Annual Agricultural Crop Report. Nine Bay Area Counties

Source:

 

‘

Agricultural Resources Study, p. 2.1

22

CHANGE IN
PRODUCTION
VALUE

Const. S

1960 Percent

- 2.093
440.610
- 1.724
+ 3.816
- 872
+ 610
-24,958
+ 8.799

- 1.913

— 6.0
+47.5
-12.8
+23.6
-43.6
+ 3.5
— 37.7
+24.6

- 2.6

— 2.5

23

a ' TAB LE 7.

LAND WITHDRAWN FROM CULTIVATION AND NEW SUBDIVISIONS
NINE BAY AREA COUNTIES

Counties Acreage Withdrawn From Cultivation1 New Real Estate Subdivisions2
1960-66 1960-66

_ Acres % of Region Acres ' - % of Region
ALAMEDA 22.221 28.3 . 7.490 16.0
CONTRA COSTA 11.965 15.5 7.306 15.7
MARIN 2.472 - , 3.2 4.006 8.6
NAPA 4.791 6.2 1.845 4.0
SAN FRANCISCO 7 . 326 0.7
SAN MATEO 11.385 '_ 14.7 4,932 10.6
SANTA CLARA 14.600 18.9 14.433 30.9
SOLANO 3,842 5.0 1.153 2.5
SONOMA 5.997 7.7 5.1 26 1 1.0
77.280 100.0. 46,627 100.0

BAY REGION

‘Agricultural Commissioners Report. op. cit. Figures obtain by subtracting cultivated acres in 1966 from cultivated acres in 1960.
Does not include pasture and range land.

‘ 2Northern California Real Estate Research Committee Northern California Real Estate Report Third quarter 1967. Table I. p.
37. (World Trade Center, San Francisco 11. California. 1

t - ‘

Source: Agricultural ResourcesStudy, p. 2.2

20

taken over much of the best farmland, especially on the valley floors.

Table 6 offers an accounting of the land withdrawn from cultivation during
the period 1960-66.in the Nine Bay Area Counties. Very substantial losses
in agricultural land use have occured. especially in Alameda County (~36.1¢).
Harin County (—00.32), and San Mateo County («47.5fi). Table 7 draws a cor-
relation between the land removed from cultivation and the land used for
residential development during the years 1960—66. The correlation is close
and strongly suggests that most of the new urban development is taking place
on land previously in cultivation rather than on range land or other less

intensively used land.

The San TranciSco Fay Area Region is not unique with respect to the
loss of its fine agricultural lands for the Southern California Region is
also experiencing a similar fate. Table 8 on the next page confirms this.
EXpectations regarding the shifts from agricultural to urban use fer L05
Angelos and Orange County during the years 1960-1980 indicate that possibly

the lands in agricultural use will decline frcm 2U9,000 acres to 109,000

A '
acres, almost a 62; reduction.

Regional indicators for the Northeastern Seaboard Urban Complex of
the U.S. also Show that significant depletions of lands from the agricul-
tural resource base have transpired. Although data sources are not avail-
able in fine as detail for Califbrnia, general data covering the period
1990-59 as shown in Table 9 of the following page, document a 28% reduction

in land in farms and a 20% reduction in cropland harvested.

The above examples should be sufficient to demonstrate that signifi-

cant depletions have occured and are continuing to occur in the agricultural

Hay

TAB LE

8

1 - ExPected Land Conversions From
Agricultural to Urban Use By 1980
(Southern California)

 

 

 

 

 

1960 1980
Citrus acreage: Lcs Angclcs 15,000 1,000
Orange 34,600 10,000
Avocado acreage: Los Angclcs 2,500 500
Orange 3,000 1,000
Other fruits, nuts,
berries acreage: L05 Angclcs 7,000 1500
Orange 2.000 - 1,000
Vegetable acreage: Los Angclcs 16,500 . 5,000
Orange . 21,000 12,000
Frcld crop acreage: Los Angclcs 102,500 50,000
Orange 42,000 25,000
Nursery and cut ’ ~
flowers acreage: Los Angclcs _ 3,000 2,000
TOTAL - 249,000 109,000
_Source: Open Space: The Choice? Before California, p. 135
TABLE 9
AGRICULTURAL CHANGE. NORTHEASTERN URBAN COMPLEX, Cosrraasn wrm
\ U.S. Tom, 1910, 1950, .mo 1959
' ‘ Percent Percent Percent
change change change
4 Item 4 Area Unit 1940 1950 1940—50 1959 1950-59 1940—39
1. Farms NE 1.000 146.2 123.1 -l6 74.9 ~39 ~49
. US 1.000 6,096.8 5,382.2 ~12 3.703.9 ~31 ~39
NE/US percent 2.4 2.3 ° 2.0 ' °
1. All land 11: farms NE mil. a. 10.2 9.4 ~11 7.3 ~22 ~23
US mil. 1. 1,060.9 1,153.6 +9 1 120.2 ~3 +6
_ NE/US percent 0.96, 0.81 ’ 0.72 ' '
3— cropland harvested 291-: mil. 3. 4.2 3.9 ~7 3.2 ~13 ‘ ~24
US mil. 0. 321.2 - 344.4 +7 311.3 ' ~10 ~3
NE/US percent . 1.3 1.! ' 1.0 ° ‘
4. 31111: com ' NE 1.000 668 647 -3 373 ~11 ~14
US 1.000 24.926 23.1153 -4 19.527 ~13 ~22
NE/US percent 2.7 2.7 ‘ 2.9 ’ °
3. Value oran farm NE mil. 3 ' 336 303 +139 880 +10 +139
PIOducts sold US mil. 8 3.343 23, 461 +241 33,511 +18 +302
NE/US percent L0 2.8 ‘ 2.6 ° '

 

 

fawn: Censuses 0! Agriculture.
" not applicable.

SOUI‘CC:

 

25

suburban Land Conversion in the United states, 9. 203

N
CK

resource base of various regional areas of the U.S. In certain cases,

such as California, the degree of depletion has become extensive enough

to cause some alarm among those concerned with agricultural or general
environmental issues. Discussion in the next section will be focused upon
the various factors which have served to precipitate and sustain the trends

for agricultural land conversion which have juSt been documented.

Nature of the Pressures for Agricultural Land Conversion

 

It was suggested earlier that the main pressures for conversion of
lands Out of agriculture were being exerted by the forces inherent to the:«
expansionistic needs of urban development especially at the suburban fringes
of existing urban areas. These pressures consist in the operations of the
real estate rarbet as well as the prevalent taxing systems at +he local,
state and national level. The combined weight of these pressures has been
in part responsible for the unnecessary loss of good farmland due to the
largely undirected path of urban expansion at the fringe areas. A brief
and simplified capitulation as to the manner in which this happens is pro-

vided in the paragraph below.

As the population in an existing urban area increases, land develop-
ment Spreads outward,and as a consequence,the farmer's property tax rate
and assessed valuation of his land are raised. The farmer is_then quite~
often either forced into selling his land because of the increases in prop-
erty taxes or he is strongly induced to sell to lend'speculators due to the
lure of very substantial amounts of money to be gained by doing so. The
‘ speculators, after purchasing the farmland. often simply hold the land idle

until value-enhancing public improvements are constructed in the vicinity.

