Rebel with a Cause: Beware Those Sincere Conservation Easements
January 29, 2010 by Joel Salatin
Filed under Articles
These landscape-oriented restrictions
make farming unsustainable.
By Joel Salatin
The words stung.
“You cannot build a single structure on this farm.”
We wanted to build a chick brooder and a small processing shed in order to add pastured broilers to the farm we leased. This new enterprise was essential to making the whole farm viable. But the nonprofit organization policing the easement was adamant: No new construction.
Almost everyone is in favor of preserving green space. How best to do it is another matter. One of the models currently lauded by environmental groups is an easement whereby a landowner voluntarily creates a deed restriction against future development or nonagricultural uses, policed by a trust, in exchange for tax concessions due to the change in real estate value.
Landowners proudly display their easement signs at the farm gate: “Protected forever . . .” Protected from what? Protected from innovation, that’s what. Having dealt with several easements on other farms, I can’t imagine a scenario in which I would sign up for one.
Perhaps the most common easement is the government program known as CREP (Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program), which ostensibly protects riparian areas in exchange for fencing and tree establishment and a 10-year cash payment per acre. On one farm we lease, the landowner signed onto the program and subsequently spent tens of thousands of dollars in her 80/20 cost share arrangement. The water system, which cost well over $100,000, completely failed in its first season.
For some reason, CREP won’t develop ponds, which I consider far and away the most efficient livestock watering containment and storage system since a pond yields aquatic environments, holds runoff from seasonal floods, and doesn’t punch holes in aquifers. Unlike wells—which, in a drought, can stop without notice—ponds are visible, so a farmer can walk out any day and see how much water is available. The other problem is that the government program only pays for nonportable, capital-intensive watering stations that militate against ecological grazing management. (That is, a farmer cannot rotate his herd around his property but must instead keep it near the watering station, to the degradation of the land.) Furthermore, the government-built fences, with their straight lines and square corners, assault the topography.
After the CREP system failed, we went in and built a pond (fenced off from the cattle, of course) and installed a piped underground water system that serves three times the acreage, that has never failed, and that is conducive to rotational grazing—for one-tenth the cost of the government system. The landowner, incensed over the money she wasted in the easement-based system, asked the government agent in charge to come for a tour of our low-cost alternative system. He wouldn’t come. (So much for a spirit of open-mindedness.)
On this farm, we can’t even build a doghouse. The landowners are now quite remorseful that the easement exists. To have a nonfarmer group from 200 miles away telling the landowner what is appropriate according to the easement is like putting an Amish man in charge of nuclear reactor regulations.
On another farm, a young couple wanted to run pastured chickens on their rented farm. But according to the landlord, the easement police considered even portable chicken shelters and eggmobiles to be new construction and therefore inappropriate development. What good is protecting farmland if we don’t protect the farmers and their economic viability on the land?
Building a chick brooder and processing shed, or adding a walk-in cooler for an egg inventory, is not antithetical to farming. Indeed, a house for employees and a pavilion for agritourism dinner entertainment are all pieces of the economic puzzle to keep non-industrial farms viable in our modern day.
One of the distinctive features and appeal of Colonial Williamsburg is the imbedded craft economy surrounding the farmsteads. The blacksmith, woodworker, barrel maker, shingle maker, spinner, and candlemaker found behind the main farmhouse all contribute to the economic viability of the farm.
Economic viability today demands value-adding, which means onfarm infrastructure like you would expect to see in Williamsburg. Too often those policing these easements want to see cows, pretty pastures, and bucolic gambrel barns without realizing that such a landscape never existed sustainably. Real profitable and ecologically sensible working farms had smokehouses, butchering facilities, housing for workers, inventory and distribution centers, and a host of other synergistic enterprises.
One of the main reasons farms have become non-viable today is that they do not include the compatible industry required to keep the money on the farm. Instead, farms have become simply raw commodity production areas that cheaply supply material to valueadded industry offsite. If we are ever going to shake the stranglehold of the industrial food system, we must bring the butchers, bakers, and candlestick makers back to our farms.
Ultimately, these easements reduce farm viability and gradually turn Virginia’s pastoral landscape into a wilderness area. That’s probably not the green space folks have in mind. Giving over farm decisions to people who neither farm nor adapt their approaches jeopardizes farmers’ livelihoods. Ultimately, preserving farmers is the only sustainable way to preserve farms.
Internationally acclaimed conference speaker and author Joel Salatin and his family operate Polyface Farms in Augusta County near Staunton, Virginia, producing and direct marketing “salad bar” beef, “pigaerator” pork, and pastured poultry. He is now also co-owner, with Joe Cloud, of T&E Meats in Harrisonburg.
Editor’s note: Many readers were angered by this column. Several letters with this sentiment were published in the Feb./Mar. 2010 issue, which you can read here.
Our response, also published in the Feb./Mar. 2010 issue, is here. We also invite you to read a pro-easement article from our first issue here.
We invite you to post your comments below so that this conversation can continue.
Many landowners in the Shenandoah Valley and across the Commonwealth have chosen to voluntarily protect water quality by having buffers or no-build zones along streams. These areas help to keep potentially harmful waste from livestock out of our waters. Your local soil and water conservation district is a great source for information on various programs available.
Those interested in learning how permanent conservation easements are being effectively utilized by working farm families who want to limit development and protect essential natural and cultural resources in the Shenandoah Valley and elsewhere are encouraged to contact Valley Conservation Council, http://www.valleyconservation.org.
