League of Women Voters of Montgomery County, MD, Inc.                                                     Fact Sheet May 2004

 

The viability of agriculture in Montgomery County

 

Introduction

 

A study commissioned by the Maryland Department of Agriculture[1] (MDA) in 2002 concluded that the future of Maryland agriculture will be shaped not only by the strength of the farm economy, but also by suburban development and environmental issues in the Chesapeake Bay watershed.  Today, significant amounts of Montgomery County farmland are being lost to development and farmers are resisting environmental protection measures imposed by the county and by the state. An estimated 80% of the farms in the county have expenses greater than receipts, and the age of farmers has been rising for two decades.  Furthermore, the public perception of farming appears to have shifted toward regarding agriculture as a threat to water quality and other environmental values.

 

On the positive side for Montgomery County agriculture is the advantage of our location, as part of a metropolitan area, that permits small farmers to continue a rural life style while enabling them to be employed also in other jobs.  In a recent survey[2] by researchers at the University of Maryland, 75% of the farmers in the county received more than 75% of their income from off-farm sources.  The high value of farmland in the county is a source of asset value for farmers, many of whom look upon their land as their retirement fund.  Finally, state and federal programs have been enacted aimed at preserving farmland, assisting farmers in environmental stewardship and providing farm subsidies. The MDA study concludes that two approaches to the preservation of the health of Maryland agriculture are possible.  One view holds that only increasing the profitability of farming will attract new entrants into farming and induce new investment.  The other view is that land preservation and conservation programs are the key.

 

MONTGOMERY COUNTY PRESERVATION PROGRAMS

 

It is significant that the program established to preserve farmland in Montgomery County in 1980 was designed to preserve agriculture rather than simply agricultural land.  The Montgomery County Functional Master Plan for the Preservation of Agriculture and Rural Open Space listed the following public-purpose elements:

 

·         Control of public costs and prevention of urban sprawl

·         Adherence to the county growth management system

·         Preservation of regional food supplies

·         Energy conservation

·         Protection of the environment

·         Maintenance of open space

·         Preservation of rural life styles

 

To implement that plan, the county has adopted policies to limit development in the areas designated as the Rural Open Space Area, zoned Rural Cluster (RC), and the Agriculture Reserve, zoned Rural Density Transfer (RDT), through the zoning process.  Other implementation elements include plans for infrastructure provision, the Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program, easement acquisition programs and services to agriculture through the Department of Economic Development. The State of Maryland contributes to the preservation of agricultural lands by lowering the assessment for agricultural lands, exempting farmers from certain taxes and providing additional farmland preservation programs.

 

 

Features of RDT and RC Zoning

Agriculture is the preferred use in the RDT zone, which limits development to one dwelling unit per 25 acres with a minimum lot size of one acre.  The intent of the RC zone is to provide areas with a mix of agricultural uses and low- density residential development.  It permits one dwelling unit per five acres with a minimum lot size of one acre when clustering is used.

 

Permitted Uses in Both RC and RDT Zones     Uses Requiring Special Exception

farming or other agricultural uses                                    agricultural processing

farm markets                                                                manufacture of mulch and composting

small group homes                                                         sawmill

family day care                                                             winery

churches and memorial gardens                                      blacksmith

publicly sponsored fire stations/rescue squads                  landscape contractor

equestrian facilities (now defined as agriculture)              horticultural nurseries

                                                                                    farm machinery and supplies (sales and service)

                                                                                    veterinary hospitals

 

There are certain conditions attached even to some of the permitted uses.  Some uses permitted in the RC zone by special exception, but not in the RDT zone, are life-care facilities, housing for seniors or persons with disabilities, nursing homes, country clubs and community swimming pools.

 

Special Protection Areas

Lands adjacent to creeks and streams whose waters must remain almost pristine in quality may be designated as Special Protection Areas in master plans.  There are three such areas in the County.  Two of these, Clarksburg and Piney Branch, are in urban areas and require developers to provide sediment and erosion control structures of a temporary nature before land is cleared and graded to minimize runoff.  In addition, permanent storm water management facilities are required to remove some of the pollutants in surface water runoff and to slow the flow to prevent erosion.  The third is also an Environment Overlay Zone defined in the zoning ordinance and is located in the upper Paint Branch watershed.  It restricts impervious surfaces to 10% throughout the zone and limits landscape contractors, nurseries, garden centers and greenhouses to organic practices only. Some farmers have objected to this designation, saying that it devalues their land.
  .

