U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

71–375 CC WASHINGTON : 2001

S. HRG. 106–947

FARMLAND PROTECTION PROGRAM

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FORESTRY,

CONSERVATION, AND RURAL

REVITALIZATION,

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE,

NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

ON

FARMLAND PROTECTION PROGRAM

SEPTEMBER 18, 2000

Printed for the use of the

Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry

(

For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office

Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY

RICHARD G. LUGAR, Indiana, Chairman

JESSE HELMS, North Carolina

THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi

MITCH MCCONNELL, Kentucky

PAT ROBERTS, Kansas

PETER G. FITZGERALD, Illinois

CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa

LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho

RICK SANTORUM, Pennsylvania

GORDON SMITH, Oregon

TOM HARKIN, Iowa

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont

KENT CONRAD, North Dakota

THOMAS A. DASCHLE, South Dakota

MAX BAUCUS, Montana

J. ROBERT KERREY, Nebraska

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota

BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas

ZELL MILLIER, Georgia

KEITH LUSE, Staff Director

DAVID L. JOHNSON, Chief Counsel

ROBERT E. STURM, Chief Clerk

MARK HALVERSON, Staff Director for the Minority

(II)
(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

HEARING:

Monday, September 18, 2000, Farmland Protection Program ............................. 1

APPENDIX:

Monday, September 18, 2000 .................................................................................. 39

Monday, September 18, 2000

STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY SENATORS

Craig, Hon. Larry E., a U.S. Senator from Idaho, Chairman, Subcommittee

on Forestry, Conservation, and Rural Revitalization, of the Committee on

Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry .................................................................. 1

Santorum, Rick, a U.S. Senator from Pennsylvania, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Forestry, Conservation, and Rural Revitalization, of the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry ................................................. 3

WITNESSES

PANEL I

Keene, John C., Professor, Department of City and Regional Planning, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA. ........................................................ 9

Heinricht, Mary, Regional Director for the Mid-Atlantic American Farmland

Trust, Culpeper, VA. ............................................................................................ 7

Sells, Danny, Associate Chief, Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC. ................................................... 5

PANEL II

Beam, Omar, Recipient, Farmland Protection Program, Elverson, PA. ............. 28

Bowland, Marion, Executive Director, Pennsylvania Farmlink, Manheim, PA. 30

Bushnell, Bill, Legislative Assistant to Representative Raymond Bunt, Jr.,

147th District, Montgomery County, House of Representatives Commonwealth of Pennsylvania ........................................................................................ 25

Matthews, Hon. James R., Commissioner, County of Montgomery, PA., Norristown, PA. .......................................................................................................... 23

Oertly, Janet L., Pennsylvania State Conservationist, Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Philadelphia, PA. ........... 26

APPENDIX

PREPARED STATEMENTS:

Bowlan, Marion ................................................................................................ 58

Bunt, Raymond L. ............................................................................................ 51

Heinricht, Mary ................................................................................................ 45

Keene, John C. .................................................................................................. 48

Oertly, Janet L. ................................................................................................ 53

Sells, Danny ...................................................................................................... 40

(1)

FARMLAND PROTECTION PROGRAM

MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 2000

U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON FORESTRY, CONSERVATION, AND RURAL

REVITALIZATION, OF THE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY,

Washington, DC.

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:00 a.m., at the

Montgomery County Human Services Center, 1430 DeKalb Street,

Norristown, Pennsylvania, Hon. Larry E. Craig, (Chairman of the

Subcommittee,) presiding.

Present or submitting a statement: Senators Craig and

Santorum.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LARRY E. CRAIG, A U.S. SENATOR FROM IDAHO, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON FORESTRY, CONSERVATION, AND RURAL REVITALIZATION, OF

THE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND FORESTRY

The CHAIRMAN. Good morning, everyone. The Subcommittee on

Forestry, Conservation and Rural Revitalization of the full Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry will convene this

field hearing on farmland protection and the program around it.

Let me tell you it is a pleasure to be here in the Commonwealth

of Pennsylvania this morning holding this hearing. I say so not because this is a beautiful morning and this is a beautiful spot. The

hearings I have been holding over the last week-and-a-half or two

have been not about preservation, but about destruction and what

we do in the wake of destruction. I am talking about the tragic

fires that we have had throughout the west and the public land forests of our country this summer.

I chair another forestry committee on another committee, full

committee, so we are wrestling with that. So it is a pleasure to be

here and especially to be with my colleague, Senator Rick

Santorum and his staff, and let me thank them for assisting our

subcommittee in preparing this hearing. I think all of us are increasingly recognizing the importance of farmland protection and

the program that was created in 1980. I am from the State of Idaho

and out there it has been of less importance, but clearly today,

with the urbanization in our key agricultural areas, it grows everincreasingly more attractive to our State.

We created the program in 1980, requiring Federal agencies to

take a hard look at the problem. A decade later, the 1990 Farms

and Future Act allowed Federal demonstration projects to give
2

States guaranteed loans and subsidized interest to start to protect

farmland. But, funding under this law was somewhat intermittent.

Then the 1996 Farm Bill provided $35 million for a farmland easement acquisition program, and the program’s popularity has been

such that all of those funds were depleted by 1998, which brings

us to today.

The Subcommittee wants to recognize the effort that Senator

Santorum has directed with the Senate and has clearly become one

of the Senate’s champions for farmland protection. Senator

Santorum has produced legislation, S. 598, which would provide

$50 million annually for farmland conservation easements. Moreover, S. 598 contains a mechanism to extend farmland conservation

processes to all of the States. Recently, Senator Santorum worked

very hard with myself and other Senators to craft an emergency

agricultural funding package, and he was successful in getting an

additional $10 million in additional Federal monies into the Farmland Protection Program.

As I had mentioned, we had run out of funds and Rick was able

to get the Senate and the Congress to replenish that, as we are

working to accomplish now. Certainly, the Subcommittee would encourage, I think, Rick to detail the efforts that he has put forth.

They are important for the record. In that regard, I am confident

that we can build an excellent record this morning, and that is

what we are about, not only to strengthen the record, but to gain

witness from Federal, State, and local officials, academia and local

farmers, so that the Subcommittee can have a much fuller record

as we head into next year and the reauthorization of the farm bill.

And this issue, I think, will certainly be part of that overall discussion and consideration.

Just a couple of housekeeping matters before I turn to Senator

Santorum as we open the Committee with his and my remarks. We

have asked our witnesses to stay to 5-minutes. Their full testimony

will be a part of the record. If anyone who attends this hearing

would wish to make comment following the official witnesses, we

will ask them to come forward, to state their name for the record,

and we would give them 2-minutes to the microphone. Now, the

reason we are doing this is I have to catch a train back to Washington and get back to the city for leadership meetings this afternoon. But I think we have got ample time this morning to deal

with this issue and to build the record.

So, once again, let me thank all who are in attendance and certainly those on our witness list who traveled up out of Washington

for this hearing. Before we hear our witnesses, let me turn to the

Senator from the State Pennsylvania who has been a champion of

farmland preservation, Senator Rick Santorum.

Rick.

STATEMENT OF HON. RICK SANTORUM, A U.S. SENATOR FROM

PENNSYLVANIA, RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON

FORESTRY, CONSERVATION AND RURAL REVITALIZATION,

OF THE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION, AND

FORESTRY

Senator SANTORUM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and let me thank

you, Larry, for getting up early this morning and taking the seven
3

o’clock Metroliner up with me this morning from Washington to be

here, and thank you for holding this hearing. Larry is not only the

Chairman of this subcommittee, but he is also a member of the Republican leadership. He is the Chairman of our policy committee

and he works on developing policy for the Republican caucus and

has done a great job in that capacity and has really been a fine

leader in Washington, DC.. So, it is an honor to have you here with

us this morning to talk about an issue that is very, very important,

not just to Montgomery County, but to all of Southeastern Pennsylvania, in particular, because of the incredible growth pressure that

is being seen in our collar counties here around the city of Philadelphia and, even more so now, some of the counties outside of those

counties, talking about Lancaster County, Berks County, Lehigh

County, Northampton County. Those counties are experiencing

rapid rates of growth, also and this sprawl that is occurring in all

of those counties, many of which are just incredibly prime agricultural lands, the upper end of Montgomery County, another area

which is just incredibly good and strong agricultural territory, is

under tremendous development pressure.

Having resources directed from the Federal Government, I think,

sends the right signal to support the efforts of the counties here in

this region of the State, and obviously the State. Governor Ridge,

to his credit, his program, Growing Greener, I think it is called,

which is a major commitment—I think a special appropriation of close to $50 million was put forward just for this particular concern

that the people of this area have. In some counties here in southeastern Pennsylvania, we have even had referendums on the ballot

that have appropriated money from the local level to help match

State and Federal funds to secure more open space and farmland.

So, it is a very important issue. It is a farm preservation issue.

It is a preservation of our agricultural economy, which is crucial to

many communities here in southeastern Pennsylvania, and it also

goes to the quality of life, that people move to the suburbs for a

reason. They want to enjoy a higher quality of life, and part of that

is the open space and the green space and the farmlands. So, so

this is an important topic for our area and it is one that I have

worked on. And, Larry, I appreciate your fine words on the work

we have done in Washington. I worked on the 1996 Farm Bill to

create the farmland preservation program, which is the first money

that was actually dedicated just for preserving farmland, $35 million, of which Pennsylvania has received roughly 10-percent of that

money, which obviously shows the well-advanced state of affairs

that we have here in Pennsylvania, attracting that money from the

Federal level.

Interestingly enough, my co-sponsor on that amendment to the

farm bill was Senator Barbara Boxer, so that would just tell you

that, that was a very bipartisan amendment and one that has support on both coasts and recognizes the development pressure in our

larger, more urbanized States. So, we have continued with that, as

Senator Craig mentioned, in our emergency funding bill. We were

able to get—excuse me—the crop insurance bill, I guess it was, and

the emergency bill. The crop insurance bill is where we got the $10

million in authorization. So, we hope to get appropriation funding

for that $10 million and move this program forward.
4

We have an additional bill of $50 million that we have offered,

per year, to try to create more Federal incentives for this in, again,

in these particularly crucial farm areas. If you go to the upper end

of this county, if you go to certain areas in Bucks County, if you

go to Lancaster County, you have got some of the most productive

farmland anywhere, and it is not just, you know, 30-acres out back

that some people think of eastern farming. This is major production agriculture and it is very important agricultural land, and it

is very important to have this kind of production, which is accessible to the eastern seaboard and provides really quality agricultural products.

So, this is not just preserving a little, nice-looking dairy farm

with 30-acres that looks nice for tourism. This is about providing

food for this region and providing quality food and fresh food for

this region of the State. So, with that, I want to thank you, Mr.

Chairman, and we thank Mr. Jim Matthews, who is here representing the county commissioners, for making this space available to us, and we will be hearing from the commissioner in a little

bit. I appreciate your time and your willingness to be here with us

today.

Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Rick, thank you very much. Those of us who are

privileged to serve our States and help shape public policy in

Washington, both Rick and I serving on the Agriculture Committee, we remain very frustrated about the current farm and agricultural situation from the standpoint of profitability and all the

forces that a production agricultural unit has to deal with, whether

it is encroachment or whether it is higher taxes as a result of rezoning because of urbanization around or near it or the sheer profitability of the product that is produced. And, as this country struggles with farm policy, I say this kind of as an addendum, because

we as a country are clearly struggling at this moment to decide

where our public policy will be as it relates to production agriculture.

