Planning Agriculture Wisconsin - University of Wisconsin ... · Wisconsin Towns Association Wisconsin Farm Bureau Federation National Farmers Organization ... 2010, all programs,

Planning for

Agriculturein

WisconsinA Guide

for Communities

November 2002

Written By

Douglas Jackson-Smith

With the Assistance of:

Paul Benjamin Richard Castlenuovo Gwen Garvey Carrie Hirsch Jonquil Johnston Lisa MacKinnon Steve Ventura Mike Wyatt

AcknowledgementsThe authors of this Guide want to acknowledge

the generous institutional and financial supportfor the project provided by the followingorganizations. Without their assistance, thisguide would never have been possible. Inaddition, we benefited from the extensiveeditorial comments and suggestions from a wide range of reviewers. We specifically hopethe guide provides a useful reference tocommunities that are developing comprehensiveplans with strong agricultural elements.

Contributing And Supporting Organizations

University of Wisconsin CooperativeExtension ServiceUniversity of Wisconsin-Madison

Program on Agricultural Technology StudiesCollege of Agriculture and Life Sciences

Wisconsin Department of AdministrationOffice of Land Information Services

Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade, and Consumer Protection

Farmland Preservation ProgramWisconsin Farm Center

USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service- Wisconsin Office

Wisconsin Towns AssociationWisconsin Farm Bureau FederationNational Farmers Organization1000 Friends of WisconsinWisconsin Historical SocietyWisconsin Department of Natural Resources

All photos courtesy of Zane Williams©for use by permission only

© 2002 UW Cooperative Extension and Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade, and Consumer Protection

i

ar-pub-87.qxd 11/02

Overview ______________________________________________________________________1

Introduction ................................................................................................................................................1

What Resources are Available for Comprehensive Planning? ............................................................3

Section 1: Background and Introduction __________________________________________5

1.1) Introduction ........................................................................................................................................5

1.2) Why Agricultural Planning is an Issue ............................................................................................6

1.3) Challenges to Agricultural Planning ................................................................................................7

1.4) Why Plan for Agriculture? ................................................................................................................8

1.5) Framework for Rural and Agricultural Planning in Wisconsin Today ........................................9

1.6) Overview of the Broader Planning Process ................................................................................10

1.7) Organization of the Rest of this Guide ..........................................................................................11

Section 2: Agriculture In A Comprehensive Planning Process______________________12

2.1) Agriculture as Part of the “Agricultural, Natural, and Cultural Resources” Element ............122.1.a) Agriculture and Natural Resource Planning ..........................................................................................122.1.b) Agriculture and Cultural Resource Planning ........................................................................................15

2.2) Agriculture and Economic Development Planning ......................................................................15

2.3) Agriculture and Housing Planning ................................................................................................162.3.a) Farm Labor Housing Issues ......................................................................................................................17

2.4) Agriculture and Transportation Planning ....................................................................................19

2.5) Agriculture and Intergovernmental Planning ..............................................................................21

2.6) Agriculture and Land Use................................................................................................................22

Section 3: Conducting an Agricultural Inventory ________________________________23

3.1) Introduction ......................................................................................................................................23

3.2) Types of Information........................................................................................................................23

3.3) Standards for Evaluating Information............................................................................................26

3.4) Sources of Information ....................................................................................................................26

3.5) Asking the Right Questions ............................................................................................................27

3.6) Gathering Information about Social and Economic Resources ................................................293.6.a) Farming Systems ........................................................................................................................................293.6.b) Broader Farm Economy and Infrastructure Farm Income and Employment ....................................333.6.c) Information about Other Land Uses ........................................................................................................34

3.7) Gathering Information about Biophysical Resources ................................................................373.7.a) Soils ..............................................................................................................................................................373.7.b) Topography ................................................................................................................................................413.7.c) Hydrography ..............................................................................................................................................413.7.d) Other Physical Features ............................................................................................................................413.7.e) Environmental Susceptibility....................................................................................................................42

ii

3.8) Spatial Patterns ................................................................................................................................42

3.9) Data Integration and Analysis ........................................................................................................433.9.a) Example of Data Integration: USDA Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model ..........................44

Section 4: Clarifying Agricultural Goals and Objectives____________________________46

4.1) Different Types of Agricultural Goals ............................................................................................474.1.a) Balancing Growth and Development, Individual and Community ......................................................48

4.2) Examples of Agricultural Goals and Objectives ..........................................................................494.2.a) Preservation of Farmland..........................................................................................................................494.2.b) Preservation of Farming/Farms................................................................................................................494.2.c) Preserve Rural/Agricultural Character; Aesthetics, Sense of Place ....................................................504.2.d) Environmental / Natural Resource Protection ......................................................................................514.2.e) Preventing Land Uses Incompatible with Farming ................................................................................52

4.3) Methods for Defining Community Goals and Objectives............................................................524.3.a) Group Process Approaches: Community Visioning ..............................................................................524.3.b) Traditional Opportunities for Public Input: Public Meetings and Hearings ......................................534.3.c) Seeking Representative Viewpoints: Phone and Mail Surveys ............................................................544.3.d) Exploring What People Mean: Focus Groups ........................................................................................554.3.e) Reconciling Differences ............................................................................................................................55

4.4) Integrating Information and Community Values ..........................................................................55

Section 5: Strategies and Policies for Planning for Agriculture ____________________57

5.1) Introduction ......................................................................................................................................57

5.2) Planning versus Zoning ..................................................................................................................575.2.a) Types of Zoning ..........................................................................................................................................585.2.b) Can We Really Do This? Limitations on Government Action ..............................................................58

5.3) Managing Development on Agricultural Lands: Regulatory Strategies ....................................595.3.a) Traditional Agricultural Zoning ................................................................................................................605.3.b) Innovative Agricultural Zoning Concepts ..............................................................................................625.3.c) Land Division and Subdivision Controls1 ..............................................................................................655.3.d) Conservation Subdivisions and Rural Clustering ..................................................................................675.3.e) Driveway and Road Ordinances or Standards 4 ....................................................................................685.3.f) Building Permits ..........................................................................................................................................695.3.g) Septic, Water, and Sewer Policies ............................................................................................................70

5.4) Managing Development on Agricultural Lands: Non-Regulatory Tools....................................705.4.a) Right to Farm and “Notification” Provisions6 ........................................................................................705.4.b) Agricultural Conservation Easements ....................................................................................................725.4.c) Other Incentive Programs to ......................................................................................................................Protect Agricultural and Natural Resources ....................................................................................................74

5.5) The Wisconsin Farmland Preservation Program ........................................................................755.5.a) Statutory Requirements for Agricultural Preservation Plans ............................................................765.5.b) Updating the County Agricultural Preservation Plan ..........................................................................765.5.c) Farmland Preservation Agreements ......................................................................................................775.5.d) Exclusive Agricultural Zoning ................................................................................................................78

5.6) Local Planning and Policy Tools for Livestock Agriculture........................................................785.6.a) Federal and State Regulation of Large Livestock Operations ..............................................................79

iii

5.6 b) Using Local Zoning Authority to Regulate Large Livestock Operations ............................................805.6.c) Local Authority to Protect Public Health and the Environment..........................................................805.6.d) A Comparison of Zoning Versus Environmental Regulation ................................................................815.6.e) Regulating within a State Framework ......................................................................................................825.6.f) Local Oversight of Crop Production Practices ......................................................................................83

5.7) Agricultural Economic Development Policies7 ............................................................................845.7.a) Supporting Local Farm Expansion and Modernization Efforts ............................................................845.7.b) Promoting New Farm Commodities and Farm Diversification ............................................................855.7.c) Promoting Local Agricultural Markets and Products............................................................................855.7.d) Promoting Value-Added Processing of Agricultural Products ............................................................865.7.e) Facilitating Farm Transitions and Retirement Programs ......................................................................875.7.f) Urban Food Systems Planning ..................................................................................................................89

Section 6: Challenges Of Implementing The Plan ________________________________90

6.1) Challenge 1: Ensuring Public Support for the Plan......................................................................90

6.2) Challenge 2: Using the Plan to Guide Specific Decisions ..........................................................91

6.3) Challenge 3: Ensuring Consistency Between the Plan and Land Use Decisions ....................91

6.4) Challenge 4: Working with Neighboring Municipalities ..............................................................926.4.a) The “Intergovernmental Cooperation Element” ....................................................................................936.4.b) Strategies for Informal Collaboration......................................................................................................936.4.c) More Formal Options for Intergovernmental Cooperation ..................................................................94

References ____________________________________________________________________96

iv

Overview

IntroductionThe purpose of this guide is to provide you withbasic information to help Wisconsin’s ruralcommunities prepare to plan for agriculture. Theguide was developed in response to theComprehensive Planning Law passed under the1999-2001 Wisconsin State Biennial Budget. Thislaw requires that by January 1, 2010, allprograms, actions, and decisions affecting landuse must be consistent with the locally adoptedcomprehensive plan in order for the communityto continue making land use related decisions.The law applies to cities, villages, towns,counties, and regional planning commissions.

A comprehensive plan must cover the followingnine elements, including:

• issues and opportunities

• housing

• transportation

• utilities and community facilities

• agricultural, natural, and cultural resources.

• economic development

• land use

• intergovernmental cooperation

• implementation

Obviously, agriculture is only one componentamong many that needs to be addressed incomprehensive plans (and the statute combinesit with the natural and cultural resourceselement). For many rural towns and countieshowever, the future of farming and agriculturalland may be the single most important issue theywill have to tackle in their planning process.

Farmland in Wisconsin has been underincreasing pressure in the last decade because arelatively poor agricultural economy promptedfarmers to sell land and a robust nonfarmeconomy enabled many urban dwellers to realizetheir dream of living in the country. From 1996through 2000, over 313,000 acres of Wisconsinfarmland have been removed from agriculture.In addition, our state’s most productive soils arelocated in the southeastern third of the statewhere most population growth is occurring. TheAmerican Farmland Trust has identified thisregion as one of the three most threatenedfarmland resources in the United States. Whilethe agricultural land use debate often focuses onfarmland preservation and the future of family

farming, agricultural and societal change alsointroduce new issues, including:

• Ex-urban residential development and growingpopulations of non-farmers in rural, agricultural areas;

• Expansion or construction of large livestock farms;

• An aging farm population concerned with financing retirement from farming;

• Property rights vs. community interests;

• Preservation of “open space” vs. farmland preservation.

• Right to farm vs. nuisance complaints.

• Farmers, nonfarm residents, and local governments are struggling to decide whetherthey want to have local oversight of thesenew agricultural operations.

This guide provides in-depth information thatshould be useful in developing the agriculturalelement of a comprehensive plan. It is alsowritten broadly enough that communitiesengaged in other kinds of planning processes(such as county agricultural preservation plans,local land use plans, or nutrient managementplans) can also find helpful advice andinformation.

Section I: Background and IntroductionBecause many rural communities are new to theworld of planning, the guide begins with adiscussion of the arguments for and againstplanning, particularly as they relate to rural andagricultural landscapes. It provides an overviewof the basic principles of successful planning. Itintroduces three basic stages of a planningexercise - Inventory, Goal Setting, and PolicyDevelopment - and these serve as the basis forSections III-V of the guide.

Section II: Agriculture in a ComprehensivePlanning ProcessThe second section discusses ways thatagricultural issues might arise throughout thecomprehensive planning process. The guidediscusses how to incorporate agriculture intonatural resource, cultural, economicdevelopment, housing, and transportationelements.

1

Overview

Ove

rvie

w

2

Section III: Conducting an Agricultural InventoryThe first step in many planning processes is togather information about the community. Thissection provides detailed suggestions forgathering information about agriculture. Theguide stresses the importance of gatheringinformation about the nature of the land,especially agricultural and natural resources, butalso about the nature of the people who now liveon the land and the institutions that govern theuse of the land. There is also a discussion ofhow to integrate different types of information ina planning process.

Section IV: Clarifying Agricultural Goals and ObjectivesThis section provides suggestions for writinggoal and objective statements that can be trulyeffective in guiding the planning process. Sixmajor categories of agricultural planning goalsare identified and examples of statements fromactual land use plans in Wisconsin are presented.The section includes information about methodsfor measuring community views and priorities,and concludes with a discussion of theimportance of integrating the inventory work(Section III) with the goal setting exercise(Section IV).

Section V: Strategies and Policies for Planning for AgricultureThis section provides an extended discussion ofthe various agricultural planning policies that acommunity might consider to implement theiragricultural goals and objectives. It presents thestrengths and weaknesses of specific approacheswithin three major categories of policies:

• Regulatory and nonregulatory strategies for managing development on farmland;

• Local planning and policy tools for livestock agriculture; and

• Agricultural economic development programs

Section VI: Challenges of Implementing the PlanThe final section of the guide discusses four keychallenges to a successful agricultural planningexercise. These include:

• Ensuring public support for the plan

• Using the plan to guide specific decisions

• Ensuring consistency between the plan and land use decisions

• Working with neighboring municipalities

What Resources are Available for Comprehensive Planning?

This guide provides basic agricultural planningrelated information to help you develop theAgricultural Element of your community’scomprehensive plan. There are several otherguides available for the other required elementsof a comprehensive plan:

Guide to the Housing Element - Complete.

• Available from the UW Dept. of Urban andRegional Planning at (608) 263-2627 or theOffice for Land Information Services (OLIS) at (608) 267-2707.

• Available on the OLIS web site athttp://www.doa.state.wi.us/olis.

Guide to the Transportation Element - Complete.

• For more information, contact Bobbi Retzlaff,Wisconsin Department of Transportation, at(608) 264-7266 [email protected].

• Available on the DOT web site athttp://www.dot.state.wi.us/dtim/bop/planning-index.htm.

Guide to the Natural Resources Element - Complete.

• For more information, contact DreuxWatermolen, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, at (608) 266-8931 [email protected] .

• Available on the DNR web site athttp://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/es/science/landuse/smart_growth/urbplan_bk.pdf.

Guide to the Intergovernmental Cooperation Element - Complete.

• For more information, contact ErichSchmidtke, OLIS, at (608) 264-6102 [email protected].

• Available on the OLIS web site athttp://www.doa.state.wi.us/olis/pdf_files/wi_intergovernmental_guide.pdf.

Guide to the Economic Development Element - In progress.

• Target date for completion: Fall 2002.

• For more information, please contact RogerNacker, Wisconsin Economic DevelopmentInstitute, at (608) 661-4626 [email protected];

Guide to the Historic/Cultural Resources Element - In progress.

• Target date for completion: Winter 2003.

• For more information, contact Rick Bernstein,State Historical Society, at (608) 264-6506 [email protected].

An Overall Guide to Completing a Comprehensive Plan compliant with §66.1001 and the Land Use Element - In progress.

• Targeted completion date: Summer 2003.For more information, contact Sarah Kemp,OLIS, at (608) 264-6117.

How to Hire a Planning Consultant: A Guide toPreparing a Request for Proposals - Complete.

• Contact the Office of Land Information Services (608) 267-2707 or www.doa.state.wi.us/olis.

3

Overview

4

Section 1: Background and Introduction

1.1) IntroductionIn the fall of 1999, the Wisconsin Legislaturepassed legislation as part of the Governor’sbiennial budget requiring all municipalities tomake land use decisions that are consistent witha locally developed and adopted comprehensiveplan by the year 2010. The ComprehensivePlanning Law (§66.1001, Wis. Stats.), commonlyreferred to as the “Smart Growth Law,” applies tocities, villages, towns, counties, and regionalplanning commissions. A comprehensive plan,as now defined in the state statutes, must covera minimum of nine element topics, including thefollowing:

• issues and opportunities

• housing

• transportation

• utilities and community facilities

• economic development

• agricultural, natural, and cultural resources.

• intergovernmental cooperation

• land use

• implementation

This guide provides basic agricultural planningrelated information to help you develop theagricultural components of your community’scomprehensive plan.

Recognizing that agriculture is only onecomponent among many that needs to beaddressed in comprehensive plans, it is often thecase that for rural towns and counties the futureof agricultural land may be the single mostimportant issue they will have to tackle. Farmingand farm-related businesses provide importantcontributions to many local economies.Agriculture is also significant because farmlandand working farms dominate the rural landscapeand help define local community identity andculture. Perhaps the single biggest reason thatagriculture is likely to be a key feature incomprehensive plans is the fact that a great dealof development over the last decade hasoccurred directly on land that was recently usedfor farming.

This guide is intended to provide backgroundinformation, ideas and concepts aboutagricultural planning, and directions to otherresources for communities seeking to developagricultural plans. It was written to assist

communities preparing the agricultural, naturaland cultural resources element of thecomprehensive plan. It is hoped that this guidewill be useful for a variety of other planningpurposes, including farmland preservationplanning under ch. 91, Wisconsin Statutes. Giventhe diverse issues communities face, this guidediscusses the principles of planning foragriculture in the broadest terms while stillmaking it especially relevant for thecomprehensive planning law. It is also designedto be useful to the widest possible audience:farmers and other rural residents, officials, andplanning professionals who advise and work withlocal governments.

This guide is organized into several mainsections. The remainder of this section discussesthe challenges of planning in agriculturalcommunities and reviews some of the argumentsfor and against doing any kind of planning at all.While planning itself is not new in manycommunities, the requirements under thecomprehensive planning law will likely bringmany citizens and municipalities, particularlyfrom rural towns, to planning for the first time.Therefore, the guide also introduces the basicprinciples of effective planning that might helpcommunities better anticipate and manage aplanning process. This is intended as a generalintroduction, not a step-by-step guide.

Section II discusses how agricultural planningactivities might be integrated into the variousspecific elements of a full comprehensive plan.The remaining sections are designed to providean introduction and guidance to the three keycomponents of the agricultural element of acomprehensive plan (or any type of agriculturalplan):

(1) An inventory of the agricultural resources in an area;

(2) An assessment of community priorities and specific agricultural goals or objectives; and

(3) An elaboration of specific programs or policies that might be adopted to accomplishthe various agricultural goals and objectives a community identifies.

The last section of the guide provides anoverview of the challenges likely to beencountered when implementing an agriculturalplan.

