|
|
FYI
|
|
With 36.8 million acres of prime farmland, Texas has more prime farmland than any
other state.
|
|
Source: NRCS, National Resources Inventory, Graphic Highlights of
Natural Resource Trends in the U.S. between1982 and 1992 [Washington, D.C., April 1995].
|
|
A study released by the American Farmland Trust in October
2002, reported that the United States is losing two acres of mostly prime farmland every minute to development. The loss is
occurring on the edge of the "outer suburbs." The report made a distinction between sprawl and development and concluded that it was sprawl, not development itself that caused the
disappearance of 6 million acres of farmland between 1992 and 1997.* According to the American Farmland Trust, the United
States is losing as much top soil to urban sprawl as it is saving through programs like the Conservation Reserve Program.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture concluded that from 1982 to 1992, 1.4 million acres of farm and ranchland in
Texas were converted to development, nearly double that of the previous ten years.* According to the American
Farmland Trust, from 1992 to 1997,Texas lost approximately 332,800 acres of quality farmland--a 42 percent increase
in rate of loss over the previous five years-- to development—more than any other state during that period.* Two regions in the state were most affected: the Texas Blackland Prairie and the Lower Rio Grande Plain.
The Texas Blackland Prairie includes the metropolitan regions of Austin-San Marcos, Waco, Dallas-Fort Worth, and two
of the fastest developing counties in the country, Williamson and Collin. The Blackland Prairie is known for its productive
soils; they include fertile cropland, pastureland, and rangeland. The Lower Rio Grande Plain, a 2,550-square-mile
region, includes the rapidly growing counties of Starr, Hidalgo, and Cameron. According to the Farmland Trust, 85
percent of the development in these counties is on prime farmland that once produced the ruby-red grapefruit, the 1015 sweet onion, and many varieties of oranges, vegetables, and cotton.* The American Farmland Trust warns that
the loss of prime farmland to other uses over the next fifty years could lead the nation to be a net food importer. Loss
of prime farmland to urban development can also negatively affect wildlife habitat and aquifer-recharge areas.
|
FYI
|
- "Since 1994, ten+ acre housing lots have accounted for 55 percent of the land developed"
- "Eighty-six percent of America's fruits and vegetables and Sixty-three percent of dairy
products are grown on farmland that is at risk from sprawling development."
|
|
Source: American Farmland Trust, "Farming on the Edge"
|
|
Across the country a similar trend is evident. While the U.S.
population grew from 1982 to 1997 by 17 percent, the amount of land used for urban space increased by 47 percent. Cities have expanded geographically and have exploded into the adjacent
countryside at much greater growth rates than their population increases. For example, architect and city planner Robert Geddes points out that from 1970 to 1990, the population of Cleveland
declined by 8 percent, but the city expanded geographically by 33 percent. At the same time, Chicago grew by 4 percent while its urbanized land increased by 46 percent.* Demographers predict that there will be a long-term dispersal of the U.S. population
into smaller, less densely settled cities and towns. In other words, the pressures to develop on farmland and wilderness areas will continue.
This trend is also taking place in Texas; in 1982, 6.8 million acres, or 4 percent of the state's total surface area, was
urban; by 1992 urban acreage had increased 1.4 million acres to 8.2 million acres, or 5 percent of total surface area.*
Harris County represents another dramatic example of urban expansion. In 1982 urban areas within the county covered
516,000 acres; by 1992, it had expanded 17 percent to cover approximately 606,000 acres. From 1982 to 1992, Bexar
County added 43,000 acres of urban land, Dallas County added 56,000 acres, and Tarrant County added 83,000 acres.
The Texas State Data Center's figures show that Texas's population will almost double to 33 million by 2030. The
majority of this population growth will occur along the I-35 corridor and to the east of it. The Lower Rio Grande Valley
is expected to receive the largest increase in population (the result of births, in-migration, and immigration)—a 173 percent increase from 1995 to 2030.*
Costs of Farmland Conversion
Though most people assume that growth pays for itself, studies indicate differently.
New growth does not necessarily translate into new wealth for communities. The Texas office of American Farmland Trust conducted a study of the
fiscal impact of existing land uses on Bandera County and Hays County's budget. The studies showed that farms,
ranches and open lands generate three times more tax dollars for a county than the county spends on them for public services.*
For Bandera County, "every dollar these lands [open space and agricultural land] provide in revenue from
property taxes, sales taxes and other revenues, they demand back only $0.26 in services."* Industrial and commerical
properties provide a net fiscal benefit as well, but residential development requires $1.10 in services for every tax dollar it generates.*
The American Farmland Trust, along with the Agriculture Commissioner, other elected officials,conservation and
agricultural organizations are supportive of farmland protection legislation for Texas.
Land Fragmentation
While many acres of private working lands are being converted to development, according to a Texas A&M study,
millions of additional acres of large family-owned properties are being converted to non-traditional uses. People are
buying land for its recreation value and for its investment value. This demand for rural lands for nontraditional uses is
putting pressure on Texas' "bread and butter" mid- size farms and ranches---those between 500 and 2,000 acres.*
According to the Texas A&M study, though land fragmentation rates vary from one region of the state to the other, "the
most recent fragmentation trends seem to be influenced [more] by ecological regions, that is, people are buying land
for its beauty and leisure value. Charles E. Gilliland, research economist at Texas A&M University has documented the
rising trend in rural land buying. According to Gillliand, "The prevalence of nonagricultural buyers illustrates the nature
of current Texas rural land markets. As the state has become more urbanized, factors driving land markets have
shifted to aesthetic appeal, recreational potential, development potential and water rights."* In May 2002, Gilliland
remarked on a new motivation spurring the buying of rural land: "investors are showing an increased interest in
purchasing rural land as a way of diversifying their portfolios since the events of September 11, 2001." * From 1992
and 1997, median price of rural land in Texas, specifically in Eastern half of the state and around major urban areas,
increased almost 35 percent. This occurs while agricultural profits have declined.
Land fragmentation has many implications for wildlife habitat, as well as the quality and quantity of water resources. As
the American Farmland Trust has pointed out, land fragmentation and the accompanying ranchettes can result in the
loss of suitable species habitat. Many species of wildlife, such as the Northern Bobwhite quail depend on unbroken
rangeland --5000 acres are more. In South Texas and the Rolling Plains,land ownership is such as to sustain the
species, but in the central and eastern parts of the state, where land fragementation has resulted in land ownership
areas of 500 acres to 100 acres (Pineywoods), quail habitat is being lost. Other species have also been affected by this
change in land use: Eastern Meadowlark, Bachman's sparrow, Loggerhead Shrike, horned lizards, box turtles.*
|