I say that from the standpoint of a historic role that public policy

has played versus a free market force that runs through most of

us who view agriculture, as we should, as a competitive business.

At the same time, I was taught a lesson this year, Rick. We in the

Congress had shaped a caucus to work with the administration on

establishing policy to go to the WTO plenary session in Seattle, and

that is a bipartisan group, Democrat, Republican, House and Senate, about 30 of us that gathered on more than one occasion, working with the Secretary and working with our trade ambassador,

but Pascal Lamay, who is the French Minister to the European

Union, happened to be in town.

We asked him to come and speak to the caucus and it was wellattended. He is a very intelligent, outspoken man, speaks very good

English with a slight French accent, so he threw us all off a bit

by being able to speak such fluent English. And we began to quiz

him about the agricultural policies of Europe and the heavy level

of subsidizing that goes on there, directly to the producer, and that

is how they offset issues of encroachment, that is how they offset

issues of profitability. That all becomes a part of how we deal with
5

the issues with the European Union and the WTO and the efforts

coming out of the Uruguay Round on GATT.

Anyway, after we had worked him over pretty hard with a bunch

of questions, he just kind of looked us directly in the eye with a

twinkle and said: Now, wait a moment. You have got to understand

we in Europe have made a decision. We do not plan to move from

it. And our decision is we will preserve the pastoral setting of our

landscapes. That’s what Europeans want. That is what we like and

that is what we are going to keep. And we have established policy

across England, France, Germany, Holland, Luxembourg and other

places that will maintain that.

And he says: You have got to understand that, that is our policy;

that is not your policy. We do not plan to change. Now, we can talk

about subsidizing a product into a world market, but don’t you tell

us how to treat our farmers. Period, end of statement.

And he smiled. The conversation was over with. I think we all

learned a lesson that day, Rick. Anyway, let us move to our first

panel. I am extremely pleased this morning to have these panelists

with us. Let me introduce them to the hearing: Danny Sells, Associate Chief, Natural Resources Conservation Service, USDA in

Washington. I understand that Danny traveled up here yesterday

afternoon, got caught in a traffic jam and so took an alternative

route through pastoral Pennsylvania. Mary Heinricht, Regional Director for the Mid–Atlantic American Farmland Trust from

Culpeper, Virginia; Professor John C. Keene, Department of City

and Regional Planning, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia,

Pennsylvania.

Thank you all very much for being with us this morning. Mr.

Sells, let us turn to you.

STATEMENT OF DANNY SELLS, ASSOCIATE CHIEF, NATURAL

RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE, USDA, WASHINGTON,

DC.

Mr. SELLS. Mr. Chairman, Senator Santorum, I appreciate the

opportunity to discuss with you today the important issue of farmland protection. I am Danny Sells, Associate Chief of the Natural

Resources Conservation Service. I would like to begin by recognizing the efforts and leadership of members of this subcommittee for

introducing S. 598 and co-sponsoring legislation that would accelerate our work in this area.

Additionally I would like to recognize three employees of the Natural Resources Conservation Service with me today. Janet Oertly

is the State Conservationist for Pennsylvania. The work of our

agency is done locally, working with local landowners to protect

natural resources. Janet is responsible for directing that work in

this State. This is one of, if not the, most important jobs in NRCS,

and she and her staff are doing a great job for Pennsylvania. Janet

will be discussing that work with you on the next panel.

Also with me is Eric Carlson. Eric is from Pennsylvania and

most recently was a Resource, Conservation, and Development Coordinator in the State. He currently is serving on our legislative affairs staff in Washington, DC. and is doing a great job for us, as

well. Lastly, Rick Swenson. Rick is our East Region Regional Conservationist and has only been in this position for about a month.
6

Rick’s most recent assignment was State Conservationist in New

York. He is over Pennsylvania and the other New England States,

and we are glad to have Rick as a part of our executive team.

Mr. Chairman, as a farmer myself from northeast Tennessee, I

know that most farmers want to stay in farming. It is a way of life,

a tradition, and we want to stay on the land. But in recent years,

I have noticed in my own community that fields and farms are giving way to pavement and people. On viewing the countryside on

the way to this hearing, I would expect that the same is true in

many parts of Pennsylvania.

If we are to plan strategically about agriculture in the next century, we must work to preserve both the land and the people who

work the land. We estimate that since 1967, an average of 1.5-million-acres-of-farmland has been converted to other uses each year.

Even more troubling is that in most States, prime farmland is

being converted at two-to-four times the rate of less-productive

land. If left unchecked, conversion of farmland will affect the Nation’s food supply, reduce the quality of our water and air, lead to

the general erosion of quality-of-life issues due to the lack of open

space for some areas of the country.

Our Federal efforts to help stem this tide include several new

initiatives. The President’s fiscal year 2001 budget included $65

million annually for the Farmland Protection Program. The budget

also proposed a $1.3 billion increase for conservation programs that

helped family farmers protect natural resources and keep farms in

operation. Within this proposal are several initiatives, including

the conservation security program, that provide support for those

farmers who are already investing in private land conservation, a

direct payment for doing good conservation.

We should never forget that the very best way to protect farms

and farmers is for agriculture to be profitable and economically

sustainable. Additionally, the Farmland Protection Program is a

key element of the administration’s Liveable Communities Initiative. Our intention for this initiative is to provide communities

with tools, information and resources they can use to enhance their

quality of life, ensure economic competitiveness and build a stronger community.

The Farmland Protection Program authorized by the 1996 farm

bill protects prime and unique farmland. It provides matching

funds to leverage dollars from States, tribes or local government

entities that have established Farmland Protection Programs. The

enabling legislation of the Farmland Protection Program provided

for total funding authority of $35 million, which was exhausted by

the end of 1998.

Coupled with State and local investments of about $190 million,

the current program will protect 127,000-acres-of-prime-andunique-land on 460 farms spread across 19 States. I believe this is

a notable success for a relatively small Federal investment. We are

pleased that Congress included $10 million for a Farmland Protection Program in the Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000,

signed by the President this year.

This will help keep interest in the program high after 2-years

without funding any new projects. Additionally, we are closely

watching the Conservation and Reinvestment Act, passed by the
7

House and currently before the Senate, which could provide up to

$100 million each year for farmland protection and related activities through the NRCS and the Forest Service.

In closing, I would like to invoke this administration’s strong

support for both S. 333 and S. 598. I look forward to working with

you to protect farmland and rural areas that are dealing with the

pressure of development. Together, we can help family farms continue their long and honorable tradition of providing food, fiber,

open space and a healthier and more livable environment for us all.

I thank the Chairman and would be happy to answer any questions

that the members may have.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Sells can be found in the appendix on page 40.]

The CHAIRMAN. Danny, thank you very much. Before we go to

questions, we will hear all of the panelists, because some of the

questions, we may want to ask all of you to respond to. Now, let

me turn to Mary Heinricht, Regional Director for the Mid-Atlantic

American Farmland Trust. And you have traveled up from

Culpeper?

Ms. HEINRICHT. Yes, I have.

The CHAIRMAN. Welcome to the Committee.

STATEMENT OF MARY HEINRICHT, REGIONAL DIRECTOR FOR

THE MID-ATLANTIC AMERICAN FARMLAND TRUST,

CULPEPER, VA

Ms. HEINRICHT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senator

Santorum. We very much appreciate this opportunity to provide

you with our views on the merits of the Farmland Protection Program. My name is Mary Heinricht. I am the Mid–Atlantic Director

for American Farmland Trust and I focus on New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware and Virginia, and that includes the

Northern Piedmont, which is the second-most threatened agricultural region in the United States, second only to the Central Valley

in California.

We have the most valuable land here, some of the most productive, and within 24-hours we can have fresh food and produce to

over 40-percent of the American population from this rich area. I

would like to recognize the Senator and thank both of you for your

championship of the Farmland Protection Program since its inception. This is a very important matter. As we look at the conversion

of farmland in the next decade-and-a-half, over 70-percent of the

private lands will be changing hands, and that means that people

are going to be dealing with inheritance issues.

We are looking at young farmers trying to figure out how to afford to invest in land, as well as the infrastructure that goes into

farming. We have a bit of a problem in that there is a speculative

value that has been attached to farmland that far exceeds its resource value and far exceeds the ability of the typical farmer to invest in that land. The inclusion of $50 million in the Farm and

Ranch Land Act, the Conservation Reinvestment Act, carries a

positive sign for this program and we hope you will support its passage in the Senate this month.

Certainly, looking at the way local Government has been able to

take Federal money and leverage it, we are encouraged that there
8

are more and more programs looking at bringing this to local government. The disparity of the values in the land is really much

easier handled at the local level than from a Federal program, and

so passing these funds down to local governments, where they can

look at local strategies, has been a great benefit to them.

When you look at the leveraging that was mentioned by Mr.

Sells, this is something that will be a better and stronger tool as

time goes on. We have asked for more than $50 million a year for

the new program, and we think that really maybe the need may

be more like $150 million a year to help keep the States growing

at bringing easements to the forefront. We do not have full participation from all around the country. Only 19 States actually have

adopted easement programs, although there are another 50 local

programs.

We think that more money from the Federal Government will encourage more and more States to do this. I am working with Virginia at the moment, who is looking at these programs, and quite

honestly, a lot of their decision-making is based on whether there

are other funds coming in to leverage their local contribution.

Local government talks to State government to see how they can

put funds together, and then the State government looks to the

Federal Government. So, the more we can look to Congress giving

money to the States for this purpose, I think the more we will be

encouraging those local programs to exist.

We would like Congress also to recognize the sophistication of

the approaches that State and local government is taking, and we

think that the program could be more flexible. Currently, each of

easements under the Farmland Protection Program must comply

with a lot of Federal criteria and each individual easement has to

be approved by USDA. We think that maybe making the program

more similar to Forest Legacy, where we allow the States to determine the priorities and the criteria for these easements, would actually make it an easier program to deal with.

Decisions about land-use and economic investment are most effective when they are made at the local level and implemented at

the local level, and this type of change in the program might make

it move along more quickly and be more successful. We would also

like to see them give them more leeway in how they distribute the

funding, and that maybe block funding would make it easier for

States to do this, rather than individual funding, so that they can

think about the amount of money that is coming ahead and plan

for that.

If both the local and regional strategists know the amount of

money they are going to get, then they can be putting together

their programs and their deals. Generally, easements are put together through a group of people and a group of efforts. Different

types of programs come together to do this. The farmers may come

in groups of people and, therefore, if we know what the number is

going to be that is coming down, it helps get everything else in

order and speeds along this process.

When you think about who participates in the easement programs, it is generally farmers who are under some sort of pressure,

and therefore time for them really is of the essence. If they know

what they are dealing with, then it is much easier to bring together
9

the bankers and the other programs. We also think that more could

be done to promote participation from States that are not currently

taking advantage of the program, including the eligibility for nonprofit entities to participate under State approval, and maybe State

supervision is one way to do this and to help leverage again the

private dollars.

Generally where we see private donations for conservation, they

tend to go to nonprofit entities and there is not really an easy way

for someone to donate money directly into a State program. So, we

might think that, you know, through State supervision and State

approval, that this might be a way to encourage more private

money to come directly into land conservation.