5

Section 1

1.2) Why Agricultural Planning is an IssueAs rural communities debate whether and howto develop local plans, the issue of farmlandpreservation often arises. Farmland inWisconsin has been under increasing pressure inthe last decade because a relatively pooragricultural economy prompted farmers to sellland and a robust nonfarm economy enabledmany urban dwellers to realize their dream ofliving in the country. From 1991 through 2000,over 700,000 acres of Wisconsin farmland havebeen removed from agriculture or over 1,100square miles. The total land area of Washington,Ozaukee, and Sheboygan counties is 1,175 squaremiles. In addition to the number of acresconverted, another issue is that the mostproductive soils are located in the southeasternthird of the state where most of the growth isoccurring. The American Farmland Trust hasidentified this region as one of the three mostthreatened farmland resources in the UnitedStates.

Advocates of farmland preservation typicallyemphasize how a community benefits from avibrant farm sector and an open agriculturallandscape. While few communities now dependexclusively on the farm sector, farming and theprocessing of farm products can still be asignificant local source of income andemployment. Many citizens, both rural andurban, farming and non-farming alike viewfarming an important occupation that embodiesmany fundamental American values. From afiscal standpoint, agricultural lands providesignificant revenues to local governments andrequire relatively few services in return. Incontrast, residential land uses often costmunicipalities more to service than they returnin local property taxes (Edwards et al., 1999).Though difficult to quantify, the rural and opencharacter of agricultural landscapes alsoprovides the community with attractive viewsand a high quality of life. Rural Wisconsin is adesirable place for people and businesses tovisit, move to and live in.

Development can also negatively impact theviability of commercial farms. Nonfarm residentsliving in close proximity to working farms canincrease the chance for nuisance, trespass, andvandalism complaints. Commuters, in a hurry toget to work on time, share the road with slowmoving agricultural machinery, creatingfrustration for both sets of travelers. Farmsupply dealers need a ‘critical mass’ of farmoperations to remain viable within an area. Asland gets split into smaller parcels, remainingfarmers are forced to deal with more landlords

and travel longer distances to work their fields.Perhaps most critical, the impact of nonfarmdevelopment on local property taxes rates andland values can make it increasingly costly forfarmers to continue to own land, or for youngpeople to buy or rent a farm of their own. Arecent move to use-value assessment of farmlandin Wisconsin, however, has helped alleviate theimpacts of rising tax burdens.

Even when most agricultural properties are notdeveloped, the conversion of significant parcelsof land can impact the decisions and planninghorizon of the remaining farm operators.Anticipating development, some will reduce long-term investments in their farm enterprises.Reduced investment may eventually lead to adecline in productivity. As productivity declines,farming becomes even less profitable, and morefarmers are motivated to leave farming. Thischain of events that results in a loss of criticalagricultural land mass is sometimes referred toas the ‘impermanence syndrome.

From a farmer’s perspective, however, theinflated land value associated with developmentpressure is both a blessing and a curse. Highland prices make it more difficult to enterfarming or expand existing farms. Appreciatingland values, however, also enable older or exitingfarmers to realize significant financial gains whenthey sell their farmland assets. Proceeds fromselling farmland are often the only source ofretirement funds for older farm families.

While the agricultural land use debate oftenfocuses on farmland preservation and the futureof family farming, agricultural and societalchange also introduce new issues. These includemany of the following:

• ex-urban residential development and growing populations of non-farmers in rural,agricultural areas;

• expansion or construction of large livestock farms;

• an aging farm population concerned with financing retirement from farming;

• property rights vs. community interests;

• right to farm vs. nuisance complaints.

Sect

ion

1

6

1.3) Challenges to Agricultural PlanningAside from having to balance competinginterests over how agricultural land is used,planning for agriculture is often a substantialundertaking in relatively small and ruralcommunities. In Wisconsin, land use decisionsfor most agricultural lands are under the controlof over 1,200 town and 72 county governments.Town governments tend to be administered byvolunteer or part-time officials, are often withoutpermanent planning staff, and have limitedbudgets to pay for planning related expenses.Moreover, traditional rural political culture hastended to prefer leaving land use decisions tolocal landowners, reflecting a considerabledistrust of the ability or wisdom of localgovernment to regulate land use changes onbehalf of the community. While nearly all cities,villages, and counties have engaged in some typeof planning activity, most town governmentshave little experience to draw from in this area.Many of the more rural and agricultural countiesface similar staffing, budgetary, and politicallimitations on planning for agricultural issues.

Effective planning for agriculture requirescooperation with non-rural communities. Whilefarming is often associated with rural life, thetowns located nearest to the edges of cities andvillages tend to be the places where conflictsbetween farmers and nonfarmers occur andwhere the pressure for converting land out ofagriculture is most intense. Agricultural planningmay be an issue in cities and villages whereresidents benefit from living in a broaderagricultural landscape and often are strongadvocates of controlling development along theboundaries of their community. Systematicconsideration of agricultural issues in municipalplans can help avoid contradictory policies thatenvision both the maintenance of a rural andopen landscape in surrounding areas while alsoencouraging annexation and growth onundeveloped town lands along their borders.Further, local intergovernmental communicationand cooperation increases the likelihood that acity or village and the adjacent towns agree onpolicies to manage growth and development.

There is also the question of what is agriculture?It may be that the initial image of agriculture isthe small family farm. Other kinds of farming,however, may be common or even dominant inthe community, the county or the region. Thedistinctions in agriculture range along severaldimensions, including:

• business structure and size: from a mom andpop operation to community supportedagriculture to a corporate farm.

• agricultural products: dairying, grain farming,hogs, beef cattle, potatoes, cranberries, mint,sweet corn, ginseng, etc.), intensity (grain,dairy, hog operation, cheese making, fruitorchards), etc.;

• location of markets: a nearby city, a distantcommodities market, an Asian market;

• tillage methods and use or non-use ofherbicides, pesticides, and chemicalfertilizers: conventional practices, no-till,organic;

• planning horizon: older farmer in an area withincreasing residential development vs. ayounger farmer in a rural setting unaffectedby urban development.

As bewildering as the diverse nature ofcontemporary agriculture may be, it is importantto come to an understanding what farming is inyour community. Deciding on a commonplanning approach can be a challenge.

For many communities, a discussion ofagricultural planning is usually associated with abroader discussion of the pros and consassociated with planning. Unless pressure todevelop is high or the pace of change is rapid,the need for planning is not always obvious tocitizens of rural municipalities. In order forplanning to succeed, it is important for the localofficials to identify and articulate why thecommunity has an interest in managing theprocess of growth and change. In all cases, it isimportant to understand that a particular type ofplanning process does not produce a particularkind of plan.

Planning is not a foreign concept. It may help torecall that individuals are constantly engaging inplanning, from calculating how to accomplishmultiple goals efficiently in one car trip toplanning for retirement or saving money to putthe kids through college. Our individual “plans”also affect and are highly interdependent onwhat others do. When we decide to take a driveto the county park or the shopping mall at thesame time, we are part of the congestion thatothers experience. By choosing to live or shop atone place rather than another, we contribute tohow land is relatively priced, the tax base that isavailable, and the public services needed invarious places.

Planning provides an open and public forum fordiscussing these interdependencies. A planningprocess can be an effective way to makecollective decisions about what role - if any - thelocal government will play in managing the

7

Section 1

process of growth and change in the community.Each planning process should reflect uniquecombinations of local resources, interests, andgoals to produce a plan useful for thatcommunity’s needs. What is universal abouteffective planning is the PROCESS through whicha community identifies what it values andnegotiates a set of ‘rules to live by.’ If done well,a plan can help preserve existing communityqualities, maximize opportunities for desirableforms of growth, and minimize the worst impactsof unplanned development patterns. In addition,the planning process provides a forum forsorting out differences that is insulatedsomewhat from the political pressures,immediacy, and personal passions thataccompany individual land use disputes.

Equally important - whatever the specificfeatures of the plan that emerges - is that theexercise of coming together to share visions ofhow the community could look and explore waysto get there can strengthen the community.Bringing together folks who normally don’tinteract can help to build bridges and allow afuller exploration of alternatives to beconsidered and acted upon. This experience canalso produce a new sense of community and ashared vision that has tangible impacts on localcommunity life and decisions that reach farbeyond the planning process.

1.4) Why Plan for Agriculture?What can a community reasonably expect toaccomplish by planning for agriculture? Thereare several good reasons to plan. Restrictionson nonfarm development in agricultural areasprotect the nation’s long-term food productionand the rural landscape. Farmers receive thebenefit of fewer conflicts with nonfarmneighbors, potentially lower taxes, an intact andaccessible agricultural infrastructure, and moreaffordable farmland. Farmers may have theadditional security of knowing that their area willremain agricultural for the foreseeable future.Nonfarmers get protection of the visualaesthetics of their rural properties and may bemore willing to tolerate the noise, dust, andodors of a farming operation if a community hasidentified an area as agriculturally important.

Planning also helps communities manageongoing changes in agriculture. For example,clarifying how and where livestock expansionscan occur makes it easier for farmers to makethe necessary institutional and financialcommitments to modernize their operations.

Despite these benefits, protection of farmlandalso comes with a price tag - namely the privatebenefits farmland owners would lose if theirability to sell off parcels for development wererestricted.

Given the economic stress facing most farmers, itis also reasonable to ask if land use policy alonecan “save” farms from going out of business. Inthe absence of a broader approach toreinvigorating the farm economy, land usepolicies to preserve farmland will not necessarilypreserve active farming operations. In the longrun, however, they are likely to ensure that moreof our state’s agricultural resources will beavailable and affordable for viable farmingenterprises. Experience from Wisconsin andother states suggests that most types ofcommercial agriculture struggle to survive inrapidly developing areas that lack any coherentplan or land use rules.

Your community will not be the first to engagethese complicated issues. Examples ofsuccessful agricultural planning can be found inmany important agricultural communities acrossthe country. Often leaders and planners work tofind creative solutions that attempt to guidenonfarm development on agricultural lands.Usually this involves ensuring that developmentoccurs in a way that minimizes the impact onprime agricultural resources and farmingoperations. These efforts allow farmland ownersto realize some of the benefits of development,while protecting the core agriculture resource forongoing and future farming operations. In somecases, communities have also sought to savefarmland by making agriculture a moreeconomically successful enterprise. This maytake the form of local incentive programs fordeveloping farmers markets, value-addedagricultural processing facilities, and farmmanagement training programs. Othercommunities have responded to changes in thesize and complexity of modern agriculture bysubdividing agricultural districts to specificallyseparate large-scale livestock operations fromother possibly conflicting land uses.

This guide is intended to help communities findconstructive ways to address agriculturalplanning issues. Communities using this guideare likely to have some interest in protectingtheir agricultural resources, but they also may beuncertain how they will balance these interestsagainst other locally important goals. Theyshould not assume that there will be any singleor simple answer that will fit each and everycommunity situation. In fact, the whole point of

Sect

ion

1

8

an effective planning process is to be able to findthe plan language and policies that best “fit”each community. Specific local priorities,compromises, and views on public regulationsover private land management decisions willnecessarily generate different outcomes in eachplace. The emphasis here is on developing agood process and providing enough informationabout the trends, community goals, and possiblestrategies to encourage an informed communitydiscussion.

1.5) Framework for Rural and Agricultural Planning in Wisconsin Today

The State of Wisconsin has a long tradition oflocal government planning activities. State lawpermits incorporated municipalities (cities andvillages) as well as local governments withauthority over unincorporated areas (countiesand towns) to plan for the physical developmentwithin their borders. Counties have had thisauthority since 1923 and towns since 1947.Counties are responsible for preparing a countydevelopment plan, although the adopted masterplans and official maps of cities and villagesusually take precedence over any county-adopted development plan.

Much of the planning related to agricultureoccurs as a direct or indirect result ofWisconsin’s Farmland Preservation Act1 (FPA)that was passed in 1977. This law provides taxrelief to farmland owners who live in counties (ortowns) that adopt formal agriculturalpreservation plans and pass protective exclusiveagricultural zoning ordinances that are

consistent with these plans2. While 70 of 72Wisconsin counties have developed andapproved agricultural preservation plans, manyof these county agricultural plans have not beenupdated since the early 1980s. In many cases, italso appears that they have not been usedsystematically to guide local land use decisions.

Over the last 20 years, some towns have alsodeveloped land use plans that address thepreservation of agricultural lands. A survey ofWisconsin towns (Ohm and Schmidke, 1999)suggests that roughly 40 percent of towns havesome form of land use plan. Some of these planshave been adopted as explicit amendments tocounty agricultural preservation plans and havebeen reviewed and certified by the state officialswho implement the FPA. Most town land useplans are not explicitly connected to countyagricultural preservation plans or the FPA,although they often address farmlandpreservation objectives.

A review of existing county and town land useplans suggests that there are many models andapproaches to planning. Different approachesarise because each community has distinctiveresources, a unique mix of values and goals, anddifferent kinds of growth and developmentchallenges. This diversity also reflects the factthat plans have been developed by a wide rangeof people - from committees of local citizenvolunteers and elected officials, to plans writtenwith support from county or regional planningcommission staff, to those that were developedby private sector planning consultants.

1 Chapter 91 of the Wisconsin Statutes; see section 5.5 for a detailed discussion of the features a county - or town - agricultural plan must have to meet the statutory requirements.

2 Tax credit eligibility is also available to landowners in areas planned for agricultural preservation under the county agricultural preservation plan but not within a jurisdiction with a certified exclusive agricultural zoning ordinance. This is called Farmland Preservation agreement

9

Section 1

1.6) Overview of the Broader Planning Process

Regardless of the specific content or goals of anyagricultural plan, most planning processesinvolve four basic steps (see Box 1A). Moreover,there are some key principles associated withdesigning an effective planning process that allcommunities should consider. These principlesare based on many years of planning practiceand experience in communities across the UnitedStates. They apply equally to all planning, fromrelatively narrow agricultural plans to fullyelaborated comprehensive plans.

• The order of the steps may not always be thesame, and the process should be iterative.For example, the results of goal setting mayaffect the kinds of things you look for throughyour inventory activities. Similarly, adiscussion of specific plan implementationstrategies may cause a community toreconsider what their most important goalsare.

• Public input should be facilitated andintegrated throughout the planning process.A plan will not be successful unless it is builtfrom consensus, and understood andimplemented by the community. A planshould accurately reflect the views of thecommunity, be subject to extensive andcontinuous public review, and be “owned” oraccepted as legitimate by most localresidents. History tells us that the best wayto do this is to provide opportunities for localcitizens to be meaningfully involved at allstages of the planning process. This takestime and requires conscious efforts todevelop an open and public process.

• Maintain local ownership of the planningprocess. Many communities opt to involve anoutside consultant from the public or privatesector to design and manage their planningprocess and to write the initial draft of theplan. While it is often necessary to do so - atleast for certain tasks - it is important torequire these outside actors to continue toinvolve community leaders and citizens on anongoing basis. This can be specified in arequest for proposals or solicitation of bidsfrom consultants. Many rural communitieshave also relied heavily on citizen volunteersto accomplish many of the time-consumingtasks associated with writing plans.

• Expect to be frustrated. This is normal andmay even be productive. The processrequires development of workingrelationships and a common vocabulary andthe ability to look beyond present difficulties.Essential guiding principles include:negotiations, respect for difference, buildingrelationships and trust, and valuesclarification. Do not expect that solutions aregoing to be immediately obvious.

• Planning is a continual process. Once youstart implementing a plan, you may find thatthere are unforeseen consequences that leadyou to modify the original plan goals.Similarly, a plan written 5 or 10 years ago mayno longer be appropriate as conditions andcommunity goals change. Plans should alsobe looked at as enhancing the community’sunderstanding of itself. Turnover in thecommunity and changes in leadership oftenlead to the erosion of the social knowledgeand political consensus that brings vitality totheir land use policies. As a result,communities should see their plans as livingdocuments that should be reviewedperiodically and revised as needed.

Box 1A: Basic Steps in Planning ProcessA planning process typically involves thefollowing multiple steps:

1. INVENTORY, where you take stock of yourcommunity's physical and human assets,track how and why things are changing, andpredict what changes are likely to take placein the future;

2. PRIORITY SETTING, where you identify theconcerns, priority issues, and future goalsthat are most important to members of yourcommunity;

3. STRATEGY IDENTIFICATION, where youidentify a set of policies, programs andactions that might be employed by thecommunity to address concerns, priorities,and future goals. This usually involvesweighing the costs and benefits of alternative paths, identifying trade-offs inpursuing different approaches, and assessing the impacts of choices.

4. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION, where you develop, approve, and implement specificpolicies, programs and actions recommended in the plan.

Sect

ion

1

10

1.7) Organization of the Rest of this GuideThe next section addresses how agriculturalissues might be addressed as part of acomprehensive plan under the Wisconsin “SmartGrowth” law. The rest of the guide is organizedaround an “ideal” planning process as outlinedabove. Sections 3 and 4 provide guidance tocommunities seeking to identify issues andopportunities relative to agricultural planning.This necessarily involves taking stock of theagricultural resources and trends (INVENTORY)and clarifying a community’s goals, vision, orvalues (PRIORITY SETTING). The discussionalso specifically addresses ways to integratethese two steps with each other.

Section 5 then provides an overview of the majortypes of programs or policies that differentcommunities have developed to implement their

agricultural plans. This section is designed tohelp people sort out the costs, benefits, andtradeoffs that are associated with variousstrategies to protect agricultural resources.

The final section discusses some of thechallenges of plan implementation andenforcement that typically accompany rural andagricultural plans. Challenges range from thedifficulties in coordinating planning activitiesamong neighboring communities to translatinggeneric plan principles or language into specificactions to implement plan goals. Communitiescan overcome these barriers to success byacknowledging these potential difficulties upfront, developing plans that are consistent withthe plans of their neighbors, and being realisticin developing plans that they can wholeheartedlyimplement and enforce.

11

Section 1

Section 2: Agriculture In AComprehensive Planning Process

Most Wisconsin communities will be workingbetween now and the year 2010 to developcomprehensive plans that meet the standardsoutlined in the comprehensive planning law.Agricultural resources are one among a list ofnine required topics in a comprehensive plan(see Box 2A), but an important one in many ruralcommunities.