TDR Implementation

TDRs were established to serve several purposes, one of which was to preserve farmland and another to provide compensation to landowners in the Agriculture Reserve for down-zoning.  The latter goal has been reasonably well met, but the preservation of land is another issue. One TDR is allowed for each five acres of land, but only one dwelling unit for each 25 acres.  When a TDR is created an easement is placed on the land to restrict the number of dwelling units that can be constructed.  A TDR must be retained for each dwelling unit planned.

 

The policy of the Agriculture Services Division of the Montgomery County Department of Economic Development has been to encourage landowners to retain one TDR for each 25 acres of land held (referred to as the 5th  TDR.).  This in effect permits the number of dwelling units allowed by the zoning to be built.  While an easement is much more potent than zoning, the fact is that there has not been a substantial reduction in the number of dwelling units potentially to be built in the RDT zone because of the program. For example, in fiscal 2003, 459 TDRs were created, but the reduction in the number of permitted dwelling units was only 19.  

 

Infrastructure Provision

Two county plans identify the policies and plans for providing the infrastructure to support development.  The first is the Six-Year Capital Improvements Program (CIP) (2005-2010) and the second is the Ten-Year Comprehensive Water Supply and Sewerage Systems Plan (2003-2012). One third of the county population is expected to live up-county, primarily in the Clarksburg and Germantown areas, by 2015.  The bulk of the CIP spending is for schools (43.9%) with five new schools to be developed up-county, and for transportation (21.2%) in that up-county region.  No major capital development is planned in the Agriculture Reserve.

 

Montgomery County has had a policy of limiting the extension of sewers consistent with the wedges and corridors General Plan last refined in 1993. The new extensions are planned for the areas of Clarksburg and Germantown and are consistent with the General Plan. Unanticipated consequences have resulted from extending water and sewer beyond the plan envelope to non-profit private institutional facilities (PIFs).  These include the clustering of PIFs at the edge or outside the water and/or sewer envelope, imperviousness far in excess of that of residential use, the creation of sites in the Agriculture Reserve, speculative interest in sites, institutional subdivisions, and congestion issues beyond the scope of the water and sewer plan.  Under a proposed new policy, PIF request applicants can be only the private institution, extension into the RDT zone is restricted for new and expanded uses, WSSC capital projects can serve only the PIF use, and the County Council must review category-change approvals for properties abutting sewer mains. The County Council wants more flexibility to decide upon extension requests on a case-by-case basis.

 

Easement Acquisition Programs

Conservation easement programs to preserve agricultural and scenic open lands began in Maryland in 1967 with the Maryland Environmental Trust (MET).  A new program has been added by the state or the county about every ten years.  A conservation easement is a perpetual legal agreement a landowner makes with a land trust and/or government agency to restrict development and uses of the property.  As of 2004, five such programs are available in Montgomery County: MET, Maryland Agricultural Land Preservation Foundation (MALPF), Montgomery County Agricultural Easement Program (AEP), the Rural Legacy Program (RLP), and Montgomery County Legacy Open Space.  (For a description of each program, refer to the 2002 Fact Sheet entitled Agriculture in Montgomery County available at www.lwvmd.org/mont)

 

As of 2003, the following list gives the number of acres preserved through each program in Montgomery County:

                        6,678                AEP

                        3,386                RLP

                        2,831                MALPF

                        2,086                MET   (2001)

                        2,600                Legacy Open Space

          17,581  acres       Total

 

These conservation easements are considered to be perpetual; however, in two programs (AEP and MALPF) after 25 years the owner may buy back the easement if the state and county and/or foundation agree the land is no longer suitable for farming.  Land in MET can be held in term easements, but then it does not qualify for certain tax benefits.

 

In the last three years, since the Rural Legacy Program was initiated, most of the land protected by conservation easements in the county has been enrolled through this program, which protects not only farmland, but also environmentally sensitive areas. The newest program, Legacy Open Space, established by Montgomery County in 2000, is designed to protect environmentally sensitive natural resources, water supplies, heritage resources, greenway connections, and urban open spaces as well as at-risk farmland.  Thus far the county has not protected any farmland with this program.

