<img height="1" width="1" style="display:none" src="https://www.facebook.com/tr?id=192888919167017&amp;ev=PageView&amp;noscript=1">
Monday, March 18, 2024
March 18, 2024

Linkedin Pinterest

In Our View: Protect Farmland

County should revisit recommendations of agriculture committee, help farming

The Columbian
Published:

As Clark County has been learning over the past several decades, the economics of farming are remarkably complex. And while the temptation might be to embrace a laissez-faire approach and expect market forces to take care of everything, that would not be a wise strategy for protecting the region’s agriculture.

As detailed in a recent article by Columbian reporter Jake Thomas, nearly a decade ago the county convened an Agriculture Preservation Advisory Committee to examine the future of farming in a county that is rapidly growing and rapidly becoming more urbanized. Among the recommendations was the establishment of farming districts, along with programs that would transfer developmental rights of farmland to people who desire to work the land. These recommendations were not acted upon at the time, but the Clark County council should take another look at the issue and work to preserve remaining farmland.

As Clark County Councilor John Blom said, “It’s not just preserving agriculture for agriculture’s sake, which is important, too, but it’s also a strategy for economic development.” In other words, preserving some of the county’s rural areas would enhance the quality of life for all residents and prove attractive to prospective employers.

Meanwhile, the issue of diminishing farmland is a result of market forces that work counter to the public good. Population growth increases the desire for development and drives up the value of land. As Jordan Boldt, executive director of the Vancouver Farmers Market, said, “Houses are a lot more profitable than carrots.” According to a 1974 federal report, the average farm in Clark County encompassed 87 acres; by 2012, the average was 39 acres. The number of farms also has declined, leading to a vast reduction in farmland in the county.

As noted, this could be shrugged off as the result of basic economics. But that is what sets agriculture apart from many industries. The fact is that farmland is necessary and that locally produced food often provides health benefits along with price breaks for consumers when compared with bringing in produce from elsewhere. Clark County will never compete with Eastern Washington or the heartland of the country in terms of large-scale food production, but there are perks to having locally sourced food. Working to preserve some of that production would be beneficial for local residents.

Agriculture long has presented issues that run counter to free-market thinking, and that is what leads the federal government to provide some $25 billion in annual farm subsidies. According to EWG, an environmental research firm based in Washington, D.C., from 1995-2014, Texas farmers led the nation by receiving more than $30 billion in subsidies. In Washington state during that time, farmers received about $5 billion in subsidies to help offset the fickle nature of farm prices and keep farms in operation.

While debate can — and should — be held over the extent of federal farm subsidies, the system reflects the importance of providing support for agriculture. Once a farm is gone, it is unlikely to return.

On a small scale, that is the issue facing Clark County. The region has a long and rich agricultural tradition, but that heritage is being pushed aside by increasing urbanization. As county chairman Marc Boldt said, “If you ask me, it’s a do-or-die (situation). We have to figure out how farmers can make money.”

Market forces might deem that impossible in Clark County. But officials would be wise to seek a solution.

Loading...