Each of the nine elements is defined in moredetail in the state statutes (§66.1001 (2), Wis.Stats.). Agriculture is one obvious topic to bediscussed in the fifth element (“Agricultural,natural, and cultural resources”). This sectionbegins with a discussion of how agriculture canbe integrated into a coherent ‘element’ that alsocovers natural and cultural resources. At thesame time, it should be apparent that agriculturewould be implicated in many other elements of acomprehensive plan that complies with thestatutes. The rest of this section discusses someof these areas of overlap between agriculture andcomprehensive planning.

Box 2A: Nine Elements Of ComprehensivePlans Set Forth In §66.1001, Wis. Stats.

1. Issues and Opportunities

2. Housing

3. Transportation

4. Utilities and Community Facilities

5. Agricultural, Natural, and Cultural Resources

6. Economic Development

7. Intergovernmental Cooperation

8. Land Use

9. Implementation

2.1) Agriculture as Part of the “Agricultural, Natural, and Cultural Resources” Element

The statutory definition of this particularcomprehensive plan element involves: “…a compilation of objectives, policies, goals,maps and programs for the conservation, andpromotion of the effective management, ofnatural resources such as groundwater, forests,productive agricultural areas, environmentallysensitive areas, threatened and endangeredspecies, stream corridors, surface waters,floodplains, wetlands, wildlife habitat, metallic

and nonmetallic mineral resources, parks, openspaces, historical and cultural resources,community design, recreational resources andother natural resources.” (emphasis added)

The parenthetical phrase “such as” reflects thereality that each community will have uniquecombinations of natural resources that they willwant to conserve and manage. These will ofteninclude agricultural resources and activities. Itremains up to each local community to identifywhich agricultural resources they want toaddress.

It seems prudent to examine some of the likelyareas of overlap among these interrelated topics.This section notes some of the dimensions ofnatural resource and cultural planning that areclearly related to agriculture. For a morecomplete discussion of natural resource andenvironmental issues related to comprehensiveplanning, readers should consult the publication“Planning for Natural Resources: A Guide toincluding Natural Resources in LocalComprehensive Planning” that is available fromthe OLIS website at www.doa.state.wi.us/olis.

2.1.a) Agriculture and Natural Resource Planning A characteristic of Wisconsin is that it has animportant agricultural land base that isintegrated into a rich natural resourceenvironment. Precise measures of thisintegration are unavailable, but a comparison ofland cover maps for Wisconsin and Illinoisshows dramatic differences in the integration ofthe two sets of land covers in the two states.(See www.geography.wisc.edu/sco/pubs/pubs_graphics/land_cover.jpg andwww.inhs.uiuc.edu/igis/illinois/index.htm.)

The Wisconsin landscape has complex patternsof agricultural and natural resource featuresinterspersed across the land. Forestspredominate in the northern quarter ofWisconsin, but the remaining three-fourths of thestate is characterized by combinations offorested and non-forested wetlands, coniferousand broadleaf forests, grasslands, andagriculture.

Illinois, in contrast, is characterized by a largeagricultural land resource in the central part ofthe state with relatively little contiguous orinterspersed forested or other natural resourcefeatures.

Given the complex natural resource environmentwithin which agriculture is practiced inWisconsin, it is not surprising that natural

Sect

ion

2

12

resource issues and concerns are linked toactivities taking place on agricultural lands. TheWisconsin farmer farms land that is right next toimportant natural resource lands. Planning foragriculture should be done with a keen eye onthe natural resource environment within which itexists.

To begin with, it would be interesting to know towhat degree agriculture in your community isinterspersed with natural resource features.Does your community have significant areas ofnatural resource features that are highlyintegrated into agricultural lands? Or is yourcommunity among those that are relatively“monotypic” and have little interspersion ofnatural resource features in agricultural lands?This knowledge can frame the discussion of theplanning effort your community makes withregard to agriculture and natural resources. Agreater measure of integration or interspersionof the two sets of resources should mean thatplanning for both agriculture and naturalresources be done closely together.

Once some idea of the integration of these twosets of resources is known, there are a number ofissues that must be dealt with at the interfacebetween agriculture and our natural resourceenvironment. One of those issues is non-pointwater pollution.1 Agriculture is one of severalimportant sources of non-point water pollutionboth to surface and ground waters in Wisconsin.Historically, substantial work has been done inthis area, and recent efforts have resulted in acomplete revision of the State’s method ofdealing with non-point source pollution (ATCP 50and NR 151). Significant progress has beenachieved since 1982 in soil loss,2 yet soil erosionfrom farm fields and the surface runoff of cropnutrients and agricultural chemicals can stillimpact the quality of streams, rivers, and lakes.Leaching of pesticides and nutrients (frommanure and excess commercial fertilizer) has thepotential to impair underground aquifers andaffect drinking water supplies. There are, for

example, “atrazine prohibition areas” whereatrazine has been detected above tolerable levelsin the groundwater and its use on the land forany purpose, not just agriculture, has beenprohibited. There is also growing concern,particularly in areas where dispersed ruralresidential development is occurring, about theimpact of livestock farming on air quality,including odor, and ammonia and methanelosses.

Individual farming operations vary widely intheir contributions to these broaderenvironmental problems. Differences inmanagement practices and in the sensitivity ofthe local landscape can affect whether or not agiven farm might pose a threat to environmentalquality. County land conservation departmentscan assist farmers with management practicesand conservation plans for environmentalprotection.

Agricultural activities can have positiveenvironmental impacts as well. A growingnumber of scientists have identified certainagricultural land uses as potential environmentalassets. These so-called ‘ecosystem’ services oramenities provided by agriculture include themaintenance of wildlife habitat, enhanced waterrecharge capacity of local watersheds, and theability to sequester or tie up atmospheric carbonin growing crops and plants. Open spaceassociated with agricultural landscapes is anenvironmental amenity that both rural and urbanresidents appear to value highly.

Given the variety and complexity of theintegration of agriculture within a naturalresource environment in Wisconsin, it is difficultto generalize about agricultural impacts on therural environment or other natural resources(see Box 2B). Actual environmental impactsultimately depend not only on agriculturalpractices, but on the interspersion with and thekind of natural resources in the area. Specificcrop rotations, livestock and tillage practices allaffect the amount of soil erosion, nutrient losses,

1 This polluted runoff is called nonpoint source pollution because it comes from many diverse areas (including urbanrunoff, construction site erosion, agriculture, and other activities). It contrasts with “point source pollution” thatoriginates from an easily identifiable source (e.g., an effluent pipe emanating from a factory). Urban and rural nonpointsources are the greatest cause of surface water quality problems in Wisconsin, degrading or threatening 40% of thestate’s streams and 90% of the state’s 15,000 inland lakes, major portions of Great Lakes harbors and coastal waters, andsubstantial groundwater areas. This polluted runoff destroys fish habitat, kills fish, reduces drinking water quality, clogsharbors and streams with sediment and reduces recreational use of lakes and streams.2 “Statistical data from the National Resource Inventory conducted by USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Serviceindicates that soil erosion rates on Wisconsin’s cropland have been reduced dramatically in the ten years between 1982and 1992 from 4.2 tons/acre/year to 3.2 tons/acre/year,” although recent reduction of soil loss trends have slowed. T-by-2000: A Report on Soil Erosion and Soil Conservation Efforts in Wisconsin. Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade,and Consumer Protection, July 2001.

13

Section 2

and agrichemical runoff that might come fromfarming operations. The treatment of non-cropped farmland (such as woodlots and streamcorridors) can have a large impact on wildlifehabitat and rare species. Livestock farms posedifferent challenges than do crop farms; largerspecialized farms may pose different challengesthan smaller, diversified farms. How do thesepractices impact the agricultural lands andcontiguous natural resource areas in yourcommunity?

Box 2B: Potential Impacts of Agriculture on the Natural Environment

Positive:• Open Space• Wildlife Habitat• Enhanced Water Recharge• Nutrient recycling

Negative:• Soil Erosion• Nutrient or Agrichemical Contamination

of Ground and Surface Water • Odors or Air Quality

As noted, Wisconsin’s natural resourcelandscape is highly varied and complex.Although this diversity can make naturalresource policy development more challenging,counties are increasingly well prepared to planfor the protection of Wisconsin’s land and waterresources. Through Wisconsin Act 27 (1997 -1998 Biennial Budget Bill), Chapter 92 of theWisconsin Statutes was amended, requiringcounties todevelop land andwater resourcemanagement plans.The intent of thischange is to fosterand support a locally led process that improvesdecision-making, streamlines administrative anddelivery mechanisms, and better utilize local,state, and federal funds to protect Wisconsin’sland and water resources.

Given the work already devoted to naturalresource management planning in most counties,comprehensive planning efforts would do well tocoordinate and build on county land and waterresource management plans. These plans gothrough a plan development process that isanalogous to the comprehensive planningprocess. A local advisory committee is formed,information is gathered, resource conditions areassessed, issues and problems are identified andprioritized, goals and objectives are set, and

action steps are defined. The county land andwater resource management plan is updatedperiodically and the advisory committee isaccordingly reformed to deal with the update.The comprehensive planning process shouldtake advantage of this opportunity for valuableinput from the advisory committee for the landand water resource management plan. Thework and the expertise of the county landconservation department and the land and waterresource management plan advisory committeeshould be utilized in the development of thispart of the plan.

Box 2C: Land and Water Resource Management Plans.Through the process of developing a land andwater resource management plan, counties willbe better able to:

• Develop a seamless approach for programintegration.

• Address the conditions of local land and waterresources, referencing available monitoringdata and applicable state and federalstandards.

• Review and incorporate existing plans, suchas the area-wide water quality plans.

• Identify local soil erosion and nonpointpollution problems and priorities;

• Partner with other agencies, municipalities,organizations, landowners, and otherinterested parties;

• Coordinate with local land use planning andzoning efforts.

• Develop a comprehensive information andeducation strategy to help implement theplan;

• Annually track progress toward meeting theplan’s goals, including compliance with statestandards; and

• Leverage local, state, federal, and privateresources.

Source: Land and Water Resources Plan Guidelines,DATCP 1998.

Sect

ion

2

14

Check it out!! There's a relationship between Agricultural &Natural Resource Planning under thecomprehensive plan and County Land andWater Resource Management Plans!

2.1.b) Agriculture and Cultural Resource Planning

People have been farming in Wisconsin for overa thousand years. Early cornfields and gardenbeds are scattered across the State andrepresent a direct link to today's farmers. Overthe years, many of Wisconsin's archaeologicalsites have been exposed in agricultural fields.Cultivation alone does not always destroy anarchaeolgical site. It is not uncommon to findhouses, storage areas and burial moundsunderneath the tilled layer in todays' farm fields.

Because of Wisconsin's long agricultural history,the state has many culturally significantagricultural related structures and buildings aswell. Architecturally distinctive houses or barns,entire farmsteads or agricultural compounds thatreflect a specific time period may be historicallysignificant. Other rural agricultural buildngs maybe important for their association with notablepersons or as representative examples of a once-important agriculture speciality, such as fox ortobacco farming. In addition, agriculturalbuildings may reflect ethnic building types,settlement patterns or construction techniques.

For additional information about culturalresources, the Wisconsin State Historical Societyis working on a guide to assist communities withthe cultural resources element section of theircomprehensive plan.

Other resources available on-line include:

• Barns and Barn Preservation--A Bibliography(G3660-3) (www1.uwex.edu/ces/pubs/pdf/G3660_3.PDF).

• Wisconsin's Changing Farmstead (G3660-2)(www1.uwex.edu/ces/pubs/pdf/G3660_2.PDF)

2.2) Agriculture and Economic Development Planning

The comprehensive planning law also requirescommunities to include an economicdevelopment element in their comprehensiveplans. Rural communities may choose todevelop their agricultural and economicdevelopment elements in a coordinated fashion.This will allow you to identify ways foragriculture to be part of a broader plan tosustain and grow local economies.

In addition, there may be specific proactiveeconomic development policies that could helpimprove the economic well-being of localfarmers. Traditionally, agricultural preservationplans have focused on reducing the demand for

farmland by placing restrictions on the densityand location of nonfarm development. Asfarmers are quick to point out, however, much ofthe pressure on farmland comes from within thefarm sector itself. As long as financial conditionsin agriculture remain difficult, many farmers willfind it tempting to quit farming and explorealternative uses for their extensive land holdings.Even when they are able to protect open space,most communities face an uphill battle to keeptheir farmland in active agricultural uses unlessfarming can remain a viable economic activity.

It may be more productive to take advantage ofopportunities to use agricultural economicdevelopment strategies as a way tosimultaneously protect farmland and alsostrengthen local economic conditions. While thefarm sector has been under significant economicstress in recent years, it is still an importantsegment of many rural community economies.Efforts to improve farm sector conditions arelikely to provide a number of benefits,particularly in rural communities that have ahistory of active and viable agricultural activitiesand policies that support farms and farm-relatedbusinesses.

To incorporate agriculture into an economicdevelopment element of a comprehensive plan, itis important to ascertain the true economicimportance of farming to the local economy (seeBox 2D). This involves examining the directeconomic contributions of the farm sector suchas personal and household income from self-employment in agriculture as well as rates ofemployment in farming. In addition, it alsoinvolves the indirect economic activity that isgenerated by farmer purchases of goods andservices and any local processing of agriculturalcommodities. It is also helpful to examine howthe presence of an agricultural landscape mightcontribute to property values, local tax rates,and the quality of life in a community - allfeatures that might make an area more attractiveto nonfarm businesses and their employees.

15

Section 2

Box 2D: Importance of Farming to Local Economies

Direct:• Gross farm receipts and net farm income\• Farm employment• Employment in a firm in the agricultural

infrastructure that supports local and regional farm enterprises.

Indirect:• Purchase of agricultural inputs and services• Value-added

processing of farm commodities• Lower property tax rates• Quality of life

Once the connections between agriculture andthe local economy have been established,communities may want to implement localpolicies to sustain and grow local agriculturalbusinesses. This effort will likely be moresuccessful if local farmers, agribusinesses, andother key actors are engaged in a detaileddiscussion about their goals, needs, andconcerns. Most agricultural developmentstrategies are designed either to protect existingfarm operations or promote new economicopportunities in farming and farm-relatedbusinesses. Options that could be considered bycommunities in their comprehensive plansinclude the following:

• enterprise diversification and modernization

• formation of producer buying and marketingcooperatives

• development of local value-added processing

• farmers markets

• direct sales

Some of these are discussed in more detail inSection 5 of this Guide.

As with natural resource planning, it will beimportant for communities to identify variousstate and federal programs that are available toimprove the agricultural economy. Thesegenerally include tax credit programs forfarmland owners who are willing to protect theirlands from nonfarm development, economicdevelopment grants available for expanding ordiversifying farm operations, and incentiveprograms for the development of local farmsupport activities

2.3) Agriculture and Housing PlanningIn rural, agricultural communities, as well as inurban communities that plan for the agriculturalregion within which they are embedded,agriculture needs to be a consideration in thehousing and transportation elements ofcomprehensive plans. With regard for housing,there are two important reasons for this. Thefirst is that most new residential development isoccurring on agricultural land, both adjacent toand widely dispersed from neighboringincorporated municipalities. The second reasonis that, like any other industry, the agriculturalindustry will have housing needs, both for farmfamilies who live on their land and for the laborthat works with the farmer, either temporarily orpermanently on the land.

One of the most time consuming topics at manytown and county board meetings involveswhether or not to allow residential housingdevelopment on agricultural land. Currenthousing development patterns in many ruralcommunities are rather haphazard. Theoutcomes often fail to maximize economicreturns to the original landowner, and also cangenerate unusually high costs to the community(in terms of lost farmland, demands for publicservices, and conflicts within the community).Demand for home sites is also a critical factor indriving up the cost of farmland, which reducesthe ability of young farmers to buy working landand established farmers to expand theiroperations.

A common complaint among rural towns inrecent years has been “What can we do aboutthe guy who buys 35 acres of good farmland andputs his house right in the middle of it?” Manyrural agricultural areas have seen an increase indemand for residential property recently, asurban folk seek to enjoy the “rural character”and beautiful Wisconsin landscapes or takeadvantage of bountiful hunting lands in ruralareas. These residential and recreational usesmay have benefits both to individual landowners and to the community. Sale of land forthese uses may help a farmland owner to financehis retirement with land sales, or simply sell offun-tillable ground. Sale of land for residentialuse may also benefit the community when itbrings in people with valuable professional skillsthat may be lacking locally.

Sometimes, however, integration of urban folkinto a rural community is problematic. Urbanfolk may complain about elements of the ruralenvironment that they find unpleasant, such asodors, late hours of agricultural operations, and

Sect

ion

2

16

slow moving farm vehicles on local roads yet arepart of the everyday life of an agriculturalcommunity.3 Contiguous uses that areincompatible with farming could eventually forcefarmers to make costly modifications to theirpractices.

There may be fiscal costs associated with ruralhousing development as well. A recent cost ofcommunity service study has shown thatagricultural uses, relative to residential uses,tend to return more in revenue to themunicipality than they cost in services,4

although these results may now be differentsince “use value assessment” has been enacted.Residential development that is more dispersedacross the countryside can be expected toexaggerate this tendency; costs for roadmaintenance, snow plowing, schooltransportation, and police services for adispersed population will likely be greater thanfor a concentrated population. New demands forpublic services (like improved schools, roadplowing, driveway maintenance, trash pickup,and other activities) may drive up property taxesfor all landowners in the area.

A valuable approach is to discuss separatelydifferent forms and patterns of housingdevelopment. From an agricultural perspective,it is important to contrast the impacts of urbanfringe subdivisions (either medium- or high-density) with lower density, large lot home sitedevelopments on their farming neighbors (seeBox 2E). High-density developments tend to bethe most incompatible with commercial farmingneighbors (because of the potential for conflictsover noise, dust, and odors), while lower-densitysingle-family home sites may consumesignificantly more acres of farmland per house.Similarly, housing that is used as a primaryresidence is likely to generate different impactson agriculture than that which is used seasonallyas recreational or vacation property.

A guide to writing the housing element, “HousingWisconsin: A Guide to Preparing the HousingElement of a Local Comprehensive Plan” isavailable on-line athttp://www.doa.state.wi.us/olis.