27

Developers in turn are forced by the holding tactics of the speculators
to ”leapfrog out",as it weregin order to secure cheaper farmland for devel-

opment. Thus, a wasteful Sprawl pattern of urban development ensues.

An apt illustration of the detrimental effects of such a sprawl devel-
opment pattern as just described above can be seen in the instance of Santa
iClara County, California. ”It has been calculated that if all of Santa.
Clara County's subdivisions were contiguous, they'would occupy less than
forty square miles (including ten square miles allocated for open space'
and parks). However, as a result of sprawl development, not a single square
mile of the 230 square mile Santa; Clara Valley is without at least one sut-

in
division.

One important adverse effect of such scattered development is that
large tracts of land are withdrawn from agricultural use withouc bein
needed for immediate urban development due to speculation pressures and
certain incompatibilities between residential living and farming operations
uses. Such lands can remain in an idle state for lengthy periods of time
or fer all practical purposes, indefinitely. Marion Clawson has estimated
that for the nation as of 1950, lahd actually used for urban uses was 11

15
million acres but land withdrawn for urban uses was 17 million acres.
The difference between the two figures represents land not then, nor in
all likelihood in the future, available for any other use than urban,- Some
of the land could remain forever idle but none would probably ever revert
back to agriculture. Clawson also comments that "within the Standard Metro-
lpolitan Statistical Areas, far more land is vacant than is used for urban

16

purposes."

28

It is obvious to most observers that the operation of the various
real estate markets in the different locales of the U.S. does not always
work out to the benefit of the general public good. This is particularly
the case in respect to the conversion of lands at the urban fringes. Quite
often important agricultural lands are removed from the regional resource
base for transfer to urban uses without regard to the ultimate environmental
harm being done and without appropriate consideration of alternative land
development schemes which achieve a better overall Complement of benefits
to the public good. To a great degree, it is the excessive, "unearned"
profits accruing to such land transactions at the urban fringes,which involve
shifts of land from rural to urban uses,that accounts for the prevalence of
this regrettable.state of affairs.

‘17
pee, n

I .
. -~. n .L-‘:IJ ' '- _ .8 P. I _ C ‘. L. _ T‘QP I Y 77—-
uilan ocnmiut in his werh,senverc1ng “and From Rural to eran uses,

 

 

provides Some informative statistical data relating to land transactions
involving shifts from rural to urban uses. Table 10 and Figure 3 on the
following page summarize some of this data. Taking $300 as the average
farm land value per acre in the U.S. this value is weighted to the high
sidel, Schmid estimates that for the average transaction, the farmer would
be selling his land kusually to a speculator) for about $1,332 per acre.
This would constitute a handsome profit of more than $1,000 per acre or
more than three times the agricultural land use value of the-land. The
speculator comes out even further ahead since he buys for $1,332 and sells
for $.3,030. This would net the speculator a gain of nearly $1,700 per
acre. In specific instanceseven greater profits are to be made but the
averages alone are convincing enough to demonstrate that voluntary preser-

vation of agricultural lands would be difficult to sustain as long as such

TABLE 10

Land Prices at Various Stages tn the Conversion Process: A Composite

 

(Dollar:

. . per acre)

Farmland value (1964)“ ' ' - 300
Price faru-rcrs received for subdivision use (1961)" r l ,332
Price paid by developers for raw Lind (1964)c 3,030
Improvement cost ($2,435 x 2.6 lots/acre)d 6,331
Selling price of improved lots (1964) (53,874 x 2.6 lots/acre)' 10,072
Total appreciation above farm land value (less improvement costs) 3,441

Percentage appreciation above farm land value' 1 ,147%

 

1"A purpOTCl‘,‘ high judgment of avenge U.S. farm-lam! value weighted to those states with the most populous

cities. The 1964 average value of farm land in the 48 states was Sl37.

5 USDA d. nta from '1 able ll. Simple average of regional average: without weighting.

‘ NAllB data from Appendix Table A-8.

‘ Data «cm 'I able 5.

‘ NAHB data from Appendix Table A-3.

' This composite produces a lower estimate of appreciation than the average shown in Appendix Table A-3
because of the higher farm land values u§ed here.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source: Converting Land From Rural 32 Urban Uses, p. 26
FI GUiiE 3
Graph of L9 nd Prices at Various Stages
In the Conversion Process
”‘0 . . Price per acre
Price of improved land—a, gar ‘ . , : Yfiia __$10‘000 ,
.T‘ I , , -j—sadn
—saan
Cost of improvements *37'000
for urban development
. ($6,331) ‘55-000
iii—eadm
5; .jif—saan
. . ., w” .....
' Price patd by subdtwder , , . —$3,000
- fi—eamn
Speculative price to farmer.a 7‘1." ‘ .
I ‘q'.:.:. “$1.”
Active farm valuc__________.. 7. if " '
0 -‘-‘,.d O
Source: Converting Land From Rural to Urban Uses, p. 25

 

 

29

30

enormous profits are calable of being made- and largely at public expense
since it is the publicly provided :im p'rovements in terms of roads, sewer
and water lines, and schools which enhance the value of these rural lands,

and make these indiv 1dua1 profits possible.

Real preperty taxes when assessed on agricultural lands in view of
these lands potential for urban development rather than on their exis tin
agricultural use, also tends to force the conversion of lands out of agri-
culture. This type of situation often prevails at the fringes of large
metropolitan areas. Counties within Standard ”etropolitan Sta uiSti cal

a more than three times those in

0

Areas (S"°A' 5) had property taxes averagin

counties ad‘accnt to Sfifg's dur1ng 1963-68. Taxes in SNSA counties arera~ed

U

more than sr-~en times those on farms neyond both the SESA'S and their sur-
4 h
J.\_;

rounding counties. The effect of such tax burdens on farmers near urban
19

areas has been investigated in numerous studies. One study of the rapidly
growing fringe area around Kansas City, NiSSouri, showed t me for the period
1919 through 196., the taxes on the farmland of the county closest to Efans as
City appreciated from $189 per acre to $265 per acre. As a consequence,
the real property tax absorbed almos t 20% of the farmerS‘ gross income per
acre by 1965. .The owners of the sample farms in that county were relegated

' 20
to reporting inco_3 losses on their federal tax returns due to the high taxes.
Ultimately, farmers placed in such a situa sion as the above are forced to

sell their farms to speculators or developers to prevent further financial

losses although they may have wished to remain in farming

Somewhat similar to the effect of increased property taxes is the

functioning of the inheritance taxes in rela t1L n to farmland estates.

31

. The Internal Revenue Service assesses agricultural land in view of its
market value which includes its potential for urban development rather
than its sole worth in agriculture. The inheritors are often called upon
to pay inheritance taxes which can amount to 25% of the agricultural value
of the land. This in turn forces some of them to sell the farms for urban
development because they cannot afford to pay such high taxes from the

21
income which the land would produce if retained in agriculture.

Additionally, federal income tax rates and capital gains tax rates

have not been high enough in relation to profits made in real estate trans-
22

actions to discourage wasteful land conversions and speculative practices.