Also, currently the program is written to focus on prime soils and

it limits our State’s abilities to protect ranch lands and also some

unique lands. If you think along the Eastern Seaboard about the

way our wine industry is growing, those are not prime soils. They

are unique situations, but the soils actually are not considered

prime soils, so we might think of some expansion of that criteria

to give us a broader application for this.

In closing, I would like to underscore that for the past quartercentury the conservation and environmental objectives in our country have been largely achieved by either regulations or Government

purchase of private properties, and they have not resolved all of the

conflicts that we have all seen. So, it is important as we move into

the new century to have more tools for private stewardship to be

contributing to those, and we see these programs as an excellent

example of how we are going to change that and to govern a better

way and to let our communities make their own decisions.

We would like to thank you again for your leadership on this important national issue and for allowing us the opportunity to comment on it. And, again, we will take questions. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Heinricht can be found in the appendix on page 45.]

The CHAIRMAN. Mary, thank you very much. Now let me turn to

Professor John Keene, Department of City and Regional Planning,

University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia. Professor Keene, welcome before the Committee.

STATEMENT OF JOHN C. KEENE, DEPARTMENT OF CITY AND

REGIONAL PLANNING, UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA,

PHILADELPHIA, PA

Mr. KEENE. Thanks, Mr. Chairman, Senator Santorum. I appreciate the opportunity to come and testify on this very important

bill. I would like to focus on the broader context of managing urban

growth, of curbing urban sprawl, of finding ways of promoting the

agricultural economy to keep farmers farming. As you pointed out,

Senator Craig, where the farmers are not farming, there is not

much point in protecting farmland—and, finally, to protect prime

farmland, because it is this context within which the usefulness of

agricultural conservation easements and other specific methods

must be evaluated.

I would like to say a few words about my background so that you

understand the perspective that I bring to this problem. After graduating from law school, I practiced law in Philadelphia for about
10

5-years and then found myself becoming interested in urban problems. After getting a master’s degree from Penn in city planning,

I have been on the faculty with my research interests focusing on

the protection of farmland, growth management, and environmental policy, all of which, as you understand, intersect.

I have been researcher and co-author of two major studies of

Farmland Protection Programs; the first, The Protection of Farmland, was published by the National Agricultural Land Survey in

1981, and the second, Saving American Farmland, What Works,

was published by the American Farmland Trust in 1997. I have

also been co-author of two books on growth management, one concerning growth management in New Jersey and the other with the

Pennsylvania Environmental Council, focusing on growth-management techniques in Pennsylvania. I have published a number of

Law Review articles and other reports focusing on farmland protection and growth management.

It has become increasingly clear that urban sprawl is a wasteful

phenomenon. It results in the loss of prime farmland as new suburban communities, shopping centers and industrial facilities are constructed on the fringes of our metropolitan areas. It has led to the

depletion of the economic base of city after city across the country

as companies move out, taking with them jobs and tax revenues.

It has meant the wasteful duplication of infrastructure on the suburban fringe, on the rural fringe, while existing facilities in the

older cities, like Philadelphia, for instance, are being used under

capacity. It has meant the degradation of significant ecological systems.

And yet, in a general way, our Federal, State and local policies

with respect to urban development have largely subsidized urban

sprawl. I cannot take the time right now to go into the details of

that, but I think you are familiar with it, the insurance guarantees

and programs, the interstate highway program, the programs for

constructing sewer systems, sewage treatment plants and so forth.

We no longer can afford to pursue a national policy based on

urban sprawl—we must now concentrating on finding ways of developing effective programs for managing growth, for protecting

farmland from premature conversion on the one hand, revitalizing

our center cities, so that some of the development pressure which

has been moving centrifugally out to the edge of metropolitan

areas, is redirected to the older cities, thereby reducing the pressure on farmland for new facilities. This is especially important, as

we have seen, in areas like the northern Piedmont and the whole,

shall we say, the west face of megalopolis, which runs all the way

from northern Virginia up through Massachusetts.

As we demonstrated at length in Saving American Farmland,

What Works, an effective Farmland Protection Program is a synthesis of a number of different major techniques, agricultural protection zoning, purchase of agricultural conservation easements,

differential assessment of farmland for real property purposes, gubernatorial executive orders which coordinate the efforts of State

agencies in programs that affect the farmland base and so forth.

No single program is effective in isolation. It is only an integrated

package which will be effective.
11

Let me turn to the agricultural conservation easements technique, which is the focus of these bills. As of February, 2000, 19

States had adopted purchase of agricultural conservation easements, spending something like more than $937 million to protect

663,000-acres. Many local communities have established their own

PACE programs, allocating more than $300 million to protect over

150,000-acres. This is impressive testimony to the practicality and

political acceptability of the idea of conservation easements.

The National Governors Association has endorsed the two bills

that concern farmland protection unanimously. This technique is

an essential part of any broad-based program for protecting farmland. The challenge is demanding, the need is urgent and the time

is now. I urge the Senate to renew this program with the largest

appropriation that is feasible, given our broader concerns for budgetary balance.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Keene can be found in the appendix on page 48.]

The CHAIRMAN. Professor, thank you very much. Let me lead

with this question that I think—probably, Danny, to you and to

Mary, because you broached it and you talked about flexibility of

program and application of program at the local level. We understand now that the program must have a conservation plan developed in consultation with the NRCS. Danny, could you explain how

that works in actual practice, number one, and number two, the extent of that plan as it relates to cost and application, and how that

generally has worked with the conservation easements that have

been put in place to date? And I say that in the context of possibly

responding also to what Mary has suggested about blocking grants,

greater flexibility at the local level—in other words, the complication of getting to where we want to get, complication put down by

Federal regulation; and, in fact, is it working and what are the

costs involved?

Mr. SELLS. Mr. Chairman, as you well know from your own experience with the Committee, the NRCS works at the local level. Our

main business is conservation planning, ensuring that folks have

the tools, the wherewithal and the knowledge, through our technicians out in the field and our conservationists, to do the right thing

the first time and hopefully protect these resources. A natural extension of anything that would be along the lines of protecting

farmland for future generations naturally wants to look at that

issue of making sure that those resources are dealt with adequately

after an easement comes into play.

The process, of course, is just our local conservationist, and that

is the same as the local conservationist here in this county, working with someone that, as you discussed, the possibility that they

may be interested in an easement on their farm or having an easement placed on their farm in order to protect that. You find these

folks to be very willing. They generally are interested in conservation and are generally more adept at being good conservation farmers to begin with, but also just because they have an interest in

preserving that land, you have someone who is willing to go

through the process of looking at how you treat that land after it

comes into easement.
12

Of course, we do have other programs that provide assistance to

that producer, as well, in order to make sure that they can get

those practices installed timely and in a cost-effective manner.

From the standpoint of the issue of block granting, we feel at this

particular point that it is important with this very new program

that has been minimally funded at $35 million thus far have an opportunity to work, have an opportunity to be funded at a level to

really see how it can work.

There are a lot of things you and I have to take into consideration, and that is protecting that interest that the taxpayer themselves are putting into this program and into that easement. The

easement is permanent, and permanent is a long time, and making

certain that we have in place the opportunity for that to remain

perpetual, providing those benefits to society both from an aesthetic standpoint and from the standpoint of the ability to continue

to produce food and fiber is critically important.

We think the opportunity to involve more individuals, more people around the country, to have more partners at the table with us,

is very important in expressing the interest in making sure that

these programs continue to grow in enthusiasm as we have seen

them in the last few years. So, we are not objectionable to looking

at some alternatives, but we feel very clearly that probably the

three highest priorities we have for this program right now, as opposed to any radical changes in the program structure itself, is

funding, funding and funding.

The CHAIRMAN. Mary, do you wish to comment on the experiences you have had and that Mid–Atlantic has had in cooperation

with the NRCS and the local committee structure and how that

works?

Ms. HEINRICHT. Yes, I think our comment was to think about

how we plan this out, as opposed to objecting to the way the program has worked. When we are talking about a conservation easement, you are talking about the typical farm family’s value, their

inheritance, the future financial health of their family and all this.

A lot of times, there are five-to-fifteen people who actually have an

interest in the land and the business, and it is a very complicated—it is estate planning at its most sensitive, really. So, the

more things that can be done to make that family comfortable and

to give them flexibility in how they approach this, the better.

And that is why we said allowing local flexibility-an easement is

going to be different from farm to farm to farm. Generally, when

you look at the success in Pennsylvania, of protecting farmland, it

is because you have had not only the State program, but you have

had then county programs that supplement it, you have land trusts

that help work on it, you have a multitude of choices for that family to make in their estate planning and in settling these things.

So, we are trying to figure out how to make them most comfortable, and if we get the agreement between the bigger programs

done up front and we have kind of the ideas of where each group

has to comply with the other’s regulations, then the least amount

of pressure and confusion happens to the farmland owner.

The CHAIRMAN. Professor, you mentioned some of the programs

we have contributing to the urban sprawl that is obvious across our
13

country and our landscape today. My reaction, I wrote in my notes

as you were giving your comments, was unintended consequences.

Mr. KEENE. Exactly.

The CHAIRMAN. I don’t think that when Eisenhower and others

were proposing a great interstate highway system, they were suggesting they were going to kill inner city America or even thinking

about it at that time.

Mr. KEENE. I think they probably thought that, by increasing the

accessibility of the center cities, they would bring more jobs to the

center cities.

The CHAIRMAN. Probably so.

Mr. KEENE. But highways are a two-way street, so it worked the

other way.

The CHAIRMAN. We put a lot of money into our transportation

system and Rick and I learned early on in the business of representing our States that, that was something we duked it out for,

high priority. We have a county commissioner who is going to testify today. I doubt that he would want this county to have any less

of its share or any percentage less of share of Federal highway

transportation dollars versus State, and all of those kinds of combinations. It has literally become the bread and butter of the infrastructure of this country.

How do you suggest we adjust or make those kinds of changes

if, in fact, now we are having to come in on the back side and subsidize or a form of subsidy to protect landscapes and certain sensitive ecosystems and, of course, the agriculture land that we are

here talking about today?

Mr. KEENE. Well, you put your finger on a very difficult issue.

I think as a starter ISTEA and TEA21 attempt to shift some of the

emphasis from surface highway road transportation facilities to

mass-transit facilities, which would better serve high-density areas.

That is a start in what I consider to be an important direction. My

point is that the issue of protecting farmland has to be viewed in

this broader context of urban development, because if we do not

find some way of redirecting development pressures away from the

urban fringes, in the long run, it is going to be very difficult to

maintain these wonderful farming areas which I am familiar with

around here, in Lancaster County, one of the most productive, if

not the most productive, unirrigated county in the country, with

over $1 billion worth of agricultural produce, more than many

States.

If we do not find a way to reduce the development pressure on

the peripheral counties, ultimately, within our lifetime, we are

going to lose them. So, though it is difficult politically—I couldn’t

agree with you more—we need to try to find some way of shifting

the emphasis more toward mass transit, toward more concentrated

community development and, most importantly, toward revitalization of the old cities.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Santorum?

Senator SANTORUM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am going to sit

in for Senator Lugar and ask his question that he always asks at

these hearings, and that is agriculture is not profitable because we

have too many people producing too much and prices are low because of that, and so why are we saving agricultural land? I mean,
14

what is the point? I mean, we have got too many farmers and they

are producing too much food, so why are we out there saving agricultural land?

And your answer to that is?

