12 CapitalPress.com
June 2, 2017
‘Economically, it’s an incredible option for farmers’
FARMS from Page 1
groups and individuals have
started thinking about ways to
preserve it while keeping those
property rights intact.
The debate in Idaho is also
a microcosm of the battles that
have been fought across the
West to protect high-quality
farmland from development.
The Treasure Valley in
southwestern Idaho is home
to 8,000 farms — almost one-
third of Idaho’s total. It’s also
the state’s largest urban area
and one of the fastest-growing
regions in the nation, increasing
the pressure for development.
As a result, farmland is
being transformed into hous-
ing and retail developments in
some parts of the valley, partic-
ularly in Ada County, Idaho’s
most populous. The toll on
farmland in the county has ac-
celerated over the decades. Ada
County had 244,218 acres of
farmland in 1974 but 144,049
acres in 2012 — a decrease of
41 percent, according to the
Ada Soil and Water Conserva-
tion District.
In adjacent Canyon County,
the state’s second most pop-
ulous county, the situation is
more hopeful — for now. To-
tal farmland in that county is
holding steady and has actu-
ally increased a little in recent
years, according to the county’s
development services division.
But with the valley’s popu-
lation projected to increase 62
percent, from about 650,000
now to 1.05 million by 2040,
many people believe it’s only
a matter of time before Canyon
County farmland starts to dis-
appear as well.
“It’s just sprawling right to
us,” said farmer Brad McIn-
tyre, a member of the Owyhee
Soil and Water Conservation
District. “We’ve already lost
huge amounts of farm ground
around here. I don’t want to see
any more prime farm ground
go away.”
According to the USDA
Census of Agriculture, the aver-
age market value of farmland in
Ada County was $5,728 an acre
in 2012 while it was $5,332 in
Canyon County.
Some farmers have drawn a
line in the dirt.
Ada County farmer Neil
Durrant said his family has
chosen to keep farming despite
the fact that many other farmers
around them are selling their
land to developers for a high
price.
“The development pres-
sure around here is huge,” he
said.” People have asked us
and we’ve told them we’re not
interested (in selling) and we
won’t be for a very long time.”
Development worries
But other farmers are ac-
cepting the attractive offers
from developers.
Farmer Janie Burns, chair-
woman of the Treasure Valley
Food Coalition, recently drove
from Boise to nearby Nampa
and was dismayed by what she
saw.
“Almost every corner had a
sign saying ‘For Sale’ or ‘De-
Sean Ellis/Capital Press
Neil Durrant cuts hay in a fi eld near Kuna, Idaho, on May 26. With ag ground in some parts of the
Treasure Valley disappearing at a rapid rate, several groups have recently become involved in farm-
land preservation efforts.
Ada Co., Idaho, land in farms
(Thousands of acres)
244.2 247.4 247.2 247.1
144,049 acres: Down
24.8% from 2007
232.9 231.2
223.4
191.5
Ada, Co.,
Idaho
1974
’78
’82
’87
’92
Source: USDA Census of Agriculture
velopment Potential,’” she said.
“That is so sad.”
Several groups in recent
years have undertaken efforts to
educate the public about the is-
sue. They include the Ada Soil
and Water Conservation Dis-
trict, the Treasure Valley Food
Coalition and the Coalition for
Agriculture’s Future, which
was created by the valley’s seed
companies to combat what they
call “un-smart growth.”
The Idaho Association of
Soil Conservation Districts
adopted a resolution in Octo-
ber to “support preservation
of our working farmlands and
efforts that would create viable
options for farmland owners to
preserve their farmland perma-
nently if they so desire.”
In addition, Boise State
University’s School of Public
policy has conducted surveys
in the past year that show over-
whelming support in the Trea-
sure Valley and across Idaho
for efforts aimed at preserving
farmland.
The Treasure Valley Food
Coalition recently wrapped up
a yearlong educational effort
exploring possible solutions
for preserving farmland. An
idea that rose to the top during
the effort was the possibility of
creating a voluntary statewide
farmland easement program.
This type of program would
pay farmers a certain amount
per acre in exchange for an
easement that preserves the
land as farm ground forever.
Lemhi County rancher Mer-
rill Beyeler, a former state rep-
resentative, is helping lead the
’97
’02
’07
2012
Alan Kenaga/Capital Press
effort to approach legislators
about providing state funding
or resources toward such a pro-
gram.