 

Programs Related to the Profitability of Farming

 

Agricultural Assessment

The favorable agriculture land assessment provides a substantial fiscal benefit to farmland owners.  Land that is classified as agricultural use is assessed at no more than $500 per acre in Maryland.  In Montgomery County a lot in a prime residential area is assessed at close to a million dollars per acre.  This, of course, includes access to water and sewer which is generally not available to land in agricultural use. Most Montgomery County crop farmers rent land to farm and this benefit comes to them in the form of lower land rental rates (about $47 per acre); however, some critics point out that the benefit to property owners of making it cheap to hold land for future development is not recovered by the county through the 6% tax on the value it collects when the land is sold later for a non-agricultural use. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Economic Research Service reports that agricultural assessment of farm lands is not effective at preventing development.  In the short run, Cost of Community Services Studies[3] conducted under the auspices of the American Farmland Trust show that the tax generated through agricultural assessment of farm lands more than covers the cost of services those lands incur.

 

In response to the increase in the county energy tax last summer, staff and members of the Agricultural Advisory Committee contacted Montgomery County Council members to protest the tax increase. After considering several possible solutions, the County Council agreed to define farming as a home-based business for energy tax purposes.  That means that the residential energy tax rate will be applied to all agricultural energy resource purchases rather than the considerably higher commercial rate.  To benefit, farmers must receive certified agricultural producer status from the county so that suppliers can apply the lower tax rate.

 

Deer Damage

The deer population problem is a financial disincentive for farmers. At the Agriculture Round Table held by the County Council last fall, farmers identified the loss of crop resulting from deer damage to be as high as 67% of the expected yield, particularly in fields adjacent to county and state parks. The state Department of Natural Resources issues deer damage permits to affected farmers to destroy the deer, but limits on the type of weapon that can be used at certain seasons of the year and on persons permitted to use the permits restrict their effectiveness.   As a result, some crop farmers are seriously considering declaring the land unsuitable for farming and turning the most heavily affected fields over to development.  

 

Tax Exemptions

Off-road uses are exempt from the fuel tax so farmers do not pay the gasoline tax for fuel used in farm activity.  Historically, farm businesses have had a sales tax exemption like all businesses in Maryland that make a product for later sale to the consuming public.  Products and property used on farms receive this sales and use tax exemption, but in the 2004 legislative session there was a proposal, later withdrawn, to repeal the exemption except as applied to farm equipment and supplies.

 

Subsidies
Cash payments to farmers for growing, not growing, or for catastrophes have been common for
U.S. farmers for decades. Farm subsidies reduce a great deal of risk for most farmers.  Yet farm subsidies complicate our foreign policy, both with the European Union and with developing countries. The 1997 census of agriculture showed there were 526 farmers in Montgomery County.  For the 8-year period 1995-2002, 267 farmers received a total of $13,557,287 in farm subsidies, under various programs.[4]  The top recipient's share was $1,306,917.

 

Subsidies fall under three main categories:

Commodity Programs:  help maintain higher prices for various crops by loans or other payments to farmers with crops used for export; in Maryland, those crops are corn, wheat, soybeans, barley, oats and sorghum.  When cropland is rented out, commodity payments usually go to the farm operator rather than to the landowner. 

Conservation Programs: are divided into two programs. CRP (Conservation Reserve Program) provides payments to farmers to take out of production environmentally vulnerable land subject to erosion and protect the land by planting grasses or trees; EQIP (Environmental Quality Incentives Program) provides payments for conservation measures on working lands.  If a landowner places rented cropland in a conservation program, conservation payments usually go to the landowner and not to the tenant farm operator.

Disaster Programs:  provide payments to farmers to compensate for losses of livestock or crops during disasters such as drought, severe storms, etc.

 

OTHER APPROACHES TO FARMLAND PRESERVATION

Last summer a study to identify new options for preserving farmland was completed by Duke and Lynch[5]. Most of the regulatory means available for protecting farmland suggested in that study are being practiced by Montgomery County in some form. Another option which is practiced in Oregon is the growth-boundary technique.  The growth boundary is a fixed, well-defined line creating a perimeter around a metropolitan area beyond which more intensive development cannot occur. To establish such a boundary, coordinated effort of all jurisdictions is required.  Owners should not expect variances, greater density zoning or non-conforming uses beyond the boundary.  In Oregon each county established an agriculture zone consistent with the urban growth boundaries.

 

State executive orders can be used to prevent state development that conflicts with the state’s growth policy.

A recent Maryland example of this approach occurred in Hagerstown when the state was creating a new university campus.  The site originally selected was on undeveloped farmland, but because of the Smart Growth policy, a downtown redevelopment site was chosen instead.