Mr. KEENE. Who would you like to start?

Senator SANTORUM. Go ahead. Take them in order. That is his

standard comment when I talk to him about this, and that is we

have got too much Ag land right now, you know, we have got too

much food we are producing. Why are we saving Ag land?

Mr. SELLS. I guess, Senator, to some degree I would probably

defer to the gentlemen the Chairman mentioned from France as

having a pretty good response to that, and that’s generally what

the people want. I think, in large degree, we do want to save this

farmland for a lot of different reasons. Some of them are heartfelt

and some of them are more aesthetic, from the standpoint of the

kind of communities we would all like to live in.

I think, too, that it is important from a strategic standpoint, as

we look, coming to the next farm bill, of what agriculture is about

and what we expect it to be in the next century and how it is going

to develop and how some of the new processes, more science and

new science, is going to impact it, and what is the appropriate

amount of land to have in production as you deal with all these

issues. I think it is absolutely critical that we come together, and

I think that the broadening of the family discussing this issue is

critically important, and that is the reason that, whether it is

NGOs or whatever, getting this thing to spread out in a broader

fashion so that more folks can be involved in looking at their community, looking at their watershed, to plan how you would like for

that community, that watershed, to look and how you think agriculture ought to fit in it.

You know, as we were talking about interstate highways, to me

and in my community, I’m not concerned about interstate highways. Generally, they are in fairly decent locations and they are

there to stay. It is the smaller roads that are killing us. You know,

you build a road and the development just follows. Well, the ability

to be in a community, an active community, that wants to make

sure that they are looking at where those roads and that development will occur—you know, the Farmland Protection Program is

not an anti-development program, it is a Farmland Protection Program.

So, our ability to look at it as a community, to decide where we

can have agriculture, where it makes most sense, where we can

protect those prime and unique lands, and there are other places

where it is probably appropriate for us to give that up to development, because those communities are still going to grow. The economics are just there to do that. Protecting our agricultural land,

you can probably come up with numbers that tell you really do not

need to, but I think, from the standpoint of this country and where

we are in our history, I do not think that our view of the world in

some number of years to come will be much different than the gentleman from France in the fact that the people accept and want

this to be the kind of land that is aesthetically beautiful and we

are taking care of, and I think that is the point.
15

Ms. HEINRICHT. Well, when we settled America, people got here

and they got out of boats and they didn’t have a whole lot of

choices as to where they could establish their communities, but

they consistently did it where they had the most productive soils,

because they needed to feed themselves. If we look at farmland as

a resource, the best soils and the unique areas take the least

amount of input, and if you think of the way we have become very

sensitized to environmental issues in America, and, of course, we

have had a great deal of debate about the things that go into our

food or do not go into our food, and that will continue to go on.

It seems important to protect the best of that resource. A lot of

times, when I talk to communities about how to plan their comprehensive plans, I talk about gold mines and you do not dig for

gold where there isn’t gold. So, we really should not be trying to

force farmers into land to grow where it is not well-suited. Farmers

choose their crops and what they are doing based upon the capability of the landscape there and what takes the least amount of

input. They are good businessman. The farmers today are the ones

who are the best business people, because they have lasted through

all of this.

Today, farmers are getting for some commodities the same price

they got in 1950, and yet they are still able to hang on there. But

if you think about the potential for growth in this industry and you

think about how much more you pay for food today and how much

more you eat in restaurants and how you pay a premium for restaurants that have fresh, local produce or who have organic food.

Whoever would have thought you would be going to a grocery store

and weighing those nice, bright red tomatoes on the vine and paying $3 a pound, and you are paying for the vine, which you do not

eat.

In northern Virginia, we have been looking at the growth of

niche farming in Loudoun County, and we can probably debate for

a long time whether Loudoun will be agricultural in the future, but

the growth in profits on that urban fringe are equal to the growth

in the high-tech industry. It is not equal in dollars, but in terms

of the profit coming to the farms more and more every year, it is

growing at the same rate.

Mr. SELLS. High-tech companies do not make any profits, so that

is a different story.

[Laughter.]

Ms. HEINRICHT. But we have had a cheap food policy for a long

time and it has been a good policy. We have always make decisions

in America for the broadest good for everyone and we have made

decisions to subsidize certain things because it benefits the most

people, and our policies on food were meant to benefit the people

who eat. And now everybody is pretty well able to eat and it is time

to be looking at getting the farmer more than 10 or 20 cents on

the food dollar again.

Mr. KEENE. That is a very broad and provocative question. I

think the broadest answers to it lie in the area that, first of all,

agricultural products have been an important part of our international trade over the years. It ebbs and flows. They are more or

less profitable, but, on balance, they have been an important component, making us one of the major agricultural exporters in the
16

world. Second is the point that Mary made, that once you pave over

prime farmland, it is gone. It is going to be very difficult and very

expensive to restore that to its prior fertility.

But I think the broad question really needs to be broken down

into a more specific set of questions which have more specific answers. I know I did some work in Minnesota. We were consulting

with the Department of Agriculture there about protecting farmland, and they asked the same question: We have so much land

and so few people, why go to a lot of trouble?

Well, I think that points to an answer that the problem is different in different parts of the country, where you have growing

populations, expanding metropolitan areas, coming into conflict

with, running headlong into prime farmland, the arguments are

much stronger for protecting farmland. Where you have a large

amount of land and relatively low population pressures, the arguments are less strong. Different techniques may be appropriate.

But I think really part of the answer is the point I have made,

that we are not talking just about protecting farmland. We are

talking about trying to create communities in the 21st century

which will be better places to live in, which will allow more of a

sense of neighborhood, which so many of the suburban areas do

not, which would be more efficient users of the infrastructure being

built. So, you have to look at both sides of this coin; on the one

hand, trying to build more compact communities which are better

served by mass-transit, which provide greater diversity and, on the

other hand, trying to protect the farmland resources and the other

ecological resources which lie on the outskirts of the city.

Senator SANTORUM. Ms. Heinricht, you talked about the importance of having a Federal program. Do any of you have anything

additional to add? One of the questions—again some of the critics

of this—is, well, the States are doing it, the counties are doing it.

There is really no reason for the Federal Government to get in here

and put its oar in the water here, just let the local communities

do what they want to do, let the States do what they want to do.

Do you have any comment on that?

Ms. HEINRICHT. Well, I think most State and local governments

do not have a lot of the technical resources that USDA and the

Federal Government bring to this issue. If you think about a typical agricultural County that may have five or ten local employees,

they really do not have access to a lot of the mapping resources and

the understanding of even the LESA program or how these things

come together. So, the Federal Government really can provide a lot

the background to help local Government make these decisions, to

help them make the land-use decisions, to help them decide where

to save their land, how to do it, you know, what the best decisions

are.

So, I do not believe we want to set up a whole new Federal level,

duplicating the things that the local people do, but in a lot of cases

the local governments just don’t have the capacity to get to the

really big issues. So, I think they really do complement each other

quite well.

Mr. SELLS. I do want to say that I honestly believe we have got

to operate these in a manner which ensures that we do not have

this become just a Federal responsibility. This is a mixed respon-
17

sibility that we all have, whether you are in a local community or,

for that matter, a local private-land owner or, at the State level or

at the Federal. I think it will only work if we are all in this together.

I will say that the programs Pennsylvania has put into place and

the local communities stepping up to the plate, I think it is an example of how this can be done in a more appropriate fashion all

over the country. As Mary indicated, there are a lot of resources

that the Federal Government can bring to bear that are important,

and I think the most important one is that technical assistance,

and the technical assistance in this particular case that is provided

through our employees across the country, whether it is in these

19 States or the balance, it is important to have that ability to provide the technical assistance that folks need, that are out there

every day trying to make a living, or communities themselves that

are making a living doing something different than this, that even

when they come together in their meetings to begin to plan on how

they would want their community together or to come together or

to look, that they have the expertise, the technical expertise to do

better planning, to ensure that they know what soils exist or what

capabilities exist out there as they look at where roads or developments or anything of that nature should be.

We have, as we have talked with you before, and the chief has,

as well, we are incredibly stressed, from the NRCS standpoint, of

providing the amount of technical assistance around the country

that is needed. As we went out recently with a set of hearings on

the Farmland Protection Program and the issues therein, that was

the big cry. We need more folks out helping, working with us every

day on the land to help us make better decisions.

There is a huge shortage of that assistance out in the countryside

and hopefully, over the course of the next budget or two, as we look

at this, we can make up some ground that we have lost over the

course of—of the correct thing of trying to balance the budget, but

hopefully get our priorities into line where we can provide additional technical assistance, so folks, communities, all can make better decisions when they are planning.

Mr. KEENE. If I can just add to that, Senator Santorum, one of

the most commonly used techniques for deciding which land is the

best land, which land is under the least pressure, which land is

most appropriate for the sale of a conservation easement, is the socalled Land Evaluation and Site–Assessment program or technique, which Mary mentioned, LESA, as it is known by its acronym. This is really a decision-making aid, a decision-making process which assists the county or the township or the State to determine which parcels have the most productive land, which are most

appropriately located with respect to prospective urban development, which ones, in short, it makes the most sense to invest substantial amounts of money in.

To operate the LESA, or Land Evaluation and Site–Assessment

program, to do it right, you need information. You need to know

about soil quality. You need to know about comprehensive planning

efforts. You need to know about zoning. You need to know about

prospects for development. The Geographic Information System,

which I am sure you are familiar with, is something that is just
18

sweeping across the country now, providing very useful access to

all kinds of natural and economic information, but it takes money

to set up a GIS system. It takes experts to run it. And, as Mary

said, many—especially rural—counties simply don’t have the revenues to support that kind of thing.

The States could take up some of this, but certainly the Federal

Government can help out on a broader basis to bring to bear the

experience of various offices around the country. I think this highlights one of the major reasons for having the Federal Farmland

Protection Program. It serves as an incentive for States and local

governments to engage in this kind of protection. Their money will

go twice as far, or maybe not twice as far, but on the order of twice

as far if there is a Federal program.

It also places the imprimatur of Federal approval of acceptability

on this technique. It is, for people who are not familiar with it, a

very strong technique to have the Government come in and buy an

interest in your land. I know I was working 20-years ago in Chester County, where we were suggesting that this would be a useful

technique for protecting farmland and ecologically significant land,

there was resistance to it. I don’t like the idea of having the Government do it. Well, one answer is to say, well, it’s okay now. A lot of the States are doing it around the country, over $1 billion has

been spent on it, hundreds of thousands of acres have been protected.

That reminds me of something else. I think, as Mary suggested,

that the role of charitable trusts can be very important. In Lancaster County, for instance, the Lancaster County Farmland Trust,

working with the county, has protected, I think, over 25,000-acres.

It provides an alternative for farmers and other landowners who

are reluctant to go into a partnership with the county or the State.

They can save their land without receiving money from the Government. These are privately-raised funds. The more the idea of purchase of agricultural conservation easements is common currency,

the more it is accepted, the easier it is for the nonprofit organizations to undertake a program like this and provide what can be a

very essential parallel program to the Federal, State and local programs.

Senator SANTORUM. In Lancaster County, and I have been out

talking farmland preservation there for a long time, they have done

a great job with public and private partnerships and they have

really, I thought, done a great job of buying a lot of farms contiguous to each other to create a whole area that will be set aside.

And that is very exciting. I know, Mr. Chairman, I am probably

long on my questions here, but just a couple of real quick ones.