While that could mean state
dollars, Beyeler said, it could
also come in the form of a tax
credit, which the farmer can
sell to a business or any person
needing one.
“That is sort of the idea
we were thinking of,” he said.
“There is some work going on
and I’m hoping it will move
forward.”
What other states do
Other states approach farm-
land preservation efforts in a
variety of ways.
Washington state created
a conservation easement pro-
gram in 2002 to try to fi ght the
conversion of agricultural land
into commercial developments
and housing. The state program
matches money put up by oth-
ers, such as nonprofi t land trusts
or local governments, to com-
pensate farmers for keeping the
land in agriculture instead of
selling it to a developer.
The state doesn’t just con-
sider food production in allo-
cating money. Applicants also
are judged on whether the land
will preserve wildlife, fi sh,
scenery and agritourism. Still,
the land has to be kept in shape
for farming, Offi ce of Farmland
Preservation coordinator Josh
Giuntoli said.
“You can’t just let the land
go. You have to do something
to keep it available for agricul-
ture,” he said.
During the current two-year
budget cycle, the state received
24 applications and approved
$4 million for six conservation
easements.
“There’s just not enough
money to purchase develop-
ment rights on all the property,”
Giuntoli said.
California also uses conser-
vation easements and farming
advocates are trying to regain
state funding for the William-
son Act, a program under
which the state compensated
counties for much of the prop-
erty tax revenue lost when they
gave farmers and ranchers low-
er tax assessments in exchange
for pledges to keep the land in
agriculture for at least the next
10 years.
The state had been spend-
ing nearly $38 million a year to
protect about 16 million acres,
but that funding was eliminated
in 2009 amid a state budget cri-
sis and was never restored.
However, the Williamson
Act’s effect on keeping land
in agriculture has been limited,
said Edward Thompson, the
California director of the Amer-
ican Farmland Trust. That’s be-
cause the money that can be
made from selling land to de-
velopers is sometimes greater
than the tax savings, he said.
Still, California has been
losing roughly 40,000 acres of
farmland to development every
year for more than a decade,
meaning that “tax policy will
only get you so far,” Thompson
said.
Another tool for preserving
farmland is conservation ease-
ments, in which property own-
ers are paid for voluntarily des-
ignating all of part of their land
to remain permanently in open
space, which could include
farming. The payments are
meant to reimburse landowners
for the loss of property value
because of the restricted uses.
In California, as of last year,
57,631 acres were protected
in easements through the state
Farmland Conservancy Pro-
gram, which has spent nearly
$87.7 million on them since the
1980s, according to the AFT.
In addition, $500,400 has been
spent to protect 1,588 acres
through the Sustainable Agri-
cultural Lands Conservation
Program, which is funded by
the state’s carbon emission cap-
and-trade proceeds.
That state money has been
matched with nearly $68 mil-
lion in other funds, including
bonds, fees and private contri-
butions, according to the AFT.
Oregon’s farmland preser-
vation efforts center on state-
wide land use planning, which
was adopted in 1973. The law
limits development on the high-
est quality farmland zoned Ex-
clusive Farm Use. In return for
giving up development rights,
farmland is taxed at a reduced
rate compared to residential or
industrial property.
Mary Kyle McCurdy, dep-
uty director of the watchdog
group 1000 Friends of Oregon,
said the state’s land-use laws
are consistent across county
lines. That gives farmers the
certainty they need to make
long-term investments in land
and equipment.
A key provision of the sys-
tem is that every city establish-
es an urban growth boundary
that determines where growth
will occur. Development hap-
pens within the boundary;
farming, forestry and recreation
happen outside it. An orchard,
berry farm or grass seed fi eld
in the middle of other farmland
can’t be developed into a sub-
division.
Growth boundaries can
be expanded by local govern-
ments, but the process is not
simple and gives the public
— plus business and activist
groups — the opportunity to
challenge or modify decisions.
Idaho’s options
In Idaho, the conversation
has centered around voluntary
farmland easements.
Two Idaho legislators who
are also farmers told Capital
Press they thought the idea of
a voluntary farmland easement
program was a good one but
they also said it’s going to be
tough to convince legislators to
fund such a program.
