The Cost of Lost Farmland, Part 2
Perhaps the most important consideration in weighing land conversion from agriculture to residential, commercial or industrial use is this: There are many areas and land types adaptable for such endeavors; the same can't be said for farming.
Once Farmland is Lost, What's Left?
Last time The Dirt addressed the cost of losing farmland, primarily from a farmer's perspective. This issue we will expand the discussion to the aftermath of lost farmland and its impacts on all of us.
In Skagit County, the threats to farmland are numerous. Our goal here is to highlight the costs of losing farmland to the "built environment." This comprehensive term covers residential, commercial and industrial conversion of agricultural land. If that were to happen, what would be the impact?
Land Use Conversion
According to the EPA, "Land use changes occur constantly and at many scales, and can have specific and cumulative effects on air and water quality, watershed function, generation of waste, extent and quality of wildlife habitat, climate, and human health."
Chief among the repercussions of converting agricultural lands to housing are the impacts of impervious surfaces such as roads, parking lots, and buildings themselves. All these impervious surfaces impede the natural ability of the soil to filter and refresh water.
These impervious surfaces, per the EPA, "contribute to nonpoint source water pollution by limiting the capacity of soils to filter runoff, they affect peak flow and water volume, which heighten erosion potential and affect habitat and water quality; and they increase storm water runoff, which can deliver more pollutants to water bodies that residents may rely on for drinking and recreation."
It should be noted that storm runoff from the built environment "contains dirt, oils from road surfaces, nutrients from fertilizers, and various toxic compounds." All this is done to a much more concentrated level than would accrue from the same storm runoff in agriculture lands.
Put it all together and converting farmland to residential, commercial and industrial uses adversely affects hydrological impacts and ground water aquifer recharge.
Climatic Impacts
The built environment also has climatic impacts. According to the study "Greener Fields" conducted by American Farmland Trust and UCDavis, "farmland that is converted to other uses emits greenhouse gases at a level 58 to 70 times greater than if it had remained in farming."
Another impact of land development, again per the EPA, is that it can lead to the formation of "heat islands" which occur with the absorption of more heat by pavements, buildings, and other sources.
Residential, commercial and industrial air conditioning exacerbates this condition by drawing heated air out of a building and into that dome of warmer air over the developed area. These pockets of warmer air can affect neighboring microclimates and overall air quality.
Negative Spillover Effects — Who Pays?
These "negative spillover effects" from conversion of farmland to a built environment are so named because whatever harm is produced, it is never restricted to just the site of the development. That simply isn't possible.
According to Choices, the principal outreach vehicle of the Agriculture & Applied Economics Association (AAEA), "Although most economic costs are figured into land use decisions, most environmental externalities are not. For example, developers may not bear all the environmental and infrastructural costs generated by their projects."
In other words, if worsened water quality and flood control, as well as elevated greenhouse gas emissions and the like are caused by converting farmland to the built environment, the people responsible for the conversion likely don't cover the loss. We do.
Lost farmland, especially the uncommonly rich farmland of Skagit County cannot simply be replaced. The difference between the best farmland and the rest, is that it can take two to three times the amount of marginal land to make up for the loss of the best quality land.
When the best farmland is impacted by development, food production is forced to locate to lesser quality lands where input costs are higher, crop yields are lower, and soils degrade more quickly.
According to the same 2020 report, "Retailers such as grain and equipment dealers, on which farmers rely, are often pushed out," further undermining agricultural viability. "As farms and ranches consolidate and/or go out of business, it becomes harder for the remaining operations to thrive. The vital infrastructure that supports them either goes out of business or consolidates, making it more expensive and time-consuming for farmers and ranchers to obtain needed goods and services, as well as to process, market and distribute their products."
Before All Else, Remember This
Perhaps the most important consideration in weighing land conversion from agriculture to residential, commercial or industrial use is this: There are many areas and land types adaptable for such endeavors; the same can't be said for farming.
The soils of Skagit County's agricultural lands are among the richest in the world. By keeping those soils best suited for farming in farming we ensure minimum negative environmental impacts and gain environmental services that cannot be replicated. Water filtration, flood control, ground water aquifer regeneration, and carbon sequestration are all environmental services provided by farming good soils rather than developing over them. .
What Active Farmland Gives Us
Thriving agricultural lands produce both commodities and the environmental services. They also yield amenities that enrich lives far beyond those of the farmers themselves. We all benefit from aesthetically pleasing views, open space, rural agrarian character of the land, and the wildlife habitat that we can observe year round. All these are precious. Our job is make sure they are not fleeting.
From a Public Standpoint, the Verdict is Already In
The attempts to rezone agricultural lands for nonagricultural purposes have threatened the viability of Skagit County agriculture many times. Skagitonians to Preserve Farmland was formed to fight against just such a proposal in 1989. That effort was successful, but it showed that such pressures would keep coming up.
SPF worked with the public and various partners in 1995 and 1996 to build public support for farmland preservation. So strong was the support generated that, late in 1996, Skagit County established its own Conservation Futures Property Tax "for the purpose of acquisition of future development rights for preservation purposes" and the County's Farmland Legacy Program was operational by 1997. To date, the County's Farmland Legacy Program has protected over 14,000 acres of farmland in Skagit County making it one of the most successful programs in Washington State.
There is nothing to suggest that public opinion has changed.
Please lend your support to the ongoing effort to keep our last vestige of agricultural viability strong and cherished in Puget Sound. Please keep farming where it belongs.
Go HERE to learn more about Skagit County's Farmland Legacy Program.
By Teresa Bennett: info@skagitonians.org