The Rostrum

Prime land: it's time for local action

By JON W. LINFIELD, Former State Director, Farmers Home Administration

TWO-AND-A-HALF years ago, when Farmers Home Administration here in Illinois announced it was developing a policy to protect and enhance our prime farmland as part of a larger resource management policy, the statement did not exactly make headlines.

What most editors, and I think most public officials, failed to realize was that there was a very real concern among Illinois citizens, both rural and urban, about the principal resource base of this state — our prime farmland. Two-thirds of all our land is prime. It is land which yields the greatest return in crops with the smallest resource investment. And it was being irrevocably converted into shopping malls, housing subdivisions, highways and industrial parks at an alarming rate — 100,000 acres a year in Illinois or an average-sized farm county about every three years; and along with it the loss of about $30 million in annual income to the state — a $6 billion loss through the end of the century.

Responding to the FmHA initiatives, people reminded us that we were among the worst offenders with our financing for rural water systems and our rural rental projects out beyond the edge of town. Others came to us seeking help in their battles against other government agencies building highways, power plants, housing, recreation areas or reservoirs. And of course there were those who, quite properly, told us we had no business telling local officials and owners of private lands just how they might undertake development.

The policy FmHA adopted, after many revisions and wide circulation to interested parties — and many warnings that it would never stick — was really quite simple. The policy said that no FmHA dollars would be used for loans, grants or loan guarantees for any project which took prime farmland out of production. It became official policy for Illinois FmHA on October 1, 1979.

A number of interesting things happened over the next year. Developers with new projects confidently sought waivers for new building sites. They were rejected. On appeal after appeal they alleged that the site they owned or had optioned "was the only suitable site in the area." Turned down again, they found (often with FmHA local staff assistance) other sites, not on prime farmland, which were acceptable. In fiscal year 1980 Illinois FmHA obligated every single dime of rental money allocated and then requested and received more funds from the unspent allocations to other states. Not a single newly authorized unit was on prime farmland. This demonstrated clearly, I believe, that we do not have to choose between prime farmland and decent housing.

There was also a noisy campaign to have me removed as state director of FmHA. It failed, and I've been grateful to the opposition for the opportunity it afforded me to explain the rationale for our policy.

Meanwhile, the General Assembly enacted the Agricultural Lands Protection Act, permitting counties to establish exclusive agricultural districts protected from encroachment by developers and offering tax incentives to those who place their land in such districts. While the legislation is rudimentary, it is a step forward.

And in the summer of 1980, Governor Thompson convened the First Governor's Conference on Preservation of Prime Farmland. At that conference he issued an Executive Order directing all state agencies to consider the impact of their actions on prime farmland, and to revise their policies and programs accordingly. The Illinois Department of Agriculture was directed to monitor the order and has established a section within the natural resources division to do that.

Illinois has come a long way in the last 30 months. But it is only a start. Precise figures are hard to come by, but I estimate that government, at all levels, is responsible for less than a third of the prime agland conversions that occur. Most conversions are accomplished by private individuals and firms with private capital. In other words, if federal, state and local governments totally cease conversion of prime lands, Illinois will still suffer annual losses in excess of 60,000 acres.

What's the answer? The responsibility for directing development — privately financed development in particular — is a local responsibility. Local officials have not only the responsibility, but the authority to develop reasonable plans for growth, expansion and development. If those plans do not delineate both the areas suitable for necessary growth and the areas unsuitable because prime farmland or other natural resources require protection, then that growth will inexorably consume more and more prime land. It leads to ever increasing costs for services to the now sprawling community — costs rarely recovered from the increased tax base. And of course it also leads to the certain loss of a critical portion of the world's food-producing capacity.

I believe that FmHA and other federal agencies have demonstrated that sound, sensible prime land preservation policies will work. The General Assembly and Gov. Thompson have recognized the problem and are beginning to act. The next step — and the most critical — is for local governments to accept their responsibilities and begin to act effectively. If my experience is any guide, county commissioners and village boards will discover an enormous reservoir of support for the sound, sensible well-planned actions they must undertake to retain our prime Illinois farmland. □

June 1981/Illinois Issues/35