What makes a home historic? What makes a building historic? What about an entire district of a city? Is it the age of the buildings? A history of constant, consistent use? Some kind of historic event or significance? Did important people do important things there? Maybe there's just a distinctive and well preserved architectural or social record that really can't be matched anywhere else. In many cases its an unclear mix of all these elements, and its never really clear what leads to a grant or denial of designation. The task of sorting all this out in many cities falls to some kind of historical preservation board or heritage preservation committee. Here in the Twin Cities, as in many other areas of the country, we are experiencing a boom in historic property versus redevelopment fights.
I can't say this a job I particularly want or envy. On the one side, you have legitimate neighborhood concerns about developers pushing people out, changing neighborhood characteristics abruptly, gentrification, affordability, and social/racial/economic justice issues. On the other hand, in order to grow cities need to add population and building up is far more environmentally responsible than building out (though many tear downs are actually about building bigger single family homes, which doesn't address that issue, and can cause other problems with setback violations, shading problems, and strange juxtapositions). It's very hard to address housing costs, fight sprawl, preserve historic character, and still provide sufficient options for growing populations, especially as cities strive to attract members of the "creative class." And really, at the end of the day, it comes down to a board of elected or appointed people coming to decisions about what others can or cannot do with their property. It's a challenging thing, that can often lead to anger and defensiveness, with both sides talking past one another. I understand where both are coming from, but from the outside it often appears to be a case of NIMBY versus in the pocket of the developers. What really needs to happen is there needs to be a more collaborative planning process that might be able to address legitimate concerns while still allowing for flexibility.
If properties are worth less than the cost of restoration, they will continue to degrade and eventually require demolition (which can be a big loss for the neighborhood but also for some of the features of these homes, some of which might still be usable and popular on the renovation market). This process also leads to a downward spiral in neighborhood quality, housing stock, and stability. I used to live in a neighborhood like that. It was a once beautiful Arts and Crafts style house with wooden built-ins and wood floors. However, it was located in the Old Rondo neighborhood of St. Paul, which was a thriving African American community with many similar homes, until it was bisected by the construction of I-94, gutting it, driving housing values down, and sending the neighborhood into steep decline. The house itself has a lot of potential, but when we were looking to buy, we didn't even consider it because the amount of work required would have been far greater than justified, especially considering our landlord was already underwater on the mortgage. Many other houses in the area were similar, once beautiful with lots of potential, but steadily degrading. Lots of renters cycled through the neighborhood, and several lots were already empty or condemned. There might be a way to stabilize, or even reverse the decline, but it would be a challenge, especially without more owner-occupied housing.
I have also had the good fortune of living in another historic Twin Cities neighborhood: Milwaukee Avenue. For two years I rented the first house on Milwaukee Avenue, a development originally built in the late 1800s as low income housing. By the 1970s the buildings were mostly in disrepair and were scheduled to be demolished, but the street's historic nature (architectural, social, and character (it's a pedestrian and bike only street)) and the work of a number of activists got it listed on the National Register of Historic Places and registered with the City of Minneapolis. Some money was then available to restore the houses, a developer bought most of them, restored them, and then created a common interest community, the Milwaukee Avenue Homeowners Association, to run and manage them and ensure that they kept a consistent, historic character. They are cute houses with interesting layouts on small lots. You can tell they were built in another time for what were likely large families sharing a small space. Kitchens are off the back, the other rooms are all clustered around a central fireplace and chimney that runs up the center of the house (allowing the upstairs to be warmed as well). I'm glad I lived there. Again, I would never have bought that house, but I would have considered others in the neighborhood (that were in nicer condition and not right off Franklin Avenue).
Not all historic building fights are about things quite as attractive. Some are more mundane and about commercial redevelopment. One recent spat was in the Minneapolis neighborhood of Dinkytown where a house and several businesses were proposed for demolition to build a hotel. I highly recommend looking at the pictures in the article. There really isn't anything distinctive or interesting about the buildings (they look like a standard commercial strip in a city business district), but some of the businesses have been present for a while. It sounds like it is not so much a fight about history as a manifestation of worry over a neighborhood's character, with concern that popular businesses will be displaced by newer, more upscale ones. In this case, it seems like the neighborhood has the stronger argument (and prevailed at the hearings), I suspect because a hotel is a vastly different type of business than either apartments or commercial space. Perhaps an apartment building with commercial space set aside would be more appropriate for the neighborhood.