First off, on this block granting idea which, I know, Mr. Sells, you

are not in favor of, but who would the block grant go to? Would

it go to the State? Would it go to the County? Would it go to a nonprofit?

Ms. HEINRICHT. Well, I think you would look at each—how it was

set up. I think you probably want to have a State strategy. And we

are just trying to set Virginia up based on, actually, the Pennsylvania model. We are encouraging them to come along.

Senator SANTORUM. Well, the legislation was drafted after the

Pennsylvania bill. That is why we do so well under it.
19

Ms. HEINRICHT. That is where we are looking at setting a standard and then dropping it down to the next level, to get—— Senator SANTORUM. I am still not understanding where the

money would go.

Ms. HEINRICHT. I think probably to the State, and then the State

would look at how it would qualify across the State, and then your

nonprofits or your county or whatever would then meet the State

standard and it would be passed through that way. I think you will

probably want to look at it.

Senator SANTORUM. OK. One other thing you mentioned was estate planning which, of course, leads me to the question of estate

taxes or death taxes, as they are now called. We had testimony at

one of these other hearings from an officer from Vermont who testified that one-third of the applications or one-third of the land that

has been set aside was the people who came and asked for this

money did so to pay for estate taxes, as part of their estate planning. I would think estate taxes have a very large role in the destruction of a lot of agricultural lands in this country. Do you want

to comment on that?

Ms. HEINRICHT. Well, yes, I think it does.

Senator SANTORUM. I am just trying to make the point that the

estate tax is an anti-environmental tax. I mean, it really is, in the

sense of people selling land for development to pay for it.

Ms. HEINRICHT. Well, particularly when you think about farmland now, generally it is a larger family that all have an interest

in that land, most of whom are not farming it, and therefore estate

settlement is a very complicated issue. An awful lot of our farmers

or our farmland is farmed by non-resident farmers, where someone

down the road is actually the active farmer, and that changes the

amount of estate tax that is due when that farm changes hands.

So, it has been very destructive to keeping farms in farming.

Mr. KEENE. Could I add to that? I did a study for the Council

on Environmental Quality, called Untaxing Open Space, a title

which I always felt was kind of nice. It was a study of differential

assessment of farmland. The idea behind differential assessment of

farmland is that real property taxes are one of the factors—of rising real property factors, taxes are one of the factors which are

forcing farmers to sell out, because their marginal profitability is

gradually declining. As urban development pressure moves out,

land values go up and taxes rise.

We found in that study, and I haven’t seen any study that has

contradicted that, that there are a number of factors that lead

farmers to sell out. It may be that they are reaching retirement age

and they do not have a member of the family to take over. It may

be that land values have gone so high that no farmer can afford

to buy a farm. The only way you can get a farm is to inherit a

farm. It may be that intruding suburbanites are complaining so

much about the farming that it has just become a nightmare for

them to continue and they are going to say, ‘‘I am going to cash

in and go down to Florida and take it easy, not get up every morning at dawn for 7-days a week.’’

So, there are a number of factors with respect to differential assessment of farmland. I think the same is true with respect to the

estate tax. There are a number of factors besides simply the estate
20

tax burden which will lead a farmer to sell. A farmer may be able

to manage it financially, but it may not be economically sensible

for him to do that. There may not be a member of the family to

take over or there may be disputes between the children—to take

over. It may be that no farmer can afford to buy that land.

Again, it varies so much from one part of the country to the

other. If you are talking about farming in the Metropolitan fringe,

it is much more likely that land values will be high, making it

more difficult to pass the farm on from one generation to the next.

If you are talking about farming in the middle of Montana or a

very large State with very few people, the development value will

not be much of an increment over the agricultural-use value. So,

it will be easier to sell that ranch or that farm for farming, and

therefore that won’t be so much of a problem.

So, I think we have to understand again that the answer is not

a simple one. Estate taxes, in many cases, are important. In many

cases, they may be forcing people to sell. In other cases, they may

not be the predominant factor.

Senator SANTORUM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SELLS. I was just going to say quickly that there is not a silver bullet here that fixes this thing and it has got to be a more

comprehensive approach. Beyond question, estate taxes have some

impact. However, there are a lot of other impacts and we have

made a good deal of progress on some of the State exemptions for

farmland over the course of the last several years; but an awful lot

of that, as indicated by the other panelists here, are dealing with

debt, operating expenses. And a more comprehensive approach that

actually includes, not just farmland protection, but the reality of

trying to come up with policy that helps agriculture be productive,

profitable in a fashion that allows the farmer to stay on that land.

As I indicated in my earlier remarks, the majority of us who are

farmers want to be there. We don’t necessarily need to be millionaires from the Federal Government or anything else, but we need

the opportunity to try to hang on and stay on that land and feed

our families. And that opportunity exists in a multitude of answers

and not just in one single answer, which probably makes it more

difficult today. If there was one answer out there, we would all be

scrambling to do it.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, thank you all very much. Let me make one

comment and possibly one question of you, Danny. But, Professor

Keene, when we look at the urban and urban-fringe growth, you

referenced Montana. I come from Idaho, mostly known to people as

a large, open State, lots of public land, large ranches. Strangely

enough, the economy of those ranches is dramatically impacted

today, also. Few, if any of them, are profitable.

As a result of that, they fall victim to being divided into

ranchettes, if you will, or smaller divisions which destroy the concept of large ranches, most importantly destroy the concept of open

country and open range. And therefore flows of wildlife and all

kinds of things come into play there. And it has been interesting

for me over the years to watch the preservationist movement attack ranching, only to destroy it in part—to therefore destroy the

landscape that they were wanting to protect.
21

Another great influence, and I think negative, is—I call it e-commerce wealth, young people with lots of money who find romance

with the farm or the ranch and want to go out and buy one of these

pieces of property at three times its productive value to shoot the

values up, to force a lot of other kinds of things to happen in the

marketplace of values and estates and future acquisitions for actually productive purposes of these properties.

Danny, my question of you—and it is not to be the spoiler—but

while we are abiding by substantial surpluses in Washington at

this moment, it does not mean we are awash with money available

to fund these kinds of programs. We have to struggle for every dollar we can get. What has been the average cost of a conservation

easement to date since the program started on a per-acre basis? Do

you know that figure?

Mr. SELLS. I do not know the figure.

The CHAIRMAN. I mean, I am sitting here looking at background

from fiscal years previous and I am seeing, for example—and I

didn’t bring my calculator and it probably would not be accurate—

but I am looking at 176,254-acres at $329 million and other kinds

of figure talked about; 98-farms, 10,000-acres, estimated value of

$40 million. What are these costing the American taxpayer today

and is that just a Federal presence or is that the total value for

conservation easement when you incorporate these local or State

dollars that might be at play there?

Mr. SELLS. Well, that is going to be the total of all the various

investments that go into it or the total value of the land. And, of

course, in my comments I indicated that out of the $35 million to

the Farmland Protection Program that has been used thus far, we

have leveraged about $190 million of State and local dollars. So,

the contribution is reasonably small. I have seen some numbers

that at say we leverage about eight dollars for every Federal dollar.

I think it is somewhere along those lines.

And, you know, the land ranges hugely in value. And naturally,

from the standpoint of your State compared to here, it is going to

be somewhat different, excluding those e-commerce folks that are

able to go out there and pump that price up. My own farm in east

Tennessee was purchased in the early 1960s at about $500 per acre

and today I could sell it for better than $10,000 an acre.

The CHAIRMAN. Sure.

Mr. SELLS. So, those kinds of values have caused it to become a

more expensive proposition and, in my mind, actually showing a

greater need for us to continue within those limited budgets trying

to prioritize as many dollars as we can to help those local programs

come over that last hurdle that helps them actually get that easement in the bank so that folks can actually protect those lands.

But, my assumption is going to be—and this is a guess, and we

will get an answer back to you—but my assumption is going to be

probably in the neighborhood of an easement running on average

probably somewhere between $2,000 and $3,000—probably—an

acre across the country when you put everything together. But,

again, I think that would be the total easement value and not just

the Federal contribution.

The CHAIRMAN. I have no way of calculating that.
22

Senator SANTORUM. Pennsylvania is $1,952, so about $2,000.

But, in Jim’s county, in Montgomery County here, which is the third-highest, the average is $5,200 an acre.

The CHAIRMAN. And part of the reason, you have just stated,

Dan.

Yes, Professor?

Mr. KEENE. It varies so much from one State to the next and

from one area to the next.

The CHAIRMAN. The difference we have experienced, certainly

with these kinds of easements versus scenic-value easements—usually scenic-value easements are drawn or acquired after you have

drawn a line around a designated area, and by that line you have

created a bidding war that shoves up values and the last one out

gets the highest value, unless you lock a value in at the Federal

level, which we have never done to date, and I have seen entry

easements go for as much as 200- to 300-percent less than the final

easement acquired with it, but that is because you have got designated boundaries. That would be less the case here.

Ms. HEINRICHT. Some of the programs actually include discounting of the easements in their programs. Delaware, for example,

their program, they do appraisals of all the properties in the application and then that is made public. And then the farmers come

in and discount what they will accept.

The CHAIRMAN. Is that against a fixed value or a fixed amount

of money to be distributed for those acquisitions?

Ms. HEINRICHT. Yes, they know how much is going to be spent

that year.

The CHAIRMAN. So they tend to then bid themselves down into

the value or the amount?

Ms. HEINRICHT. Right. Very few programs are actually paying

full market value for the easement itself, so that a great deal of

it is the landowner donating some of that value, and again that is

where taxes come in, because they get to take a tax advantage for

that donation.

The CHAIRMAN. I am going to have to conclude this panel or we

are going to run out of time, folks. We could go on all day about

this. It is important. Yes, Professor?

Mr. KEENE. Could I make a request? I received the invitation to

attend this hearing toward the beginning of last week and I had

a number of other obligations. I wonder if I could have a few days

to submit my full statement?

The CHAIRMAN. Surely.

Mr. KEENE. I have a copy of my remarks and I have a copy of

the American Farmland Trust book. I do not know whether you

have this for your files, but I would like you to have it, because I

think it does talk about the purchase of conservation easements.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, we value your testimony and, of course,

you can have that time, because we want your full statement be

a part of the record we are building here.

Mr. KEENE. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you all very much for being with us this

morning. Let us move to our second panel then. Well, the commissioner that was referenced by Senator Santorum, the Honorable

James Matthews, Commissioner, County of Montgomery here in
23

Norristown, Pennsylvania—Janet, how did we decide to pronounce

your name? Thank you. Janet Oertly, Pennsylvania State Conservationist, Natural Resources Conservation Service; Omar Beam,

recipient, Farmland Protection Program; and Marion Bowlan, Executive Director of Pennsylvania Farmlink, from Manheim, Pennsylvania.

Representative Bunt.

Mr. BUSHNELL. Good morning. I am Bill Bushnell. I am Legislative Assistant to Representative Ray Bunt. The representative

sends his apologies. He is under the weather this morning.

Senator SANTORUM. Oh, okay. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Bill?

Mr. BUSHNELL. Bushnell.

The CHARIMAN. Bushnell. All right. Commissioner, this is your

home turf. Therefore, you are the ranking. We will start with you,

Commissioner Matthews. Thank you.

STATEMENT OF JAMES R. MATTHEWS, COMMISSIONER,

COUNTY OF MONTGOMERY, PA., NORRISTOWN, PA.