Box 2E: How will different forms of housing affect farmers?

2.3.a) Farm Labor Housing IssuesAgricultural activities often generate demand fornew rural housing both for resident farmoperators and members of their family, as well asfor hired workers, including permanentemployees, “hired hands,” and seasonal labor.

In 1997, over a third of Wisconsin farmsemployed nearly 100,000 laborers, many ofwhom were family members of farm operators.Although trends between 1992 and 1997 indicatethat the total number of hired workers onWisconsin farms declined approximately 12%,the total agricultural labor payroll exceeded$400,000,000 in 1997.5 A glance at county datareveals considerable variability with somecounties witnessing rapid declines in the numberfarm workers by 50% or more, while others wereincreasing.

What are the needs for agricultural labor housingin Wisconsin? National and state statistics onfarm labor housing are hard to come by. Some6,000 migrant laborers make use of housinginspected by the Department of WorkforceDevelopment’s (DWD) Bureau of Migrant

3 A helpful publication in the education of urban people settling in a rural, agricultural setting is something called “The Code of Country Living, a look at the realities of living in the countryside of rural Illinois” published originally by the Illinois Farm Bureau. Although written for Illinois, much of the material can be applied to rural Wisconsin settings. It can be found at the Illinois Farm Bureau website: www.ilfb.org/uploads/files/code_415.pdf or by calling the Illinois Farm Bureau at (303)-557-3433.

4 Edwards, Mary, Douglas Jackson-Smith, Steve Ventura, Jill Bukovac, The Cost of Community Services for Three Dane County Towns: Dunn, Perry, and Westport. WLURP Research Report No. 1, August 1999.

5 Characteristics of Hired Farm Labor by Wisconsin Counties, 1997, Program on Agricultural Technology Studies, www.wisc.edu/pats/cd_tables.htm (Table 14)www.wisc.edu/pats/databook%20spreadsheets?Page14.htm.

17

Section 2

Services, although estimates for the numbers ofactual migrant agricultural laborers range to atleast three times that amount. A 1997 reportfrom the Housing Assistance Council includes acase study from south central Wisconsin (seebox 2F) and concluded that although“farmworkers in Wisconsin fare better than otherfarmworkers in other case study sites visited,”there was significant variability in the quality ofhousing.6 Affordability and availability ofhousing were important issues identified in thereport.

Box 2F: Farmworkers in South Central Wisconsin“Farmworkers not housed in farm labor campsface tremendous challenges when looking forhousing in the private market. Most places inWisconsin require a one-year lease, which mostfarmworkers are unable to sign. Landlordsrequire a deposit that is often equivalent to thefirst month’s rent. If farmworkers lacktransportation they are limited to searching forhousing in places close to work. They faceprejudice by landlords because of their race andnational origin and because of the size of thefamily or group. Finally, they lack knowledge ofhousing opportunities because most housing inrural areas is not advertised and informationabout availability is passed through word ofmouth. It is not unusual to find accounts offarmworker arrests when they sleep in parks orreports of farmworkers living in cars, barns, andcaves.” Housing for Families andUnaccompanied Migrant Farmworkers, HousingAssistance Council, 1997.

Given the lack of accurate data at the federal andstate levels, it is important for communities toassess housing needs for agricultural laborbased on an inventory and assessment of theirown situation. Information on hired farm workernumbers and payrolls at the county level isavailable from the UW-Madison Program onAgricultural Technology Studies atwww.wisc.edu/pats/cd_tables.htm (see Table 14).These data are based on the 1997 Census ofAgriculture data and new information from the2002 Census of Agriculture should be available inearly 2004. After assessing the status of yourcounty, you might want to gather more detailedinformation from farm employers and workers inyour municipality to assess more accuratelyagricultural labor and labor housing needs.

If your survey uncovers a need to addresshousing for agricultural workers, there areseveral things to keep in mind. First, a “migrantlabor camp” is defined in the Wisconsin Statutesunder s. 103.90(3)(a) (see box 2G). Migranthousing must be certified and inspected by theDepartment of Workforce Development. Thestandards for housing for migrant labor campsare in administrative rule DWD 301.07. ContactMateo Cadena, Director, Bureau of MigrantServices, Department of Workforce Development,Ph. 266-0002, for more information.

Box 2G: Definition of Migrant Labor Camp under 103.90(3)(a), Wis. Stats.:

“Migrant labor camp” means the site and allstructures maintained as living quarters by,for or under the control and supervision ofany person for:

1. Any migrant worker; or

2. Any other person who is not related by blood, marriage or adoption to his or her employer and who occasionally or habitually leaves an established place of residence to travel to another locality to accept seasonal employment in the planting, cultivating, raising, harvesting, handling, drying, packing, packaging, processing, freezing, grading or storing of any agricultural or horticulturalcommodity in its unmanufactured

A recent law also has implications for migrantlabor camps. Section 59.69(4e), Wis. Stats.,states that the county board may not enact anordinance or adopt a resolution that interfereswith any of the following:

(a) Any repair or expansion of migrant laborcamps, as defined in s. 103.90 (3). An ordinanceor resolution of the county that is in effect onSeptember 1, 2001, and that interferes with anyconstruction, repair, or expansion of migrantlabor camps is void.

(b) The construction of new migrant laborcamps, as defined in s. 103.90 (3), that are builton or after September 1, 2001, on property thatis adjacent to a food processing plant, as definedin s. 97.29 (1) (h), or on property owned by aproducer of vegetables, as defined in s. 100.235(1) (g), if the camp is located on or contiguous toproperty on which vegetables are produced oradjacent to land on which the producer resides.

6 Housing for Families and Unaccompanied Migrant Farmworkers, Housing Assistance Council, www.ruralhome.org/pubs/farmworker/migrant/sctriwi.htm; August, 1997

Sect

ion

2

18

Should your community decide to plan for andencourage more housing for agricultural labor,several sets of resources are available. Federalassistance is available for the construction offarm labor housing. The Farm Labor HousingLoan and Grant program provides capitalfinancing to buy, build, improve, or repairhousing for farm laborers, including personswhose income in earned in aquaculture andthose engaged in on-farm processing. Funds canbe used to purchase a site or a leasehold interestin a site; to construct housing, day care facilities,or community rooms; to pay fees to purchasedurable household furnishings; and to payconstruction loan interest. Loans are made tofarmers, associations of farmers, family farmcorporations, Indian tribes, nonprofitorganizations, public agencies, and associationsof farmworkers. Typically, loan applicants areunable to obtain credit elsewhere, but in someinstances, farmers able to get credit elsewheremay obtain loans at a rate of interest based onthe cost of federal borrowing. Funds may beused in urban areas for nearby farm labor. Loansare for 33 years at 1% interest, except as notedabove. Grants may cover up to 90% ofdevelopment costs. For further information andto apply, contact Sharon Olson, CommunityDevelopment Manager, 1462 Strongs Ave.,Stevens Point, WI 54481, Phone: (715) 346-1313,Fax: (715) 343-6222, Email:

Finally, the United Migrant Opportunities Service(UMOS) is a non-profit organization that servesmigrant laborers in Wisconsin and neighboringstates. In 2000, UMOS received a grant from theU.S. Department of Agriculture under the USDAsection 514 and section 516 programs to assistprivate and public non-profit agencies in 15states, including Wisconsin, to develop safe andsanitary housing for farm laborers. UMOS, alongwith the McAuley Institute, will provide technicalassistance to qualified organizations indeveloping farm labor housing. For informationabout this program, please contact John I.Bauknecht at (608) 249-1180.

2.4) Agriculture and Transportation PlanningChanges in agriculture and residentialdevelopment in Wisconsin also affect demand forand use of public transportation networks.Transportation is critical for agriculture, yettransportation needs and impacts are are oftenignored in rural planning and zoning discussions.

Transportation planning for agriculture cancontain at least three important aspects:

• Efficiency of access for agricultural suppliers,processors, agricultural service providers,bulk haulers, etc. to farm operations.

• Efficiency of transportation of farm produce tolocal, regional, national and internationalmarkets.

• Transportation safety for agriculturaltransportation and for the general public,including transportation on public roads offarm machinery to farm fields.

Efficiency of access means more than just goodroads. For those who provide inputs, services,or pick up farm produce, it also means that aservice area is densely populated withcustomers. If this “critical mass” of farmoperations diminishes to a point where it is nolonger profitable for the milk processor, farmimplements dealer, or the veterinarian tocontinue serving the area, then those servicesmay be lost. Transportation planning foragriculture should, therefore, consider thetransportation needs of those who serve thefarm operations. Check with local dairies,canneries, processors, and veterinarians aboutaccess to farm operations, density of theoperations, and so on. Milk processors, forexample, are likely to have maps indicatingwhere their farm pick-up points are.

Transportation of farm products to markets,whether local, regional, or international, isimportant. A recent report from the UnitedStates Department of Agriculture states that“distribution costs comprise 20 to 50 percent ofthe selling price of a product, thus oftenaffording many opportunities for improvingoperating efficiency and service to patrons.7

Planning for more efficient transportation ofWisconsin farm products to markets shouldtranslate into improved income for theWisconsin farmer. This kind of planning caninvolve truck, rail, barge, and ship transportationnetworks, as well as shipping and storagefacilities. Because transportation networks arespread across a large region, effectiveagricultural transportation planning will need totranscend town and county boundaries, andinvolve county highway commissioners,Wisconsin Department of Transportationdistricts, Regional Planning Commissions, andthe Wisconsin Federation of Cooperatives.

7 Cooperative Transportation and Distribution. Cooperative Information Report 1, Section 12. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economics, Statistics, and Cooperatives Service. September 1978.

19

Section 2

Table 1 Farm Vehicle Accidents with Motor Vehicles in Wisconsin 1994 - 2001

Year Number of Farm Tractors Numbers of Farm Tractor Persons killed as occupants in Motor Vehicle Occupants injured in motor of farm tractors in motor Crashes/year vehicle crashes/year vehicle crashes/year.

2001 201 28 0

2000 230 17 0

1999 256 25 7*

1998 249 22 4*

1997 262 19 3*

1996 283 30 3*

1995 278 24 4*

1994 283 32 3*

Sources: Wisconsin Department of Transportation, Division of Motor Vehicles, Traffic Accident Section*Include cases where there was a fatality and only a farm tractor involved.

Table 1 (above) shows the frequency ofaccidents between tractors and motor vehiclecrashes on public roads in Wisconsin between1994 and 2001.

The good news with these data is that thereappears to be a general decline in the number offarm tractors in motor vehicle crashes per year.This trend may partly reflect a change in the waythe Department of Transportation changed theway it records agricultural transportationfatalities. Nonetheless, mixing slow movingtraffic with rapidly moving traffic sets the stagefor serious accidents. Although there was ageneral decline in accidents between tractorsand motor vehicles, in 2001, 28 people wereinjured from these accidents. This is the secondhighest figure in eight years for injuries. In adangerous occupation, farm tractor/motorvehicle accidents contribute a significant portionof annual injuries and fatalities. If we plan well,we can reduce the number of these kinds ofaccidents.

It is important for communities to think abouthow rural residential developments or new orexpanding agricultural operations might affecttransportation infrastructure and traffic safety.A town, concerned about the repair costs oftown roads, may be tempted to locate “trafficgenerators” with heavier vehicles, such as thoseoperating to and from land fills, quarries, andlarge agricultural operations, off the town roadsand onto the county roads and state highways.State and county highways are all-weather roadsbuilt to higher standards than roads.

Proliferation of “curb-cuts” on county and statehighways, however, may result in traffic safetyproblems especially when heavier vehicles,including agricultural vehicles impede fastermoving traffic. These highways are oftenregionally important, with large volumes of bothcommuter and commercial traffic Balancingthese two concerns requires careful planning.

Towns may upgrade their roads for agriculturalpurposes. They may place weight limitations ontheir roads under s. 349.16, Wisconsin Statutes,but then negotiate maintenance agreements withheavy vehicle users to “exempt vehicles carryingcertain commodities specified by the authorityor which are used to perform certain servicesspecified by the authority from the specialweight limitations…”

For existing farm operations located on or nearstate highways, designated routes might be madeto ameliorate traffic conflict with agriculturalmachinery. In St. Croix County, for example,where development pressure is high, commutertraffic and agricultural traffic using the sameroads that were built originally for agriculturaluse, have come into conflict. The countyhighway commissioner’s office responded byworking with farm operations and towns todesignate other routes for agricultural traffic,and then upgrading those roads for their use.

Sect

ion

2

20

A variety of techniques can thus be employed todeal with traffic conflicts between agriculturalmachinery plying public roads and motor vehicleand commercial traffic. In dealing with theseissues, it would be a good idea to include yourcounty’s highway commissioner and refer also tochapter 4, Local Transportation Planning, in theDepartment of Transportation’s TransportationPlanning Resource Guide.

2.5) Agriculture and Intergovernmental Planning

Many agricultural issues transcend theboundaries of local communities. Watershedsand other ecosystems, economic conditions,commuter patterns, housing, and effects fromgrowth and change all spill over municipalboundaries and can impact regions as a whole.Indeed, the health of our individual communitiesand political jurisdictions are often dependent onthe health of the region within which they aresituated. Air and water, for example, areheedless of municipal boundaries. They passover the landscape so that one jurisdiction’sactivities with regard to air and water will affectother jurisdictions downwind or downstream.Some communities bear the costs of theactivities in a neighboring community, such asexcessive storm water runoff from impervioussurfaces, odors emanating from an industryacross the border, extra traffic, and so on.

Regional development patterns and neighboringmunicipal land use policies also affect theeconomic performance of local farms. Thedevelopment policies of one town to favorresidential development, for example, couldcounteract the promotion of agriculture in aneighboring town or county by weakening theprofitability of agricultural service industriesthat support agriculture in the region. The de-emphasis of agricultural processing industries ina city in favor of “hi-tech” businesses could hurtthe productivity of farm operators in towns farbeyond the periphery of the city. Growth fromexpanding cities and villages will affect theprices and availability of agricultural land innearby towns. Sewer Service Area plans anddevelopment plans of incorporatedmunicipalities may be developed that areheedless of the agricultural interests of thetowns and of the region within which they are

embedded. Threats of annexation at urbanboundaries will affect neighboring farmers’capacity to plan and invest for an agriculturalfuture.

The traditional local land use decision-makingsystem in Wisconsin presents challenges forcoordinating a response to these regional issues.8

Unless towns communicate and coordinateeffectively with their associated-county andneighboring cities and villages about working outconsistent development policies, it will bedifficult to control growth in agricultural areas,preserve agricultural land, and plan foragriculture. It is important for those who areinterested in promoting agriculture and doingagricultural planning, therefore, that they gobeyond the boundaries of their own communitiesto coordinate common agricultural policies withneighboring communities and perhaps evencommunities at some remove.

In such an effort, interaction with incorporatedmunicipalities may reveal unexpected urbansupport for agriculture. City or village dwellersmay appreciate the immediate access they haveto the beautiful rural Wisconsin countryside andthe fresh vegetables that they can obtain atfarmers’ markets and roadside stands. Cityannexation policies may purposely excludecertain areas at their periphery that a cityconsiders undesirable for urban growth, yet theymay remain powerless to fend off annexationpetitions initiated by contiguous land owners.There are many potential areas of commonground between town and city residents.

The “intergovernmental cooperation” element ofthe Wisconsin Comprehensive Planning law isdesigned to assist communities in buildingbridges to their neighboring municipalities. Arange of suggestions for enhancingintergovernmental cooperation are presented inSection 6.4 below. For more detailedinformation, see “IntergovernmentalCooperation; a guide to preparing theintergovernmental cooperation element of a localcomprehensive plan” by the Office of Landinformation Services, Department ofAdministration. This guide is available from theOffice of Land Information Services at (608) 267-2707 or http://www.doa.state.wi.us/olis.

8 There has been a long argument between advocates of centralized government and de-centralized government. Stronglocal government in Wisconsin is a fact of life and, for reasons having to do both with good planning and goodgovernance in a democracy, the benefits of strong local government outweigh the benefits of a more centralized regime.Please see Democracy in America, Alexis de Tocqueville, 1945 pp. 89-101, and Governing Local Public Economies:Creating the Civic Metropolis, 1999 Ronald J. Oakerson, 1999.

21

Section 2

2.6) Agriculture and Land UsePerhaps the part of a comprehensive plan thatbrings most other plan elements together is theland use element. Indeed, there are manyexplicit references to agriculture in the officialdescription of the land use element (see Box 2H).This makes good sense because the majority ofland in most Wisconsin towns and counties iscurrently in agricultural uses, and many changesin land use involve shifts within farming orconversion from farming to other types of landuses.

Writing the land use plan element in thesecommunities will involve an assessment ofcurrent agricultural land uses, an analysis oftrends in farmland markets, and informedprojections of future agricultural trends andpressures from the nonfarm sector. The land useplan element also requires a carefulconsideration of the location and productivequalities of local agricultural soils. These are alltopics that also are likely to receive importanttreatment in the agricultural, natural, andcultural resource element of comprehensiveplans and, as such, significant attention has beendevoted to them in the following sections of thisguide.

Box 2H: Excerpts from the statutory description of the Land Use Element of a Comprehensive Plan: “Specifically, the element shall: (a) list theamount, type, intensity and net density ofexisting uses of land in the local governmentalunit (such as agricultural, residential,commercial, industrial, and other public andprivate uses); (b) analyze trends in the supply,demand, and price of land, opportunities forredevelopment and existing and potential land-use conflicts; (c) contain projections…of futureresidential, agricultural, commercial andindustrial land uses…; (d) include a series ofmaps that show: current land uses and futureland uses that indicate productive agriculturalsoils, natural limitations for building sitedevelopment, floodplains, wetlands and otherenvironmentally sensitive lands…” (Ch.66.1001(2)(h), Wisc. Stats., emphasis added)Se

ctio

n 2

22

Section 3: Conducting an Agricultural Inventory

3.1) IntroductionIn a planning process, it is important to gatheruseful information about the characteristics andtrends in the community. This is called theinventory. It is also critical to identifycommunity goals and objectives that the planseeks to accomplish. This is called priority orgoal setting. The next two sections of this guidediscuss ways to facilitate each of these taskswhen planning for agriculture. Section 3 beginswith a detailed presentation of the types andsources of information about agriculture thatyour community may collect. Section 4 thenprovides some guidance for how to identify andphrase goals and objectives related to protectingagricultural resources.

