[Kim Frazier]

FUNDING OF PURCHASE OF AGRICULTURAL CONSERVATION EASEMENT PROGRAMS (PACE).
Tennessee does not have a PACE program. PACE programs compensate property owners for keeping their land available for agriculture. Typically, PACE programs consider the quality of the soil, threat of development or fragmentation, and the overall future agricultural viability. According to the American Farmland Trust, Tennessee has recently been named the third fastest at losing farmland to non-agricultural purposes in the nation. Last year, Farm Bureau added policy to urge the Tennessee Department of Agriculture, University of Tennessee, and Farm Bureau to study and evaluate solutions for farmland loss.

Background
Established in the 2014 Farm Bill, Agriculture Conservation Easement Programs (ACEP) set up the structure for Purchase of Agriculture Conservation Easement (PACE) programs. PACE programs compensate property owners for keeping their land available for agriculture. These incentive programs typically consider the quality of the soil, threat of development or fragmentation, and the overall future agricultural viability. Although ACEP is only shy of ten years old, forms of PACE programs have been in existence since 1974 and currently 29 states administer a program, with varying terms of eligibility, payment rates, and qualifiers. Tennessee is not one of them.

PACE programs formed to keep crucially variable farmland out of development and to appeal to landowners subject to residential development, nuisance complaints from surrounding areas, higher real estate tax costs, and overall conversion to non-agricultural use. The farmland owner can continue to farm as before and retains their ability to sell or transfer real estate, but by separating development rights from agricultural use, the imposition of a conservation easement can reduce the barrier to entry for new and beginning farmers and removes any exterior incentives to convert farmland to non-agricultural use.

PACE programs are funded by allocated state dollars, public and private grants, as well as matching federal funds.

Currently, there is $450M allocated annually by the US Department of Agriculture in matching funds for state farmland conservation programs.

The programs are usually administered by the state or local government but may also be operated by private conservation organizations.

There is a tracking method through the Farmland Information Center to monitor the effectiveness state and locally.

Farmlandinfo.org/statistics/pace

https://farmlandinfo.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/11/PACE_Overview_AFT_FIC_2020.pdf

https://farmlandinfo.org/state-programs-policies/

https://farmlandinfo.org/laws/?law_type=213&keywords=118

Caption
SUPPORT FARM BUREAU’S POLICY FOR PURCHASE OF AGRICULTURAL CONSERVATION EASEMENT PROGRAMS (PACE). Source: https://tnfarmbureau.org/purchase-of-agricultural-conversation-easement-programs
According to the American Farmland Trust, Tennessee has recently been named the third fastest at losing farmland to non-agricultural purposes in the nation. Last year, Farm Bureau added policy to urge the Tennessee Department of Agriculture, University of Tennessee, and Farm Bureau to study and evaluate solutions for farmland loss. Knox County supports this effort and the policy recommendations.

Tennessee finds itself at a crossroads between growth and preserving its rural history. According to the American Farmland Trust, Tennessee has recently been named the third fastest at losing farmland to non-agricultural purposes in the nation – moving from fourth in previous years. We appreciate the work of the University of Tennessee Center for Farm Management for working through data in all 95 counties to provide clarity on this statistic. As shown in the map, growth can be seen in almost all of Tennessee’s counties, especially those located in or near urban areas.

When faced with preserving vital agriculture land without inhibiting growth and economic progress, some states have turned to implementing these PACE programs. Georgia was the most recent state to adopt legislation to execute a PACE program, termed the “Georgia Farmland Conservation Fund”. This fund is a voluntary program administered by the Georgia Department of Agriculture, but also establishes a 14-member council exterior to state government to provide oversight and approval for the applications submitted.

Funding for the program is provided by allocated state dollars, public or private grants, as well as matching federal funding. Currently, $450 million is allocated annually by the United States Department of Agriculture in matching funds for state farmland conservation programs. Other states who have PACE programs include Florida, Kentucky, Delaware, and Pennsylvania, among others. The American Farmland Trust has compiled detailed information about each state who offers a PACE program.

Last year, Tennessee Farm Bureau added policy to their Resolutions to urge the Tennessee Department of Agriculture, University of Tennessee, and Farm Bureau to study and evaluate solutions for farmland loss. This group has been meeting regularly to review county data, work with other stakeholders on potential solutions and make suggestions to the Governor’s Office on potential policy solutions to combat the declining farmland across our state. The University of Tennessee has compiled some of the changes in both agricultural and developed land into an interactive map resource.

The Ask

Policy Recommendations:
8.2.6.1.1 Increasing ACEP funding, and
8.2.6.1.2 Increasing the ceiling on the eligible federal share for ACEP

Tennessee Farm Bureau

Improving Family Farm Income (Partial)
The loss of family farmers is nearing a level that should be alarming to all Tennesseans. If the public, government, and all commodity producers do not become more involved and work cooperatively together to find solutions, the agricultural industry in Tennessee could deteriorate beyond levels of recovery. Maintaining a strong viable agricultural sector is important to Tennessee, our region, and the United States. We urge the Tennessee Department of Agriculture, University of Tennessee, and Farm Bureau to study and evaluate solutions for farmland loss.

Land Use Planning (Partial)
We oppose encroachment of federal, state, and local governments on Tennessee agricultural and forest lands. Public entities should never be allowed to condemn more property than is actually needed for a project. Former owners should have the first right of refusal of condemned property that is no longer needed. Prime farm and forestland should not be condemned when other lands are available and well suited. We oppose this type of taking of private property. Landowners have the major responsibility for its development and conservation. Sale of development rights, land trust, and/or conservation easements should always be a voluntary option for interested landowners. The right to sell land must remain in the hands of landowners.

Tennessee is losing valuable farmland to urbanization. The agricultural district law and farmland trust are both voluntary tools for the protection of farmland. Efforts to educate farmers on the availability of these options should be enhanced.

County Farm Bureaus should engage local government policy makers to encourage smart- growth policies which promote and protect agricultural interests. Protecting prime agricultural land from development should be a top priority. Decision makers should carefully consider the consequences of each proposed project, which erodes Tennessee’s valuable farmland resources. Such uses should receive a low priority in consideration of state funding needs.

Farm Policy (Partial)
We support increasing the Agricultural Conservation Easement Program (ACEP) funding. The ACEP is a method to protect and restore grasslands while still allowing grazing practices, haying, mowing and harvesting of seeds. The program supports grazing operations, plant and animal biodiversity on lands under threat of conversion to non-agricultural uses. We support wetlands reserve easements under ACEP; however, permanent easements should not be allowed as a part of this program. No easements or restrictions should be placed on lands exiting ACEP and drainage and regulatory wetland status should be allowed to return to the status existing before enrollment. Management of ACEP contracts should not be allowed to adversely affect drainage or usability of adjacent tracts.

American Farm Bureau 239 / National Farm Policy
8. Farm Bill Principles
8.2 Other Principles
8.2.6 Agricultural Conservation Easement Program (ACEP)
8.2.6.1 We support:
8.2.6.1.1 Increasing ACEP funding, and
8.2.6.1.2 Increasing the ceiling on the eligible federal share for ACEP conservation easement to 80% of the easement value.

[Author]

Posts