Connecticut’s Farmland: We Can Save It, and We Should

– Michael Wysolmerski, Summer Intern from Yale University. michael.wysolmerski@ctlcv.org

In a June 7 editorial titled “Keep Saving Farmland,” the Hartford Courant expresses some optimism about the prospects of farmland preservation, noting that the 2005 Community Investment Act, a 2007 lump sum bonding program committing $10 million annually to farmland preservation, and “other government and private funds, have created real momentum” in the effort to save Connecticut’s farmland. Yet, the picture is not completely optimistic. The editorial notes that Governor Rell and legislative leaders removed $5 million from the Community Investment Act for both this year and next in an effort to balance the state’s budget.

This action threatens to slow the already inadequate progress of farmland preservation, as the state is still losing more farm acreage than we are saving despite an increase of preservation from 675 to 1,370 acres from 2008 to 2009, raising the total conserved farmland to 34,500 acres, according to the State of Connecticut Farmland Preservation Program.

Yet, in the past five years alone, the state has lost an estimated 45,000 acres. As the article notes, at this rate, the state will not reach its goal, established by the Department of Agriculture, of protecting 130,000 acres of farmland until the 22^nd century. DEP has a separate goal of conserving 21% of the state’s land, or 673,210 acres, by 2023 as open space.

Connecticut’s farmlands are vitally important to the state. According to the Working Lands Alliance’s website, farms offer habitats for wildlife, generate tax revenue, provide jobs, slow suburban sprawl, promote tourism by creating “scenic vistas and open space,” supply a natural water purification system, and generate locally grown foods that increase long-term food security. Given these numerous advantages, farmland preservation should be a high priority for the state. And, despite the seemingly daunting statistics and graphs, our preservation goals seem within reach.

According to the CEQ’s 2009 Annual Report, the preservation of at least 2,000 acres annually, a level that could be achieved as early as this year, would be enough to attain the preservation goal. Furthermore, the statistics indicated in the report do not include land that nonprofit organizations and individual towns protected without state assistance, suggesting that, according to the CEQ Annual Report, actual acreage protected could be higher than reported.

With progress being made and with our preservation goals seemingly within reach, the decision of the legislature and Governor Rell to cut funding from the Community Investment Act threatens not only to counteract the gathering momentum of farmland preservation but also to cause Connecticut to lag behind other New England states in percentage of farmland preserved.

Connecticut and other New England states all have variations of programs that acquire development rights on farmland, purchase conservations easements, or, in the case of Massachusetts, pay farmers the difference between the “fair market value” of lands and the “agricultural value” of their farmland in exchange for a deed restriction protecting the property. Since Connecticut’s funds for the purchase of development rights come mostly from the Community Investment Act, cutting these funds will directly hinder the ability of the state protect land. Currently, with 8.5% of our total farmland preserved, the state ranks third, behind Massachusetts (12%) and Maine (9.13%) of New England states in farmland preservation. The cut in funding threatens to stop the progress that has been made, which could cause the state to lag behind its neighbors.

As such, the Courant editorial is spot on when it asserts that, despite the current budget deficit, the state “shouldn’t touch this money; certainly should not touch any more of it.”

Graphs from the Council on Environmental Quality 2009 Annual Report, Farmland page, at http://www.ct.gov/ceq/cwp/view.asp?a=3884&Q=456290