Data collection and goal setting often occursimultaneously. They should be seen asinterrelated steps in an ongoing planningprocess. It is tough to gather the appropriatedata without first having a detailed vision ofwhat you want the plan to accomplish. Similarly,it may be difficult to set realistic goals without adetailed and accurate description of what isgoing on in the community. Your communityshould be prepared to let progress on each ofthese tasks influence the direction the othertakes.

As part of a comprehensive planning process,the inventory and priority setting activitiesmentioned here might be coordinated with otherelements of a comprehensive plan. It may bemore efficient for communities to gatherinformation and identify community needsrelevant to all the elements of a comprehensiveplan at one time. These activities also providesome of the basis for the Issues andOpportunities Element of a comprehensive plan.

3.2) Types of InformationThe initial step in an inventory is to determinewhat data are needed to describe current landuse conditions and what might be needed tounderstand trends and potential futureconditions. This section discusses severaldifferent types of agricultural resources (see Box3A), and suggests ways to use expert andcommunity-based sources of information toconstruct the inventory and analysis sections ofagricultural plans.

The kinds of information your community needsto plan for agriculture may seem straightforward.

Box 3A: Types of Information used in Agricultural Planning

Socioeconomic• Farm Numbers and Types

• Farm Demographics

• Local Farm Economy

• Spatial Patterns

• Other land use trends

• Economic Impact

Biophysical

• Soils

• Topography

• Ground and Surface Water

• Environmentally Sensitive Areas

Agricultural preservation planning under ch. 91of the Wisconsin Statutes has typically begunwith identifying the location and the quality ofgoods soils for agricultural production. Findingand protection these soils often became theprimary target of agricultural preservation plans.Soils are important. Good soils, however, are notthe only indicator of important agriculturalareas. There are counties in Wisconsin, forexample, that have no “Class I” soils but whoseeconomies are predominately agricultural. Thereare other locational factors, such as theproximity of large urban markets, the drive thegrowth of agriculture in an area more than thequality of soils. Also, soils that are highly ratedfor corn and soybeans may not be the best soilsfor cranberries or potatoes.

Sometimes soils data is supplemented byinformation about other physical conditions ofthe land that directly affect farming and itsviability. Examples might include:

• the depth to bedrock

• slope

• drainage patterns

• proximity to surface waters in particularlandscapes.

In section 2.1a), we suggested that maps beprepared showing natural resource areas andagricultural areas, and the “interspersion” ofthese resources on one another. Using these andother maps, environmentally sensitive areas canbe delineated. The identification of these areascan assist in specifying agricultural management

23

Section 3

practices that may be required to protectenvironmentally sensitive areas. For example, toprotect groundwater in the karst regions of Door,Kewaunee, and part of Manitowoc Counties,modification of manure management andapplication practices may increase resourceprotection. In another example, modification ofcropland management practices to includeconservation practices such as conservationtillage or grass buffers may be used to increaseprotection of environmentally sensitive areas byreducing sediment delivery.

The vitality of an agricultural region is measuredmore by the social and economic capital thatpeople develop in a region than by the quality ofits soils. Agriculture is not an isolated enterprisebut depends on a series of broad social andeconomic networks. Sometimes, this is not easyto measure quantitatively, since in involves howpeople cooperate and work together in anagricultural area. What is the nature of therelationships among farm operators in yourarea? Other things are easy to count. Thenumber of farms? Their size and type? What dothey grow? What is the predominant type, size,and product? Is your agriculture characterized

by a “monotype” of product, or is your areadiverse in agricultural products? What arerecent trends in the local agricultural economy?How many farms have gone through significantexpansion or modernization programs?

How about the institutions that serve farms?Banks and credit agencies? Farm implementsdealers, veterinarians, cooperatives, agriculturalextension agents, milk and meat processors,cheese factories, and so on? How are theseinstitutions arrayed spatially? Where are they inrelation to your agricultural areas? Where areyour agricultural markets? Green Bay? HongKong?1 Maps can be made to show thisinformation.

Data collected at this stage is important whenevaluating the effects of various proposedplanning policies. Knowledge of “base-lineconditions” is needed to understand what lands(and also who) might be affected by differentpolicies. A detailed overview of the types ofagricultural data your community might collectand how information might be used is illustratedin Box 3B on the next page.

9 In 2000, 73% of ginseng exports went to Hong Kong, 14% to China, and one per cent each to Singapore and Taiwan. 2001, Wisconsin Agricultural Statistics, Wisconsin Agricultural Statistics Service.

Sect

ion

3

24

Box 3B: Potential Uses of Different Types of Information for Agricultural Planning

Socioeconomic Information

Type of Data Relevance / Use

Farming systems, demographics, and land tenureFarm numbers, Characterize local farming activities, evaluate stability and viability types, and sizes of local farms; recognize varying potential for off-site impacts from different

types of farms; farm modernization and expansion needs and plans

Spatial farming Identify clusters of farms, patterns of farm fragmentation, and the proximity patterns of farm operations to other land uses

Farm demographics Understand age of farm operators and rates of entry and exit; identify plans and plans for future of different farm operators for the future use of their land; social service

needs; community connections

Farmland ownership Likelihood of conversion to other uses; importance of rented land to local patterns farms; identify areas with many small parcels

Farm economy and infrastructureFarm income and Importance of agriculture to local economy, profitability and long-term employment viability of farming; importance of off-farm income to farm household

survival; farm labor needs

Agricultural support Identify location of important processing and transportation networks; infrastructure agricultural input and service providers; new marketing, processing, and

other agricultural economic development opportunities

Other land uses Population density; Indicators of development pressure, conflict with farms; proximity to assessedland values; compatible nonagricultural uses, e.g., industrial parks, golf courses, etc.; ruralresidences; potential for purchase or transfer of development rights developed land

Woodlots and forests Farm income potential, rural recreation use

Protected areas Public access and use; off-site effects

Biophysical Information

Type of Data Relevance / UseSoils Serves as indicator of suitability for agriculture production; may be linked to

different types of agriculture; basis for use value assessment decisions; restrictions on hydric soils

Topography Helps identify steep slopes unsuitable for tillage; “hot spots” for ground or surface water pollution by agrichemicals;

Hydrography; Locate flood plains and floodways; wetlands; locate drain tiles and other surface drainage; drainage structures; stream buffers; identify areas vulnerable to groundwater groundwater contamination

Environmental Direct agricultural activities or nonfarm development away from susceptibility environmentally sensitive areas on the landscape

25

Section 3

3.3) Standards for Evaluating InformationIn order for the planning process to be acceptedand supported by the rest of the community, theinventory should be generally viewed asobjective, balanced, accurate and complete aspossible.

Given the diversity of views in mostcommunities, one should not be surprised thatthere may well be disagreement about whatcounts as “good” information. Often the processof information gathering and interpretationbecomes entangled in these broader differencesof opinion about the goals for the plan or thespecific policies that the plan may recommend.In such cases, the quality of a particular piece ofinformation may be evaluated based on whetheror not it supports the views of individuals in thecommunity or on the planning committee.

Although everyone will inevitably bring theirown biases and perspectives to the entireplanning process, it is possible to lay out someground rules to minimize disputes over thequality and utility of data gathered in theinventory phase. Specifically, early on in theprocess each community will want to reachagreement that information gathering per se isuseful, that care will be taken to ensure thatinformation is as comprehensive, accurate, andfair as possible, and that information will be usedto help inform discussions about planning goalsand policies. Ultimately, remember that the factsuncovered in the inventory phase should beused to build a consensus, not as a means to findfurther division.

A good place to begin is to develop a roughconsensus early on regarding the standards thatwill be used to gather and assess informationgathered in the inventory phase. Afterdeveloping some “questions” to motivate theinventory work (see below), it is critical toinvolve people with diverse points of view in thedecisions about the specific types of informationto gather and methods used to gather them.Ultimately, everyone involved in the planningprocess will need to agree to be as open-mindedas possible about the inventory process, and bewilling to uncover information that doesnotconfirm their initial impressions or views.Concerns about any aspect of the inventoryprocess should be solicited and addressedbefore significant time and energy is expendedgathering data.

One common area of specific disagreementrelates to the use of statistical sampling tocollect information about the opinions and views

of community members. Although scientificexperts may agree that a well-conducted randomsample survey can accurately represent theviews of the broader population, this idearemains unconvincing to many people outsidethe walls of the university. It may be a good ideato have an open discussion about the value andinterpretation of random sampling beforeexpending significant resources to conduct asample survey.

3.4) Sources of InformationTo figure out what data is needed for planning,your community will need to perform an initialdata requirements analysis. This analysisincludes looking at the types, sources, scales,specificity, accuracy, and availability of differenttypes of data. Though the data that are easilyavailable at an affordable cost often end updriving the data that are used in analysis, it isimportant to begin with a look at what kinds ofinformation would be ideal for your particulararea.

There are diverse sources of information aboutagriculture. Some information is available fromofficial sources (for example, published mapsand statistics and other public records). Theseofficial sources of information may only cover asmall range of topics that a community wants toinventory, however, and the data may not beparticularly accurate or current.

A good starting place to find out whatinformation is available at the local level is thecounty land information office. Each county hasan office or officer who is responsible forknowing which department has what data.Contact information for this can be obtainedfrom the program survey of the Wisconsin LandInformation Program (www.lic.wisc.edu/wlip/).County extension staff, particularly Community,Natural Resource, and Economic Developmentagents may also be helpful in locating data.Several state agencies maintain websites thatdetail data holdings or provide data downloads.A source of many statewide GIS datasets is theWisconsin GIS data clearinghouse atwisclinc.state.wi.us/.

Detailed information about agriculture that isspecific to the local community, particularly intowns, may be difficult to come by from officialsources. This is because published datasetsoften compile information at the county, regional,or statewide level. Some data may only exist atthe local level, such as information about landtenure, farm conditions, farming systems, and so

Sect

ion

3

26

forth. These data may have been gatheredpreviously for other purposes, but in most caseswill have to be generated as part of the planningprocess.

It is often important, therefore, for localcommunities to identify ways they can collectand tabulate data themselves in order to havelocal level data. Often, knowledgeablecommunity members can use their familiaritywith local farmers and farms to answerimportant questions about agriculture in a wayno expert source can. Such generation of localdata requires significant individual effort, butresults in a plan with a great deal of relevanceand specificity.

The most thorough way to collect detailedinformation about farming in small communitiesis to try to interview or send surveys to arepresentative sample of local farm operators. Ifsurvey work is to be undertaken, it is importantto consult with people familiar with surveytechniques. While this kind of detailed datacollection entails additional time and costs, itcan provide important insights into theunderlying forces behind agricultural land usechanges. Ultimately, local knowledge and expertknowledge can complement one another. The

importance of one does not necessarily mean theother is unimportant. In the following sectionswe present examples of where to find officialdata and suggestions for how communities mightgenerate their own local sources of information.

3.5) Asking the Right QuestionsBefore embarking on any inventory exercise, youshould identify key questions that yourcommunity would like to answer. Someexamples of questions that you might begin withare listed in Box 3C. This list is only a startingpoint and most communities will not find allthese questions to be relevant to their situation.In addition, there are many other questions thatyou may generate as part of your own planningprocess.

Having some initial questions can help focusyour inventory work and ensure that theinformation you collect can address yourconcerns. By starting with questions, you mayalso avoid the common trap of relying only onthe easily available sources of information.Sometimes communities may be able to find aninnovative way to answer difficult questionswithout relying on official sources of information.

27

Section 3

Box 3C: Some Examples of Inventory Questions for Agricultural Planning:

• How good are the soil resources in our community and where are the best soils located? Are our soilssuited for a particular kind of agriculture?

• Which areas in our community are best suited for agricultural activities?

• Are there places where different types of agriculture - larger commercial farms, part-time hobbyfarms, etc. - might be particularly appropriate?

• Do we have any geologic or topographic features that could potentially limit our agricultural practicessuch as highly permeable soils, steeply sloping land, or karst formations?

• What contribution does agriculture make to our local economy in both rural and urban areas?

• How many farms do we have and where are they located?

• How many of these farms are commercial farms? How important is farm and nonfarm income to thesurvival of our local farm families?

• Average age of farmers? Age distribution of farming population? How long do most expect to keepfarming? Are young people getting into farming in our area?

• What are the major agricultural input or service industries in our community?

• What kinds of agricultural products generate most of the farm income in our area?

• Are any farm commodities processed and marketed by area businesses? Are there any bottlenecks orunused capacity in local processing facilities?

• What agricultural markets do local farmers depend on? Do we have any unique marketing advantages(proximity to cities, regional identity for specific farm products, etc.)? Are local farmers interested indeveloping new production and marketing opportunities?

• What are the major nonfarm uses of land that affect farming in our area? What nonfarm trends aremost problematic for the long-run viability of farming in our community?

• Are there farmslands that provide valuable natural resource benefits that would be lost if the landwere converted for a more developed or intensive use?

28

Sect

ion

3

3.6) Gathering Information about Social and Economic Resources

To begin an agricultural inventory, it is critical tounderstand local social and economic farmcharacteristics and trends, as well as the broadereconomic and natural landscape (see Box 3D).This kind of socioeconomic information canidentify which areas within the community arecurrently agriculturally important, and willprovide an important foundation for interpretinginformation about biophysical agriculturalresources that are discussed in Section 3.7.

Box 3D: Useful Types of Information about Farming in Your Area

Farming Systems:• Farm numbers and types

• Spatial farm patterns

• Farm household demographics

• Farmland ownership and rental patterns

Broader Farm Economy:• Farm Income and Employment • Agricultural Infrastructure

• Information on Other Land Uses

• Population and Housing

• Economic Development

• Forests and Wetlands

3.6.a) Farming Systems

Farm Numbers and TypesAn inventory of agriculture should include adescription of farm businesses in the community.While this is a relatively simple concept, theremay be local disagreement about whatconstitutes a “farm” and which kinds of farmsmay warrant special attention in an agriculturalplan. In addition, it can be surprisingly difficultto obtain current and accurate information fromofficial sources about farm numbers and farmtypes at the local level - particularly inmunicipalities below the county-level (towns,cities, and villages).

A typical starting place would be to identify thenumber and types of farms in your community.This could include information about the numberof farms in various size categories, thesignificance of various crops and/or livestockproducts in local farming systems, and theviability of different types of operations.

Aside from documenting the characteristics ofcurrent farm operations, it is usually helpful tounderstand how rapidly farming is changing inyour community and to attempt to predict whatwill happen to farms in the near future. Usingpublished statistics a community can examine 5-and 10-year trends in farm numbers and note anyother important changes in farm characteristicsover time. The most reliable and currentinformation about farm changes is best gathereddirectly from area farmers. Informal discussions,brief interviews, and systematic surveys of localfarmers can identify recent changes they havemade to their operations and their plans for thenear future.

What is a farm? Wisconsin farms can be diverse. Mostgovernment agencies that collect agriculturalstatistics define a farm as any place from which$1,000 or more of agricultural products wereproduced or sold in a normal year. These farmsinclude both large, commercial operations thathire numerous nonfamily employees, medium-sized family labor commercial farms, and smaller,part-time or hobby farms whose households mayrely entirely on nonfarm jobs to keep their farmbusinesses afloat.

Aside from the scale of the farm business, farmsalso differ in the types of crops or livestock theyraise, and in the way they organize their laborforce and business organizations.

Not every community will agree with the broadstatistical definition of a farm. Some will want toidentify trends among larger full-time commercialfarms separately from smaller part-time farms.Others may only be interested in tracking farmsthat are commercially viable. They may alsowant to know whether the farm operators haveplans to leave agriculture in the near future.

Ultimately, there is no specific “right” definitionof what a farm is. The process to define what afarm is should begin with the inventory ofagricultural operations in your community.What’s on the land? Once you’ve got thatinformation, you can analyze it and group theagricultural operations into categories accordingto size, type of farming, location of markets, andso on. (See discussion in Section 4 of this guide).

Most agricultural communities have severalmajor types of farms. Some communities haveeven developed plans that are sensitive to thisdiversity. For example, specific areas of alandscape may be identified as appropriate forlarge livestock farm expansions and other forms

29

Section 3

of “heavy commercial agriculture.” Knowingwhere larger farms are located (and wherepeople have expressed interest in expandingexisting farms) may help a municipality avoidunnecessary conflicts between this type ofagriculture and nonfarm development. TheWisconsin DNR has a listing of all regulatedConfined Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs,most with over 1000 animal units) available fromthe Runoff Management Section (608-267-7694).Conversely, recognizing that many farms may bepart-time, non-commercial enterprises maychange the way you think about protecting theeconomic viability of agriculture in yourcommunity.

Location of Farming OperationsWhile information about the aggregate farmsector characteristics and trends in total farmnumbers is important to the planning process, itis also useful to seek information about thelocation of farms in the community. Knowingwhere farms are allows one to identify clusters offarm operations where most land is still inagricultural use. Several scholars have pointedout that having a critical mass of farmers in arelatively small geographic area can beimportant to maintain the existing agriculturalinfrastructure, such as agricultural input andservice suppliers, transportation networks, andmarketing outlets. This is important. A criticalmass of farmland sustains a density ofoperations that is important for the profitabilityof suppliers of agricultural goods and services - -the veterinarians, agricultural implement dealers,cooperatives, milk and meat processors, andothers. On the other hand, understanding theproximity of farms to residential and commercialdevelopment can also help a community gaugethe likelihood that certain areas will remain infarming for the foreseeable future.

While information about the aggregate farmsector characteristics and trends in total farmnumbers is important to the planning process, itis also to seek information about the location offarms in the community. There are few publicdata sources, unfortunately, that can identify thelocation of individual farms in mostmunicipalities. Some county USDA offices,county land conservationists, or LandInformation Officers have constructed andmaintained maps of the farm and fieldboundaries of those operations that areparticipating in government commodity orconservation programs. These are valuableresources where they exist, though they usuallydo not include details on the locations of any

farms that are not participating in theseprograms (usually the smaller, less commercially-oriented operations).

