Summer, 1990 (v2n4)
Jones & Stokes Associates,
Inc.
California Department of
Conservation, Office of Land Conservation. 1991
Reviewer's note: This
97-page study was commissioned by the Office of Land Conservation of the
California Department of Conservation in response to the lack of available
information on the socioeconomic and environmental impacts of farmland
conversion. Prepared by Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc., an independent,
Sacramento-based consulting firm, the report makes significant progress
in identifying the rate and extent of farmland conversion in critical
agricultural regions, and documenting the resulting impacts. While not
a definitive study, the report is sure to serve as an invaluable springboard
for future research. It may also prompt reforms that strengthen the way
state officials assess the environmental impacts of farmland conversions.
Methodology
The report is based on published
data and interviews with more than 70 individuals directly concerned with
farmland conversion and related issues. The interviewees represented a
range of interests and backgrounds, and included officials from county
agricultural offices, planning departments, and UC Cooperative Extension;
also interviewed were environmental officials, farmers, farm labor contractors,
and soil conservationists.
The heart of the document
consists of two case studies of farmland conversion, one in Ventura County,
and the other in the Northern San Joaquin Valley (San Joaquin and Stanislaus
counties). In each case two types of conversion are considered: cropland
to urban uses ("Type A" conversions) and wildlands to croplands
("Type B" conversions). The study examined conversion patterns
over the past two decades, with a focus on those that took place between
1984 and 1988.
A special concern of the
study was to evaluate the adequacy of the impact analysis of farmland
conversions that has taken place under the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA), and to recommend amendments to improve the environmental impact
reports (EIRs) for proposed conversions covered by the Act. A total of
26 past EIR's that involved farmland conversions of over 100 acres near
urban areas were reviewed to determine their rigor and comprehensiveness.
Results
Acreage loss. Not
surprisingly, the study finds that prime farmland is being lost to urban
expansion near existing cities. In the northern San Joaquin Valley, alfalfa
and field crops lost the most acreage Table 1), while in Ventura County,
vegetables, citrus and field crops experienced the heaviest losses (Table
2). In both Stanislaus and Ventura Counties, Type B conversions of wildlands
to croplands were roughly equal in area to Type A conversions. Type A
conversions were dominated by new avocado orchards on hilly terrain (Ventura
County) and almond orchards (San Joaquin and Stanislaus Counties). In
San Joaquin County, little new cropland has been established since 1976.
The report echoes the alarm heard elsewhere about the diminishing supply of prime farmland: "If Type A conversion trends occurring between 1974 and 1986 continued through the year 2010, farmland losses in the Central Valley would exceed 300,000 acres, or over 4 percent of the state's stock of important farmlands. Projected over one century, urbanization in the Central Valley alone would claim one-fourth of the state's important farmlands."
| Table 1. Farmland Conversions in San Joaquin and Stanislaus Counties (Acres). | ||
| Conversion Type |
|
|
| Cropland to urban conversions (Type A) | ||
| Preconversion crop type | ||
| Vines |
|
|
| Orchards |
|
|
| Irrigated pasture |
|
|
| Alfalfa & irrigated filed crops |
|
|
| Truck crops |
|
|
| Total |
|
|
| Wildland to cropland conversions (Type B) | ||
| Postconversion crop type | ||
| Almonds |
|
|
| Walnuts |
|
|
| Vines |
|
|
| Field and truck crops |
|
|
| Other |
|
|
| Total |
|
|
Sources: California Department of Water Resources 1976, 1977, 1988.
Table 2. Farmland Conversions in Ventura County (1969-1988)
| Conversion Type |
|
| Cropland to urban conversions | |
| Preconversion crop type | |
| Citrus |
|
| Deciduous tree crops |
|
| Irrigated pasture |
|
| Irrigated field crops |
|
| Truck crops |
|
| Total |
|
| Wildland to cropland conversions | |
| Postconversion crop type | |
| Avocados |
|
| Lemons |
|
| Truck & irrigated field crops |
|
| Other |
|
| Total |
|
Sources: California Department
of Water Resources 1969, 1988.
