Disappearing California Ag Land a “Growing” Concern: “Losing the Farm” Not the Best Option

• One out of every six acres developed in California since the Gold Rush was paved over between 1990 and 2004

• More than a half million acres were urbanized during the 1990 - 2004 period, almost two-thirds of it agricultural land, and

• More than 60% of the land developed in the San Joaquin Valley was farmland of the very best quality and which accounts for half of California’s agricultural production.

Also revealed in the study was this eye-opener and thought-provoker: “If sprawling development patterns continue, another 2 million acres of California land will be paved over by 2050. If, however, the state as a whole develops land as efficiently as Sacramento County or the Bay Area did in recent years, a million acres of California’s irreplaceable farmland could be saved.”

Ending the Vicious “Giving Away the Farm” Cycle

If this sounds a morsel too much like a “The Sky Is Falling!, The Sky is Falling!” sound bite, I’m not so sure that’s such a bad thing. Do we not come to the aid of peoples who are victims of major calamities? From time to time, are we not also reminded of efforts and programs to raise money and/or contribute food/clothing to help the world’s hungry and needy? We do. We are. Should the issue of disappearing ag land be any less a cause for concern and an important consideration than either of the two above? If this sounds like a cry for help, a call to action, the secret is now out.

In a July 27, 2007 AFT Press Release titled: “House of Representatives Moves 2007 Farm Bill in Right Direction: Agriculture and Consumers Win,” AFT President Ralph Grossi in reference to the nationwide farm bill made this declaration.

“This is a better farm and food bill that strengthens American agriculture and better addresses our environmental, health and hunger challenges.

“Overall, conservation spending will increase about 35 percent. The House has done much to enhance programs like the Farm and Ranch Land Protection program (increased to $280 million annually), the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (increased to $2 billion annually for water quality, air quality, forestry, and programs to include socially disadvantaged farmers), and expanded the Cooperative Conservation program so farmers will be more effective by working together to address environmental issues.”

Could farming advocacy groups, various agricultural agencies, associations, interests and organizations and interested others, do more on their individual as well as collective parts to step up to the “plate,” so to speak, and insist and see to it that the current practice of rendering productive, if not profitable, farm land null and void is stopped, and maybe even reversed in some situations? That answer could very well be a resounding “Yes!” Question is, is the will to do this there and large-scale enough? In the meantime, the widely recognized Future Farmers of America program as well as farm and ranch land preservation efforts such as those of the American Farmland Trust should continue to be strongly encouraged.

While one and all reading this mulls this information over and while land is being vied for between real estate developer and farmer/rancher, and as what was once viable agricultural acreage is pulled out of production and given up for other kinds of development (i.e., commercial, industrial, residential), or simply being pulled out of production no matter the reason, putting food on the table will become that much more of a challenge. Bottom line here is “losing the farm” is no longer the best option. I’m not convinced it ever was. Got food?

Alan Kandel is a concerned California resident and retired railroad signalman previously employed by the Union Pacific Railroad in Fremont, California.