Page images
PDF
EPUB

Recent ERS Reports on Land Tenure Issues

Partial Interests in Land: Policy Tools for Resource Use and Conservation. AER-744, Nov. 1996 (Keith Wiebe, Abebayehu Tegene, and Betsey Kuhn). Partial interests in land, such as conservation easements, are increasingly used by public and private agencies to balance resource use and conservation objectives on environmentally sensitive land without incurring the political costs of regulation or the financial costs of outright land acquisition. Examples described in this report include the Conservation Reserve Program, the Wetlands Reserve Program, and State and local farmland protection programs.

Land Trusts Protected 14 Million Acres as of 1994, AREI Update, 1995, No. 13 (Keith Wiebe). The Nature Conservancy and other national land trusts protected about 10 million acres as of 1994 through ownership, easements, and other means. Local, State, and regional land trusts protected an additional 4 million acres. Data are reported by State and region.

Foreign Ownership of U.S. Agricultural Land Through December 31, 1995, SB-931, Oct. 1996 (Kenneth Krupa, Charles Barnard, and Jacqueline Ross). Foreign persons or U.S. corporations in which foreigners held a significant interest owned 15.1 million acres of U.S. agricultural land in 1995, about 1 percent of all privately owned agricultural land in the United States. Data are reported by State and by foreign country.

"Farmland Rentals: Central to Farming," Agricultural Outlook, July 1995 (Bob Hoppe, Bob Green, and Gene Wunderlich). Data from the 1992 Farm Costs and Returns Survey indicate that about 40 percent of land in farms is rented, most through cash leases. Renting helps young farmers gain access to land and helps spread some of the risks of farming.

1992 Census Documents More Farmland Leasing, AREI Update, 1995, No. 7 (Gene Wunderlich). Data from the 1992 Census of Agriculture indicate that farmers leased 43 percent of the land they operated in 1992, the highest proportion since 1940. Most leased land was rented from nonfarmers, and cash rents were paid on 65 percent of leased farms.

Purchase of Development Rights and the Economics of Easements, AER-718, June 1995 (Henry Buist, Carolyn Fischer, John Michos, and Abebayehu Tegene). By the end of 1992, State or county governments in 15 States had developed programs to purchase development rights from farmland owners, primarily in the Northeast. Program goals, procedures, and achievements are discussed, along with the role of private land trusts and of Federal tax incentives for donation of conservation easements.

Structural and Financial Characteristics of U.S. Farms, 1991: 16th Annual Family Farm Report to Congress, AIB-712, June 1995 (Judith Kalbacher, Victor Oliveira, Susan Bentley). Farmers operated 854 million acres in the 48 contiguous States in 1991, according to Farm Costs and Returns Survey data. The average farm generated sales of $69,298, of which 44 percent came from crop sales, 42 percent from livestock sales, and 5 percent from government payments.

"Farm Numbers Continue to Drop," Agricultural Outlook, Jan.-Feb. 1995 (Fred Gale). The 1992 Census of Agriculture reports a total of 1.9 million farms in 1992, down from 2.1 million in 1987 and 6.8 million in 1935. Exits from farming exceeded entries in all regions, but productivity and sales continued to grow. Farms averaged 491 acres in 1992, with sales of $84,459 per farm.

(Contact to obtain reports: Keith Wiebe, (202) 501-8283 [kdwiebe@econ.ag.gov])

Rogers, Denise M. (1991). Leasing Farmland in the United States. AGES-9159, U.S. Dept. Agr., Econ. Res. Serv.

Thompson, Edward, Jr. (1995). "Winning Friends, Losing Ground: States and Local Communities Need a Federal Partner to Protect the Nation's Farmland." Washington, DC: American Farmland Trust. July.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (1993). Land Areas of the National Forest System as of September 30, 1992. Feb.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (1991).
Grazing Statistical Summary FY 1991.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (1996). Public Land Statistics 1994/1995, Vol. 179/180, BLM/BC/ST-96/001+1165. Sept.

U.S. General Accounting Office (1995). Federal Lands: Information on Land Owned and on Acreage With Conservation Restrictions. GAO/RCED-95-73FS. Jan.

U.S. General Services Administration (1995). Summary Report of Real Property Owned by the United States Throughout the World as of September 30, 1993. U.S. General Services Administration. July.

Wiebe, Keith (1995). AREI Updates: Land Trusts. Natural Resources and Environment Division, Econ. Res. Serv., U.S. Dept. Agr. Number 13.

Wiebe, Keith D., Abebayehu Tegene, and Betsey Kuhn (1996). Partial Interests in Land: Policy Tools for Resource Use and Conservation. AER-744. U.S. Dept. Agr., Econ. Res. Serv. Nov.

Wiebe, Keith D., Abebayehu Tegene, and Betsey Kuhn (1995). "Property rights, partial interests, and the evolving federal role in wetlands conversion and conservation." Journal of Soil and Water Conservation. Nov.-Dec.

Wunderlich, Gene (1995). AREI Updates: Farmland Tenure. Number 7. U.S. Dept. Agr., Econ. Res. Serv.