 

Impact fees assessed when land is sold for non-agricultural use can serve to delay the conversion of farmland to other uses; however in Montgomery County even the highest rate which is 6% of the sale price is much less than the cost of buying an easement for a similar amount of land to remain in farming.  Davis County, California required developers to protect one acre of farmland for each acre they converted to another use and King County, Washington, prohibits the conversion of land under agricultural zoning unless an acre of land of equal quality is added to the agricultural zone.

 

Mortgage Incentives

Mortgage assistance programs can enhance the viability of agriculture. While mortgage rates are low, borrowing costs are relatively low, but land is expensive and beginning farmers may not have sufficient collateral to obtain a conventional loan.  In their study Duke and Lynch suggest that counties could provide mortgage assistance to new farmers to help them compete with developers for land.

 

Carroll County, Maryland, established their Critical Farms Program to address this issue.  As a new owner seeks to purchase a farm, he or she can enter the program and receive 75% of the money that an easement sale would provide from the county.  The owner agrees to enter the state farmland preservation program and submits a bid to sell his or her development rights.  If the state program purchases an easement on the property, the owner reimburses the county.  If after a 5-year period the state program has not purchased an easement on the property, the owner can either repay the  payment amount plus interest to the county or let the county acquire the easement at value paid.  Thus, the program provides a minimum easement payment to help someone receive the financing to be able to purchase the farm.  The program has been used to help new farmers acquire their first farm, existing farmers acquire additional acres they need to remain viable and children of farmland owners to keep the farm in the family.

 

The USDA Farm Service Agency (FSA) also helps beginning farmers who do not have sufficient collateral to obtain a conventional loan.  These Beginning Farmer Down Payment Loans are made for the lesser of 40% of the purchase price of the land or 40% of the appraised value. They are 15-year loans at an interest rate of 4%.  FSA has two other types of loans that help farmers own and retain their farms.  Direct Loan Ownership loans may be made for up to $200,000 and Guaranteed Farm Ownership loans may be made for larger amounts, both for periods of up to 40 years.

 

Financial Arrangements

Financial arrangements that allow the state or county to buy easements at a lower price enable more land to be preserved earlier for less money. If the seller of an easement were to accept a lower easement price and claim a charitable donation for the difference between the appraised price and the actual payment, the seller could receive the same benefit, but the acquiring agency would spend less. Installment payments of the easement value is another technique that could be used to increase the benefit of selling to a preservation agency

 

Because of the large increase in farmland value in recent years, if farmers sell their property even through             agricultural preservation programs, they are subject to paying a capital gains tax on the sale price.  If part of the gain tax were forgiven when land is sold to a preservation program, the longest-tenured landowners would benefit most and there would be an incentive to sell to a preservation agency rather than to a developer.

 

FACTORS AFFECTING FARMLAND LOSS

 

Having a critical mass of farmland is mentioned frequently in the Functional Master Plan establishing the Agriculture Reserve as a concern leading to the creation of the reserve. The concern is that if there are few farms, the supporting businesses such as grain elevators, seed suppliers and veterinarians will disappear resulting in decreased convenience and higher costs for farmers.  Researchers from the University of Maryland Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics have studied a variety of questions relating to the viability of farming in the Mid-Atlantic Region, including determining if there is a level of farming activity required in order for farming to continue to be a viable enterprise.  In researching the critical mass question, Lynch and Carpenter2 examined whether counties lost farmland at a faster rate if the number of agricultural acres fell below a critical threshold during the period from 1949 to 1997.  They found that there was no compelling evidence that a critical mass of farmland was required to sustain viable agriculture.

 

Their research also showed that the rate of farmland loss decreases when there is an upward change in median income for the county population generally.  For farmers in particular, when the value of sales is up and the expenses per acre are lower, the rate of loss of farmland goes down. When population, the number of dwelling units and the unemployment rate increase, the rate of loss of farmland in a county also increases.   Metropolitan areas have rates of loss over and above the impact of population growth.  All of these factors impact Montgomery County.  For this decade Montgomery County’s growth in population and in dwelling units is projected to be 14% and the median income is projected to increase 37%.