Finally, idle land kept for speculation has not been taxed at sufficiently

high rates, in view of its intended ourposes for urban use, to effectively

artificial shortage of land for development which causes unnecessary and
premature conversions of agricultural lands.23
By way of summary, it is clear that a complement of factors have

served to create an unfavorable situation with regard to the conversion
of agricultural lands to primarily urban uses.,The harm being done is not
always readily apparent nor iS‘the need for preservation of certain agri—
cultural lands within the various regions of the U.S. clearly perceived.
The succeeding discussion is an attempt to set forth some of the needs and

benefits which are associated with the judicious retention of important

lands in agricultural use.

Need and Desirability of the Preservation of Agricultural lards

It was alreadyopointed out in the consideration of agricultural

./

lands preservation at the national level that gross national food demands
by the year 2000 indicated a need for retaining,with some supplementation.
the existing(mid-1950's) aoreages'in agricultural use. Additionally, it
was pointed out that it makes no sense to farm second-rate soi ls if better
lands are available - and thus, by implication should continue to be made
available for farming. These two above factors do have their application
to the regional dimension but th) discussion which follow: will highlight
some further considerations which rel te more directly to the benefits of
agricultural lands preservation within regional areas. The elaboration

of points will proceed in outline fashion.

1. t is highly beneficial for the urban dwellers of America's
cities to live in a r? menably close proximitv to the iced production

areas whic“ accomodate their foodstuff reeds the nwnwéwai “s‘n"'o

- 1- . . ---.Lu I... d-.¢-P* - ‘1‘». V‘s—o.

’Jc
C

particularly important in the case of such foodstuffs as natural, unpro

. ,-,,-.1...,Vw .n, 1, , .-.L'4-- 1 4.1.
cessed fr H1 3 and rugs -o1es whi ch should COhbbludo

vhf-J mainstays 01 a

(D

nutritionally heal w} die t. The closer the consumer is to the production

51'- C O ‘
$11211 ‘

source of these food ccm"~.odities, the better chance he has of ob “g

them in their most nutri uious state and at the least cost. (It is also
proposed here that consumers'iniincreaSihg nu mbers will come to realize
that present methods of food distribution which involve transporting food-
stuffs over great distances have given rise to adulterative processing
methods in behalf of extending the marketing life of the foodstuffs.) The
import of all this is that metropolitan urban areas sould not be allowed
to grow in indiscriminate Sprawl patterns which either eliminate most
farming 01ers tions in the region or which tend tosunnecess arily p lace an

inhibiting distance factor th'n son the food producers and food consumers.

33

In regions of the U.S. whore natural topgraphic features limit the available

places for farming, rapidly expanding urban areas could end up having no

nearby food production sources. The State of Hawaii has recognized this

as a possible future problem and has already taken land use control measures
' 2Q

to deal wit- the situation.

2. Certain agricultural lands may be deser ing of important consid-
eration for preservation due to unique soil and climate combinations which
permit the growing of Special crops which cannot be feasibly grOWn elsewhere
in the region or in the nation as a whole. An example of this is the'case
of San Mateo,County, california. This County has lands which are especially

suited to the growing of artichokes and Brussels sprouts. In 1962, U51 of

the national production of Brussels sprouts originated‘ from San Katee
"t’
(.7

”peeve“? awn-an
~- -.'1 J

U-mQ-U --

3. Significant economic benefits are derived from agriculturally
producing lands. These benefits would be lost if the agricultural lands
were to be converted to other uses. By way of illustration, Tables 11 and
12 on the following page indicate the economic importance of agriculture
for two selected areas._ Table 11 provides data on agricultural production
in the San Francisco Bay Area. The data indicate that there was a direct
loss in production value (1960 dollars) of $7,725,000 between the years
1960-66 due to the reduction in cultivated acreage caused by land conver-
sions. Table 12 shows that agricultural production comprises a very sub-
stantial share of the State of Hawaii's economy, and that by inference,
any great reduction in agricultural production precipitated by extensive

agricultural land conversions would seriously weaken hawaii's economy.

TOTAL BAY AREA AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION BY CROPS

TABLE 11

 

31+

 

 

 

.' 1960- 66
‘ ACREAGE HARVESTED .- PRODUCTION VALUE
CULTIVATED CHANGE IN ‘ PROOUCI’ION VALUE CHANGE IN 'E RCEN‘I’ DISYflIBUI’ION
ACRES CULNVAVE 0 ACRES sooo PRODUCTION VALUE OF 'RODUC‘I’ION VALUE
. 1968 In' In Con-3L8
1m 1966 Ann 1956 Conn. 5 1960 I960 % 1950 1955
HELD CROPS 290,313 249,735 - 40,578 -I‘.O 22.872 26.342 20.171 9 1.299 O 5.7 8.0
VEGETABLES 55.888 55.341 - 30.541 -—IG.0 35,887 47,422 43,514 9 5.527 018.0 12.1 1“
ERUIYIE NUTS 149.823 J23)!!! - 21,579 -‘IO.4 '33.!75 53.020 57.827 —26.148 -31J . 27.5 15.4
VINEYARDS 78,538 29,975 0 1.137 4 3.9 5.949 9.969 0.148 0 3.199 0535 3.!
HORNCULTURAL 2.351 3.148 O 287 910.0 3.428 46.143 42.341 0 5.913 015.5 ".5 3‘2
IJVBYOCKI (ID) 52.102 53.050 0 548 . 9 1.8 83.106 54.742 55,935 0 3.829 O 4.5 27.1 39.1.
UVESTOCK 1,558,647 1,443,456 -1‘|S.191 - 73
mom-Chou (an - _ .
'OULTRY - - -- - -- - 37.388 38.965 ”.919- - 3.469 - 52 32.1 "A
APIARY - - - - - - - 172 215 197 0 25 414.5 a!
‘OTALS:
viumum 537.723 460.443 - 77.280 -14.4 305,777 324318 298.052 - 7.725 - 2.5 1ND IMO
I. In ltd
rut.“ 889.325 513.493 - 76.332 -123 .
muom'v'... _ 'I'
'uwmlu .
lano- L-M 2.148.472 1.955.949 491.523 - u
b 0 Inlguca 9::er
0D - nonoivriguod puns"!
'Mdu Pm: Index 51 Commodvtm 1950-1966 (Farm hoducu. U.S.l U.S. Bureau 0! Im Census. op. cit. Table 499
‘1! “met. Army'uu? Cur-1 mmo-W Annua' Ag". ulrurs.‘ Croy ficywt, mrwiay Anacounun.
Source: Agricultural gesourees StudX, Po 2.3
TABLE 12
VALUE OF SELECTED AREAS OF THE ECONOMY: 1958 TO 1967
(STATE OF HAwAIil
‘ In millions ol dollars Percent increasr
Sub ect ' ' 1958' . Anm
‘ 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963' 1964 1965 1966 1967 to 1967 3W”.
al agricultural output' 276.4 301.4 290.1 307.5 317.2 355.8 338.9 349.5 368.2 374.4 35.5 .3"
'ensc expend 327.4 338.0 373.1 401.9 375.8 368.6 ' 415.9 460.0 517.0 600.0 + 83.3 1:).-
Ior expend ' 82.7 109.0 131.0 137.0 154.0 186.0 225.0 265.0 302.0 400.0 +383] 7..
.19 of constructionb 174.4 206.8 268.5 267.3 257.0 265.2 302.9 . 338.6 392.4 346.8 + 98.; 16.
10 of mineral producedc 6.3 7.6 9.3 14.6 14.8 15.3 19.6 20.8 20.8 — +230 _-
hl \alue of sugar and pineapple products. Total value of diversified crops and livestock. ,'

ldl \alue of construction put In place in lhwaii.

lurlcs the value of cement, gem

““966.
MCCZ

Source:

smloncs, lime pumice sand and stone and clays.

