U.S. Chronicle; 223; The Last Crop

Do. I don't know of any place where a subdivision of an industrial park or anything has been taken out and the cultures come back in just once it leaves it's gone. Builders are wanting to build on every inch of their land you know that they exist on the planet. We want to accommodate it. What we see is a market demand. Born and raised in this country you are just breaks your heart to see it go into homes take a choice you can have asphalt you want or you can chew on food. Asphalt doesn't digest very well. Amidst all the talk about shortages of fossil fuels water and other of our natural

resources we Americans going to least be confident there's one thing we'll never run out of land right. Well yes and no. Yes in that it's a huge country with thousands and thousands of square miles of virgin undeveloped Woods prairie's fields and mountains. It is unlikely if not impossible that will ever come to the time when people will be living elbow to elbow backyard to backyard all the way from the Atlantic to the Pacific from the Canadian to the Mexican border. But there is another side to our land of land plenty. One particularly vital type of land is already slinking in its farmland. The richest flattest most fertile land on which most of our food is grown and grown at the lowest cost. It's being gobbled up by the expansion of cities and towns and the development that goes with that expansion. It's happening in many areas of the country. We concentrate on one area in northern California and this report by Spencer Michaels of KQED San Francisco.

Yes. It is 6:00 a.m. on a clear spring morning in the California valley. The air is still filled with the sweet aroma of blossoming fruit tree like the other farmers in this valley. Gary Ames is rising early to tend to his orchard 135 acres of apricot peaches and cherries. In many ways Gary Ames worries about the same things all farmers do whether crop prices in the inflated cost of farming. But those are the immediate worries for Gary there is another more long range fear something that is there only in the background a fear of not being able to maintain his farm being squeezed out by the encroaching growth of a nearby city. Any time you bring more people that's going to cause a community and as that happens it gets harder and harder the farm where eventually you can't. I right now want to farm and I'll do everything that I can to keep this area and in agriculture. But if it comes to the point

where the guy's been broken up or you can't really do a good job of farming or can't make it financially I'll just sell it also. 40 miles from the valley of the San Francisco Produce Market other local farmers spend the early morning unloading their crops for distribution to markets restaurants and eventually to the consumer. These farmers like Gary Ames are part of one of the San Francisco Bay Area's most important but dimly recognized industries agriculture. And agriculture here is big business. The nine Bay Area counties roughly the size of Connecticut yield more agricultural production than 13 other entire states. Three quarters of a billion dollars worth. But this same area is also home to the nation's fifth largest metropolitan area. And as the cities continue to grow they consume not only the products of the surrounding farmlands they consume the farmlands themselves. It is not just a local problem.

Nationwide 12 square miles of farmland go out of production every day. Three million acres a year most of it due to urbanization. It's unfortunate that so much land is being covered up with subdivisions today. Really is land that will be lost forever. Builders are wanting to build on every inch of square land. You know that exist on the planet. We want to accommodate it. What we see is a market demand. There are no other choice. You're in a bind you've got to you're going to sell. Really good developers in there and then they offer you that piece of money you'd be a damn fool not sell. Take a choice you can have asphalt to chew on or you can chew on food. Asphalt doesn't digest very well. It may seem hard to be concerned about the loss of farmland when he hears so often bumper crops and agricultural surpluses and in fact till today such losses were barely noticed.