LAND

1.3 Land and Soil Quality

Maintaining and improving the quality of the Nation's
soils can provide economic benefits in the form of
increased productivity, more efficient use of nutrients
and pesticides, improvements in water and air quality,
and the storage of greenhouse gases. Economic
measures of soil quality are needed to monitor and
assess the effects of agricultural activities on soil
properties. While measures of land capability,
productivity, and erodibility are well known, there is an
increasing emphasis on soil quality measures that
incorporate properties more fully reflecting a soil's
potential for long-term agricultural production without
negative environmental impacts.

[blocks in formation]

Mainta

aintaining and improving the quality of the Nation's soils can increase farm productivity, minimize use of nutrients and pesticides, improve water and air quality, and help store greenhouse gases. Developing economic measures of soil quality requires a better understanding of the multiple functions of soils and of the interaction between agricultural activities and soil quality. For example, productivity measures reflect the private concerns surrounding soil quality, but other concerns, such as surface-water pollution from runoff, soil productivity for future generations, and the health of agricultural and rural ecosystems, are of broader national interest and greater economic importance-and need to be reflected in new measures of land and soil quality. Combining the many physical attributes of land and soil quality into meaningful indicators is difficult, as is assigning economic values to these indicators. But only when economic values are generated for these indicators can we fully assess the trade-offs associated with alternative private and public actions.

Traditional Measures of Quality

Soil quality definitions currently follow two concepts
(Karlen and others, 1997; Seybold and others, 1997).
The first is the "capacity of the soil to function"
(Doran and Parkin, 1994). The second is "fitness for
use" (Pierce and Larson, 1993; Acton and Gregorich,
1995). "Capacity of the soil to function" refers to the
inherent properties of soil formation, which include
climate, topography, vegetation, and parent material.
These are measured in soil surveys by characteristics
such as texture, slope, structure, and soil color
(USDA, 1993). "Fitness for use" is a dynamic
concept and relates to soils as influenced by human
use and management. This concept is often termed
soil health or condition. Measures of soil quality
such as Land Capability and Prime Farmland are
thought to reflect the inherent properties of soil and
are based on crop production. Other criteria are
needed for other uses of land. The potential capacity
of a soil to function must be assessed before a soil's
fitness for use can be measured (Mausbach, 1997).
Measures of land and soil quality should also account
for scale, both spatial and temporal (Halvorson,
Smith, and Papendick, 1997). Scale is important

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

Includes cultivated cropland and land enrolled in the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) in the contiguous States, Hawaii, and the U.S. Caribbean islands (less than 0.75 million acres).

2

Highly erodible land has an erodibility index for sheet and rill erosion or for wind erosion greater than or equal to 8.

Source: USDA, ERS, analysis of NRCS 1992 National Resources Inventory data.

because soil quality changes over time and is different by region. Some traditional measures of land quality are discussed in this section.

Land Capability and Suitability. Some measures of land quality are used to monitor the capability or suitability of land for a particular purpose, such as growing crops or trees, grazing animals, or nonagricultural uses. Data on two commonly used measures-land capability classes (LCC) and the prime farmland designation-have been collected in the National Resources Inventory (NRI), conducted by USDA's Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) every 5 years (USDA, 1994 and 1989b). (See appendix for a description of the NRI.)

Land capability classes range from I to VIII. Class I, about 7 percent of U.S. cropland, has no significant limitations for raising crops (table 1.3.1). Classes II and III make up just over three-fourths of U.S. cropland and are suited for cultivated crops but have limitations such as poor drainage, limited root zones, climatic restrictions, or erosion potential. Class IV is suitable for crops but only under selected cropping practices. Classes V, VI, and VII are best suited for pasture and range while Class VIII is suited only for wildlife habitat, recreation, and other nonagricultural uses (USDA, 1989a). Land capability classes I-III

total 343 million acres, or 82 percent of U.S. cropland including land in the Conservation Reserve Program but excluding Alaska (fig. 1.3.1, table 1.3.1).

Prime Farmland. Another measure of land suitability is USDA prime farmland, which is based on physical and morphological characteristics such as depth of the water table in relation to the root zone, moistureholding capacity, the degree of salinity, permeability, frequency of flooding, soil temperature, erodibility, and soil acidity. Land classified as prime farmland has the growing season, moisture supply, and soil quality needed to sustain high yields when treated and managed according to modern farming methods (USDA, 1989a). Prime farmland totals 225 million acres, or 54 percent of U.S. cropland, excluding Alaska (fig.1.3.2, table 1.3.1).

These measures of land quality are often confused with the capability of land to produce economic returns. Land in capability classes I-III or prime farmland does not necessarily have the highest value of crop production per acre (see Vesterby and Krupa, 1993). Alternatively, lands earning high economic returns may not be classified as prime farmland or in LCC I-III. For example, prime and LCC are based on characteristics that reflect suitability for row crop production. Florida and Arizona have little prime

Figure 1.3.1--Distribution of cropland in land capability classes I,II and III on rural nonfederal land

[graphic][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][graphic][merged small]
« PreviousContinue »