 

The Stale of Hawaii Data Book Department of PI Inning and lcenomic Dmclopmont, 1968.

‘ state 0f Hawaii Land U_s_e Districts and Regulations
Review, p. 79

"J

35

u. The'retention of existing lands in agricultural use also serves
to preserve the viability of the present rural communities and farming as
a way of life. Although the trends of the past century have shown a decline in
26
such respects, there appears to be a renewed appreciation, particularly on
the part of the present younger generation, for the simple virtues of rural
farming life. The independence and individualism attributed to farming as

an occupation and the opportunity to live in natural surroundings seem to

be the appealing elements in this appreciation.

5. Agricultural lands, as part of the web of the natural ecosystem,
are important to the environment as a complement to the built upon urban
areas. This is in addition to their food producing role. Agricultural
lands can function as water and oxygen recharge areas of a particular re~
gion. Unlike urban lands with extensive paving and building StruCtures,
agricultural lands offer a permeable surface for the penetration of rain
water down into underground water acquifers. Moreover, the plants grown

on farms are producers of oxygen and can thus help to support the oxygen

supply needs of rearby urban populations. Also, agricultural lands can

- make a centribution in terms of temperature control by moderating extremes

of temperature, especially summer heat waves_which are intensified in areas
27
where the'land is heavily built upon.
6. Finally, agricultural lands definitely have an amenity value as
open space. This open space feature of agricultural lands could be valued
mainly for its functioning as demarCation boundary areas to preserve separate

identities for cities within a region along the lines of the greenbelt concept

popularized in E gland. Or, it could also be desired for purposes of scenic

beauty of nature— something so lacking in most Ame ican cities. A study
critital' of the more recent urbanizing transformation of San Jose, Cali-
fornia had this poignant comment to make:

... the local chax i lands provirk i a very real benefit to
the city's res dents. Cne need on y imagine s -eing them in
bloom, snr lli the freshness of the air, and hearing the

peaceful so uni. of he country to know the benefit was real.
Now they .have been r:ely replar3ed by endless stretches of
tract hon es, umbles of ornerclal signs, and the noises and
odors of freeway trai i

This concludes the discussion of the benefim to be derived from

the preservatiOn of agricul.tural lands from the regional center . It should

be evident at this point that many factors can enter into a specific set'of
pelicy formulat Mi ens emanating from the national, state, regional, or local
level in behalf of ag ric Hit ral land use preservation. That there are Suffi-

cievt "A. ‘h-‘.l. 4‘. up--. -'-“‘,-“‘.-"I:‘ ‘0's‘f “A1:fl ax? pp ““0. R» ‘1‘.."q

u b. can“- .0. pu.suing 3a-” pellei_ a. r ..... .a-_o. . -
also be obvious if he import of the discussions contained in the foregoing
pages of this paper can be relied upon. No effort will be made in this paper
to delineate what particular policies should be adopted since the content
of the policies .ust he arrived at afte horO‘gh analysis of the needs

of a specific areal unit from the national down to the local level. However,

.-

the concluding section of this paper will review some of the measures cur-
rently available for effecting agricultural land use preservation once a

policy‘commitment to that end has been made.

37

III. HEAS TILES FOR PRESERVATION OF ACRICULT‘UTAL LANDS

Numerous measures are presently being Sad to attain the objectives
inherent to agricultural land preservation policies which have been adopted
by various units of government throughout the U.S..Some of these measures,
such as zoning have been in use for quite some time, while others are com-
paratively new. The re*. iew which follow is not intended to be exhaustive
or eSpeciallyZdetailed. It should merely serve to show generally what has

been and perhaps should be done.

Zoning

Zoning ordinances are perhaps the most widely used method of regzla.ir;
land use in the United States. They have been used to preserve lands in agri—
cultural use through the setting up of agricultural use districts. however,
their effectiveness over the long term in preventing the undesired (from the

public interest standpoint) conver31on'o

ta

certain agricultural larxds has been

less than encouraging.

Marion Clawson, in his study of Suburban land conversion in the U.S.,
-concluded that zoning was a weak instrument for preventing the wasteful
conversion of agricultural lands at the urban fringes. He feels that the
local county officials responsible for administering the zoning provisions
are unable or unwilling to stand firm in the face of political pressure and
sometimes financial inducements brought about by speculators, developers,
and other private interests. 'Invariably the districts Set up within the
zoning ordinance are modified to suit private partim interested in devel-

opment of he agri icultural lands. In support of his contention, Clemson

38

cites the situation in New Castle, Delaware in which three attorneys who

together presented 26 o of the petitions for rezoning (mainly-of‘agricul-

29
tural lands) received favorable decisions 80% of the time.

The authors of the San Francisco Bay Area study,referred to earlier}
in this paper, came to the same conclusion as Clawson after analyzing the
results of zoning in the Eav area. They commented that "To date zoning
has proven to be a rather ineffective tool for centrolling development in
the urban fri be. Since zoning laws are regulatory and do not provide for

. 30
any compensation, they are not too popular and are subject to change."
Perhaps zoning could be an effective to: l in behalf 6f agricultural land
use preservation if it were utilize d properly but practical realities seem
ate the possibilities of that happening. Thus, most units of
f

U» :' wan
ova. v.~u.

C1

'— -e-h ~ ‘L ‘ ": 1!- ~ Uu’, +1 A‘. ~'--Jo-.:_ .
savor?“ le; v 1'1an C..},Ol‘iIlGn"Cf 0d Wait“. :00qu 091131." 17101.3 ubb'v... 1;

A

Con ract ual J,TLFW*fiES

 

California could probab y be considered the pacesetter among the state
governments in ”wrising contractual type of arrangements to preserve lands
in agricultural use. The California Land Conservation Act of 1965 autho-

‘ rizes county and city governmen s to ent er into bilateral legal arrange-
ments with property owners to conserve rime agricultural lands. There are
two types of arrangements allowed under this Act- contracts and agreements.
Lands placed under contract nus; retain agricultural uses of the land for a
minimum of ten years, renewable for ten years at.the end of each year unless
notice of non-renewal is given. The property owner receives compensatory

payments as well as tax assessment rates has ed only upon the agricultural

see of the laniisnd not its potential for urban development.) Local

governments are also compensated ty the State government for the consequent

loss in local tax revenues because of the 10, :er assessments. Agreements

differ from contracts in that t} are “flexiiil ity regarding the time period

and landq

lificatinn aspects. Also the landowner does not receive compensa-

tory payments as under the contract arrangement but he does benefit from

31

lower tax rate assessments.

Although

tilebdl’l

fornia Land Conservation Act of 1905 offered some

promise as an alternative to the inadequacies of zoning, its implementation

to date in California has not been heartening. A survey of 55 of California's

58 assessors revealed the follOWing regarding the implementa ion of the Ac

1.