In contrast to the Dinkytown case, where the buildings are unremarkable, it is interesting to look at the ongoing saga of the David and Gladys Wright House in Phoenix, AZ. It was designed by Frank Lloyd Wright and is a beautiful property (view the slideshow in this article) that was to be torn down, was bought, saved, and is now the center of a fight with neighbors that object to a limited number of tours being given. That's a fair concern. Residential neighborhoods are not commercial districts, and even limited visitors on a regular basis can be disruptive (see the long running fight in Philadelphia over the Barnes Museum, since relocated (an additional huge fight) over parking in its quiet suburban neighborhood). But back to the original point, the house itself is a premier work by a leading architect. That it was going to be demolished, and now others want it relocated, seems like madness. If any kind of house should be a prime candidate for historic designation, it would be a house like this. As one of its defenders pointed out, Wright designed with the landscape in mind. The idea of "living with the desert" was key to the design and layout. That people would "never consider asking for Falling Water to be relocated" should be a good reference for how to evaluate a house like this.
When dealing with institutions, it can be much easier to handle historic designation issues. Often, the institution wants the designation, as it can lead to financial benefits or access to restoration or preservation funds. At the very least, it can provide status and bragging rights. It is also much less likely for an institutional land owner to face opposition to a designation because it often will own much of, if not all of, the properties to be designated and, in many cases, the surrounding property as well. They still need to go through the formal process, however, including all the proper paperwork and documentation.
In the United States, we seem to have made a big mess of our historical designation system. Perhaps it's because we have "less" history to preserve, or because we are more litigious and competitive, or because we want it all: cute neighborhoods in walkable cities that are also affordable and don't sprawl out (also unicorns). But, whatever the causes, and whatever the solutions and compromises, it's hard to look at American fights without thinking of Europe, "where the history comes from," and marveling at how they manage to do it there. It seems like there are constant stories of discoveries in unexpected places. It seems like the Europeans have found a way to make development, archaeology, and history work together, I can't imagine what Americans would do with those kinds of problems and discoveries. Perhaps we just need more practice living in less space and we'll become less attached to hoarding every little architectural oddity and neighborhood quirk. I am all in favor of preserving character, but I don't want that to come at the expense of sprawling out across the land eating up open space, increasing commutes, and in general amplifying the environmental impact of our urban lifestyle. Accommodation and adaptation, with redevelopment done in concert with communities. That's the way forward if we're going to try to balance these issues because, while a tear down might be one person's property, the choices made will affect everyone around it, potentially for a very long time.
Monday, February 22, 2016
Tuesday, February 16, 2016
Minneapolis Park Expansions
I'm fortunate to live in the Twin Cities, which by some evaluations have the best public park systems in the country. I certainly appreciate being able to walk across the street to a large dog park surrounded by bike and ski trails. What makes this most impressive is that they not only have a large percentage of city land dedicated to public parks, including waterfront, recreation centers, and playgrounds, but have generally good access to park resources across age and income. There are some limitations to this methodology, it didn't include access to park programming and services, the study defined access as being within a ten minute walk of any designated park property, regardless of condition, amenities, or safety. Things are improving, however, as the Park Board has adopted an explicit racial equity component in some of its planning. It is also true that having designated park land is better than not, and that once it is in the system it can be improved and serve as a gathering point or anchor for the neighborhood. An important piece of this is the ability to add important parcels to the system and obtain enough funding to support effective programming and ongoing maintenance.
In Minneapolis, unlike in many other cities with large or famous park systems, the idea of public parkland was present at the very beginning and an independent park board charged with overseeing and acquiring land for the system was created before the city was even 30 years old. This has led to a much more organized and thoughtful system, much of it planned or engineered (including the lakes and parkways), that is much more evenly distributed throughout the city. Compare it to Boston Common, a green space with roots in colonial custom, or Philadelphia's Fairmount Park, founded to protect the city's drinking water (lots of foresight, but also concentrated along the river, leaving large portions of the city without good access). In Minneapolis, the system was growing from the beginning with, as one writer put it a "get the land and adapt as you go" attitude. After all, as the same writer put it, when tastes and desires and trends change and new uses come into fashion, "people use the land as they want to. There have always been contentions about how parks should be used, but it's nice to fight over land we own."