The so-called Green Revolution of the past few decades rapid advances in technology and farm science have allowed us to double our per acre crop yield and the nation's once huge reserve of unused agricultural lands accommodated many of those farmers displaced from their lands by development. In a few states such as California massive water projects also opened up hundreds of thousands of acres of previously on fertile lands to agriculture. Right now the pinch is beginning to be felt. Our farmland reserves have dwindled steadily and the technological boom appears to have peaked. Per acre crop yields are no longer increasing in some cases appear to be declining. There is little support or money for large scale water projects and land reclamation. In January of this year the federal government began to sound the alarm right released after 18 months of research. The National agricultural land study which raises serious questions about the future of American agriculture over the years we have been

converting prime agricultural land to other non farming uses and it was a matter which we thought we could afford and could accommodate through increases in technology and increasing yields. During the early last 10 years however we have seen these lines cross. We have as a matter of fact in the period between one thousand sixty seven and nine hundred seventy five that converted to 23 million acres of agricultural land. And so this simply says to the local authorities that they must assess all of these factors and to the best of their ability develop a plan that protects to the maximum maximum extent possible of the prime farming land. The agricultural land study also pointed out the importance of American agriculture on a global basis. We have truly become the bread basket of the world. The single most important nation in the war against world hunger.

Beside the obvious humanitarian aspects are farm exports are now more than thirty two billion dollars a year. More than one fifth of all U.S. exports and Nixie Bingley important factor in our balance of trade payments helping among other things partially offset the massive oil in parts. Yet we continue to lose highly productive land. At an alarming rate. The San Francisco Bay area according to a recent local study. We are losing some 19000 acres of farmland a year. That study was issued by a group known as people for open space in the Bay Area is exactly part of that national problem that is the 50 acres we lose every day here. It's just like the 50 acres that gets lost in 3000 counties across the US. The second reason to be concerned I think is that agriculture provides for people who live in the Bay Area whole lot of very special important local benefits. Those benefits certainly have to do with the kind of food that we can get from our local agricultural land. They have to do with the freshness the nutrition the choice

that you can get in almost any other major metropolitan region in the United States. We've also got a chance to really keep the areas of business climate in keeping its landscape attractive interesting diverse to really do what we've done in the past and that is build this very large huge metropolis while keeping some very vital functions of the land. Not the least of which in this case is food production. Diversity of Agriculture. In. Smaller communities farmland in the country. Is most commonly used as everyone's worst example. From 1950 to 1970 the population of Santa Clara County quadrupled

to well over a million people in the last 15 years. The phenomenal growth of the electronics and computer industry in the area and the accompanying need for housing ran farmland losses up to a total of 170000 acres. Most of it. Superlative soil for farming. Lee Lester's family began farming in the Santa Clara Valley in the 1860s. Today he and his brothers still grow prunes in the area. Some like this orchard on land he leases from IBM. I feel that we're both The Last Of The Mohicans in this valley. We my grandfather started than you know back in the eighteen hundreds. A lot of the farmers that I have known throughout the years have pulled up roots in the valley. They've moved out. I've seen orchards taken out. Hundreds and hundreds of acres and there's hardly anything left but my brother and I feel that we were born and raised here and we just want to stay here.

Where the Lesters the selling off of large portions of their land was necessitated by the increasingly large tax by property taxes became inflated as development moved in farmlands were assessed at their potential development right rather than his farmland. Texas got so high we just couldn't afford a farm anymore. We couldn't get enough production from the crops to maintain the taxes so we started selling off little parcels. The tax problem ultimately became so bad statewide that the legislature finally had to step in creating the Williamson act in 1065 that act allows farmers to enter into a 10 year contract with a local government guarantee that their land will remain in agriculture in exchange their property is assessed for taxes as agricultural land rather than its potential for development. Roughly half of California's farm lands are now under Williamson contract. Most other states have developed similar laws. It had some impact for the farm preservation paving over still continues.