  

Overall the downward trend in amount of farmland in the county has not stopped.  The rate of loss slowed significantly when the county’s population growth slowed, but with the rate of population growth increasing and the rate of creation of dwelling units growing even faster, preserving farmland in Montgomery County will continue to be a major challenge. During the recent recession of 1997 and 1998, farmland loss decreased in Montgomery County, but the pace has resumed to an average loss of over 1,500 acres per year for the past five years. The researchers’ analysis suggests that the farm community has been resilient to large losses of farmland over time, that the health of the local economy in the county matters, and that controlling population growth and housing development is very important to slowing farmland loss. Emphasis on preserving a critical mass of agricultural land may be insufficient to ensure the long term viability of an agricultural sector. Decision makers need to examine other policy objectives to sustain a viable agricultural sector.

 

Subdivision in the Agriculture Reserve                    Subdivision in the RDT Zone 2002-2004   

 

General Location

Acres

Proposed

For

Development

 Dwelling

Units

Permitted

@1/25 A

Lots

Requested

Review

Action

# permitted

N. of Clarksburg

   17.22

 0

1 church

  1

NW of Damascus

   31.94

 1

 1

  1 

N of Damascus

   92

 3

 3

  2 

N. of Poolesville

  105.27

 4

 4

  4

NE of Barnesville

  434

17

17

denied

E. of Poolesville

  327

13

13

13

W. of Laytonsville

  273.37

11

10

  9

Total

1,280.8

47

49

 30

The conversion of farmland in the RDT zone to housing during the past two years is reflected in the adjoining chart which contains data on subdivision requests made to the planning board.  Development in the RDT zone is limited by zoning and also by the need to have adequate percolation for a septic system. The subdivision process can be long and expensive.  Frequently neighbors oppose plans and proposals may stay under planning board consideration for months.  Approval is often given with conditions attached.  The farm community has advocated a simplified process for landowners to sell off an acre or two without going through the regular subdivision process involving the whole farm.  A process for minor subdivisions is available for plans involving five or fewer lots of five acres or less, but this has not been used much in the RDT zone.  Subdivision in many cases in the RDT zone results in lots of 25 acres or more.  A lot as small as one acre is permitted there and much less farmland would be converted for the number of dwelling units allowed if advantage were taken of the minor subdivision option with smaller lots.

 

William Hussman, former chairman of the Planning Board, proposed a “conservation design” in 1999.  He believed that clustering would help to keep more of the prime farmland in farming and not break up the landscape with scattered houses.  He proposed that lots be clustered on subdivisions of 100 acres or more if six or more lots were created.  He suggested that private roads could be used to enable clustering and that alternatives to individual septic tank sewage disposal be considered.  At the time mandatory clustering was strongly opposed by farmers and no formal action has been taken on this proposal.

 

FARMING TRENDS IN MONTGOMERY COUNTY

 

Throughout history farmers have adapted to changing conditions.  Recently they have embraced different types of farming and alternative marketing mechanisms and have capitalized on major technology changes in agriculture.  New approaches to agriculture for crop farmers include the use of Global Positioning System (GPS) technology in guiding tractors, no-till farming and computerized release of nutrients into the soil during planting to assure maximum productivity from the land.  Montgomery County crop farmers generally lease much of the property that they farm in order to be economically viable.  Deer damage to grain crops is a major problem.  Markets for grain reach into Pennsylvania and Maryland's Eastern Shore.  Many crop farmers have a side business related to farming, such as farm supplies or nurseries, to enhance their income and yet enable them to remain as farmers.

   

As urban and suburban development has intruded into the countryside, traditional farmers have had to adapt to remain viable in farming and some have turned to fruit and vegetable production. Some fruit growers have developed their marketing reach by encouraging down-county residents to come to the farm for a day of "agri-tainment."  They have pick-your-own fruit days, tours of the farm, hayrides, and other activities that result in a ‘farm experience'.  For some farmers, the farm is not about production, but about marketing. For example, the farmer may buy additional fruit from other local farmers so that he has plenty available to promote this experience.  County regulations limit the products he can sell because a certain percentage of what is marketed must be grown on his property, and another percentage must be regionally grown.

 

Equestrian Facilities

Special exception uses in the agricultural zones have been recognized as a problem for many years.  In 1998 a study commission was formed to make recommendations to the County Council, but those recommendations were not acted upon.  Recently pressure has mounted for action on a variety of uses. On March 16, 2004, the County Council voted to modify the definition of agriculture to include horses as livestock and to bring equestrian events and activities under the umbrella of agriculture.  Previously commercial riding stables were classified as recreational facilities and required a special exception.