That it is better to own the land already than need to acquire and repurpose it can be seen in Minneapolis' own history as well as the experience of other cities. Minneapolis has had a steady, planned growth of the system, adding units by purchase, eminent domain, and donation, in a regular and systematic way, including traditional parks, public squares, greenways, community centers, playgrounds, and miles of river and lakefront. This process is continuing to this day with the city set to acquire one of the last remaining parcels of riverfront that is not already part of the system. This would provide an almost uninterrupted stretch of river from one end of the city to the other all under public ownership. It is true that the land will need to be cleared and remediated, it is currently an industrial site, but there should be no problem clearing it eventually and converting it to some kind of appropriate public use. It helps that the Mississippi River is not a working river in Minneapolis. The mills are gone and almost all shipping is done by rail or truck. Barge traffic is present but not necessary (most stops in St. Paul). This allows riverfront property to be given over to desirable public parks (and often closely associated expensive condos), unlike, say Providence, Rhode Island, where the working harbor with alluring waterfront views have created headaches for would-be developers. They have learned that its hard to build a development on land that has current industrial value that supports established industry and a large workforce (this is part of why many parks were initially formed, they were viewed as "wasteland" or had unusuable grades or were otherwise viewed as unsuitable for other uses, but that's a very big digression).
Not all system acquisitions are smooth, or official. While Minneapolis doesn't have a large number of privately owned public spaces (the SkyWay and some indoor plazas might qualify, but I would need to do more research), there is the plaza/park at the new Downtown East development near the new Vikings stadium. Basically, it is a small area that would add some green space to the area, but would also be largely given over to use by the Vikings, NFL, and Stadium Authority. While funded by private funds, those funds are ultimately driven by tax incentives from the city and state as part of the larger redevelopment plan. Time will tell what the ultimate park looks like, with only a few months left before completion it is hard to tell what the final state will be. It does look safe to say that it won't be as good a deal for the city as it could have been though (as is true for almost every aspect of the stadium mess).
Finally, running parks is expensive. They require maintenance and upkeep, land must be acquired, programs must be run, buildings and equipment repaired. They also don't directly generate revenue for the city as they are public, non-taxable, and generate minimal revenues (even program fees often only partially offset the costs). However, they are an amenity that draw people to a city, particularly young professionals and other potential drivers of the tax base and they can also increase property values, another important factor in determining total city revenue. But periodically they must raise additional money, either from a general fund appropriation or from a levy (special or general). This could be related to an acquisition, the need to pay off bonds, or the desire to eliminate a backlog of work. In Minneapolis, the Park Board has sought to place a levy on the ballot for voter approval to raise $300 million dollars. While it seems like a large number, when spread out over the entire population and scaled to property values, it is a relatively small number, less than $28 on a $100,000 house. All to support maintaining the quality of the system. Why not just impose the levy unilaterally? Because the Park Board lacks that authority. Despite being an independent body, it does not control city property taxes and only has one vote on the committee that does. So it is forced to ask the city council for permission to ask the voters for permission. The city council could act without the voters, but it appears that even when it comes to supporting things as popular as parks (the last levy passed easily), the council would prefer to punt the issue to the ballot, unless it can get it to go away completely. I hope it passes. It would be a shame to see the system slip further behind in maintenance and upkeep and potentially endanger the continued expansion and improvement of the system.
In Minneapolis, unlike in many other cities with large or famous park systems, the idea of public parkland was present at the very beginning and an independent park board charged with overseeing and acquiring land for the system was created before the city was even 30 years old. This has led to a much more organized and thoughtful system, much of it planned or engineered (including the lakes and parkways), that is much more evenly distributed throughout the city. Compare it to Boston Common, a green space with roots in colonial custom, or Philadelphia's Fairmount Park, founded to protect the city's drinking water (lots of foresight, but also concentrated along the river, leaving large portions of the city without good access). In Minneapolis, the system was growing from the beginning with, as one writer put it a "get the land and adapt as you go" attitude. After all, as the same writer put it, when tastes and desires and trends change and new uses come into fashion, "people use the land as they want to. There have always been contentions about how parks should be used, but it's nice to fight over land we own."