Often following a fairly standard scenario. It begins with outward migration from the cities and the carving out of suburbs usually from farmland. As more people move into a farming area conflicts develop. Farmers complain about trespassers vandalism and dogs attacking their livestock. Homeowners complain about tractor noise has decided manure odors. And things that go move in the night. Simultaneously the farmer sees developers pain big money for land usually at a much higher price than what the land is worth. Agriculturally ultimately the pressure to sell becomes too great particularly if the farmer is elderly or his profit margin low. And he finally gives in. Cashing in on what farmers often refer to as the last crop sale of the land. Some of the old pioneers really weren't land speculators they just they got caught in a

situation where they owned land that was worth five hundred dollars an acre. And then it went up and they basically were farmers and they could feel the pressure here in an urbanized area. So the first thing they did is to sell their land and move out into the other agricultural areas. In the Bay area most of the land close to the major urban areas has already been developed. So the battle between agriculture and development has shifted to the more outlying areas. The fastest growing area today is in Solano County along the corridor occupied by Interstate 80 the main highway between the Bay Area and Sacramento and beyond. This is the city of Fairfield. For decades a little more than a sleepy agricultural town on the freeway but growth has come to Fairfield in a big way. The town is booming and there are signs of the boom everywhere. A new regional shopping mall. A major Anheuser-Busch brewery. A community

college. And new housing go lower. Home prices here are roughly 25 to $65000 cheaper. Than houses in the urban regions of the Bay Area. On average in the $80000 range. It is the relatively cheap housing prices that are one of the major lures drawing people into the area. In the last 20 years the population has quadrupled to 60000 plus another 20000 in the immediate area. Fairfield is surrounded by large amounts of prime agricultural land including this valley. It is the potential threat the city poses to these areas. It has many people worried. The Fairfield area is the next Saturday if you talk about low density and low intensity industrial uses that land is comparatively cheap compared to other parts of the Bay Area and that's where a lot of firms are going to want to locate to some extent as long as low density housing can continue to be built it will be built there. That's going to just consume vast quantities of

farmland now in the past so long as been able to bring new land into production of irrigation. But they're all stretched out right now they've gone through just about every acre of new stuff they can bring in. So every acre they lose now is going to be a total loss to the to the local county's agricultural base. I think we have learned from the mistakes of the Santa Clara Valley. We have several department heads in Fairfield and we hire hired from the city of Santa Clara and they know the problems there very well and we have taken measures. And the city council has supported measures to provide reasonable control of growth and to avoid spilling onto the primary cultural lands. So I don't see that that occurring here. The city has entered into an agreement to protect some 14000 acres of prime farmland. The agreements between the City of her field and irrigation district both of which have the ability to supply utilities to the area. The purpose of the agreement.

Was to. Establish and designate certain primary cultural lands which we would not permit to be developed in which we would not. Provide utilities to enhance the development. The agreement calls for steep penalties for violations and according to Wilson there have been none in the seven years of the agreement. Tom Hannigan the state assemblyman representing the area is a former mayor of Fairfield. He says his views on protecting farmland changed considerably over the year. I guess I was self proclaimed myself a born again agricultural land. Conserver. What I have seen is mistakes and they're irrevocable. I look around my own my own county and so on and I'm convinced that we can have development and development of jobs related industries can build housing and you can also protect those areas that are sensitive

agricultural. The trick is trying to keep the two separate. Trying to keep the pressure to develop productive lands down in a way and encourage development in lands that are new still. Fairfield is growing both in population and area as the city expands the surrounding agricultural community finds itself in the typical turmoil and uncertainty that comes with development. City of Fairfield wants to expand in our area and most people like to live sort of quote in the country atmosphere. And as that happens it gets harder and harder to follow where eventually you can't. As long as we have good soil to farm we should be able to farm it. I hate to cover it up once it's taken out and I think you're back and I don't know of any place where a subdivision or an industrial park or anything has been taken out and agricultural come back in and there's lots of ways it's gone. For Gary Ames encroaching development poses a number of problems but he wants to stay

on the land. A few miles away however. Vince and Lorraine volleyed want to get out. They'd like to sell their land for development. But because of the agricultural preserve agreement there are 100 acres even if sold must remain as farmland. The Villeins say that lessens its value by as much as a million dollars. As a farmer being here on this land. Yes and practically being told I've got to stay here and farm. I think that too many of our rights have been taken away from us due to all the bureaucratic agencies the Johnny-Come-Lately is in the area. And. Things of that sort. I'm going to be 62 years old and I would want to retire but I'd like to retire respected. But due to these bureaucratic things like. At present time it doesn't look like it's. Possible. Years ago our forefathers came to this country to get away from taxes and bondage to deal with what they felt like they wanted to with the rest of their property to be able to to to say I want to sell I want to retire I want to get

out. And. Work. Going back to the same thing. We're going back under bondage or what. Anyway you want to call it. We're not denying them the right to earn a living as as farmers but we feel we have a right as public officials to interpret what's in there in the public good and if we can direct growth into non-primary cultural lands we feel we should do it as a matter of public policy and preserve those lands. The problem of farm land loss is a complicated one often involving competing needs. In the Bay Area for instance farmland loss must also be measured against a critical need for housing. Home prices here are the highest in the nation and there is a general shortage of housing. The problem is we've been building at such a very low densities out from cities that were consuming unnecessarily a lot of agricultural land. There's a whole lot of reasons besides saving agricultural land. In fact if you could forget farm land as an issue there still be reasons to build more

compactly. We need to be able to service it with buses we need to be able to provide the kind of cost sharing of sewer services and water services to make use of schools and fire stations and things like that. So compact development is a real alternative. We get a whole lot of people saying why don't you build more beds and we can do that no problem with it. Many projects have been put on the boards to build dance. Projects that are aesthetically pleasing that have open space around them. You take that down to the community and you ask the community to accept that and what you get is a whole lot of people saying I live in this community. I own a single family lived on a quarter single family home on a quarter acre lot. I want to protect that investment densities bad density means crime density or circulation density means there's going to be all these new strange people in my community density Muzi lower income people be able to get into my community. We don't want to build you know. BOLLING Well except in the community if we accept anything at all is a 20 500 square foot home on a quarter acre.

We've got a big set of attitudes in people to change everybody wants the quarter acre homes. That's not possible anymore. It's not meeting anybody's real housing need even if you open all the land up and still have very very expensive housing. But trying to change the public's attitudes is obviously a formidable task especially here in the Bay Area. Much of the farmland lost is the result of so-called ranch development home sites on five 10 20 acre or even larger plots of land. The people for open space study found Rancho equal to subdivisions. The amount of land they take out of farm production. Nowhere is the ranch phenomenon more pronounced than in the Taso Hora Hills area at the southern base of Mt. Diablo in Contra Costa County. These eels contain some of the finest grazing lands in California. More and more of the rich cattle past years are being lost to run jets sometimes referred to as hobby farms for commercial cattle operations. The arrangement of parcels in the size and the existence of non agricultural

houses is going to be a real problem. The basic reason is that they're not compatible with commercial agriculture that is ranch on large amounts of land use that land generally as efficiently as large agricultural operations do. In the last decade there seem to be a market being created for the leisure farmer. The gentleman farmer and therefore there became a market for ranch jets which really for any productive purposes are viable. You can't farm on five acres. You know you may have a couple of horses and and the people use it you know as a retreat. But here in the Bay Area the economic situation is such that there are people that can afford to have that kind of lifestyle. I can't say that it's a wise use of the land but I can say that there is a market for that use of the land. There is a market indeed a fairly explosive one this ranch up on 21 acres is selling for $800000. The average value of this same land left in agriculture is only three hundred dollars per acre.