The recipients of compensatory payments under the Act are ger mrally
act to pressu,cs from speculators and waste-
fol enrawl, but large conglomerates also receivin3 a lucrs. ive

pr ice support and other federal subsidies

313‘;

(J)

Seventy percent of the land under contract i
ani less than one—fifth of the State's prime cropland is covered

by contract arrangements.

Only one and one-third percent of the agricultural land covered

is within one mile of any city and less than five percent is within

32

three miles.

Overall, the provisions of the Act have failed to attract substantial

numbers of landowners to place their lands under such arrangements. This

has been due most probably to the fact that the farmers want to make a good

33

deal on their land and wish to control the timing themselves. The latter

fact poin

L‘-r‘

‘ Q

out one of the inadequacies of {no act's affroach- the lack of

no

eminent domain powers whr:rahy contracts could be is mposed in agricultural
preserve areas in order to protect the public interest in safe guarding such

3!:

lands from inoppsrtune conversion.

Purchase and lease Arrangements

 

In order to ensure greater control and permanence over the fate of
agricultural lands,'espec1ally at the pri-ripheri ' sof urban areas, some have
advocated programs of public and quasi-public purchase of tr xese lands wi

< 35
su sequent leasing und,r SCQCLflC ally stated conoitions. Although such

proposals see m somewhatr adic al there are past precedents for such action.

The federal l‘val legisla+ ion entitled "Advanced Land -1cqu Hsi ion of Land

Program" a11’or:"ed in 1965 the dis sement of federal loans to local‘
goverimonts ’ r the purpose of pulrchasing lands for the con:truation of
”A
J"

public fee all ities. There are also vast amounts of acreage in forest lands
held by the federal government. At the sta be level, New Jersey as early as
1961 expe nded $‘ Q million for land acquisition under its Greenacres program;
New York State spent $75 .111 ion in 1961 for acquisition of lands for open
37
space; recently Suffolk County, L.I. announced plans to make an initial
purchase of 3, 000 acres of prime farmland at speculative prices and then
38

lease it back for agricultural uses. However, it is still too early to

evaluate whether purchase meisures will increase in prominence.

Critics of the purchase and lease method point out that its feasibility

for‘wides pread us age is limited due to some distinct disadvantages: great
sums of money would have to be expended; the losses to the local property

tax rolls would he substantial; it would be difficult to secure public
19

-v 1 P " ‘ . -' .-V a . I‘ ‘ "‘ . I 0 T ‘ “ "‘
appro,1r for oust large-scale purchasing programs.

Q

Easements

 

The legal device'of easements has been preposed as a method to achieve
the objectives of pure Ease and lease of agricultural lands by public agencies
witlout the dis Mivan.ages of that path of approach. Again, California has
been one of the initial 9: cperimenters The Open Space Easements Act of
1969 empowers cities and counties to accept grants of Open spacer eascn-'nt5
Within heir jurisdictionS. ihe landowner relinquishes all development
rights for a fixed period of time except those reserved in the easement

grant provisions. In return, the landowner receives (in some cases) a s“

of.money for the develop .ent rights which have been surrendered as well as

U
a preferer‘izl an assessment on his land.
rha fin event method overcomes some of the disadvantages of the outright
purchase of a fee simple in that it is less cost‘" does not remove land

from thz 9 tax rolls, and the maintenance of the land still remains the resoon~

A.

n

Flo

sibility of the origi.a 1 owner. How dever, the response to date {1971)

regards the Act has been minimal with only six coun ies acquiring a total
. h1
of 22 easements under the Act. . Perhaps if the easement method were com-

bined With eminent domain powers, it would constitute a most effective way

of preserving~ag ‘1 cultural lands.
Tax Laws

In earlier discussions it was shown how various federal, state, an
local tax laws were partly responsible for wasteful conversions of agri-
cultural lands, especially at the urban periphery. Thus, it stands to

L

remt on that certain moiifica tions could he mxie in order so overeeme such

undesirable effects. Preferen ial tax assessment valuations for agricul-
tural lands combined with developmental tax deferral provisions would be

one useful improvement over th e current practi e in most states. Under

this system agricultural lands would be assessed only in view of their
farming value and not their potential urt~an development value. However,
should the farmer decide to sell his land for non-farming uses, he would

be obligated to pay taxes (for a Specified hack period of time) on the differ-
ence between the agricul tural value of the land and the valuation,résultinv

from the sale conversion of his land that would have otherwise become due

and Payable earlier. Oregon. Hawaii and law Jersey have SUCh tax arrange-

u2
ments as the above. ,This tax method would certainly benefit the farmer
Who Wished to ren‘in in farming by relieving trim of an onerous tax burden
but it still leuld not do much for agricultural prr’t'va tion in the cases

where the farmer wished to sell out to speculatdrs in hopes of windfall

monetary gain.

In order to remove the possibility of excessive personal profits

accruing fr-n Speculative transfers of agricul ural lands to alternative

(\

uses,usually of an urban type, increased tax rates on profits derived from
such land tran sac; ions have been proposed. The jus mati on advanced is
that these personal profits are largely "unearned" since they have been
made due to the construction of publicly provided improvements and thus
the public is entitled to a major portion of the monies redounding to any
“3

increase in la nd values resulting from such improvements.

Modification of'tax evaluations on idle lands would also assist agri-

culture .If idle lands, he ld for eventual urban

f-J
' *1
I
'3
r1
')
’1
4
5...,
F
b
O
23
"J
O
P—J
r4.
0
p)-
1‘.)
:11

development, were to be assessed with that potential purpose as the basis,
the hither taxes might encouraye earlier availabilitv of such lands for

L s s a
development and thus decrease the pressures for further conversions of

1m.

agricultural lands.

i

Finally, preferential assessment of agricultural lands for inheritance

tax purposes would also help to clininate some of the forced sale conversions
u:
J

which are currently taking place.

Public Improvements

 

Since the provision of public improvements has a great deal of influence

\

in creating pressures for conversion of agricultural lands at the urban peri-

a

pheries. the careful plannin and staginb of these improvements could assist

4“ phflmvfifi:u~ ""L“‘.‘.‘ "l‘ ‘-v’1 " F ' . ..x/‘ Q ‘ _' - . ‘L— .— v" 3‘,” .L . p . -,s' c ‘I it! '-
.'... a .. I'“"‘*"“c: g... ~-... «-.avlvr.v..—..s ...“ ... Lu-ALA.AL0.L .LDCLUU llaiulluul. DU dé“ ..LLLLLL (1.1.
Q I
‘*0

land resources.

In summary, though a great many different types of measures for pre-
serving lands in agricultural use are currently available, perhaps no one
sinvle method is suitable for every circumstance. Thus, it could reasonably
be expected that a combination of measures would be the most appropriate

approach.