For most places, the best sources of informationabout the location of farms in the area can befound locally. Property tax assessment recordscan often be used to identify the location of taxparcels that have farm buildings (“agriculturalimprovements”). Long-term farmers, taxassessors, and other knowledgeable persons canusually determine the location of most farmingoperations - particularly if they have a recentaerial photograph, plat book, or other map tohelp them recall specific farm information.

When locating farming enterprises, it is helpfulto collect information that can be utilized later,under s. 3.8, in the identification of spatialfarming patterns. In other words, whenidentifying farming operations be sure to collectinformation on the kind of operation that it is,the business structure (Mom and Pop, corporate,etc.) and scale (acreage, number of animal units,etc.), the agricultural products that it produces(cranberries, dairy, grain, hog, fruit, etc.), thelocation of the operation’s markets (local urban,distant Asian or European), tillage methods(conventional, no-till, organize), planning horizon(younger farmer, older farmer with no successor)and so on. In areas where dairy farming hasbeen historically important, the WisconsinDepartment of Agriculture, Trade and ConsumerProtection does maintain an active list ofstatewide dairy producers (the Wisconsin DairyProducer List; formerly known as the BrucellosisRing Test list) that can be purchased on request.In addition to names and addresses for dairyfarm operators, this list includes the county,town, and section number for all licensed milkingoperations in the state.

Farm DemographicsTrends in the number, size, and location of farmsreflect important aspects of the changingstructure of agriculture in a community.Underlying most of these changes, however, arepeople who work, live, and make the decisionson Wisconsin farms. To understand thedynamics of farm changes, it is helpful toexamine the demographic characteristics of localfarm families and farm workers.

The phrase ‘demographics’ refers to informationabout age, education, household size, andemployment status of farm family members. Theage structure of the farm operators can often tellyou a lot about the future longevity of agriculture

Sect

ion

3

30

in your community. If a significant proportion oflead farm operators are over the age of 55, as isthe case in many Wisconsin communities, it islikely that many farmers will be retiring over thecoming 10-20 years. Similarly, the number offarmers under 40 years old can provide anindication of the amount of recent entry of newoperators into the farm sector.

Information about off-farm income andemployment among farm family members canalso tell you about the viability of currentfarming operations. High rates of off-farmemployment usually suggest that farm incomealone is no longer sufficient to support farmfamilies. Indeed, off-farm work has become acritical way for farm families to obtain cash forliving expenses as well as health insurance andretirement benefits. At the same time, since farmfamilies with off-farm income do not dependsolely on farm prices for their survival, theirfarming operations may also be more able toweather periods of low prices or bad weather,and therefore stay in business longer than mightotherwise have been the case. Off-farmresponsibilities can also affect farm householddecisions about what type of farming to engagein and whether to make new investments ormodernize existing facilities.

A profile of the farm labor force in yourcommunity can also illuminate agriculturaltrends. Traditionally, most Wisconsin farms haverelied principally on family members to providelabor for their operations. As farms haveincreased in size and sophistication, however, itis increasingly common to hire nonfamilymembers to help with the work. Many farmsoften begin to resemble typical nonfarm smallbusinesses, with owner-managers overseeing thework of a salaried or wage-labor force. To theextent that hired nonfamily labor is important inyour area, it is worth examining where theseworkers are coming from and how well they areintegrated into the community. Many may belocal residents who have taken temporary orpermanent work on area farms. In other cases,farm laborers may come from outside thecommunity in search of jobs. As noted earlier,housing for agricultural labor may be animportant issue in your community.

Published demographic information about localfarmers is generally available only at the countylevel, primarily from the periodic Census ofAgriculture (see Box 3E on the next page). Formore detailed information at the local level,community planners will have to rely on localexperts, informal surveys, and direct contactswith farm families and farm workers.

31

Section 3

Box 3E: Sources of Information about Farms, Farmland, and Farm OperatorsComprehensive information about farms, farmland, and farm operator characteristics is available at thestate and county level from the periodic U.S. Census of Agriculture, which is conducted every 5 years(most recently in 1997). Some examples of census information that is available at the county levelincludes:

• Farm numbers (overall, by size of farm, by type of farm)

• Farm operator characteristics (by age, farm experience, off-farm work status)

• Farmland characteristics (by type of land, crop produced, land tenure status)

A limited set of Census of Agriculture variables are also released at the zipcode level. Complete datafrom the most recent census is available from the USDA website (www.nass.usda.gov/census) andhistoric data from govinfo.kerr.orst.edu/ag-stateis.html. Because the census is conducted regularly, it isa good source of information about trends in farm numbers and characteristics.

The Wisconsin Agricultural Statistics Service (WASS) annually releases a range of agricultural statisticsand information at the county and state level. WASS is a USDA agency that is physically housed in theWisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade, and Consumer Protection building in Madison. They issuean annual publication “Wisconsin Agricultural Statistics” and have most of the tables available online attheir website (www.nass.usda.gov/wi/).

A summary of county-level agricultural trends has recently been published by the Program onAgricultural Technology Studies (PATS) at the UW-Madison. This “County Agricultural Databook” can beviewed on the PATS website (www.wisc.edu/pats/data.htm). Hard copies are also available in countyextension offices and from PATS.

Although county-level agricultural statistics are useful and easily available, for many planning situations -particularly in Wisconsin towns - there is a need for more localized information. This is because thetypes of farms and trends in farming can be different across towns in a county. Fortunately, theUniversity of Wisconsin Cooperative Extension Service recently released agricultural trend informationat the town level as a series of “Wisconsin Town Land Use Databooks.” These databooks are availablefor all counties in Wisconsin (except Milwaukee county) and contain tables that disaggregate trends foreach town in a county. The town land use data tables provide selected indicators of change on severalmajor topics, including:

• Land Cover and Soil Quality • Trends in Farm Numbers • Changes in Farmland on Tax Rolls• Farmland Sales • Economic Dependence on Agriculture

The Wisconsin Town Land Use Databooks and other related products are generally available throughlocal UW Cooperative Extension offices, County Land Information Officers (LIOs), and on-line at the PATS website (www.wisc.edu/pats/landuse).

Finally, the most authoritative source of information about local agricultural activities and trends is likelyto be found in the community itself, not from official statistics or publications. In a few short meetings,several long-term farmers, the local assessor, clerk or town chair, and other knowledgeable individualscan usually use a plat book or aerial photograph of the town to draw an accurate map of current farmboundaries and activities. They may also be able to add information about important farmcharacteristics, including the crops and livestock produced, age of the farm operator, and informationabout recent farm changes or plans for the future.

Farmland Ownership and Rental PatternsWhile land may remain in farming use, subtlechanges in land tenure arrangements may signalimportant short- and long-term changes in landuse. For example, an increase in the use ofrented farmland in a community may occur forany number of reasons. The price of land mayhave been bid up through increased demand for

nonfarm development. Or farm commodityprices may have fallen relative to the price offarmland. Or farmers may find that they simplycan’t “cash flow the land,” where the mortgageprinciple and interest payments exceed theincome they can expect to gain from production.In such a situation, rental ground is where tomake money.

Sect

ion

3

32

Similarly, as residential development occurs inthe countryside, an increasing amount offarmland is split into smaller lots typically ownedby nonfarmers. While these landowners maycontinue to rent their land out to commercialfarmers in the area, the resulting patchwork quiltof farm fields and rental relationships can makelarge scale farming more difficult and lessefficient. Studies have shown that absenteeownership and reliance on rented land are linkedto faster rates of farmland conversion in urbanfringe areas.

Of course, the shift to smaller parcel sizes doesnot automatically act as a precursor ofdevelopment. The sale of a few small lots maybe an important way to raise cash that isrequired to keep an existing farm in business. Inaddition, for some emerging kinds of agriculturalactivities in urban areas (like market gardening,horticultural operations, and CommunitySupported Agriculture farms), smaller lot sizesmay actually enhance opportunities inagriculture.

Increases in the number of requests to dividelarge parcels into smaller parcels through landdivision or subdivision is usually a signal thatnonfarm development is imminent.

Gathering information about land tenurerelationships can be difficult. There is someinformation available at the county level fromofficial agricultural statistical agencies (see Box3F). However, for accurate information at thecommunity level, it is often necessary to asklocal individuals (farmers, landlords, etc.) whoare familiar with current farm rentalarrangements in the community.

3.6.b) Broader Farm Economy and Infrastructure Farm Income and Employment

Most rural communities in Wisconsin feel thatagriculture is one of the most importantsegments of their local economy. Thisperception is fueled by the historical importanceof farming to many Wisconsin communities, bythe large number of businesses that supportagriculture, and by the fact that farmingactivities are often the most visible feature onthe rural landscape.

There are a number of important indicators ofthe importance of agriculture to the localeconomy. Most obvious are indicators of thepercent of personal income and employment thatcomes from self-employment in farming. Alsoimportant are the percent of local residents wholive on farms, and the percent of local

households that have at least some self-employment income from farming. All of thesewere reported in the 1990 Census of Population.Results from the 2000 Census were released inthe summer of 2002, but do not include as muchdetail about self-employment income fromfarming. See the Census Bureau website formore information and updated data(www.census.gov).

It may be interesting to gather information aboutchanges in the size and makeup of the localagricultural labor force. As many farms havegrown beyond the scale that family members canmanage, many places have seen the developmentof new hired farm labor opportunities. On theone hand, the availability of an adequate andaffordable supply of farm workers can affect theability of local farm operations to expand andmodernize. On the other hand, the arrival ofnew workers (often from outside of the area) cannecessitate expansion of schools, publicservices, and programs to integrate them intothe community.

Beyond direct income and employment fromfarming, it is also important to gauge howimportant the broader local farm-relatedeconomy is. This would include any income andemployment that comes from the sale of goodsand services to farmers, as well as any localmarketing or processing of agriculturalcommodities into value-added products like milk,cheese, and processed vegetables.

It may also be useful to understand the nonfarmeconomic trends when developing an agriculturalplan. Information on off-farm employmentamong farmers is useful since the wages, healthbenefits, and retirement benefits from off-farmjobs can be a major source of farm familyincome. Participation in off-farm work by farmfamily members may ebb and flow with changesin farm commodity prices, household cash flowneeds, and the level of nonfarm wages and jobopportunities. Transfer payments and tourismexpenditures can also be important componentsof farm family income in some areas.

Detailed information about these broadereconomic sectors is available at the countyand/or regional level in published governmentreports available from local libraries or on theinternet. Many are listed on the UW-MadisonCenter for Community Economic Developmentwebsite (www.uwex.edu/ces/cced/data.html).There is also a helpful discussion of measuringchange in rural communities - with adownloadable worksheet — available through

33

Section 3

Montana’s Sonoran Institute website(www.sonoran.org/library/measure.html).Unfortunately, it is difficult to find publishedincome and employment data at the local townlevel. It may be easier to construct a picture ofthe local economy by gathering informationdirectly from local employers, merchants, andbusinesspeople.

Information on Markets. Agricultural markets change. Corn, hay anddairy products have been the mainstay ofWisconsin agriculture for decades. Soybeansseem to be a traditional crop here in Wisconsin.There have also been important shifts, however,in the types of crops and livestock Wisconsinfarmers produce, and related changes in themarkets and marketing institutions throughwhich farmers sell their output. We now plantten times the acreage in soybeans than we did in1924, and production only really took off whensoybean production in China fell in World War II.In the 1990s, soybean acreage increased by over200 percent, while acres planted in small graincrops fell by 50 percent in Wisconsin. Similarly,cranberry and ginseng production wasinsignificant fifty years ago, and now Wisconsinleads the nation in both categories.

To the best of our ability, we should try to assesswhere our current markets are. A survey of farmoperations, agricultural credit institutions, andcooperatives would provide local informationabout the markets for your community'sagricultural industries. Further information isavailable each year from the WisconsinAgricultural Statistics, published by theWisconsin Agricultural Statistics Service, P.O.Box 8911, Madison, WI 53708-8911.

Attempting to discern and develop new marketsis difficult but potentially it is cruciallyimportant. To the degree that we remainuninformed about trends in the market place, werisk not being prepared for profitableopportunities for agriculture in the future.

Agricultural InfrastructureIn addition to an analysis of the economicimportance of farm support businesses, aninventory may also include an analysis of thearea’s agricultural infrastructure. Farm supplybusinesses and food processing facilitiesrepresent important resources to area farmers aswell as the broader local economy. A detailedinventory would involve documenting existingnetworks of farm cooperatives, suppliers,transporters, buyers, and processors, and

investigating whether they are running atcapacity or planning for future contraction orexpansion. It might also involve asking if thereare any obvious bottlenecks in the localavailability of agricultural goods and services, orin the marketing and processing of localagricultural commodities. Should analysis showthat there are gaps in agricultural infrastructure,a community might then wish to encouragespecific kinds of new agribusiness development.Conversely, there may be a shortage of raw farmcommodities for area food processing facilitiesdue to declining local production.

This kind of information is most readily availablethrough direct contacts with the relevant localbusinesses and individuals. If resources andtime allow, it would be ideal to identify theimportant linkages in the local agriculturaleconomy. This might start with a detailed lookat what is being produced and what couldpotentially be produced on local farms. Farmersmight indicate where they purchase most of thetheir inputs and sell their products. Thiseconomic assessment could also involve adetailed inventory of existing local agriculturalinfrastructure, including: suppliers of livestock,seeds, feed, pesticides, fertilizers, fuel,electricity, custom work, and other farm inputs;suppliers of financing and capital to farms;service providers including sale and leasing ofequipment, boarding of livestock, veterinarians,and others; and the processors, distributors,cooperatives and wholesalers, who receive thefinished products off the farm.

The state Department of Agriculture, Trade, andConsumer Protection maintains a listing oflicensed dairy and meat processing facilities(datcp.state.wi.us/fs/business/food/plants/).

3.6.c) Information about Other Land UsesAlthough most of the information in an“agricultural inventory” will focus on the farmsector and related businesses, changes infarming and farmland are also driven by forcesfrom outside the sector. For example, todiagnose problems that lead to farmlandconversion it makes sense to understand whatkinds of forces are putting pressure onlandowners to convert this resource to a newuse. In most Wisconsin communities, this meansexamining population growth, nonfarmemployment trends, and residential developmentpatterns.

This section deals in a cursory way with how tostudy population and housing trends. In the

Sect

ion

3

34

comprehensive planning process, these topicsare likely to be the focus of more extensive datacollection and analysis efforts in conjunctionwith the Issues and Opportunities, Housing, andLand Use elements.

Population and Housing TrendsAn obvious source of pressure on farmlandresources is growth in local population, which isusually linked to demand for new housingconstruction. Typically one would want to knowabout how fast population is growing (ordeclining), how the characteristics of theresidents are changing, and where within thecommunity the growth (or decline) is mostsignificant. From an agricultural planningperspective, it is particularly important toidentify which of these changes might be relatedto dynamics of change within the local farmingsector.

Because demand for rural homes andrecreational properties are important drivers ofagricultural land conversion, an agriculturalinventory should examine trends in the housingmarkets. This might involve collecting data onexisting or new home sales, applications forbuilding permits, rezoning approvals, andregional housing cost trends. Be sure to notethat while new construction is an obvious sourceof change in the local housing markets, sales ofexisting homes can be related to the inmigrationof new people to the community.

It is important to identify where significantamounts of land have been bought and sold inthe community. Publicly available records forbuilding permits, septic permits, or real estatetransactions can often be obtained from countyoffices. If the overall volume of real estateactivity is small enough, these records can evenbe sorted by hand and information recordedabout the address or location of each majortransaction. Copying this information to a platbook or map of the area can begin to illustratethe spatial patterns of land use change in yourcommunity. For the overall comprehensiveplanning effort, you will want to do a “currentland use map.” To do this, you will probablyneed to do a “windshield survey,” that is, drivearound your town or county and indicate whatkind of land use occurs on specific properties.Traveling with someone who is knowledgeableabout the land and news about land use isimportant here.

It is sometimes useful to distinguish betweenresidential developments served by septicsystems and those served by public seweragesystems. The location of sewered andunsewered developments can have importantconsequences for agriculture. Recent changes instate standards that recognize new septic systemtechnologies are likely to increase the amount ofland where private septic systems can belocated. For places that have traditionally reliedon septic/soil limitations to restrict housingdevelopment, these rule changes will make suchlimitations less restrictive.

Information about aggregate population andhousing characteristics for each municipality inWisconsin is now available from the recentlyreleased 2000 Census of Population. Summarystatistics and characteristics based on the 2000Census are available at the WisconsinDepartment of Administration StateDemographic Services Center website (eitherwww.doa.state.wi.us/dhir/boir/demographic/ orwww.doa.state.wi.us/dhir/boir/demographic/census_info.asp). Historical Population Census datais available from various sources. One goodplace to start on the web is the UW CooperativeExtension Center for Community EconomicDevelopment(www.uwex.edu/ces/cced/lookup3.html).

Important Retail or Commercial Trends in the RegionSometimes large-scale private activities have asmuch effect on agriculture as the construction ofpublic facilities. For example, if an area has beenidentified as a future major shopping mall, itcould spur a great deal of development within alarge radius. This can be true for projects thatare outside the municipality (i.e., elsewhere inthe county or across a county line).

Employment data and projections are availablefrom the Wisconsin Department of Commerce(www.dwd.state.wi.us/dwelmi/cp_pdf/cp_mainx.htm) and from the various stateRegional Planning Commissions (RPCs)(www.commerce.state.wi.us/MT/MT-RPC-map.html). These data can be helpful in lookingat future demand for commercial and industrialland. Consultation with area utilities, bankers,real estate professionals and economicdevelopment planners can also identifyimportant projects that might affect agriculturein your area in the foreseeable future.

35

Section 3

Forests, Wetlands, and Natural AreasAside from an assessment of demographic,housing, and commercial activity, it is helpful foran agricultural inventory to take stock of theother important natural resources that might bepresent in the area. These would include forests,wetlands, and any natural areas. It might alsoidentify state-designated outstanding andexceptional resource waters.

Information about forest resources cancomplement an agricultural inventory in severalways. First, statewide data suggest that much ofthe land that is coming out of agriculture is beingplanted (or is reverting) to tree species.Therefore, information about growth in forestacreage may be another indicator of changes inthe intensity of agricultural land use.