 

Restrictions were put on the number of horses per acre, the size of the property required for major and minor equestrian events, the duration of these events, and the hours of operation.  A major event, with no more than 300 equestrians and spectators, on a property of at least 75 acres on a major road, lasting up to three days, may be held three times a year.   A grandfather clause was included allowing riding stables already in operation to continue as they are, but they must comply with the new event regulations and produce a soil conservation and water quality plan within one year.  Any equestrian facility that keeps or boards more than ten horses must present a nutrient management plan and a soil and water quality management plan to the county within one year after commencement of operations.  Enforcement is the responsibility of the State of Maryland.

 

A number of council members voiced reservations about the new regulations, their impact on the environment and enforcement. The Maryland/National Capital Park and Planning Commission was asked to review the impact of the new ordinance in two years.

 

Landscape Contracting

Landscape contracting is a thriving, high-demand occupation in the county with over 350 businesses in operation according the Agriculture Services Division.  This type of business is permitted by special exception in agricultural zones. Because the industry is so diverse, ranging from a single person with lawn mowing equipment to an integrated operation with numerous employees growing plants, composting mulch, trimming trees, and trucking debris, rock and other building materials in and out of the facility, it is difficult to classify it as a use permitted by right in any zone except the rural services zone. Fewer than 80 acres of land comprise this zone.  In many cases, landscape contracting may be suited to a agricultural zone, but the special exception process is cumbersome, expensive, and unevenly enforced.  Those who abide by the zoning provisions are more severely restricted than the many who do not.  

 

Agriculture Reserve and Open Space Positions of LWV of Montgomery County

 

The League of Women Voters of Montgomery County supports:

 

·         The Transferable Development Rights (TDR) program and its goal of conserving farmland, compensating rural landowners for down-zoning, and consolidating growth.  (2002)  These goals should be achieved through the following measures:

            a) improving the Master Plan process for determining potential receiving areas through more intense review of

                 the land and community characteristics prior to designation of receiving areas(2003)
            b) the planning staff developing a mechanism for designating receiving areas in CBD, transit station, and town

                 centers (2003)
             c) adopting a planning goal of no-net-loss of receiving areas (2003)
             d) implementing an improved system for tracking TDR activity and assigning responsibility for compliance

                  with the steps of the process (2003)
             e) on site afforestation - opposing off-site afforestation alternatives for TDR receiving areas (2003)

  • Current restrictions on the uses permitted in the Agricultural Reserve   (2002)
  • The existing policies of restricting water and sewer service in the Agricultural Reserve    (2002)
  • The program of designated Rustic Roads (2002)

·         The current tax policy for agricultural land including the county agricultural transfer tax (2002).

·          Agricultural and rural open space preservation programs in Montgomery County. (2002)

 

Consensus Questions to be Discussed 

 

1. To meet the objectives of the Functional Master Plan, should the county adopt a land use policy that considers preservation of productive farmland to be a primary design consideration for development in the RDT zone, including:

a. emphasis on cluster development

b. sale of the 5th TDR

c. modification of the policies restricting water and sewer service in the Agricultural Reserve        

d. restricting activities and events in the RDT zone that stimulate a need for commercial or industrial development

e. monitoring uses that require a special exception

f. other.

 

2. What policy options should the county adopt to assure the viability of agriculture in Montgomery County?

a.  developing flexible payment options for easements

b. enhanced deer management options

c. fuel and energy tax exemptions

d. establishment of standards for integrated horticultural activities in the agricultural zones as a permitted use. 

e. other.

 

The study committee this year for the Viability of Agriculture in Montgomery County consisted of the following persons:

Margaret Chasson

Maxine Montgomery

Marge Olson

Marilyn Smith

Barbara Steckel

Lois Stoner

 



[1] Economic Viewpoints, Maryland Cooperative Extension Service, Fall 2002 summarizes the study conducted by the Center for Agricultural and Natural Resource Policy in the University of Maryland’s Agricultural and Resource Economics Department.

[2] Lynch L and Carpenter J: Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 32/1 (April 2003):  116-128 "Is There Evidence of a Critical Mass in the Mid-Atlantic Agriculture Sector Between 1949 and 1997?”
 

[3] Cost of Community Services Studies (2002), American Farmland Trust, www.farmlandinfo.org

[4]Data obtained from Environmental Working Group, www.ewg.org

[5]Duke JM, Lynch L: Farmland Preservation Techniques: Identifying New Options.  FREC Research Reports, University of Delaware, 2003