Rep. Clark Kauffman, a Re-
publican farmer from Filer and
former president of the Idaho
Grain Producers Association,
was at a meeting last winter
where the idea was discussed.
“If you have a willing buy-
er and a willing seller of an
easement, I think it’s great,” he
said. But every legislator at the
meeting had the same question,
he added: “How are you going
to fund it?”
Sen. Jim Patrick, a Republi-
can farmer from Twin Falls and
chairman of the Senate Com-
merce and Human Resources
Committee, said he would sup-
port an easement program if it
was crafted right.
But he also said it would be
a tough sell to convince legisla-
tors to appropriate the millions
of dollars it would take to make
such a program viable.
The issue of preserving
farmland isn’t new, at least
for farmers, said Burns, of the
Treasure Valley Food Coali-
tion. But she believes the rapid
disappearance of farm ground
in the region has recently
awakened many members of
the public and policy-makers
to the problem.
“You don’t have to drive
very far to see a bunch of ‘For
Sale’ signs on some really good
farmland,” she said. “Just driv-
ing around, it’s pretty obvious
to members of the public that
things are changing.”
She believes the Boise State
surveys have tapped into a
growing interest in preserving
farmland. “Those surveys are
really very interesting,” she
said. “There seems to be some-
thing happening.”
Edwards, the Ada County
farmer, is a big supporter of
farmland preservation but he’s
also frustrated that nothing is
being done to accomplish it.
“Farmland preservation is a
hot topic right now but nobody
seems to be putting together
any type of plan to compensate
farmers so they can retire,” he
said.
The question
Leaders in Idaho’s agricul-
tural industry who have been
involved in farmland preser-
vation discussions say the is-
sue always seems to get stuck
on how to accomplish it while
preserving the private property
rights of landowners.
“That’s really the mil-
lion-dollar question,” said Rog-
er Batt, executive director of
the Idaho-Eastern Oregon Seed
Association and a consultant
and lobbyist for several agricul-
tural groups and commissions.
“The bottom line is we have
private property rights. You
don’t want to infringe upon
those by telling somebody they
can’t sell their land to develop-
ment if that’s their end goal or
their retirement.”
Rather than taking away
a farmer’s private property
rights, a voluntary preservation
easement gives them options,
said Ada County farmer Josie
Erskine, who manages the Ada
Soil and Water Conservation
District, a group that is spear-
heading the farmland preser-
vation discussion.
Because a farmer receives
a certain amount of money
per acre for putting land in an
easement, he could use that
money to update the farm and
diversify, she said.
Plus, he still owns it and
can rent it or sell it if he choos-
es, just not for development.
“Really, it opens doors,”
she said. “Economically, it’s
an incredible option for farm-
ers.”
Erskine said the region is
in an awakening phase when
it comes to farm land preser-
vation.
What the fl edgling effort
needs now is a champion — a
legislator who is also a farmer
or an agricultural group — to
take up the issue, Erskine said.
“You don’t get to save ag
land by doing nothing,” she
said. “We can kick the can
down the road but ag land is
not going to save itself. If we
really want to save it, we’ll
have to make some hard choic-
es.”
Reporters Tim Hearden,
Eric Mortenson and Don Jen-
kins contributed to this story.
Jefferson County is preparing for a peak crowd of 30,000 to 100,000
ECLIPSE from Page 1
“This will be a nice sup-
plemental income this year to
give us a little bit of fl exibility
to pay some debts and loans,”
said Zitlau, whose nightly
camping rate will be $150.
Zitlau’s Granite Creek
Ranch, located about 8 miles
west of Swan Valley, encom-
passes roughly 3,300 acres
of range and 700 acres of
farm ground. Zitlau start-
ed planning for his tempo-
rary campground about 10
months ago, in time to book
garbage bins and portable
toilets. He’ll accommodate
at least 30 tent campers in
pasture sites along a stream
and fir-covered hills. He’ll
also have space for 30 rec-
reational vehicles within
a wheat field, in which he
planted a 100-foot-wide
strip of forage that he’ll cut
once before using regrowth
as turf.
He already runs a bed and
breakfast, which has simpli-
fi ed the process of getting
temporary insurance. He
plans to sell eclipse T-shirts of
his own design.