Many farm operations already contain importantforest acreages within their borders. For somefarm operators, the ability to harvest timberfrom their land can generate significant income.For others, enrollment of forestlands in themanaged forest tax program can provideproperty tax savings and possible futureeconomic benefits when those resources areharvested.

Many people appreciate the wildlife habitat,scenic values, and ecosystem amenitiesassociated with forests and wetlands. Knowingabout the location and benefits associated withthese lands can help a community moreeffectively balance the goals of protectingfarmland and preserving other natural resources.Similarly, information about the location ofdesignated parks, wildlife refuges, scenic naturalareas, and shoreland management areas can helpplanners anticipate how decisions aboutagricultural lands might affect other naturalresource programs.

Sources of Information about Other Land Use TrendsSome important web-based resources are listedin Box 3F on the next page. Other officialsources of land use trend data can be identifiedfrom county planning offices, regional planningcommissions, and county UW-Extensionspecialists. In addition to these official sourcesof data, communities should not neglect localsources of information, including local historicalsocieties, local government records, and theinformal knowledge of long-time residents, localbusinesspeople, and others.

Sect

ion

3

36

Box 3F. Information about Regional Economic and Land Use Trends on the World Wide WebType of Information WebsiteLand Cover Inventory www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/at/et/geo/data/wlc.htm

Demographic Trends www.doa.state.wi.us/dhir/boir/demographic/

Employment and www.uwex.edu/ces/cced/data.html Income Data www.dwd.state.wi.us/dwelmi/cp_pdf/cp_mainx.htm

Natural FeaturesForest Resources www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/land/forestry/Look/gmu/

Wetlands Inventory www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/water/fhp/wetlands/invent.htm

Rare and www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/land/er/rare.htmEndangered Species

State Parks www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/land/parks/index.html

State Forests www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/land/forestry/StateForests/meet.htm

State Natural Areas www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/land/er/snas.htm

Recreation and www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/land/wildlife/reclands/Hunting lands

State Trails www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/land/parks/specific/index.html

National Forests www.fs.fed.us/recreation/states/wi.shtml

County Parks (See individual county websites)

Impaired Waterways www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/water/wm/wqs/303d/index.html

Outstanding Water www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/water/wm/glwsp/erworw/orwerw_alpha.pdf Resources

3.7) Gathering Information about Biophysical Resources

A successful and sustainable agricultural sectorwill take advantage of natural endowments (likegood soils, microclimates, and other resources),while respecting potential environmentallimitations of sensitive landscapes. As such,most agricultural inventories seek to identifyphysical locations that are particularly wellsuited for agricultural production. These mayinclude areas with unusually productive soils, aswell as areas that are least likely to generateunwanted impacts on local water quality, otherenvironmental resources, and residentialproperties.

3.7.a) SoilsWisconsin is fortunate to have excellentinformation about the characteristics of its soils.By 2006, all counties of the state will have fully“digitized” soils survey maps available for use ingeographic information systems (GIS). This willmake the use of soils data much moreconvenient for agricultural planning. Thissection provides a snapshot of what is available,what kinds of information can be derived fromthese data sources, and how they might be usedin land use planning.

Information about the location and properties ofsoils is an important component of localcomprehensive planning, particularly when thereare important agricultural issues. Crops dependon soils as a source of nutrients and water. Evenfarming systems in which revenues are primarilygenerated from the sale of animals and animalproducts depend on crops to grow feed andrecycle nutrients in animal wastes.

Any farmer will tell you that not all soils are thesame. The texture, fertility, water holdingcapacity, and many other properties can varysignificantly from one area to the next. At thescale of an individual farm, good managersobserve this variability and adjust practicesaccordingly. Farm operators generally work“good” land with flat, black, fertile soils moreintensively than “marginal” lands with wet, steep,droughty, or thin soils.

A regional perspective is also important whenplanning for agriculture. Soils maps can displayinteresting patterns across the land. Spatial soilsdata can tell us what areas within a town mayproduce greater yields. They can also provideinformation about which areas may be more orless vulnerable to soil erosion, surface runoff,and groundwater contamination (assuming all

37

Section 3

other factors such as rainfall, crop genetics,fertilizers and pest control are equal). In turn,this information might enter into decisions aboutfarmland preservation where a community mighteither target areas with abundant “good” soils forfarmland preservation or areas of marginal soilswhere development might be channeled. Itmight also be used in decisions about where topermit expansions of agricultural operations.

A modern, detailed soil survey consists of threemain components -

• Soil descriptions (e.g., representative soilprofiles of named soil types, and a narrativedescription of their use and management),

• Soil characteristics (e.g., tables of soilproperties and interpretations), and

• Soil maps.

For planning purposes, both soil characteristicsand maps are important, but these both startwith soil “taxonomy” based on descriptions andobservations.

Soil taxonomy is a hierarchical system thatgroups soils with similar properties. Forexample, the highest level of the taxonomyseparates soils into “orders” such as deep, richsoils formed under prairie conditions (mollisols)and organic soils (histosols) formed in wetlands.At the lowest end of the taxonomy are soil“series.” Each soil series that occurs in a countyis described in detail in the soil survey, and isthe basis for tables of characteristics andproperties.

For mapping and interpretation, soil series arefurther sub-divided into “soil phases” ormapping units, based on properties importantfor use and management. Differences in surfacetexture, slope and erosion class are the basis fordividing soil series into most phase subgroups.For example, the Plano silt loam soil series ismapped in four different mapping units in somecounties - PnA, PnB, PnC2, and PnD2 (Plano soilson 0-2, 2-6, 6-12, and 12-20 percent slopes, withmoderate erosion on the two steeper classes).These two to six letter symbols - soil mappingunits - are shown on soils maps, and are thebasis for looking up soil properties in tables inthe soil survey. These are also one of the keyidentifiers, linking maps and databases, in digitalsoils data.

Soil Properties Affecting Land UseSoil surveys have dozens of tables describing theproperties and characteristics of soil mappingunits3 within a county. These include measuredand derived characteristics of representativesoils within the soil mapping unit (e.g., texture,pH, depth) or expert predictions andinterpretations of soil suitability and potentialfor different purposes (e.g., corn yield potential,suitability for dwellings with basements). Whensoil surveys have been digitized for display andanalysis using computer GIS software, similarinformation is usually available in both tabularand map formats.

Many soil attributes are relevant in assessmentof the soils agricultural potential and limitations.General categories include:

• Soil (land) capability class: a I through VIIIranking of soils, where Class I and II are thebest agricultural soils with few or nolimitations for agricultural use, and Classes VIthrough VIII have significant limitations, suchas steep slopes or wetness, that make themgenerally unsuitable for agriculture.

• Corn yield: a general indicator of soilproductivity under typical agriculturalmanagement, used in the “use value” propertytax formula.

• Productivity index: a general indicator of soilproductivity under typical agriculturalmanagement. Soils are assigned an indexfrom 0 to 100 based on productive potentialfor 11 common crops in Wisconsin. The indexreflects both yield and value of the crops.The Wisconsin NRCS website(www.wi.nrcs.usda.gov/soil/soil.html) hasproductivity index data for many counties.

• Important farmland class: a designation ofthe agricultural soils in a county with the bestcombination of physical and chemicalproperties for food and fiber production. Onemajor class - prime soils - include those thathave few or no physical or chemicallimitations for agricultural use. Another class- important soils - refers to those with one ormore limiting property, but that are typicallyproductive soils important to the localagricultural economy. Typically, prime andimportant soils are a priority target foragricultural lands preservation. TheWisconsin NRCS website (see above)

3 Soil Mapping Units are areas that have relatively similar soils characteristics.

Sect

ion

3

38

has an up-to-date listing of prime farmlandsoils by county.

• Hydric soils: These are soils that have formedunder wetland conditions. Agriculture may berestricted both because of wetness (ifundrained) and because of federal or statewetlands protection laws.

• Highly Erodible Soils: Several soil propertiescontribute to the potential of soils to erode.In general terms, experts discourage tillage ofhighly erodible soils. This is reinforced bystate and federal conservation programs.Soils vary widely in both erodibility and in theamount of erosion that the soil can sustainwithout impairing long-term productivity.Highly erodible soils are those mostsusceptible to erosion or damage fromerosion, or both. The Wisconsin NRCSwebsite lists highly erodible soils for eachcounty in the Erosion Factors and Soil Groupsreports.

There are several reasons why some caution isrecommended when using any of these soilclasses as a basis for identifying the “best” soilsfor agricultural use. Each of these soil classesevaluates and ranks properties important foragricultural suitability, but none of themconsider all relevant properties. For example,yield potential is not considered in assigningland capability classes or important farmlandclasses. It is not unusual for some non-primesoils to produce higher yields than prime soils,or for a class I soil to produce lower yields thana class III soil. On the other hand, yieldestimates and productivity indexes do not reflectthe economic or environmental cost ofproducing a crop, or consider the managementmeasures needed. Additionally, over time aspecific farm’s soil productivity can increase ordecrease depending on how it is farmed.

For example, the deep, silty, well-drained Fayettesoils on 6 to 12 percent slopes in southwestWisconsin, do not meet prime criteria because ofthe erosion hazard. With proper management,however, these soils are among the mostproductive in the area, and can produce highcrop yields with little damage to the environmentor the soil. Unique soils have propertiesuniquely suited to production of high-valuespecialty crops. An example is the wet, sandy ororganic soils typically used for cranberryproduction in Wisconsin.

Keep in mind also that these soil classes aregeneral rankings, developed for wide

applicability, to reflect suitability for productionof common row crops, usually corn, soybeans,and small grains. When the agriculturaleconomy of a local area is based on productionof potatoes, apples, alfalfa, or other crops thesesoil classes may need to be adjusted to reflectsoil suitability for these crops.

Many of these concerns are addressed by theUSDA Land Evaluation and Site Assessment(LESA) system, developed in 1980 and nowwidely used throughout the U.S. The LandEvaluation (LE) component of LESA provides asystematic and objective way to evaluate andnumerically rank soils for their relative value forthe dominant kinds of agricultural use in a localarea. LE integrates the above soil classes into asingle rating that reflects the most importantconsiderations for agricultural use. Localdecision-makers choose which soil classes touse, and how much importance to place on eachclass, to develop LE ratings that reflect localpriorities and agricultural practices. Default LEratings for row crop production are available onthe NRCS Web site for many counties. NRCSResource Soil Scientists can help local decision-makers develop LE ratings tailored to localconditions. Additional discussion of the LESAapproach is included in Section 3.9.a below.

Locational factors also may come into playdirectly in evaluating farmland productivity inways not addressed by land capability or soilproductivity ratings. For example, adjustmentsmust typically be made for parcels which aredifficult to access, where drainage is limited forvarious reasons, which are forested, or which aresurrounded by areas of widely differingproductivity. Other soil properties may be usefulfor judging agricultural potential in particularareas. For example, in areas with coarse (sandy)soils, water-holding capacity will be important tothe viability of non-irrigated cropping. Insouthwest Wisconsin, shallow depth to bedrockwill limit agriculture on some narrow ridge topsand shoulder slopes, and high water tables maylimit production in some valleys. Local USDANatural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS)and county Land Conservation staff can provideideas about which properties are most importantin their area.

Soils also affect the viability of other land usesthat may be considered as alternatives toagriculture. In the process of envisioningdesirable uses for the rural landscape, soilsuitability and potential ratings can be used toconsider alternative uses for other areas. Thesemight include alternatives that retain open

39

Section 3

conditions such as restoration of forests orwetlands or creation of recreational areas.Development also will have to consider theengineering properties of soils such as bearingcapacity, plasticity, water table and bedrockdepth, etc.

For most planning purposes, soil surveys areexcellent sources of information. However, soilsurveys are not continuous inventories of everysquare foot of ground. They are created by acombination of limited sampling, air photointerpretation, and expert judgment. Soilmapping units identify the dominant soil or soilswithin each delineation. Due to limitations of themapping scale, areas of contrasting soils smallerthan about 2 acres are generally not shown onthe maps. These areas must be included withinlarger map units and thus dilute the interpretive

purity of the mapping unit. Most map unitscontain less than 15% contrasting soils. Small,highly contrasting areas, such as wet spots,bedrock outcrops, or gravel pits are sometimesshown on the maps with “spot symbols”.

Soils at a given location may also have beenaltered significantly by tillage, erosion, drainage,waste disposal, contaminants, earth moving, andso forth. As a result, soil maps should not beused for critical site-scale engineering orenvironmental decisions. For example, a mapmay show that a property generally hasfavorable conditions for on-site waste disposalwith a standard septic tank and field, but acertified soil scientist must still test a specificlocation.

Sources of information about local soils aresummarized in Box 3G.

Box 3G: Sources of Data About SoilsData for most local land use planning will come from county soil surveys. Detailed county soil surveyshave been completed in all but nine Wisconsin counties at scales ranging from 1:12,000 to 1:20,000.Mapping of the remaining counties, all in the northwest part of the State, will be completed by 2006.Also by 2006, all county soil surveys will be available as digital data, in the Natural ResourceConservation Services (NRCS) standard SSURGO format. Surveys in parts of the State, particularly thesouthwest, are approaching 50 years old. Efforts are underway to fund updates or re-mapping of thesecounties.

Hardcopy soil surveys, or single-sheet maps and interpretive information, can generally be obtainedfrom local NRCS offices (often located within County Land Conservation Departments (LCD)). LocalNRCS and LCD staff can also provide valuable assistance in understanding and interpreting the tablescontained in soil survey volumes. They may be a good starting point for obtaining digital data,depending on their understanding and use of geographic information systems (GIS).

The state NRCS office is the general source of soils data in digital form. Most of what they can provide ison the Web (www.wi.nrcs.usda.gov/soil/soil.html). They can also put these resources on CDs for use inenvironments without fast Internet connections. This website has sections and links explaining what isavailable and how it can be used. The national soil data access facility at Iowa State University also is agood resource (www.statlab.iastate.edu/soils/nsdaf).

In addition to digitized maps, the Wisconsin NRCS website also has a variety of “attribute” information,essentially the properties and characteristics of soils contained in tables in the hardcopy survey. Themain tool for organizing and conveying this information is the National Soil Information System (NASIS).This database contains detailed soil property and interpretation records for every soil mapped inWisconsin.

In addition to county soil surveys, there is a statewide digital soils database (STATSGO). The Wisconsindigitized soils map was developed at 1:250,000 scale, and has a minimum map unit size of about 2.5square miles. The mapping units each consist of up to twenty-one soil components that have capabilityclass, corn yields, and many other soil properties associated with them. Since the units of analysis arelarge, this information is mostly relevant to multi-county or state-level planning and analyses. They doprovide a basis for comparing the relative yield potential of farmable soils between towns or counties ina region. Variability at the scale of farms and fields within a town is not adequately captured, soanalyses based on this product are a poor indicator of conditions on specific parcels of land. TheSTATSGO soils data can be found on the web at: www.wi.nrcs.usda.gov/soil/statsgo.html.

Sect

ion

3

40

3.7.b) TopographyIn addition to soil qualities, the topographicfeatures of an area are important to understand.Topography refers to the elevation and slopesthat describe the surface of a landscape.Understanding local topography may beimportant if your community includes land thatis steeply sloped and erodible, land that may sitin floodplains, or land that is important as ascenic resource. Topographic information is alsocombined with soils and geological data to mapwater flows or hydrography. Topography caninfluence the types of farming that are possible.

Topographic information is usually obtainedfrom printed quadrangles with 10 or 20-footcontour lines. Statewide coverage is availablefrom the U.S. Geological Survey. It is alsoavailable as computer-ready products known asLevel I DEMs (digital elevation models) that areavailable for purchase via the USGS website atrockyweb.cr.usgs.gov/elevation/dpi_dem.html.Either is suitable for general planning purposes.

The digital DEMs are best if you are integrating avariety of geographic information in a computerdatabase. Both hard-copy quadrangles andDEMs are not generally fine-grained enough tosupport site-specific project planning (e.g., fine-scale erosion modeling, runoff volumecalculation, floodplain delineation), though theyare sometimes used for these purposes.

To obtain copies of local topographic maps ordatabases, check with your county LandInformation Offices (LIOs). They also may haveaccess to more detailed topographic information,particularly digital products that come in avariety of formats and accuracies includingdigital contours, DEMs, and DTMs (mass linesand break points that need to be furtherprocessed to generate something useful forplanning). Some digital topographic files aredownloadable on the USGS website(edcwww.cr.usgs.gov/doc/edchome/ndcdb/ndcdb.html).

3.7.c) HydrographyHydrography involves mapping the major waterresources in an area, and understanding howwater flows through the landscape. It isimportant to understand these regional patternsif there are local concerns about the impacts ofagricultural (or other) activities on surface andgroundwater quality. They may also be keypieces of information if fishing, boating, or otherforms of water recreation are important to yourcommunity.

The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources(WI-DNR) has recently completed digitizing1:24,000 scale hydrographic maps. Most shouldbe available in digital form statewide from theDNR web server. (www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/at/et/geo/). These files include basicinformation about the location, shape, andnames of rivers, streams, and lakes. Basicdescriptive hydrography is also available onhard copy maps (e.g., on US Geological Servicequadrangles) and their digital equivalent - DRGs(digital raster graphics). Both may be accessedfrom your county Land Information Officer or theUSGS website (www.usgs.gov/pubprod/index.html).

The WI-DNR is also in the process of linking thisinformation to DNR “master water body codes”which will provide access to many data bases onother attributes, including water quality,fisheries, resources (this should be done by themiddle of 2002). Some water bodies designatedas state “outstanding” or “exceptional” resourcewaters may also carry restrictions at some pointunder new water quality rules. These DNRdatasets also list other important water features,such as wetlands, trout streams, shorelands, andimpaired waters.

At a finer scale, you may want to know aboutlocal surface drainage patterns. This is critical ifyou have areas where field drain tiles may havebeen placed that affect the suitability of land foragricultural activities or nonfarm development.Ignoring drainage information may lead tounpleasant surprises when previously dry areassuddenly become wet and unusable.