That it is better to own the land already than need to acquire and repurpose it can be seen in Minneapolis' own history as well as the experience of other cities. Minneapolis has had a steady, planned growth of the system, adding units by purchase, eminent domain, and donation, in a regular and systematic way, including traditional parks, public squares, greenways, community centers, playgrounds, and miles of river and lakefront. This process is continuing to this day with the city set to acquire one of the last remaining parcels of riverfront that is not already part of the system. This would provide an almost uninterrupted stretch of river from one end of the city to the other all under public ownership. It is true that the land will need to be cleared and remediated, it is currently an industrial site, but there should be no problem clearing it eventually and converting it to some kind of appropriate public use. It helps that the Mississippi River is not a working river in Minneapolis. The mills are gone and almost all shipping is done by rail or truck. Barge traffic is present but not necessary (most stops in St. Paul). This allows riverfront property to be given over to desirable public parks (and often closely associated expensive condos), unlike, say Providence, Rhode Island, where the working harbor with alluring waterfront views have created headaches for would-be developers. They have learned that its hard to build a development on land that has current industrial value that supports established industry and a large workforce (this is part of why many parks were initially formed, they were viewed as "wasteland" or had unusuable grades or were otherwise viewed as unsuitable for other uses, but that's a very big digression).
Not all system acquisitions are smooth, or official. While Minneapolis doesn't have a large number of privately owned public spaces (the SkyWay and some indoor plazas might qualify, but I would need to do more research), there is the plaza/park at the new Downtown East development near the new Vikings stadium. Basically, it is a small area that would add some green space to the area, but would also be largely given over to use by the Vikings, NFL, and Stadium Authority. While funded by private funds, those funds are ultimately driven by tax incentives from the city and state as part of the larger redevelopment plan. Time will tell what the ultimate park looks like, with only a few months left before completion it is hard to tell what the final state will be. It does look safe to say that it won't be as good a deal for the city as it could have been though (as is true for almost every aspect of the stadium mess).
Finally, running parks is expensive. They require maintenance and upkeep, land must be acquired, programs must be run, buildings and equipment repaired. They also don't directly generate revenue for the city as they are public, non-taxable, and generate minimal revenues (even program fees often only partially offset the costs). However, they are an amenity that draw people to a city, particularly young professionals and other potential drivers of the tax base and they can also increase property values, another important factor in determining total city revenue. But periodically they must raise additional money, either from a general fund appropriation or from a levy (special or general). This could be related to an acquisition, the need to pay off bonds, or the desire to eliminate a backlog of work. In Minneapolis, the Park Board has sought to place a levy on the ballot for voter approval to raise $300 million dollars. While it seems like a large number, when spread out over the entire population and scaled to property values, it is a relatively small number, less than $28 on a $100,000 house. All to support maintaining the quality of the system. Why not just impose the levy unilaterally? Because the Park Board lacks that authority. Despite being an independent body, it does not control city property taxes and only has one vote on the committee that does. So it is forced to ask the city council for permission to ask the voters for permission. The city council could act without the voters, but it appears that even when it comes to supporting things as popular as parks (the last levy passed easily), the council would prefer to punt the issue to the ballot, unless it can get it to go away completely. I hope it passes. It would be a shame to see the system slip further behind in maintenance and upkeep and potentially endanger the continued expansion and improvement of the system.
Tuesday, February 9, 2016
When the city "owns" part of your house...
I'll admit that the title of this post is a little bit misleading, but bear with me. One of my neighbors recently finished doing some work on updating his home to make it more livable and more energy efficient. He and his wife (and two children) were able to take advantage of a city program to rehabilitate and improve property owned by lower income families and individuals for things like energy efficiency, accessibility, and habitability. Using this program they were able to get a 0% interest loan (payable on sale or transfer and forgiven after 30 years of occupancy) to improve their basement into living space and blow insulation into their walls. This is a fantastic program by the city to find a way to improve the housing stock of the city, improve the living conditions of people who probably can't afford to update in even basic and worthwhile ways like this, and create incentives for residents to stay in an area, stabilizing neighborhoods. Those are all positive community outcomes. Who could object to better housing stock, more stable neighborhoods and communities, local reinvestment, and improved quality of life for those with lesser means. To me this sounds like a good piece of public policy for the city: relatively affordable, easy to administer, and with high impact on affected properties.