K“

. CU :CLULIL.J COIIIIIT

F4

To recapitulate all th e discussion of the preceeding pages would
border on the redundant since sumr'r" evaluations have already been made
and interspersed tirougaout tie main no dy of the text of this paper. The
mandate for agricrltural lands preser Ha ion at the national and regional
whethe~ enlightene! land use policies, - crmulated at all appropriate levels
of government and plannin: will be developed and implemented in a determined
effort to correct past abuses and to ac hie 19 future tenefits in this as
of land use. The fate of a people is in :ariably lin}:ed wi th tne fate of its

soil. To overlook or neglect t: is fact could prove tragic indeed for the

American people of this generstion and the future genera

 

L16

'(l‘l

‘. g a!‘\

TABLE 6. Summary of characteristics of land in eight Soil Conservation Service land-capability classes

 

 

Item Class I Class H Class Ill Class IVY Class‘V Class VI Class VII Class VII—l-
Limitation; on use for crop Few Some Severe Very severe lmpractical Unsuited Unsuited Preclude
pro action .
Conscription practices rec - Moderate Special Very careful 5 5 5 5
none .-
Practicability of range or 5 5 ._ - 5 5 . 5 Practical ‘ lmpractical impractical
pasture improvements . ‘
Permissible limitations singly -.
or in combination? , . '
Slopc‘l Nearly level Gentle Moderate Moderately Nearly level Steep Very steep Very steep
‘ steep
Susceptibility to erosion Low Moderate High Severe Limited Severe Severe Severe
Adverse effects of past None or Moderate Severe Severe Often slight Severe Severe Severe
erosron slight
Hazard of overflow Not sus- Occasional Frequent Frequent Frequent Excessive 5 5
‘ ceptible .
Soil depth Deep Less than Shallow Shallow Variable Shallow Shallow Shallow
ideal .
Soil structure and work- Good; easy Unfavorable Moderate Severe sa- Usually Salinity or Salts or Salinity or
ability salinity linity or poor sodium sodium sodium
‘ sodium
Drainage Good Correctable Wetness Excessive Poor Poor Wet soils Wet soils
. wetness
Climatic limitations None Slight Moderate Moderately Short grow- Severe Unfavorable Severe
adverse ing season
Moisture-holding capac- Good Fair Low Low 5 Low Low tow
’ . .
Stones None Few Few Few May be Present Severe limi- Severe limi-
present tation tation

 

- No conservation practices as such; ordinary management to main-
uin productivity. ‘ '

' Not relevant.

- Those are maximum permissible limitations for each class; a par-
ticcnlar tract may have no limitation for one factor if other limitations
tesult in its classification in a particular class.

4 in this context “nearly lcvcl" means slopos usually of loss than 3
par cont; "gentle" usually moans slopes or 1 pct cont to 8 per cont:

“moderate." slopes of 5 per cent to ‘16 per cent: “moderately sic-on."
10 per cent to 33 per cent: “steep." 26 per cent to 65 per cent: and "t e";
steep." over 45 per cent. Classes overlap to include variations v. :mn
fields or areas and also to allow to some degree for effect of armor
factors.

SOURCE: Adapted from A. A. Klingcbiel and P. H. Montgomery,
Land-Capability Classrlrcntmn. Agriculture Handbook 230. 50:! Censor.
vation Sorvnco. U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1361.

Source: Soil Conservation in Perspective. (The other tables and Figures

 

 

in this appendices are taken from the same source.)

u7

TABLE 8. Area of land in Conservation Needs Inventory according to land-capabil-

Ity classrfication (Millions of acres in 48 contiguous states)

 

Area in subclasses. according to
dominant limitation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. Sub-

Sub- class
Sub- class 3 Sub-
Total class w (unfa- class

, . . Inventoried e (excess vorable c
Land classrflcatlon5 area ' (erosion) water) soil) (climate)
Class I5 36.2

Class II 290.1 149.8 86.4 33.1 20.8
Class III 310.8 178.0 73.7 48.2 10.9
Subtotal. best arable classes 637.1 327.8 160.1 81.3 31.7
, Class IV .. ' 168.7 95.9 27.5 41.1 4.2
Subtotal, arable classese ' 805.8 423.7 ' 187.6 ‘ 122.4 35.9
Class V . 43.0 . .5 38.7 2.0 1.8
Class V! 276.3 146.3 7.1 97.9 25.0
Class Vll 294.2 162.0 6.8 114.2 11.2
Class VIII 26.7 4.8 5.2 15.8 .9
Subtotal. poor classes 640.7 314.1 57.8 229.9 38.9
Total classified area‘ 1.4465 737.8 245.4 352.3 75.8

 

 

t See Table 6 and discussion in text for meaning of these land classes and subclasses.

5 Land in Class I has no Significant limitations.

9 Some land in poorer classes than these can be used for production of special crcpS.
such as Orchards With complete grass sod cover. cranberry bogs. and so on.

4 Totals exclude 1.4 million acres inventoried but not classified. and excludes federalir
owned land not in crops (396 million acres). most of which would fall in Classes VI and VII.
and excludes also nearly 51 million acres of urban and built-up land and nearly 7H1|Hi0n
acres of water area in small streams and lakes which are often included in land area —ct J
total of 455.4 million acres. The totals for the subclasses do not equal the total given '0'
inventoried area in the first column because Class I acreage is not broken into Subclasses.

SOURCE: Erom Basic Statistics of the National Inventory of Soil and Water ConserwlIC-fl
Needs. Statistical Bulletin 317. U.S. Department of Agriculture. August 1962. p. 101.

TABLE 9. Area of land in Conservation Needs Inventory according to use in 1958

and landcapability classification
(Millions of acres In 48 contiguous states)-

 

Land use in 1958

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Land classification and “fig" 2??

subclasses' Cropland range woodland Other Total
Class I: All 27.4. 3.9 3.6 1.2 36.2
Class II: e 99.3 22.8 21.2 6.4 149.8
w . 58.0 9.2 15.6 3.5 ~ 86.4
s 20.9 5.0 6.1 1.1 33.1
c 14.6 5.8 .2 .3 20.8
Subtotal 192.8 42.8 ~ 43.2 11.3 290.1
Class III: e 95.4 44.9 31.4 6.3 178.0
w 27.4 10.6 30.4 5.3 73.7
s 22.3 8.1 15.7 2.1 48.2
c 7.8 " 3.0 .1 .1 10.9
Subtotal 152.9 66.5 77.6 13.8 310.8
Class IV: a 31.9 33.5 26.4 4.0 95.9
131 . 5.0 4.9 15.5 2.1 27.5
s 10.1 13.3 16.1 1.7 41.1
c 1.9 2.1 .1 -— 4.2

Subtotal 48.9 53.9 58.1 7.8 168.7 .
Class V: All 1.8 10.5 28.9 1.8 43.0
Class VI: a 13.6 85.3 45.0 2.9 146.8
w .6 3.2 2.7 .7 . 7.1
s 3.6 55.8 37.3 1.3 97.9
c .1 21.8 3.0 - -- 25.0
'Subtotal‘ . 17.9 166.1 87.9 4.9 276.8
Class VII: 9 3.6 71.9 82.9 3.5 162.0
. w .1 .4 5.3 .9 6.8
s 1.8 57.3 53.1 1.9 114.2
c — 8.9 1.3 1.1 11.2
Subtotal 5.6 138.4 142.7 7.5 294.2
Class VIII: All .1 2.5 6.4 17.7 26.7
Total classified area 447.4 484.7 . 448.4 66.1 1,446.6

 

I The dominant hazards in the subclasses are as follows: a. erosion; w. excess water;
I. unfavorable soil conditions in the root zone; and c. climate.

SOURCE: From Basic Statistics of the National Inventory of Soil and Water Conservation
Needs. Statistical Bulletin 317. U.S. Department of Agriculture. August 1962. p. 101.

I.

 

I'.‘.‘v

 

 

 

 

 

5r _ ~
*5 - . . 9.0
3’ :41 ‘
.. ' . o .-_. 5 ,
' 1;" O . . . . -': ~
' O .a
t - .
- -'
-.--i . .'i.'.-‘
o ‘ “‘3... '- 0 «r2-
\ 25.}
. '3. ['9'
O . ‘ -'_. “s .0
I. “ .Q
I ‘ :. .'
I o -_ . .15. ff 8.
"' . .'-
.. gr.- ‘ .. .. . '
. x ”0', _ .
e'fi ‘ )
u a.
e g ' '

United States coral— l7;435.lwacres
Each do: represents 10,111) acres - -’

. Figure 18. Land-capability Class I, 1958 cropland acreage.

 

 

 

United States mi - 192,922,500 acres - ‘
Each dot represents IDA» acres

Figure 19. Land-capability Class II, .1958 cropland acreage. (hlaps from
Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.)

1‘ i I
\ , ‘ {\‘\ '1' K ::
N'\|l‘ul»lllizl'\N 5“ “K . i .".
.. . . . \ 0t \' ‘
all'iUK \— _ , }

T\. I\
'1. ‘\ l‘r‘ '

‘ .

 

 

159

 

United States total — 152,970,000 acres
Fsrh dN represents 10.000 arrcs

Figure 20. Land-capability Class III, 1958 cropland acreage.

gutted States total — 48,993,340 acres
ash dot represents IQW acres

 

Figure 21. Land-capability Class IV, 1958 cropland acreage. (Maps from
Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.)

 

 

50

O . . I
I

12.

13.

1a.

15.

’4

(h

FOOTYOTES

 

 

 

 

 

Oren SLocr: The Choices Pofore CaliforNIa, p. 1Jh,

Sac R. field and U. Clawson, Soil Conservation 'n Perspective;
ioin, rer*“‘:or npslicafiion31Aoreo, U.3.A., Harch 1972; and
Howard, ‘h~ Sell ano :ltl.

 

 

 

 

 

farvation... Then Strife," The Def cit News, Sunday

 

TL: .1 h 05 f
'4. ’ ‘1). IIK,’ .
rs n
9&3 State JO
f“ ' Y .
.:._"_. :IC‘W'Q I‘d. _
u—&
re 1' '- no
U. .weaCfl. A)
'V "1 ‘- "V3 '7
,1. J4 1" .19: .1- , girl.

She Choices Before California, p. 13h.

 

Resources Study,(5¢e bibliography for full information)

V

 

Power and To

nd in California, pp. 9-10.

 

 

H. Landsberg and others, 22. cit., p. 371.

(N .i‘ ‘ 9" ' ., '__O ‘ 0 1‘ Of 0’: . . _'
.m;rrhan :«LJ Contororon In the tn:-sfi States, p. 31

 

 

 

 

17. Consult bibliOgraphy for full information.

18. ”.3. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service,
'-ate Taxes, BET-9, p. h.

 

P0

,19. Useful nformation can to found in N} Plase and W. Staub, "Real
Property Ta: {es in the Rural-Urban;’ ‘rirg-," far” conomics, V01.X1YI. 30. 2,
y1971, pp. 169-71; and H. Clonts Jr., "Influ:nce of Urcenization or land
v:lues at b eUgtan Periphery," 32nd vcoromic" Vol. XIV L, ho. a, 50v. 1970,

pp. U89~ 97; :~d a Euneich,wm:zflj*.iiue (.n:nge:s in an Area ’ndergoing

3 . T
Urbanization," said Economics, Vol. KLVI, Ho. 1, Feb. 1970: PP0 32 ”C-

 

 

21. D. Andelman, "Es.a+ e Taxes Drive Farmers Off Land," The New York
Times, Sunday ed., Rey 1Q, 1972, pp. 1,53.

 

 

n- V ’H "‘ A o . ‘ : ' I :L”
22. 35. eighteen, SUJ.‘1T‘L3H Lanai. Cufiu’fiI‘SlOfl ..-n *e Sn; .,.~-:d StateS. p. mm.

 

 

2b, Sfiafe of hawaii Land Use Districts “rd Ueguistions Review, pp.

 

24. Acrmw‘l‘ural u;3- curses Stifiy. p. 2.15.

 

26. ‘M. C1 awson, PoliozrDirec+1o ns for U.S. Agriculture, p. 273.

 

 

29. H. Clawson. Suburban Land Conversion n the United States, pp.
32-53. " -

 

 

30. Agricultural Resources Study, p. 3.5.

 

v. s .

1 *9; | ’2' ’3

Au. "-—~ '. ’ t’. 1..-.
_

\J‘
\J

 

 

 

 

 

 

33. Agricultiral Desources Wu’l”, I. 3.3.
' . 1 vs ‘ ‘ r n 'n o -' .
3". J. Hunter. "Presorv1ng Hui al Lana Resonu ces . The California
. _‘ 7 A - -.. ..., .. ~ ’ ‘ q - . v 0‘ .. o 1 o .
Westsule , " c, .o] of”: 1m: tux.- b1 1, , Schcm of 1.3.1:, L111,cr31ty of Ca11forn1a
7" 'n‘ _ w o k \y '.__"‘" ‘ 4 IN": 0") H
Derkujeyt VOL. is qu Lf| ’“1L *1! I P. )/0-(3'
’3'! 'V",0 ,.. C 'l‘ v v. "7 c‘ . .J‘r- ~eq~ fl
, ). 1. 1’1, , and also no Glynn .-.:n1 on 111, hatrenenos to FL £3081 ve Oren
q. -s v ‘Q 7‘ - r 'v -‘.. ~ . . ‘ 3 r
31723.03 1;..X1il, " _:,:31_‘. l rrg'j raw Q‘.I".“£*“-?‘l;', ~C .001 Of :4" , ULLVOI‘Slloy Cf” 1.2-£151.be 39.14,
- j ' To '“r1" 4. Wflq . ”A0 " — -~? ,' fl, ‘ - “1‘7“ r“
8911193193 ’ Vol, 1 , “'0, w, .,_,_J_ *9, 1, 11,1 {.g;,.-€; filuu .'-. o1anson, out, ‘ can
J-

O
Lar :1 Conversion in the United States, pp 35:.

 

 

 

 

35. G. gill-IaI‘dS, Land, People arr-Cl "olicy, 1:31. 12‘1-26.

37. Ibid.

:’S. D. '~~"+'.<";'~=11, (:3. cit.

39. M. Clawson, 815311311 Land Conversion in the United States, pp.

 

 

L'IO. Glynn Smith III, 92. gig.

‘.
x
H
t‘.‘
,1 h

m
"J
\
x,

 

h2. F. Stocker, "Proferty Tax Exemptions for Farmers and the Aged,“
The Fr 03 rty Tax: Pr blems an dFotentials,

 

L13, Power and Land in California. p. 17 and 3150 Ii. Clawson. 212- Cit-

355-630

 

 

 

111+. M. Clawson, 92. cit... p. 351.
“5. D. Andelman, 92. cit.

1&5. Ii'. Cl'rron, 02. fit” p, 3117,

BIBLIOG?:FHY

( O

r' Acres, U.3.A., A Voice for Eco-Agriculture, larch issue, 1972.