While it is clear that Mr. Salatin has encountered resistance to his farming techniques on property that was protected from development by an easement, it is important that those who care about local foods recognize the overwhelmingly positive impact conservation easements have had on agriculture in Virginia.
Hundreds of farms throughout Virginia – both traditional ag operations as well as progressive local food producers – operate successfully on easement protected land. In the Piedmont region alone, many of our best-known local farms, such as the Farm at Sunnyside in Rappahannock County and Roundabout Farm in Albemarle County, are permanently protected from development by easements. Gryffon’s Aerie operates a well-known local food business on leased land, which is protected by an easement. For years, the conservation community has been striving to protect land for farming while protecting the flexibility of management that can allow that farming to happen.
Conservation easements are not a one-size-fits-all proposition. Land conservationists work hard to tailor each easement to the needs of each landowner, while protecting the important conservation values of the property. Easements frequently allow for additional farm housing, agricultural structures, and on-farm, value-added processing of farm products. Furthermore, thanks to generous Virginia tax benefits and local easement purchase programs, easements frequently provide cash-strapped farmers with the capital necessary to make on-farm improvements. One Culpeper farmer used the proceeds of his easement to go organic with his dairy, while another in Fauquier County was able to purchase additional land to expand his operation.
A viable farming economy in Virginia requires that the most important input for a farm – raw land – is available for generations to come. Conservation easements ensure that the next generation of local food producers will have the land they need to produce local foods for our communities for centuries to come.
Joel Salatin’s article “Beware Those Sincere Conservation Easements” in the Dec./Jan. 2010 issue was very interesting; however, it was also very dismaying. We are particularly concerned with the misinformation presented in the article. We firmly believe each person has the right to their opinion and we applaud Mr. Salatin’s efforts in promoting the Eat Local movement and the economic sustainability of our family farms. However, the Board of Directors of the Thomas Jefferson Soil and Water Conservation District (TJSWCD) believes that conservation easements are an excellent vehicle for landowners to protect their land from future development. Conservation easements are held by a variety of government agencies and non-profit organizations including the TJSWCD Foundation. Each agency or organization that holds easements has different restrictions and it is imperative that the landowner investigate which organization offers the best easement program given the goals of the landowner. Once an easement is filed it can not be revoked. Landowners should also investigate alternatives to conservation easements such as leaving property to private endowments and trusts, or educational and research centers and institutions.
The Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) is NOT an easement program. The CREP program is, as Mr. Salatin states, a government program that protects riparian areas in exchange for fencing and tree establishment along those riparian buffers. The contracts do run for 10 to 15 years depending on the landowner’s contract with the National Resource Conservation Service. There is NO deed restriction placed on land that is entered into the CREP program. In fact the landowner may choose to opt out of the program; however, the cost share money that was given to the landowner must be repaid. There are additional cost share programs available to agricultural producers through local Soil and Water Conservation Districts that enhance and expand on producer’s ability to fence and cross fence properties for intensive rotational grazing and protection of water ways.
At the TJSWCD, we work very closely with producers to allow the farmer to design a system that meets the goals and practices of that farmer. The cost share programs are not prescriptive in the configuration of fields, or exact placement of water troughs. If a producer would like fences that are not straight lines, the District approves those fences. However, fences built in straight lines are far more cost effective than those that have many curves and corners. All of the cost share watering systems and the CREP programs are designed to allow for rotational grazing. Over all, watering livestock from ground water wells is very effective and is healthier for the livestock since they are drinking water free from contaminants that are frequently found in surface water. CREP and designed rotational grazing systems help not only the environment but the farmer since rotational grazing and fresh drinking water increases growth in calves bringing greater economic returns to the farmer.
Environmental sustainability of our family farms is important, as is the protection of our water ways by using best management practices and appropriate conservation techniques. The cost share programs such as CREP and programs offered through our Soil and Water Conservation Districts and NRCS are important tools in achieving both economic and environmental sustainability. If you would like more information on the TJSWCD please phone 434-975-0224.
American Farmland Trust’s Bob Wagner wrote a response to this article on AFT’s blog, the Farmland Report for those interested in learning more about how conservation easements are helping to protect farmland AND “ensure the future of farming and ranching as a land use and livelihood.” http://blog.farmland.org/2010/03/food-for-thought-joel-salatin/
In his conclusion – “Ultimately, these easements reduce farm viability and gradually turn Virginia’s pastoral landscape into a wilderness area.” – Mr. Salatin dismisses an entire class of land conservation tools that are beneficial to farmers (and their families), adjacent landowners, and to all of us in the Commonwealth. It is unfortunate that Mr. Salatin finds attacking conservation easements easier and more beneficial that using his knowledge of their shortcomings to improve their effectiveness. Here, Mr. Salatin puts more emphasis on his own need for vengeance than providing accurate information to the farming community that looks up to him.
Any person can take a beneficial program and pick out a few instances where the reality does not play out as the program intended. Even as he praises himself for starting a lively discussion, Mr. Salatin, in his blanket rebuke of the conservation easement program, has marginalized his ability to provide a beneficial critique of conservation easements as they exist today. It may make for interesting reading, but it ultimately fragments a community that needs to work together.
I was appalled when I read Mr. Salatin’s article. I live in an area that is protected by conservation easements that protect and promote agriculture. There is so much good that easements can provide! Protecting open space is essential to preserving agriculture. Once the land is developed, there is NO chance of it being a farm.