Enough background. While the city technically has a lien on his house now, as the holder of the secured loan attached to his property, that's not where I was going with this post. That's a standard mortgage/secured transaction issue and not particularly strange or worth commenting on. What was most notable about his improvement process was what he discovered during the permitting process for some of the interior work, especially electrical work, that was required. In Minnesota, there are several kinds of roads, each of which has its own way of being created and required size. The road in question here is a platted town road, specifically McKnight Road. A platted road is a road that has been recorded on a development plat and dedicated to the city or town for public use. It is also given a 66 foot easement (four rods), even though the paved surface of the road may (and likely does) take up far less space. This is to prevent the road from being obstructed, keep view lines clear, facilitate public access, and provide for maintenance strips. These rights of way are usually surveyed precisely based on the Public Land Survey System and recorded with the appropriate state or county office. And here is where the problem came in. Upon first glance, his house looks like almost any other house in the area. It is a similar style, size, and layout. It is situated in a similar place on its lot. But similar is the key.
When the addition that I live in was built in the 1960s, the houses were all variations on a few patterns and the streets were laid out in a similar way. It was all very organized and predictable. Except for my neighbor's house. When they sited his house, they made an error. It isn't noticeable at first, but if you know to look, you can see that it is clearly a few feet closer to McKnight than any other house. Literally all the other houses are set back a few extra feet. This is incredibly important, because those few extra feet put part of his garage, part of two bedrooms, and a tree in the right of way for McKnight. It's still his property, but it is subject to a road easement. This was discovered during the electrical permitting process and was quite a challenge. Few electricians wanted to do any work on a house that was, while privately owned, partially located on a city property interest (an easement is an interest in property, he still owns the land and house, but it is "encumbered" by the rights the city has to maintain the road). It also made it challenging to get a permit, because the city technically had to consent to allowing at least some of the work. Needless to say, it was a bureaucratic nightmare. I don't know how long it took, but they did eventually get a permit, the work was done and inspected, and his house is now much nicer, but it was far more trouble than it should have been. All because someone was a few feet careless fifty years ago.
City easements on private land can also have positive outcomes. The most noticeable of these is seen in the urban forestry departments of most major cities and their planting and maintenance of boulevard trees (those trees, located in the street right of way, in the grassy strip between the sidewalk and the pavement). The land might technically belong to the homeowner (sometimes it doesn't, though there's still a duty to shovel and mow), but the tree is usually city property. Cities are also very particular about what kinds of trees they want to plant, where they would like to plant them, and what size, shape, type, and distribution they are hoping to accomplish. They also concern themselves with creating particular aesthetics in a neighborhood with certain trees, removing trees that are subject to disease, planting trees that thrive in urban environments, and considering things like "messiness" that might accompany fruiting trees or sap shedders. They often come up with comprehensive plans that document strategies, objectives, and schedules that the public can use to understand the system and make requests. All of this to help administer the city's property that might be located on your land.
Monday, February 1, 2016
Farmland and Conservation
In much of the country, including here in Minnesota, farming is a major economic activity. It is also a major source of water pollution in the form of nutrient and sediment runoff as well as pesticide contamination. While farming is necessary to feed a nation, and large scale farming is generally more efficient at producing food than small scale production (as is the case with most industrial enterprises), the way it is often undertaken in this country, and in particular the way that it is practiced in the Midwest, South, and California, is highly problematic from environmental, nutritional, and economic perspectives.
The way one usually thinks about farming might go something like this: a farmer owns (or rents) some land, looks at what it can support and what crops or products (meat, eggs, milk, etc.) are in demand in the local or regional market, and then decides what to plant or grow. However, in this country we, with a few exceptions (see New England dairy farmers for example), have a very different system that is much more similar to industrial factories than to small family farms. Many are owned or operated by large land holders or corporations, and instead of producing a variety of crops, tend to produce one or two cash crops, often the big five (corn, soy, wheat, rice, cotton). Not surprisingly, there are subsidies involved, and they often provide the biggest benefit to the "farmers" that are already the largest and most profitable. It really creates a system of perverse incentives where marginal land is put into "production" just so that it can be counted as acreage for subsidy calculation, even if it is inappropriate for planting for ecological, hydrological, soil quality, or nutrient resources reasons. Needless to say, this is often disastrous for the environment, contributes to overproduction of empty calories in our food system, and reduces biological diversity from both habitat loss and the over-use of pesticides.
There is hope, however, at least at the margins. Some organizations are working to change farming practices voluntarily. The US Department of Agriculture works with land grant universities to develop research on agricultural practices, agrinomics, and other best practices that can be shared with farmers to help them learn better, scientifically backed ways of maintaining or improving farm production. Other organizations work to provide economic support or incentives for farmers to switch from traditional "because that's the way my grandfather did it" agricultural practices, some of which are counterproductive and many of which, such as fall application of fertilizer with no cover crop, are both counterproductive (and expensive/wasteful) and environmentally harmful. Falling crop prices have also caused some farmers to take marginal land that they had pulled from the program out of production and re-enroll it in the Conservation Reserve Program, a federally funded system of payments that compensates farmers on a sliding scale for not planting on land. The more productive the land, the higher the payments from the government. This provides an incentive for farmers to set aside areas for wildlife, grasses, trees, and flowers which improves habitat (including pollinator habitat) and provides the valuable ecosystem service of runoff filtration and sediment capture before it reaches waterways. While it is not a large program, it is very successful and has a long history of inducing farmers to set aside at least some lands for non-agricultural purposes. However, unlike a conservation easement, which becomes permanent once created, the program is voluntary and lands can be removed as grain prices change and farmers see more profit to be gained from planting again.
What else can be done besides imposing conservation easements, permanently buying land, making it harder to opt out of the CRP, or providing education on best practices and hoping farmers follow it? In Minnesota, one answer has been to use the state's police power and duty to regulate/provide clean water to create a statewide standard for agricultural buffer zones around bodies of water. The idea is that within a certain distance (50 feet) of public waterways, it will be illegal to plant crops or have other agricultural surface use that is not perennial cover (hay is acceptable). This program builds on existing state restrictions on agricultural property use, but creates a more uniform and enforceable standard and program that can be administered at either the local or state level (if the county is not doing what it is required to do). While this is a more direct control of private land than the education and incentive based methods discussed above, it is also far more wide-reaching and will likely have a substantial impact on the state's water quality and riparian habitat. Many farmers were already complying with these requirements, either by enforcement or because it was not worthwhile to produce on marginal, often wet (if not wetlands) land. This program will provide a way to ensure that the rest will come up to speed as well. While the actual buffer map has not yet been produced, the theoretical area to be covered will be quite extensive and might result in substantial improvements, especially in the heavily agricultural southwest portion of the state.
There has been one hitch, so far, in the implementation process for the standardized buffer requirement: while the 16 foot requirement for land bordering public ditches is currently under development, the process of assessing equivalent buffers for private ditches has been put on hold after some legislative hostage taking by the GOP in the state legislature. It had supported the initial creation of the program as part of a deal last spring, but is now claiming that this is beyond what was conceived and has threatened various public works projects if it is not stopped. While this is unfortunate, it might be resolved in the future with some deal making or, more likely, with the seating of a new legislature that does not include an obstructionist majority after the next election. At least the argument here is over whether the statute authorizes private ditch buffers and is not focused on the frivolous claim that the state can't regulate behavior on private land that affects public water ways. Under the federal Clean Water Act, Minnesota has a duty to ensure that its waters meet various usability, health, and safety requirements, and under its plenary police power, it has the ability to regulate conduct, including private conduct on private land, to see that its policies are followed and its interests furthered in support of the common good.
I don't know how well, the buffer zone project will work or what the ultimate effect will be (it's possible that it will be minimal if much land was already in compliance, or substantial if not). I suspect that there will be significant regional differences in impact, with heavily agricultural areas seeing the most improvement in water quality, but with some improvements seen throughout the state. I also hope, and am hopeful, that taking some areas out of production will lead to a rebound in birds and pollinator species that are currently struggling. That, however, is a bigger problem that this is only a small piece of. Increased riparian habitat will help, but food access and pesticide use will continue to present challenges. One step at a time, however. And this is a good one.
The way one usually thinks about farming might go something like this: a farmer owns (or rents) some land, looks at what it can support and what crops or products (meat, eggs, milk, etc.) are in demand in the local or regional market, and then decides what to plant or grow. However, in this country we, with a few exceptions (see New England dairy farmers for example), have a very different system that is much more similar to industrial factories than to small family farms. Many are owned or operated by large land holders or corporations, and instead of producing a variety of crops, tend to produce one or two cash crops, often the big five (corn, soy, wheat, rice, cotton). Not surprisingly, there are subsidies involved, and they often provide the biggest benefit to the "farmers" that are already the largest and most profitable. It really creates a system of perverse incentives where marginal land is put into "production" just so that it can be counted as acreage for subsidy calculation, even if it is inappropriate for planting for ecological, hydrological, soil quality, or nutrient resources reasons. Needless to say, this is often disastrous for the environment, contributes to overproduction of empty calories in our food system, and reduces biological diversity from both habitat loss and the over-use of pesticides.