Soil surveys often show surface drainageinformation not recorded on quadrangles(though this isn’t typically digitized). Localdrainage boards sometimes maintain informationabout the location of drain tiles, though it isinconsistent and often incomplete. Localplanners should nonetheless attempt to see whatis available.

3.7.d) Other Physical FeaturesThere are a range of publicly available maps anddatasets that describe geographic features of theWisconsin landscape. Information about thegeology, landforms, soil regions, ice age deposits,historic vegetation, and other topics is availableon the Wisconsin Geological and Natural HistorySurvey website (www.uwex.edu/wgnhs/sample.htm). Other information may beavailable locally from County Planning Offices,Land Conservation District Offices, RegionalPlanning Commissions, or regional offices of theWisconsin Department of Natural Resources.

41

Section 3

The Wisconsin Towns Land Use Databook alsosummarizes land cover information at thetownship level for all Wisconsin counties exceptMilwaukee. It is available on-line atwww.wisc.edu/pats/landuse.

Other important natural resources might includeareas of native vegetation. The Wisconsin DNRalso has site-specific listings of natural areas andhigh value natural (native) vegetativecommunities in the state Natural HeritageInventory (NHI). In the southern half of thestate, prairies used to dominate the landscapebefore the advent of agricultural land uses. Aguide to identifying and protecting native prairievegetation - the “Prairie Primer” (G2736) - isavailable from county UW Cooperative Extensionoffices or viewable on-line atwww1.uwex.edu/ces/pubs/pdf/G2736.PDF.

3.7.e) Environmental SusceptibilityIn recent years, various state agencies anduniversity researchers have begun to combinevarious types of biophysical data to generateindices reflecting the potential vulnerability ofdifferent landscapes to environmentalcontamination.

The most commonly used environmental indexin Wisconsin reflects estimates of groundwatercontamination vulnerability made by theWisconsin Geographic and Natural HistoryService. Their groundwater contamination mapis available from their website at:www.uwex.edu/wgnhs/gwmap.htm

In planning for agriculture, communities shouldbe aware of areas that have a history of pesticidecontamination. Specifically, through monitoringboth private wells and test wells, the WisconsinDepartment of Agriculture, Trade, and ConsumerProtection (DATCP) has tracked groundwaterlevels of the herbicide atrazine. If levels of thisherbicide are detected above tolerable levels, aninvestigation is launched to determine the causeof the high level. If it is determined to be a one-time event, such as a spill of some sort,prohibition for the area is not established. If thehigh level is determined to be of a non-pointnature through general usage of atrazine, aprohibition area is established. Currentprohibition areas in the state can be viewed atthe following website:datcp.state.wi.us/static/atrazine/

The DATCP Endangered Species program offersinformation and protection planning forWisconsin’s rare or endangered species. Theprogram mission is to comply with the

Endangered Species Act in this approvedalternate state program by preventing pesticideand related injury to federally listed (endangeredand threatened) species and their habitats, whileminimizing economic impacts to affectedlandowners and farm operators.

The focus of DATCP’s work is on the 16 federallylisted species and includes outreach, pesticideprotection planning, and monitoring of sites andspecies. For help with identification andprotection of endangered species, landownersand communities should contact DATCP’sEndangered Species Program at 608/224-4538 orvia email at [email protected].

Other important information about importantenvironmental resources may be obtained fromWI-DNR Basin Plans and county Land and WaterResource Management plans. The DNR has listsof valued waterways and sites that are eithersusceptible, already degraded, or are becomingincreasingly rare, including priority watersheds,wellhead protection areas, target site habitatrestoration areas, and land legacy sites.

3.8) Spatial PatternsAgriculture is a spatial phenomenon. Perhapsmore than any other economic system, with theexception of forestry, agriculture depends on theavailability of large amounts of contiguous lands.Nearly half of the land in the state of Wisconsinis agricultural, with approximately two-thirds ofall private lands in agriculture. Kinds ofagricultural land use are not randomlydistributed across the landscape. Agriculturalland use patterns are shaped by physicalconditions, such as the kind and productivity ofsoils, topography, ground and surface water.Agricultural land use is also influenced bylocational factors such as proximity totransportation facilities and urban markets,pressure for nonfarm development onagricultural lands, and traditional agriculturalpractices. Agricultural land use is alsoinfluenced by technology, from the “dibble stick”to “precision farming,” from the mold-board plowto no-till farming, and from selective breeding to“biotechnology.”

Identifying the spatial patterns in howagricultural land is used requires the integrationand analysis of many different kinds of data.This can involve a number of activities including:

• Identifying clusters of farm operations andland in agricultural use. Many scholars havepointed out that having a critical mass of

Sect

ion

3

42

farmers and farmland in a relatively smallgeographic area can be important to maintainthe existing agricultural infrastructure, suchas agricultural input and service suppliers,transportation networks, and marketingoutlets.

• Understanding the diversity of agricultureacross different parts of your community.Many counties, for example, have quitedifferent agricultural systems in differenttownships.

• Understanding the location of clusters ofsimilar kinds of agriculture can help you planfor the agricultural needs and perhaps theagricultural identity of the area. Is your area adairy area? Or do you have a lot of cranberryoperations? Apple orchards? How aboutirrigated land for potatoes and vegetables?What are the specific needs for the kind ofagriculture in your community? Are therespecific kinds and qualities of land that mustbe preserved for agriculture?

• Identifying the patterns of kinds of agriculturaloperations can then assist in the identificationof the agricultural infrastructure that servesthe kind of agriculture in your community.Once this is done, you can begin to askquestions of it. For example, if your area hasmany dairy farms, one or more milkprocessors may be sending out milk trucks forregular pick-ups at those dairy farms. Theroutes that these trucks follow to make pickups from farm operations will available fromthe processor. Conceive the map of dairypick-up points from the point of view of themilk processor. Is each route profitable? Thatis, does the density of dairy operations on aroute and the quantity of milk that theyproduce make it worthwhile to send a truck tomake milk pick-ups? Does the milk processoritself have enough product? What impactwould the loss of a farm have on a milk route?On the milk processor? How would the lossof a milk processor affect area dairy farms?

• Understanding the proximity of farms toresidential and commercial development canalso help a community gauge the likelihoodthat certain areas will remain in farming forthe foreseeable future.

This kind of data integration and analysis can beperformed these days with considerable powerand facility. Geographic information systems, or

GIS, enable us to store spatial information in acomputer database. Information gathered undersection 3 can be arrayed on a series of maps, or“digitized” in a computerized geographicinformation system. Although GIS will enablemany different kinds of data to be compiledquickly, even working with a series of maps canreveal important spatial patterns.

3.9) Data Integration and AnalysisThe preceding sections presented a wide rangeof potential data types and sources that could beused in an inventory process. While gatheringgood information is critical to making informedand effective planning decisions, it is equallyimportant to be able to critically analyze thedata you collect. Some basic principles of dataintegration and analysis are listed in Box 3H.

The main lesson in data integration is to useseveral sources of information to get a completepicture of what is going on. Every data sourcehas its limits, and only by combining them canyou understand the complexity of theagricultural situation.

Data also do not speak for themselves. Afterdata are collected and integrated, people need tomake sense of what they mean - this is calleddata analysis. The analysis of agriculturalinventory data is best done by a group of people(community leaders, citizens, professionalplanners, etc.) who bring diverse perspectivesand values to the table. Having each groupmember write a number of statements thatreflect the main lessons or conclusions that theydraw from the data can facilitate analysis in agroup process. Participants can then comparetheir list of conclusions with those developed byothers in the group. The ensuing discussion canbe used to reconcile conflicting interpretations ofthe data, and to ensure that the main trends thatare important to a community are recorded.

As part of the inventory process, it can behelpful to discuss the quality and objectivity ofthe information collected. The community mustcome to an agreement that information is useful,that only accurate information will be used, thatcare will be exercised in insuring the quality ofinformation gathering, and that once informationhas achieved standards of acceptance agreedupon by the community, then it will be used.Without such agreement, a community runs therisk of future disputes about what is consideredfactual and what is not.

43

Section 3

Box 3H: Principles of Data Integration and Analysis

Understand the limits of each data source • How accurate are the data?

• Are the data current?

• Are they specific to your community or do they represent a geographic region that may or may not be typical of your situation?

• How consistent are the data with other indicators?

Combine different sources of data • Comparing information from different

sources makes conclusions more reliable.

• Usually you want to balance competing goals, and multiple sources of data can inform those decisions

Combine “expert” and “local” knowledge• Experts are good at seeing regional

patterns and trends or the “big picture,” but not always good at specific aspects of a community.

• Local people are good at describing what “is going on the ground” - their description and interpretation can elaborate some of the trends that experts measure.

Be sure to disaggregate your data• Don’t assume that averages tell the whole

story; sometimes grouped data disguise underlying differences in the population such as a “bi-polar” distribution.

• Use your own expert knowledge to examine the value of summary statistics

• Look at the spatial patterns of change in your community; often areas are changing at different rates and this may not be obvious from community-wide trend data.

Place your local information in a broader context• Most important local trends are affected

by regional, state, or national forces.

• Major new changes outside your community may change the trajectory of your own community’s trends.

• Know what makes your community’s experiences distinctive. Why is yourcommunity beautiful?

3.9.a) Example of Data Integration: USDA Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model

One of the most common challenges ruralcommunities face is the need to identify whichspecific areas represent strategic or particularlyimportant farmland. As was discussed above,while information about the location of the bestagricultural soils may be an importantcomponent of any definition of strategicfarmland, soils alone may be an imperfectmeasure of where farming is likely to be mostviable.

To assist communities that seek to identifystrategic farmland resources, the USDA hasdeveloped a tool to combine different types ofinformation when identifying farmlandpreservation areas. This tool is called the LandEvaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) model.For an online overview of the LESA system andother related resources, seehttp://www.info.usda.gov/nrcs/fpcp orhttp://www.gis.psu.edu/outreach/lesa.

Two major classes of data are used in most LESAanalyses:

• Land Evaluation: This measures soil physicaland chemical properties affecting thesuitability of parcels for various agriculturaluses.

• Site Assessment: This measures non-soilfactors affecting the suitability of parcels foragricultural use, such as farm size,development pressure, scenic value, or otherindicators of the probability of conversion ofspecific parcels to nonfarm uses.

Land Evaluation rates the relative suitability ofsoils for agricultural use on a scale of 0 to 100 byexamining soil properties that affect theproductive potential of the land, as well asconsiderations related to the environmental andeconomic costs of producing a crop. In practice,Land Evaluation is usually determined byanalyzing three soil characteristics: crop yields,land capability class, and important farmlandclass. However, each local community canassign different weights to various factors togenerate a locally-meaningful LE score.

Site Assessment rates the relative suitability ofparcels for agricultural use on a scale of 0 to 100based on locally-determined non-soil factors.Usually three general areas are considered: sitefactors such as farm size, investment inagricultural infrastructure, or surrounding landuse; development pressure as measured bydistance to sewer, zoning, land sales, or other

Sect

ion

3

44

factors; and public values such as historic,cultural, or scenic value.

Usually these two factors are collapsed into asingle numerical score in LESA models. Therelative weighting of each factor can bedetermined by each community to reflect theirown values and goals. The LESA scores are oftenused to identify areas in the community that area high priority for agricultural preservation.They can also be used to rank parcels of landthat might be placed in conservation easementprograms.

Although LESA is frequently used in the land useplanning process, it does have some limitations.The required data may not be readily available,and the models can be complex to construct andinterpret. The weights used to combine differenttypes of information may also be difficult toselect. Communities need to refer to theirplanning goals, their knowledge about localfarming systems, and an assessment of thequality of each type of data before assigningweights in the LESA model. Although they aresubjectively derived, sometimes LESA scores areviewed as objective facts, which can bemisleading.

An alternative to using the LESA approach is tographically represent different types ofinformation on overlay maps. These can bedisplayed to show the overlap between the areasdefined as important for various reasons. Forinstance, how does the distribution of the bestagricultural soils correspond to the location ofcommercial farms? Where are working farmsthat are surrounded entirely by other farm useswithin a radius of one square mile? Decision-makers can focus on different combinations ofvariables to help envision options and guidechoices.

45

Section 3

Section 4: Clarifying Agricultural Goals and Objectives

To be effective, any planning effort must beoriented towards accomplishing certain goalsand objectives (see Box 4A).

Box 4A: What is the Difference Between a Goal and an Objective?

• A goal is a general statement about what acommunity wants to have happen in thefuture.

• An objective is a concrete step that can betaken to achieve a goal. They include general policy statements or specific rulesthat can be used to guide future land usedecisions.

A goal is a general statement about what acommunity wants to have happen in the future.A set of goals might describe a picture of what acommunity wants to look like 5, 10, or 20 yearsdown the road. By their nature, goals do notoutline a specific course of action. Typical goalsare to “protect farmland” or “preserve the ruraland agricultural character” of an area. Goalsrepresent ‘ends,’ not the ‘means’ used to get tothose ends.

Many effective plans also identify a number ofobjectives that represent concrete actions orsteps that can be taken to accomplish each of acommunity’s goals. Objectives should be generalpolicy statements such as “adopt agriculturalzoning,” or “limit development to areas leastsuited to agriculture”. They can also be specificrules that can be used to guide future land usedecisions and the creation of more detailed planimplementation tools.

This section presents examples of goal andobjective statements that communities mightfind useful when debating what they want theirown plans to accomplish. These goal andobjective statements were distilled from a reviewof dozens of actual town and county land useplans written in Wisconsin during the last twodecades.

It may be difficult to generate useful goal andobjective statements. Three pitfalls arecommonly observed in local land use plans andvision statements.

• First, communities often generate goalstatements that are too complex and combinea number of different goals.

In agricultural sections of plans, for example,this might be a statement that “we want toprotect farmers, prime farmland, naturalresources, and rural character whilerespecting the rights of private propertyowners.” Because they contain severaldistinct aims in a single statement, suchcomplicated goals are difficult to use as aguide for making future land use decisions. Inthis instance, what happens if protectingfarmers requires steps that are notcompatible with preserving rural character?Wherever possible, planning goals should beinternally consistent, both within themselvesand with one another.

In the material below, five major categories ofgoals related to agricultural lands areidentified. Most communities will find ituseful to distinguish which of these differenttypes of agricultural goals best reflects thespecific outcomes that they want to achievethrough their plan. In many cases, thesedifferent agricultural goals might seemcompatible; in other cases, they may conflictwith one another. While it is possible for anygiven plan to include several (or even all) ofthe five types of agricultural goals, it is helpfulto identify each goal as a separate outcome.

• A second pitfall relates to the fact that manytown and county plans fail to prioritize whichgoals are the most important to theircommunity.

Plans are often adopted which fail to establishexplicit priorities among potentiallyconflicting values and goals. This reflects thefact that communities are often diverse andhave complicated constellations of politicalinterests.

When diverse goals are simply “addedtogether,” the community runs the risk ofhaving internally contradictory goals and mayfind that their goals are not a very usefulguide to developing planning policies andmaking specific decisions in the future. Theopposite danger is the temptation to avoidconflict by “subtracting”, or dismissingdiscussion of goals that have the potential tooffer disagreement or conflict. Someone maysay, “let’s leave that for the Town Board or thezoning committee to decide.” However,leaving out anything controversial from thegoal statements, or watering down the goals

Sect

ion

4

46

to achieve simple consensus, can leave youwith little specific direction when it comestime to develop specific plan objectives orpolicies.

Avoiding substantive discussions at this pointfor fear of conflict may be a bad decision inthe long run. Achieving internal consistencyand a hierarchy among different goals is reallythe essence of the planning process in ademocracy. Experience suggests it is betterto have this discussion during the planningprocess, when a greater amount of time isavailable for continued dialogue, than duringa rezoning petition when time is not availableand the individual stakes are much higher.Here is the time to listen and learn, to craftnew language, forge compromises, and toestablish trusting relationships among thosewith whom you may not always agree.

To be useful as a guide when making difficultdecisions, communities should not justaccumulate a long list of all possible goalsthat they might want. Above all, it is essentialthey consider and resolve potential conflictsamong different goals, so that consistency andclear priorities are established. They shouldwork to identify which goals are the mostimportant to them and which are lessimportant. Reconciling conflicting viewpointsabout goals may require a carefully facilitatedgroup process and sufficient time to air allperspectives.

• A final pitfall reflects the failure to properlydefine terms and phrases.

Sometimes agreement on specific goalstatements can disguise underlyingdifferences in how people understand orinterpret key words or phrases. Thesedisagreements may not be apparent until thecommunity attempts to use the plan to guidea specific decision or policy action.

Therefore, it is also a good idea for the plan toincorporate a glossary of key terms that are usedin goal statements. This can anticipate andresolve potential conflicts of interpretation thatmay arise later in trying to implement the plan.The process of coming to consensus ondefinitions of terms can help focus the goalformulation process as well. The more abstract,vague and general the language in which theplan’s goals are couched, the harder it is toarrive at a consistent interpretation of themamong different interests. The more clearly

expressed the goals are, the greater the chancefor turning them into objectives.

Goal and objective setting ought to be intimatelyconnected to the “inventory and trend analysis”planning activities summarized above. Goals areusually related to a broader sense of what acommunity values and what they feel mightchange if no planning takes place. Objectiveswill be more effective at accomplishing goals ifthey are connected to a realistic analysis of theproblems and opportunities facing thecommunity. Sometimes the process of gatheringinformation about agricultural resources andland use trends makes it easier to identify whichgoals and objectives are most important to thecommunity. At the same time, once you set aparticular goal, additional information may berequired to identify the most effective strategiesto achieve it.

Overall, communities need to understand thatthe stronger their consensus around specificgoals, and the more clearly expressed andrealistic the objectives associated with thosegoals, the easier it will be to implement and livewith the plan.

The following section presents examples ofclearly stated goals and objectives that may beuseful to a community as it plans for itsagricultural resources. It is an attempt to helpcommunities clarify what it is they are trying toaccomplish and suggest specific measures forreaching those goals.

4.1) Different Types of Agricultural GoalsBased on a review of over 40 Wisconsin town andcounty plans, five distinct categories of goalswere identified that reflect different reasons acommunity might want to plan for theiragricultural landscapes. These five types ofgoals are:

• Preservation of Farmland

• Preservation of Farming/Farms

• