Article from the March, 1999 Voter,
     background for a study of planning in the
     unincorporated areas of Douglas County.

In the spring of 1998, the League study committee on
Planning in Unincorporated Areas of Douglas County
presented background information on current
settlement patterns in Douglas County, the costs and
problems resulting from this sprawl, and our analysis
of why it is occurring. One striking bit of
information from last year's study was the disparity
between the widely-held perception that Douglas
County is primarily a "residential" county, and what
actually seems to be the case--that there is still
active agricultural land use left and remaining prime
farmland worth preserving in Douglas County.

This past year the committee tried to answer the
question of whether we should modify our local Land
Use Position to include agricultural land and land
use: i.e, whether there are positive reasons for
preserving farmland and farming in Douglas County.

Besides reading background material and gathering
data, we met twice with Clyde Mermis and his
associates in the local USDA Natural Resources
Conservation Service (formerly the Soil Conservation
Service) and attended a seminar at Burr Oak Woods in
Blue Springs, MO on "Urban Development and Farmland
Preservation" on January 15.

Three participants in the Burr Oak Seminar
contributed most to our study: the first represented
the American Farmland Trust; the second specializes
in agricultural economics and rural economic
development at the University of Missouri (Columbia),
and the third, a practicing and teaching urban
planner and Sierra Club member from Kansas City,
provided an environmental and global perspective on
loss of farmland, including natural areas and rural
open space.

The speaker from the American Farmland Trust outlined
the great national importance and value of our
agricultural lands and farm industry, the incredibly
rapid loss of prime agricultural lands to urban
sprawl and rural non-farm development, and methods to
address the problem. His views reflected The American
Farmland Trust's emphasis on purchase of development
rights through farmland conservation easements. (The
Trust also supports other methods for preserving
farmland at all levels of government--preferential
taxation, enabling legislation, regulation, and
market-driven options such as substituting
transferrable development rights in place of land in
real estate transactions. All these are detailed in
the Trust's recently published Saving American
Farmland; What Works. The Committee read the book
this fall.)

The most interesting point made by the last two
speakers--the economist and the urban planner--was
that the problems of cities and rural areas are
inseparable. Our national settlement patterns are the
principal causes of our loss of farmland and rural
open space. Because the supply side of rural land is
perceived by many to be unlimited, the demand side
has to be addressed. Sprawl, whether from ballooning
suburbs or widely-dispersed non-farm residential
development, results because the true costs of sprawl
are not paid by those who contribute to it. The
economist pointed out that, in the absence of normal
market forces acting to control sprawl, non-market
and market-like mechanisms have to be employed to
reverse the trends. In other words, farmers are going
to have to accept regulation if they want to preserve
their farms and farmlands. The trick is to get it
right. "The wrong approach will save the wrong land."

Nationwide there are five basic reasons to save
farmland:

     1. To sustain economic opportunity. (16% of
     our GDP and 18% of our national employment
     is dependent on agriculture.)

     2. To ensure food security. (We should
     never allow ourselves to become dependent
     on imported food, but some of our most
     productive areas are being lost. For
     various reasons it is important that
     metropolitan areas preserve and encourage
     nearby agricultural production.)

     3. To protect our natural resources. (Once
     lost, it's gone forever.)

     4. To support communities and community
     infrastructure. (Economy, social fabric,
     tax base, and community fiscal health are
     all dependent on growth paying for itself.)

     5. To sustain our quality of life. (A
     clean, aesthetically pleasing, convenient,
     functional environment is what most of us
     seek. "Growth reinforces urban amenities,
     but growth compromises rural amenities.
     Sprawl can destroy what it seeks to
     capture.") Our interview with Clyde Mermis,
     Jonathan Alley, and the NRCS soil scientist
     from Topeka, Bob Plinsky, centered
     specifically on the value of agricultural
     land and farming in Douglas County. Last
     year we learned from Agricultural Extension
     Agent Gary Keeler that the long term trend
     on numbers of farms and farmers in Douglas
     County was down while the county rural
     population was up. This year, world market
     conditions and bumper crops created farm
     product surpluses that reduced prices below
     costs, creating a crisis for smaller
     farmers. Douglas County was not excepted.
     We had heard various opinions, frequently
     voiced, to the effect that (a) there is
     very little prime farmland in Douglas
     County (so why save it?), (b) there are too
     many farms in Douglas County as evidenced
     by the crop surpluses (so why save the
     farms?), and (c) Douglas County is already
     a residential county (so why try to save
     anything?)

Therefore, we asked our NRCS interviewees three basic
questions:

     1. Of what importance is it to Douglas
     County to preserve its agricultural land,
     especially in view of current surpluses?

     2. Of what importance is it to Douglas
     County to preserve its agricultural land
     use; that is, active farms?

     3. How much prime farmland is there in
     Douglas County and where is it located?

Our greatest surprise was to learn from Bob Plinsky
that 55% of land in Douglas County is classified as
prime agricultural soils, based on Department of
Agriculture classifications. Our soils, especially in
the Kaw Valley bottomland, are among the best in the
world. Our rainfall and availability of surface water
make our area less vulnerable than western Kansas,
and to lose our soil would be to lose a precious,
irreplaceable resource, regardless of whether we need
it now.

On the issue of placing value on active farms in
Douglas County, taxes generated is only one aspect of
value, but it is economic and measurable. From the
Douglas County Appraisers's Office we found that the
total appraised value of farmland in 1998 was
$26,098,255. National surveys (through American
Farmland Trust) show that county costs in services
required by farmland and open space generally is only
35 to 60¢ for every $1.00 in revenues they generate,
producing a net gain for counties. In contrast,
residential use in counties costs $1.11 to $1.60 in
services for every $1.00 generated.

Both the NRCS and the Burr Oak speakers emphasized
that the problems for farmers, here in Kansas,
including Douglas County, is one of marketing. New
value-added products for common crops are being
investigated, so that the current surpluses may be
temporary. The future may require that more produce
be grown locally, especially organically, and local
markets may present opportunities for truck farming
and other crops. The climate and weather would
support this.

Regarding the last question, where the prime farmland
in Douglas County is located, we have secured more
maps. The one we wanted mostñ-mapping prime
farmland--is being prepared for us by the NRCS. With
luck it will be ready in time for the units on March
11. Be surprised along with us!

--Planning in Unincorporated Areas of Douglas County
study committee: Betty Lichtwardt, Nancy Shontz,
marci francisco, Eleanor and Byron Wenger, Bev
Worster.

Back to Works of the League

Back to Top

Back to Home