Impacts. The impacts
of urban encroachment are examined from the perspective of both urban
residents and farmers. For urban residents in these newly developed areas,
nuisances and health risks such as pesticide exposure, dust, noise and
odor are the most common complaints. For farmers, urban encroachment adversely
affects the efficiency of remaining farming operations due to "increased
air pollution, livestock predation by pets, crop diseases resulting from
inadequate care off-farm ornamental plants, restrictions on pesticide
use and burning, and requirements to set aside on-farm buffer zones."
At the same time, production costs increase due to rising land values,
water scarcity, theft and vandalism of farm equipment, crop pilferage,
road congestion, and personal injury liability resulting from trespassing
on farms. By reducing the profitability of remaining farming operations,
urban encroachment tends to take on a spiraling effect, encouraging further
losses of farms to urban development.
In terms of socioeconomic
impacts, the report finds conversions to have little effect on the viability
of the regional agricultural sectors. The most critical impact is on housing
prices, which have risen as growth occurs. The report concludes that "farmland
conversion appears to be correlated with worsening housing conditions
for farm workers and other low-income segments of the population."
Currently, most California farm workers who do not live in government-operated
labor camps live in substandard housing.
Both Type A and Type B conversions
are associated with negative environmental impacts such as the loss of
wildlife habitat. Type B conversions can increase groundwater scarcity
and sometimes increase groundwater contamination, while Type A conversions
are expected to have a beneficial impact on water quality due to reduced
pesticide use and replacement of septic systems with municipal wastewater
treatment facilities. Increased air pollution due to vehicle emissions
(due to Type A conversion) and atmospheric dust (due to Type B conversion)
are also found. In fact, "acid fog" is now becoming a recognized
problem in the San Joaquin Valley and ozone pollution is responsible for
significant reductions in yield. For example, one study cited in the report
found a 34 percent reduction in grape yield due to ozone pollution.
The report finds existing
CEQA EIR's inadequate, because they have tended to focus too narrowly
on loss of prime soils without considering the related issues. It recommends
a broader focus along the lines used in this study and improved guidelines
to assist lead agencies and EIR preparers.
Reviewer Comments
The report paints a predominantly
negative picture of how farmland conversion impacts the sustainability
of California agriculture. Aside from the environmental impacts, the most
important issue related to sustainability identified in this report is
the influence of rising land values. Escalating values create barriers
to entering farmers, and pressure existing farmers to change to high-value
crops to make mortgage or rental payments. High land values also encourage
farmers to view their holdings in light of their short-term development
potential, as opposed to making long-term investments that improve the
holding's agricultural value. In general, these pressures discourage farmers
from adopting sustainable practices and a long-term perspective on the
value of their land.
On the other hand, the increased
proximity of urban residents to farms is creating pressure to curb pesticide
usage, burning, etc. This pressure provides a tangible incentive for farmers
to consider a range of alternative practices. A key issue that will determine
whether agriculture can be preserved on prime soils is whether the transition
to these practices can be made economically. Policymakers can help by
increasing support for research on sustainable practices and providing
economic aid to help farmers during the transition. More broadly, the
Office of Land Conservation report emphasizes the need for growth management
policies that protect prime farmland from urban encroachment. Finally,
the report underscores once again the need for policies that address the
glaring need for adequate low-income housing for California's farm workers.
References
California Department of
Water Resources. 1969. Land use maps for Ventura County. Sacramento, CA.
California Department of
Water Resources. 1976. Land use maps for San Joaquin County. Sacramento,
CA.
California Department of
Water Resources. 1977. Land use maps for Stanislaus County. Sacramento,
CA.
California Department of
Water Resources. 1988. Land use maps for San Joaquin, Stanislaus and Ventura
County. Sacramento, CA.
Contributed by Dave Campbell
[ Back | Search | Feedback ]