Mr. MATTHEWS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, Senator Santorum, as well.

Senator SANTORUM. Good morning.

Mr. MATTHEWS. Well, being the ranking does not mean the most

informed, but I am one of those guilty parties the professor spoke

to. My expertise in the last 30-years has been in the area of veterans financing. I have been in residential housing for years and I

know to what point he was alluding, the unintended consequences

of the success of the Veterans Administration program in

populating our suburbs and depopulating our farms.

Having mentioned myself as a guilty party, I am not necessarily

the most informed party sitting next to the representative of our

agricultural chair, I believe—isn’t he—in the house, and in the absence of Elizabeth Emlin, who I had hoped to have here this morning, of our farmland preservation group. I will continue nevertheless. But, before I give my prepared comments, I would note something that Mr. Bunt is wont to say to folks in this situation.

He speaks frequently of the fellow who comes down his driveway

and cannot get back into traffic on the rural roads out here in the

suburbs in Montgomery County and who becomes a rabid advocate

of farmland preservation and who gets very, very involved after

just a few years here on the Montgomery County reservation in

condemning the conversion of farmland to residences, and who

then is confronting the farmer across the way and trying to do anything he can to preclude the sale of that beautiful, pristine farmland. But, without thinking, what was the farmer’s view before he

moved in 2-years prior? He has lost his few, as his gentleman is

now afraid to lose his. What it all comes down to, not to get too

urban, but Philadelphia is my homeland, is that money seems to

be everything. Money seems to be the root here of all of these conversions.

This is the nest egg. This is the stake, especially in the climate

of low profitability. You are talking—you can allude to the IRA,

401(k), the family assets, whatever, but when confronted by a voracious consumer appetite for the standard suburban dream, it is
24

very difficult for our farmers, and I am a member of the Grange,

to turn away from the lure of the dollar. So, when Mr. Payone and

Mr. Cutler, when CNM developers and others come forward offering prime dollars, it is very difficult. In the absence of what the

previous panel mentioned, I think the three priorities were funding, funding, funding, I will add funding, speaking for Montgomery

County, as another priority.

We need more money to offer the farmers as a compensation, if

you will, economically for the allure of the quick dollar from the developers who are offering so much per acre right now to develop

that farmland into housing. So, yes, we need more in the way of

funding. We have had some catastrophic losses of our own. I am

deviating from prepared statements here. The Matthews, as you

know, do not go very well with prepared statements.

The CHAIRMAN. We understand you have a black sheep in the

family.

Mr. MATTHEWS. I understand. That is true. So I will get to the

nuts and bolts here. We have 462 farms in Montgomery County

and only 41,500-acres-in-farms. That was based on a 1997 census

figure. So, we have lost over 30,000-farmland-acres and 250-farms

in the last 20-years. In the last 50-years, we have lost 120,000-

farmland-acres and over 2,300-farms. Obviously, developmental

pressure continues and we are fearing that over the next 20-years

our population is going to go up 86,000 folks, which is a 12-percent

increase in our current population.

We certainly have a viable farming community and we sell annu- ally an immense amount, $37 million in agricultural products in

Montgomery County. That is not big by Idaho standards, but we

are talking something important in Montgomery County here, the

aesthetics as well as the production. We have a farmland preservation program that has been very successful. We purchase development rights, and it is one of the best tools we have for preserving

our community.

Since 1989, we have preserved 56 farms and a total of 4,650-

acres. This is only 11-percent of our county’s existing farmland,

only 11-percent, so we sincerely have to preserve more as time allows. The enterprises are substantial: dairy; beef; buffalo; poultry;

orchards; Christmas trees; feed process centers, etc.. There is no

question we are diverse here, but we need to pay farmers high land

values because of the high market value of the land, and we consider it worth the cost.

Quite honestly, yes, I would lean to the aesthetic side of the argument, as opposed to the produce and to the production side.

Needless to say, our port in Philadelphia is quite active. The figures run into the hundreds of millions of fruit and vegetable products we bring in from South America right here on our eastern

shore here in Philadelphia. But aesthetically, as the professor so

ably stated, once it is concreted over, it is gone.

Now, the Federal Farmland Protection Program, we are very

much in favor of it. It has been available, as you know, for three

rounds, since 1996. The Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture

forwards the information to us each time a new round is announced and each county is encouraged to submit applications, especially if the farms contain a large amount of soils in agricultural
25

capability classes I and II and were relatively large in size, but

these measurements discourage Montgomery County farmers.

We have excellent agricultural production, but there are virtually

no class I soils anywhere in the county, nor are our farms as large

as those in other parts of the State. Montgomery County’s median

farm size of 36-acres ranked 65th out of 67 counties. So, you talk

about Montana, we have been diced and sliced for a long time now.

We strongly encourage the Federal Government, strongly, to support farmland preservation in areas like ours under great developmental pressure. If we do not save the farmland now, well, etc.,

etc.. We all know. It has become a refrain in Pennsylvania, the

most popular expression referring to Mr. Hilton and his work, Save

Our Land, Save Our Towns, and those phrases are interchangeable. We have to act now and we could use, as two of the three earlier speakers alluded to, funding, funding, funding.

The CHAIRMAN. Commissioner, thank you. Bill, we will now turn

to you, speaking on behalf of Representative Bunt, and your full

statement, as his, will become part of the record, as well.

STATEMENT OF BILL BUSHNELL, LEGISLATIVE ASSISTANT TO

REPRESENTATIVE RAYMOND BUNT, JR., 147TH DISTRICT,

MONTGOMERY COUNTY, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

Mr. BUSHNELL. Sure. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senator Santorum. I am Bill Bushnell. I am District Legislative Assistant to State Representative Raymond Bunt, Chairman of the

House Agricultural Affairs Committee. I will read his prepared

statement.

We, in Pennsylvania, take farmland preservation very seriously

and have since 1988 when the legislation was approved to create

our statewide program. Subsequently, our program was funded by

a voter-approved $100 million bond issue. This voter referendum

notably passed overwhelmingly. In addition, later legislation earmarked two cents per pack of our State cigarette tax for the program.

More recently, there was a $43 million special appropriation as

part of the 1999–2000 State budget and a commitment of an additional $20 million per year for the next 5-years. Furthermore, since

this is a cooperative State/county program, it is to their advantage

for counties to commit monies of their own. Most have responded

and there have been a total of $93.7 million, county dollars, committed to the effort. Recently, because of municipal interest, our

law was amended to allow local governments to participate in the

effort by contributing funds of their own.

To date, the States and counties have spent a total of $334.4 million for permanent easements on farmland. Combine this with the

fact that we are positioned to spend a minimum of $45 million a

year of State monies to preserve our valuable farmland for the next

5-years, and I would guess that this is a commitment to a farmland

preservation unmatched by any other State. As a result, I am

pleased to be able to report that, to date, Pennsylvania has perpetually preserved 1,381-farms, comprising over 170,000-acres in 42

county statewide. Even so, new applications are being received at

the rate of nearly 500-per-year.
26

This is in addition to the approximately 1,400-farms and

172,700-acres in the pipeline or on the waiting list statewide. In

other words, even with all of our success, we currently have more

farms that have applied and are waiting than we have preserved

in the past 10-years. In most counties, there is a 3- to 5-year backlog of farms. I offer these statistics as dramatic evidence that preserving farmland is of the highest priority to both our farmers and

our citizenry.

The success of and demand for being included in the program

proves that there is both a need and interest for it to continue, and

the Pennsylvania General Assembly continues to wholeheartedly

support it. With respect to the Federal program, I want to acknowledge that we have received Federal money in three of the past 5-

years, totaling $2.2 million. This additional money was most appreciated and, as a supplement to our State funding, was well-spent.

Nonetheless, I have demonstrated that our State money dwarfs

what we receive and, more importantly, our demand still far exceeds what the State alone can provide. Therefore, any additional

Federal dollars would be most welcome. Finally, as you consider

this issue, I certainly hope that Pennsylvania’s commitment and

success is viewed as a reason to increase our allocation and not an

indication that we are either willing to or capable of meeting the

demands for funding on our own—with our program counties—are

rewarded with greater matching funds for the dollars they put into

the program.

I suggest that States making a financial commitment of their

own should be likewise rewarded with a higher percentage of the

total Federal dollars. Once again, I would like to thank you for the

opportunity to share Pennsylvania’s perspective on preserving

farmland forever.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bunt can be found in the appendix on page 51.]

The CHAIRMAN. Bill, speaking on behalf of Representative Bunt,

let me thank you very much for being here today. Now let me turn

to Janet Oertly, Pennsylvania State Conservationist, Natural Resources Conservation Service, USDA.

Welcome.

STATEMENT OF JANET L. OERTLY, PENNSYLVANIA STATE

CONSERVATIONIST, NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION

SERVICE, USDA, PHILADELPHIA, PA.

Ms. OERTLY. Good morning. Mr. Chairman and Senator

Santorum, thank you for inviting me to discuss the use of the

Farmland Protection Program here in Pennsylvania. I am Janet

Oertly. I am the State Conservationist for Pennsylvania, for the

Natural Resources Conservation Service. I would like to begin by

recognizing the efforts and leadership of members of this subcommittee, especially Senator Santorum, for taking an active role

on this issue.

Pennsylvania is a rich diversity of landscapes created by its location, climate and soils. This rich diversity has allowed Pennsylvania farmers to provide food and fiber to our Nation for over 200-

years. Sustaining farms in Pennsylvania for centuries has been
27

possible through sound land stewardship. Because of this tradition

of land stewardship, it is no surprise to me, a native Pennsylvanian, that Pennsylvania is one of the leaders in protecting farmland in this Nation.

Pennsylvania has one of the highest rural populations in the Nation. Farmers on the edge of urban development face many challenges. As a response to the need to protect Pennsylvania’s largest

industry, agriculture, the State has used Federal programs, such as

the Farmland Protection Program, to enhance local and State programs. Governor Ridge’s 21st century Commission identified

sprawl as the most important environmental issue in the State.

The recent passage of Pennsylvania’s Growing Greener and

Growing Smarter legislation provides a significant increase in

State funding and local planning for farmland protection. In Pennsylvania, the Federal Farmland Protection Program funds have

been used to leverage funds from the State and local Government

entities that have Farmland Protection Programs.

The program has facilitated conservation partnerships with the

State and local Government entities to acquire perpetual conservation easements. It is one part of a broader effort to protect farmland from urbanization, and helps to maintain a healthy environment and a sustainable rural economy. The national program was

originally funded at a level of $35 million. Pennsylvania received

over $3 million of that national funding.

With these funds, 57 farms representing 11,419-acres-of-farmland in Pennsylvania will be permanently protected and will continue to remain in agricultural uses. In addition, the Federal investment in farmland protection was matched by about $24 million

in State and local contributions. This represents that for every Federal farmland protection dollar sent to Pennsylvania, there has

been another eight dollars in State and local funds to match this

investment.

I might add that each of these farms has a complete conservation

plan and the owners have committed to a schedule for complete implementation. The availability of the technical assistance funding

needed to help farmers plan and implement these plans is an important part of the program in Pennsylvania. Allow me to describe

one example of the program in southeastern Pennsylvania. Three

farms in Berks County’s scenic and productive Oley Valley added

over 350-acres-of-permanently-protected-farmland to the 28-farm,

3,600-acre block of farmland in the valley.

The Oley Valley has been one of the region’s most important agricultural areas since originally being cleared by German farmers

over 200-years ago. The Brown, Mast and Rothermill, Hopewood

and Ford farms, added with help from 1998 Farmland Protection

Program funds, are all adjacent to other permanently protected

farms. The Farmland Protection Program is making progress in

protecting farmland, but as we have heard the needs are great and

more resources are needed.

As Mr. Sells indicated on the earlier panel, our agency is committed to working with you, Mr. Chairman, and the members of this

committee to continue funding and supporting for the program so

that we can maximize the benefits of the State and local initiatives.

I look forward to working with you on this issue. We need to ex-
28

tend the funding authorization for the Farmland Protection Program to make it work. And I will be happy to answer any questions

that members might have and thank you again for the opportunity.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Oertly can be found in the appendix on page 53.]

The CHAIRMAN. Janet, thank you very much. Now we turn to Mr.

Omar Beam. You are unique to the panel, and I say that because

we have heard from advocates and those who put the programs together. Now it is pleasing to hear from a recipient of the Farmland

Protection Program. Nice to have you with us.

STATEMENT OF OMAR BEAM, RECIPIENT, FARMLAND

PROTECTION PROGRAM, ELVERSON, PA.

Mr. BEAM. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Rick. My wife and

I—my wife is here in the audience; I brought her along—we have

a family farm. We went into the program in 1997. We sold a little

over 200-acres of our development rights to the State. The county

is out with a new book and it is really interesting. Chester County

just come off—it is really—I wish they had had something like this

printed when we sold our development right, but it gives you a lot

of guidelines for tax structure and everything as you sell your development rights.

We started farming in 1950 and my, how things have changed

since then. My dad was a farmer, but he had come from New Jersey. And he told me, when I wanted to start farming—he said my

advice to you would be if you can’t do anything else, is what they

said when he was a boy, if you can’t do anything else, you can

farm, because anybody can walk behind the plow and handle a

fork. But, he says, the day is coming now, if you can’t farm, you

better do something else, because it became so much like a business and it was altogether different. There were so many decisions

that had to be made.

When we started out, and the question then, when we come to

a certain age, how do we retire? I had a son that came back from

Penn State, and when he came back I soon saw that his education

and his decisions around the farm there, that we needed somebody

in leadership with a different viewpoint on things than what I had

when I was farming.

And the sad part of it is, about all of these problems, is the farmers in our community—and by the way I am from Chester County.

I better make that plain. There has been a lot about Lancaster

County. But we receive the dust that blows over the hill in Chester

County and that is what keeps us afloat. But anyhow, the farmers

were bidding against farmers, and that is a good way to wean out

the farmers that have difficulty surviving or are poor managers, by

bidding against each other, because the poor farmer who does not

make the right decision is going to soon be left in the dust.

But then when we came and we had to bid against a developer,

things really changed, in that changed the whole structure in our

community. The developers came out there and they all wanted the

best land, class I and II and III, and we all know that class I and

II is the easiest to develop. That is the land he wanted and he

could afford to pay more than a farmer.
29

The thing of it is with a farmer, if you plant an acre of corn and

you get 150 or 200 bushels to the acre and you get two dollars a

bushel, there is only so much income you can get from that one

acre. But you take a developer, he can easily add $5,000-to–$10,000

per lot because he is buying the best land and it is easier to develop, and people are moving out and that is just what they want.

We have a lot of Amish people not too far from our community,

and the thing that they are doing is dividing their farms up because they can no longer afford to buy more land and more farms.

And this is going to hurt us. I have been involved in decisions in

the township—well, I have been a township supervisor 30-plusyears. I won’t say how many. But anyhow, this is going to hurt us

because you are going to get more pollution. I’d rather them spread

their manure on 100-acres. They are spreading it now on 30-acres

and there are many ways that is not the answer to the problems.

And this is the route they are taking because they do not want to

carry the debt.

We have to realize, when we started farming, I remember after

the first 10-years we were feeding like 70-head-of-cattle, we had

200-hogs, we farmed 100-acres and we thought we were really getting up there. But, when I retired, we were farming 600-acres and

we had about 3,000-hogs and we also had several hundred cattle.

So, for my son to take over, it made it difficult. And we have some

difficult decisions to make. And we wanted to leave the farm because all of our assets, of my wife and I, was tied up in the farm.

And yet my son wanted to keep on farming, and we do have some

good soil. And another thing that was a plus to us, we had four or

five neighbors that had sold their development rights, which makes

a nice block there in our community.

So, the business decisions today of a farm, a lot of them are

made in the office. Farming is so much different and it takes so

much money, so for us to look at the development rights in order

to hand the farm over to my son, hopefully it works out someday

that he can do that. But the last year has been a drought year and

the low hog prices and so on and with the low grain prices, it has

been making it kind of difficult.

But I think when a farmer decides what he wants to do, there

are several things he needs to look at. And it has been talked

about; one is money, one is family and one is friends. Family is important to my wife and I, and my son likes to farm and he is a good

farmer. He was a good student at school and we want to try to help

him out. And friends, community, you know, if we go back and one

of the first Commandments we have is love your neighbor as yourself. Well, today that is not the thing most of us do.

I could have sold that farm, 240-acres, and put a development in

there. But we have a farm that has went that route, and I am not

condemning him. But the thing of it is they had just built a new

school in our community. Now that school is being filled up because

there are 200-and-some homes going into his farm there and it

raises the taxes for the farmers that is already there.

So, my wife and I took a look at that. We took a look at the family situation and we took a look at the money. We didn’t get the

most money by going this route, but that is not the problem. The

problem is we want to leave this world or leave this community
30

with a lot of friends involved. My wife and I have always loved to

work the soil, raise the crops, harvest the crops. That has really

been important to us.

So, selling our land for the development rights was a way out for

us that we could do this, and I am happy we made the decision.

I am glad of it. So, thanks. If you have any questions later on, I

will be glad to answer them.

The CHARIMAN. Omar, thank you very much for that testimony.

That adds a valuable perspective to the record we are trying to develop. Now let me turn to Marion Bowlan, Executive Director,

Pennsylvania Farmlink.

Welcome.

STATEMENT OF MARION BOWLAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,

PENNSYLVANIA FARMLINK, MANHEIM, PA.

Ms. BOWLAN. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Senator Santorum.

Let me begin by giving you some background information on myself. I am a third generation farmer from Lancaster County with

experience in both beef and vegetable production.

The CHAIRMAN. Then let me apologize. I said Mr. Beam was the

only farmer before us this morning. Not true.

Ms. BOWLAN. I have two roles.

The CHAIRMAN. All right. Thank you.

Ms. BOWLAN. We sell our hormone and antibiotic-free beef directly to consumers. I am also the Executive Director of Pennsylvania Farmlink, which is a nonprofit organization that works with

beginning and retiring farmers to create more farming opportunities in Pennsylvania. Farmlink is part of the larger National Farm

Transition Network that works to establish the next generation of

farmers.

In addition to that, I am also a member of USDA’s National

Commission on Small Farms and I am a current member of the

USDA Small Farm Advisory Committee. So, that is some background on me. I want to talk to you about both my professional and

personal experience and some recommendations that I have for the

farmland preservation program. I would really like to focus my talk

on the very human problems that currently are not addressed by

this program.

I want to begin by telling you a little bit about Pennsylvania

Farmlink and its work with beginning and retiring farmers, with

the mission of creating farming opportunities for the next generation. We provide regional seminars on passing the farm on to the

next generation. We provide new-and beginning-farmer workshops

and marketing workshops that are targeted to improve the farmer’s

bottom line.

We also operate a linking service that matches farm owners with

people who want to get into farming. Although we are a small

agency, we have been successful in making a difference in the lives

of many farmers by getting them to realize they need to plan for

the future of their families and their farms. I wanted to let you

know about our organization so I could relate to you what I have

encountered in my professional work.

The critical time for a farm to go out of farming is when the existing farmer is thinking about retirement or is already retired.
31

Particularly if the children do not want to farm or take over the

farm or if there are siblings who do not agree on what should happen to the farm, the farm is vulnerable.

Let me explain. I recently worked with a family that had two

sons that were interested in farming. Both had off-farm jobs and

were helping their parents in their spare time. The parents were

retirement age, but couldn’t afford to move off the farm so that

their sons could take over. I suggested that they preserve their

farm and use the sale of the conservation easements for their retirement needs.

The family applied for farmland preservation funds, but they are

not at the top of the list because of soil types and proximity to

other development. I am not disputing these factors and agree that

soil types and development proximity are important considerations.

What I would like you to consider is the human element. Is there

an individual who wants to take over the farm? Could we preserve

this farm if we took into account the family circumstances? Is there

a farm succession plan? Do we have a beginning farmer who wants

to farm the land?

These farms are businesses that are run by human beings and

we need to take into account their human needs. Unfortunately,

these human issues currently receive little or no consideration in

selecting the farms that are being preserved. I contend that they

should. Arecent Penn State study indicates that of all the farmland

sold in southeastern Pennsylvania in the last 10-years, only 23-percent remained in agriculture.

This is occurring in spite of the best farmland preservation program in the Nation, and I might add that our farm has been on

the waiting list for selling our development rights in Lancaster

County for 7-years. Yes, additional funding is an issue and is needed. Farmers in Pennsylvania are very interested in preservation,

but if the funding is not available or if their family situation is

pressing, the temptation to sell to developers is also present.

I would contend that increasing funding for preservation programs is not the only issue. With the family I just discussed, what

will happen? The family cannot afford to move off the farm and retire unless they sell the farm. Even though they may want to give

their sons the opportunity to farm, they may decide to sell the farm

at market value because, in the long run, that may be what is best

for their family. If we have the opportunity to get the next generation on the farm, how do we help?

Everyone agrees we want our farmland to be used and be productive. The intention of the program is to preserve farmland and not

just open space. How do we decide who will be our next generation

of farmers? That brings into focus a big problem that we face in

years to come. In the Nation, we have three times as many farmers

over 65 as under 35. Recent census of agriculture statistics indicate

that farmers under the age of 35 decreased an alarming 46.4-percent from 1987 to 1997.

Today’s slim profit margins make it very difficult for a new generation of farmers to get started. How are we going to help? One

of the ways we can help is to tie farmland preservation efforts into

farm succession efforts. I made these recommendations as a member of the National Commission on Small Farms and my current
32

work with the USDA Small Farm Advisory Committee. They are

still pertinent.

Why don’t we provide incentives to farm families to transition

their farm to a new generation of farmers, related or not, by giving

them extra points for developing an active plan to pass their farm

on to an enterprising new farmer? This would give an extra boost

to the family I just mentioned and would put them higher up on

the waiting list for preservation. It just may save the farm for this

family and others like them.

As we all know, we make decisions based on our own family’s circumstances. The independent farmers of this Nation need your

help in securing a new generation of farmers who can establish

productive, profitable livelihoods and retain our most precious resource, our farmland. Now I want to switch gears a little bit and

talk about my own individual situation.

Largely through the efforts of my mother, my husband and I

were able to purchase the farm that came down through her family. We have farmed it for the last 12-years. We both took off-farm

jobs to provide for the economic security our family needs. We have

two children. At least one is interested in farming. We decided to

preserve our farm 7-years ago and have been on the waiting list

ever since.