 

n

Agric ul‘ur2l Fen vrors Stuly, (A upplemen.al Report 13-6. Association of
9 Area Go rrw~nts. C12 emont HoLol, Berkeley . California. August,

u')
flfl
I" A
1'0)

I

 

T‘

Andelr a: David A. "2 Mt te T'xes Drive Farmers Off Land,“ The flew York

 

1
" \a v
.. c. I- 4 1.7:“ ( If”
'1:,'?‘_';.,.‘ uLLI";(.¢£-], :37“, A“. -..?{50 PP. 1’ ,xJ

Blase, Kelvin G. and‘w. J. Steub. "Peal Property Taxe s in the RuralmUrban

r71 T‘Y‘

Fringe," Laud Economics, vol. Ab 11, Lo. 2, lhy 1971. pp. 168~7h.

 

H 77 I: ‘

ions ror ;.u. agriculture. (Bal him ore: J0111s
089 for the Future, Inc. , 1968)

Clawson, M9rion.
Hopkins Press f0

 

 

 

 

c-.1 _ s- q- . - : Y . (‘1‘. ' .

, ousfr?2n lend Congo rr on in +h9 Tritcd ou2123. .iluinore' Joh
'. -_ “, ,2 ..- 0.- 43..» '3, . n ;1 *1 L... -. r. 1 A... \,
({f'iig‘llgv- 11H...) 1;? «IZJ _,.,‘..,I.-- ..LTCETS ...U‘: '..J.€3 11. ..i-.‘.‘ ' ,1 11C. ' Ly - /

Clonts. Howard A. Jr. "Influence of Urbanization on Land Valu es at the
Urban Periphery," land Economics, Vol. XLVI, No. h. Novembeer,1970.

 

Edwards, Gordon. 19nd, Peeple and Poliov (West Tre' nton. New Jersey:
4
.L

" “...:.- 1 '91.: ..
Chand1£n~q11V1s PHOll~LJJ£§14O.,

 

 

Held. R. Burnell and Marion Clawson. Soil Conservation in Persye otive.
(Baltimore; Johns Hopkins Press for Resources -or the Fu ature, Inc.,

1965)

Howard, Sir Albert. The Soil and Health. (“aw Yoriu Devin-Adair Co.. 1956)

 

Hunter. Jerald W; "Preserving Rural Land Resources: The California Westside,
Ecologg Law Quarterly. School of Law, University of California, Berkeley,
Vol. 1, Ho. 3, Fall 1971. pp. 330-73.

 

Landsberg. Hans H. and L. Fiso o.man, J. Fisher. Resources In America's
. 7‘. .. . '
Fufuve. ritterns of ch Moments d Avalldl’Llh_.S 1930-2fl00.
#:73- y \ \’ vs a V“
1‘ . 3. .. -‘L111'3!“j : L‘Cflll‘)‘ or“ 1.?” I T'E’CS l ‘3)7‘ RQSOLH‘CQ‘U J- pk) 1‘ y‘le I. ‘Jtl ‘M ’ Inc. ’
4 ergo \

 

 

\ 11
U1

leach, Gerald. "S arvaticzi... Then Strife”, The Detroit News, Sunday,
' .April 30, 1972. pp. E-1,2.

 

17c Harg, Ian L. Besirn kith Xature. (Garden City, flew York: Double Bay,
Natura121istory Ire 33 for the American Euscum of fiatural History,
paperback ed., 1971)

 

 

 

onn Sggce: Tte Choices _ fm re California. The Urban} {et.rcp071tan Open Space

Suudy, direciod by “Jaard . n'tlliams Tor Eckbo,Dean,Austin, and

Power and larfi in Ca1ifornia. The Ralph Nada Task Force Report on Land Use
in the Stat3 of California, Robert C. Fellmeth, Project Director and
Editor, Center for the Study of Responsive Law, Washington, D.C., 1971.

 

 

 

, ° 7‘ 1- ‘Y J~ ' ' -_-~ 4" '5.- ‘ ‘ 1‘ . °
Price, Jeston A. u ritzon afid Sh- i2e1 Degene a11on. (hcd1ands, Laliiornia:
1‘ ‘ 1,“. 4 Oj-
Fu~v’].] 5.1‘:‘~1‘.\ d}8 okh‘ltlor’ «A. I 92)
h 0 ‘ $1: ~ r-1 "7 , w " r" . - ° . .. ., 7' 1- z .0 n
narc1tn. :;c-: 1 . 19r~ [atue ocgn 95 in an A““3 “drr oirv trrzwnzation.
' n t ‘7‘“ A , -..! , " ‘ ‘ "' ‘7 4 ’3-‘-‘ "’3 s ., ’3’? i n
1.41% .. .1, J. ...:S. ‘O-L. akLJlg ..‘O. -_ g - :‘LII‘LTILTR'. 19,” V. :CL'. LC"; J.

San Jose: Sprawlirg C t;, A Study of the Causes and Effects of Urban Sprawl

 

 

 

 

i
in San Jose.%11fornia. Conducted by the Stanforfi Environmental Law
Soc Let", S‘zrfcrd Tniv:rri.y 1;w School, Stanford, Cilifor 2.11, 1:71.
Schmid, A. All;:. Convertigg anfi From Rural to Urcan Uses. (Baltimore:
Johns: iogkins Press for the Resources f3? the Future, Inc., 1950‘

"VJ-a N

Smith,C1yn III, sements to r- eserve Open Space land, Ecology Law
Quarte r13', School of Law, Uniw rsit" of California, :erkeley, Vol. 1,
2:0. ”ft-"“11 1971. P'p. "f',2:8‘-"18.‘3

 

}—A
‘O
“J

 

The State Jo'rnal, "Fertility Decline in U.S.? Tuesday, September 1%,
p0 C'lo I

1.

 

 

Ste te of Ra 311 11 nd Use Districts and Regulations Review. Prepared for the
tate of Eiawaii Iand Use Commission by Sckbo, Dean, Austin, and. 'illiams,
‘Auo‘st 15, 1969.

m

a '9 "W \I \ Q - x V ‘ 4 o \ .“ H 'v r "q .
etoc e“, -.a9 110% D. ":‘0pcrtj Lax C.Cmp ions for 1azm0rs and the Abud,'

‘ 355:2_-:_-5.é:a~;u

 

 

 

 

J
...-l
T‘ffi" TY.O;‘.Y 1“»:l mfiY : FYLWTF?‘P:'§ aY"? F0 tcnn‘ 131$. ‘ Clrmrxl)(fium COVIPlv1CL{)d by
, the Tar 11c LiLJLe of rfina, November 2~5,19L6. (Princeton: Tax
. \
Institute of America, 1967;
I
U.S. 33,:rtm3nt of gicul‘ re, Economic Research 30 rvice, Far; “ta Esta‘c
Taxes, CST-C Ta askingtc n, D.C.: Governlf ant Prir tin cg Office, Jocember,
w
1 ;\"9/
,, Voisin, Anflm Fcrfiilizer Application. trans. Catherine T.M. Harriett.
fi 0 o r“ /o--
\Jp*1.o1,t7fl, IlilROlS: czarlmT C. chmas, 19?3)

 

_ c
.....

AERIS

IIHIHIHINllllIlll||H||||llHllIlllllllllllltlllllllI”

31293 02638 0109

ll