There is hope, however, at least at the margins. Some organizations are working to change farming practices voluntarily. The US Department of Agriculture works with land grant universities to develop research on agricultural practices, agrinomics, and other best practices that can be shared with farmers to help them learn better, scientifically backed ways of maintaining or improving farm production. Other organizations work to provide economic support or incentives for farmers to switch from traditional "because that's the way my grandfather did it" agricultural practices, some of which are counterproductive and many of which, such as fall application of fertilizer with no cover crop, are both counterproductive (and expensive/wasteful) and environmentally harmful. Falling crop prices have also caused some farmers to take marginal land that they had pulled from the program out of production and re-enroll it in the Conservation Reserve Program, a federally funded system of payments that compensates farmers on a sliding scale for not planting on land. The more productive the land, the higher the payments from the government. This provides an incentive for farmers to set aside areas for wildlife, grasses, trees, and flowers which improves habitat (including pollinator habitat) and provides the valuable ecosystem service of runoff filtration and sediment capture before it reaches waterways. While it is not a large program, it is very successful and has a long history of inducing farmers to set aside at least some lands for non-agricultural purposes. However, unlike a conservation easement, which becomes permanent once created, the program is voluntary and lands can be removed as grain prices change and farmers see more profit to be gained from planting again.
What else can be done besides imposing conservation easements, permanently buying land, making it harder to opt out of the CRP, or providing education on best practices and hoping farmers follow it? In Minnesota, one answer has been to use the state's police power and duty to regulate/provide clean water to create a statewide standard for agricultural buffer zones around bodies of water. The idea is that within a certain distance (50 feet) of public waterways, it will be illegal to plant crops or have other agricultural surface use that is not perennial cover (hay is acceptable). This program builds on existing state restrictions on agricultural property use, but creates a more uniform and enforceable standard and program that can be administered at either the local or state level (if the county is not doing what it is required to do). While this is a more direct control of private land than the education and incentive based methods discussed above, it is also far more wide-reaching and will likely have a substantial impact on the state's water quality and riparian habitat. Many farmers were already complying with these requirements, either by enforcement or because it was not worthwhile to produce on marginal, often wet (if not wetlands) land. This program will provide a way to ensure that the rest will come up to speed as well. While the actual buffer map has not yet been produced, the theoretical area to be covered will be quite extensive and might result in substantial improvements, especially in the heavily agricultural southwest portion of the state.
There has been one hitch, so far, in the implementation process for the standardized buffer requirement: while the 16 foot requirement for land bordering public ditches is currently under development, the process of assessing equivalent buffers for private ditches has been put on hold after some legislative hostage taking by the GOP in the state legislature. It had supported the initial creation of the program as part of a deal last spring, but is now claiming that this is beyond what was conceived and has threatened various public works projects if it is not stopped. While this is unfortunate, it might be resolved in the future with some deal making or, more likely, with the seating of a new legislature that does not include an obstructionist majority after the next election. At least the argument here is over whether the statute authorizes private ditch buffers and is not focused on the frivolous claim that the state can't regulate behavior on private land that affects public water ways. Under the federal Clean Water Act, Minnesota has a duty to ensure that its waters meet various usability, health, and safety requirements, and under its plenary police power, it has the ability to regulate conduct, including private conduct on private land, to see that its policies are followed and its interests furthered in support of the common good.
I don't know how well, the buffer zone project will work or what the ultimate effect will be (it's possible that it will be minimal if much land was already in compliance, or substantial if not). I suspect that there will be significant regional differences in impact, with heavily agricultural areas seeing the most improvement in water quality, but with some improvements seen throughout the state. I also hope, and am hopeful, that taking some areas out of production will lead to a rebound in birds and pollinator species that are currently struggling. That, however, is a bigger problem that this is only a small piece of. Increased riparian habitat will help, but food access and pesticide use will continue to present challenges. One step at a time, however. And this is a good one.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)