This year, because of an extra infusion of farmland preservation

funds, some Federal, Lancaster County is working on their backlog

of applicants. We may yet see our farm preserved. Either my son

or my daughter will get the opportunity, and if they do not want

it, some other enterprising individual will. What three generations

have worked to protect while deriving income from it will go on.

What better legacy can we leave behind?

I have also worked to try to get my siblings to agree to preserve

the land my father and mother farmed for 55-years and where he

still lives. My mother died 4-years ago. Some of my siblings want

the money they could get from the sale of the farm at its market

value. Some want to see it stay a farm. My father feels caught in

the middle. He doesn’t want to decide. How do we assist families

with these decisions? These are big, once-in-a-lifetime decisions.

How can we help families make these decisions about farmland

protection?

Certainly, providing educational assistance and farm succession

planning assistance similar to some of the services that the

Farmlink programs will help. And, I might add, we need your financial help, as well. Pennsylvania Farmlink and other linking

programs across the country work with families to transition their

farms to the next generation. We know that farms need farmers to

farm them. Help us help those farm families put the pieces together so they can transition their farm to the next generation and

for generations to come.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Bowlan can be found in the appendix on page 58.]

The CHARIMAN. Well, thank you very much for that valuable testimony. That is the human dimension that we thought of in, I

think, substantially different terms in the concept of creating this

program and what you have brought to us. I think what you are
33

proposing is growing as a concept to be incorporated, but it is one

that clearly is not there at this time. Commissioner, you talk about

the lands here in this county that you have participated in helping

protect. Have those farms been blocked or are they contiguous?

Have you looked at that as an overriding concept in trying to create blocks of land?

Mr. MATTHEWS. It is defined areas, target areas, that are eligible, and it is, obviously, substantially the western portion of the

county.

The CHARIMAN. How successful have you been in bringing about

contiguous acreages?

Mr. MATTHEWS. I would say, based on my recollection of the

mapping, that we have no more than 8- to 10-percent contiguous,

and that might even be an exaggeration, Senator. Again, it is a targeted area. We have not been that successful in preservation, an

11-percent area, but it is more or less again the western portion

of the county, so again very little contiguous, 5-percent, I would

say, tops.

Our problem remains the cost per acre, the agricultural value

versus the market value that has been addressed so frequently this

morning.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you, as a Commissioner, had personal dealings in these properties, knowing the people involved? I mean that

from the standpoint of being able to respond to the next question.

How many of these properties or owners were driven by problems

of estate tax and the general problems of ownership transition?

Mr. MATTHEWS. I would not have that personal knowledge, Senator.

The CHARIMAN. All right. Janet, apart from authorizing more

money, with your experience on the ground, what can the Committee do to make farmland protection more efficient than the current

program?

Ms. OERTLY. Well, I think we have used all the flexibility that

the Committee afforded us in the current program in the way we

operate it in Pennsylvania in allowing us to utilize the State and

local easement process that is already in place in Pennsylvania. So,

in Pennsylvania it operates fairly much as a seamless system, because we have looked at their easement documents. They add a

Federal reversionary clause into their easements and we have just

piggy-backed on what they are doing.

We also look at the criteria that they are using and we have

tried to mirror that. Probably, from what I have heard from my

State counterparts, something that might make it operate more efficiently is if they knew for certain. There was going to be an annual Federal Farmland Protection Program. For example, in Senator’s Santorum’s proposal, if there were going to be $50 million

available every year, then they know it is there, as opposed to how

much is it going to be. It is almost like a given amount that they

know is coming.

And I strongly support the idea of local and State input, which

we have tried to do very much in Pennsylvania, so they know

where we are coming from and can prepare for it. If there is a set

amount that is coming and a set timeline as to when, then they

can prepare. Sometimes when the program announcement has
34

come out, there have not been enough days perhaps for them to get

everything prepared that they would like to in order to submit

their priority list of farms.

The CHARIMAN. OK. Thank you. Rick, questions?

Senator SANTORUM. Yes, thank you. And thank you all for your

testimony. And just a couple of points. Mr. Beam, your point about

the Amish is a very important one. Do the Amish participate in

this program? I would think they don’t, but do they?

Ms. OERTLY. I think they may through the trust, as opposed to

the Government.

Ms. BOWLAN. They do in Lancaster County through the Farmland Trust.

Senator SANTORUM. They do? And the reason I mentioned that

is if they would, I am sure they wouldn’t participate through the

Federal Government or through the State government, but that

adds to maybe some of the points of the flexibility of the program.

Do you have any comments about Commissioner Matthew’s comments about the fact that there are no class I soils here and they

do not have large farms and the skewing of some of the criteria

that may be out there, and the point about maybe some more flexible criteria to be able to deal with some of the different situations

that we have?

Ms. OERTLY. Well, what we have tried to do in the Federal program is we actually go down to land capability class III and consider the soils of statewide importance. So, we do look at land capability classes I, II and III in our criteria, which brings it down a

little bit closer to what you are looking at in Montgomery County.

We do look at the number of acres involved, that is where the size

of the farm would actually come into play. So, we do look at that.

We did, in the very last round, take a look at the fact that when

you look at some of the soils in particular and if you listed all of

the farms in a priority order, it becomes very difficult to get any

Federal dollars outside of a specific area, because of the predominance of class I soils, and the amount of money that the local county program may be offering. They would ask for less of the Federal

dollars. So, we looked at the uniform planning regions across the

State and set as one of our criteria that we would take the top

farm offered from each of those 10 planning regions, because we

were hearing a lot from some of the counties in the western half

of the State, saying, ‘‘We are not able to compete to get some of

these funds.’’

By doing that, they all sent in their priority farms and we took

the top farm that ranked out from each of those uniform planning

regions. And that was flexibility we already had.

Senator SANTORUM. OK. Any of the concerns that Ms. Bowlan

brought up? Those are not really decisions you would make on the

Federal level. Those would be more the local communities making

those decisions, using those factors?

Ms. OERTLY. Yes.

Senator SANTORUM. Jim, are you aware of any? Is that a factor

in looking at what farms you are going to preserve? Is the situation

the family may be in or the pressure they may be under?

Mr. MATTHEWS. No, we look at it more as to locale as a priority.

We are trying to stop certain movement in certain areas where
35

there is a lot of congestion and just grab that piece of land right

there. That is our number one priority right now, is the locale,

what is the front line of development in that area, where does it

look like it is going, and we will lean more in that direction—again,

our problem being the dollars involved.

It is difficult—I can’t speak for Mr. Beam, but I know it is difficult for many of the farmers I have spoken to. Senator Craig

asked me how many of these I have had person-to-person contact

with. Not those who did, but those who were considering it, I have

talked to a good many farmers and they are afraid of the necessity

to sell at some of the very high prices they are being offered for

their land. And they are afraid, where they had not thought about

it in the past, they are thinking about it now and how close can

we come. Well, once you get up to these land values of $14,000,

$16,000, $17,000 an acre, there is no way we can compete.

Senator SANTORUM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your

testimony, everybody.

The CHAIRMAN. Jim, one of the things you just mentioned is critical. Most farmers are farmers at heart. I know I grew up and actively farmed and ranched until I changed locations and went indoors, where there is no heavy lifting, at least that is what some

people think about the work that Rick and I are now in. But, most

farmers don’t want to sell their land for development. They don’t

really look at it from that standpoint if they are long-term farmers,

and yet, as has been stated, it is their retirement. That is how the

family plans for its retirement. It doesn’t go out and buy retirement

programs and that. It usually considers, at some point in time, termination of active farming and moving into retirement and the accumulation of assets and the ability to transfer those assets in a

way that sustains the property in a farming environment for—especially if it is for a family member, and then to be able to live

from them in what most farmers would think is a lifestyle they

would like to have at the end of their work period in life.

It is a very real frustration. I am not sure how we incorporate

the human factor at this time. I think you brought up an extremely

valuable point, Marion, and it is one that is—it is something that

is not measurable. It is emotional and it is real. I know it is real.

I have been there with my family, and yet at the same time when

we are asking—whether it is USDA or Soil Conservation Service or

whether it is State and local communities—to make judgments

based on aesthetics or open space or traffic patterns or development directions, those are fairly measurable and predictable. That

is something that, to get into some of these other values and to

make that a criteria, how do we do that successful with the program?

Ms. BOWLAN. Could I comment on that?

The CHAIRMAN. Please do.

Ms. BOWLAN. One of the recommendations that we put in the report from the National Small Farm Commission was that, in addition to some of these other practices like conservation practices

that farmers are required to do to get farming preservation money

perhaps, they look at a farm succession plan as part of the criteria

and give extra points for that. Then you know that the family has

actively planned for it to go to the next generation. And it doesn’t
36

necessarily need to be to a family member, but just to another

Farmer.

The CHARIMAN. OK. That would be a factor that would fit there.

That is a more measurable or fixed concept, that it just stays in

agriculture. Let me ask this question of you, because of the value

of land and even with conservation easements acquired—and you

said it well, Mr. Beam, the selling of development rights. That is

another term to be used here. But still anticipating the land would

stay in agriculture, is there any consideration or is there any value

or requirement placed in the criteria that would suggest that in

transition the lands sell for a value minus those rights that were

acquired?

If I am out there looking for farmland and I am looking at land

that the development rights have been sold off from, can I expect

a different market value than those that might not be? What has

been your experience here in the transition, let’s say out of family

but to another farmer? Can anyone react to that? Have we changed

the character of the marketing of that property?

Mr. BEAM. It has been an our area that it is amazing how much

the farmers are willing to pay because they are selling farms there

that have been reserved now for $4,000 and $5,000 an acre. And

developers come in there, you know. They are mostly paying about

$10,000 now. But I was surprised, because they had told us, the

mortgage companies and everybody, because when they finance a

farm that has these rights sold off, which is their option—if the

farmer can’t make it, that they can unload—that they were selling

quite that high, but that is what it has been.

The CHARIMAN. Still selling. OK.

Mr. BEAM. And there is plenty of demand. And there is one point

that I don’t think was brought up yet, and that is every time there

is a farm sold in the community, it is just another vote for all them

service businesses in that area to put him out of business or close

his doors, because we need that guy that hauls the milk. We need

that guys that sells the tires. We need that machinery dealer down

there when something goes bad. And every time this farmer gets

less, his business is dropping off, and therefore it is just another

vote. So, this thing ripples out over the communities a lot more

than a lot of people think.

The CHAIRMAN. That is well-spoken. It is very true. Most small

agricultural communities have experienced that as the character of

agricultural was changed. Well, once again let me thank all of our

panelists for being with us today, taking time to help us build a

record on this issue. I think that really it is a work in progress,

and I say that based on the experiences you have all had, obviously

having a State that has led on this issue has been, by all appearances, extremely valuable. And, as Rick has said, it has had an influence on the Federal policy, without question.

At the same time, as we tend to develop this and my guess is

we will, as its popularity grows, as its understanding grows to preserve and maintain, we will have even greater pressure put on us

at the Federal level to not only increase the funding, but adjust the

program, in part, as you suggested, Marion, to measure at least in

determining other values. But, again, thank you all very much for

coming before the Committee.
37

My guess is we are out of time and something about me having

to catch a train, but the crowd doesn’t appear to be surging out

there at the moment for access to microphones. So, with that, I will

adjourn the Subcommittee.

[Whereupon, at 12:01 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

(39)

A P P E N D I X

SEPTEMBER 18, 2000
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61