Rebecca Squires, Jefferson
County emergency manage-
ment coordinator, is currently
vetting about 30 temporary
campground permits, which are
required to aid in public safety
planning. Most applicants will
offer self-contained camping —
for RVs that have their own toi-
lets and water. Squires said the
county is preparing for a peak
crowd of 30,000 to 100,000
visitors. She said emergency
responders will be focused on
the heightened fi re risk, the
likelihood that cell phone tow-
ers will be overwhelmed and
traffi c challenges on Interstate
15 and U.S. Highway 20.
Betty Brown, with Brown’s
Meadow Creek Ranch in
Ririe, plans to offer at least
80 self-contained RV sites in
pasture along the Snake Riv-
er, charging $150 per night
with a two-night minimum.
Brown is used to hosting large
crowds for “jackpot” rodeos
and intends to schedule a spe-
cial rodeo in conjunction with
eclipse camping.
Scott Lyman, a small-acre-
age farmer in Rigby, plans to
offer 25 campsites in his pas-
ture — at $200 per night with
a three-night minimum. He’s
purchased special glasses to
provide guests for viewing the
eclipse.
“If you can get even 25
campers at $200 a piece, that’s
$15,000 in three days,” Lyman
said.
‘There’s no doubt state management of wolves has been a success in Idaho’
WOLF from Page 1
Idaho has an estimated 800
wolves — probably more —
and has actively managed them
since federal offi cials took
wolves off the endangered spe-
cies list statewide in 2011.
Compared to Oregon, which
documented 112 wolves at the
end of 2016, Idaho’s numbers
are staggering.
In 2015, hunters and trap-
pers legally killed 256 wolves
in Idaho, the same number as in
2014. Another 75 wolves were
“lethally controlled.” Of those,
54 were killed in response to
livestock depredations or by
producers protecting herds. An-
other 21 wolves were taken out
to protect deer and elk popula-
tions in Northern Idaho.
In all, Idaho documented
358 wolf deaths in 2015; two
fewer than in 2014. Figures for
2016 were not available.
According to Idaho Fish and
Game, the number of sheep and
cattle killed by wolves has been
“stable to declining” since the
state began allowing hunting
in 2009. In 2015, wolves killed
44 cattle, 134 sheep, three dogs
and a horse.
Fish and Game Director Vir-
gil Moore has described Ida-
ho’s wolf population as healthy
and sustainable.
Department
spokesman
Mike Keckler said the state has
proven it can manage wolves in
balance with livestock and prey
species.
“There’s no doubt state
management of wolves has
been a success in Idaho,” Ke-
ckler said. “We remove wolves
when they cause problems,
we’re not afraid to do that. We
move quickly when problems
occur.”
The thought of Oregon
adopting such an attitude
doesn’t sit well with conserva-
tion groups.
“This is not Idaho,” Cas-
cadia Wildlands legal direc-
tor Nick Cady said pointedly
during ODFW’s May 19 hear-
ing in Portland.
Cascadia Wildlands and
Oregon Wild warn the state
shouldn’t loosen its wolf man-
agement rules. Rob Klavins,
Oregon Wild’s fi eld coordi-
nator in Northeast Oregon,
said Oregon’s adherence to its
adopted plan was one of the
reasons there wasn’t more of
an outcry when the department
shot four members of the Im-
naha Pack in 2016.
During the Klamath Falls
and Portland ODFW hearings,
representatives from the Ore-
gon Cattlemen’s Association,
Oregon Hunters Association
and Oregon Farm Bureau urged
changes.
Among other things, pro-
ducers say ODFW staff is
spread too thin and sometimes
can’t respond quickly to wolf
attacks. They favor allowing
Wildlife Services to investi-
gate livestock attacks as well,
and make the call on whether
wolves were responsible. They
oppose a draft plan proposal to
change the lethal control stan-
dard to three confi rmed depre-
dations or one confi rmed and
four “probable” attacks within
a 12 month period. The current
standard is two confi rmed dep-
redations or one confi rmed and
three attempted attacks, with no
time period set.
Todd Nash, a Wallowa
County commissioner and the
Cattlemen’s Association wolf
chair, said a neighbor has eight
cows. If wolves kill three in one
night, he asked during the Port-
land hearing, does the producer
have to endure two more attacks
before lethal control is taken?