There is a difference of opinion among neighboring ranchers about the ranch at style homes. Some see them as a chance to sell off small parcels of their land for good money. They still get to keep their ranch in operation but without being inundated by subdivisions style problems. But others like Ed Vargas see it as valuable land going to waste that land is dead. Well that's not a productive there's no way you can make a living on 25 or hundred or even 300 matter of fact your own is that they have a couple thousand acres do something with it. Ed Vargas has lived here all his life. The third generation to run cattle in this area despite his family's long history on the land and his deep commitment to it and is fatalistic about how much longer the land will remain in agriculture. The people were going in there by the thousands and they're going to eventually they're going to they're going to have to have someplace to live. It's like I said born or raised in this country and this breaks our hearts that go into homes. But what can you do

when you have people in and you know put them someplace. It's going to go it's going to just take time. Events is going to go on. Finding solutions to the farmland issue is a complicated matter but there are some commonsense steps that can be taken. The first is an obvious one wherever possible growth should be directed away from our best farmland and toward less sensitive agricultural areas. There are cities and towns in United States completely surrounded by prime land and so it's not possible to put an end to this conversion but it clearly is possible to influence and shape and forge the direction of development because in most communities there are choices available. We obviously have needs for both housing and industrial growth but that growth should not come at the expense of our food production. Lines between lands for development and agricultural lands must be clearly and sensibly drawn. The farmer would ensure unincumbered farm operations and remove the threat of being

forced out by development. It would also help builders by creating a consistency and planning decisions. It is often lacking today. These are political issues. They are going to be solved technically we have the answers we can build affordable. But you have to get the people to understand that to do that they've got to allow us to do that identify land where we can build on part of the problem is that in most states California included control of land use originates at the local level by cities and counties but local governments often give into the pressures for development and the lure of an expanding tax base at the expense of local agriculture. And local politicians are often too parochial to care how their decisions affect others in neighboring areas or the state. If local government fails to recognize its responsibility control should be placed at a higher level of either regional level as proposed in the people for open space study or at the state level. State Senator John Garamendi a cattle rancher Im selfish has been pushing for state

intervention. The only way around that is to have a very clear state policy and that state policy is shall protect our agricultural lands and then demand of local government that they do it have some sort of mechanism to see that it is done locally. And then I guess the ultimate is if they don't then a mechanism whereby the state can assure that it will be done removing some control from the local level Brasenose a number of problems not the least of which is an even greater government bureaucracy. But if local governments cannot meet the challenge such measures may be necessary to protect our farmland. It would also help to ensure that agriculture is a profitable industry especially for smaller farmers. Clearly drawing lines between farm lands and development will help other steps might include adjusting the tax system to aid small farmers loan assistance and continuing such measures as the Williamson. If crops bring a good price. We're going to have less and less people that want to get out if they can make a

good living. And I'm saying the living based upon what other people are making fine. Most people don't think of vanishing farmland as a very serious problem. We have plenty of relatively cheap food to eat and there are millions of acres under cultivation in this country. But the issue is a very real one for the not so distant future if we don't begin to try to solve the problem now when we do get around to it. It may be too late. Not in this generation probably not in the next generation but 30 40 years from now our grandchildren are going to curse us for destroying their birthright their ability to lift their ability to have food the ability to sustain themselves. There was a gap of course in the solutions offered here a gap that does not account for the interest of the retiring farmer and his wife who want to sell their land to a high paying developer. They are understandably argue for their individual rights and freedom. The city official argues for the larger public good. It's an argument that goes to the

heart of what government is all about in a democratic society. An argument that will never be fully and finally resolved for us Chronicle. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you. To obtain a printed transcript of this US Chronicle send $2 to us Chronicle box three for five New York New York 1 0 1 0 1. Please specify title or subject of this US Chronicle program. You.

Do.

You. Know who the. Major funding for Novo was provided by this station and other public television stations. Additional funding was provided by the National Science Foundation. And by the Johnson and Johnson family of companies. Our greatest problem was with the boy. When we start thinking that I want to take one of your girls out I don't know which one to take out.

I wonder why like why they can't tell us apart. We think it is not that they can't tell the difference between us can't remember which name to attach to which face. Because you have a friend with you. You have two people a look alike they think alike we think alike. You've been brought up alike. It's a hard thing to say I said. When you're brought up so much alike and people just think what is going to react.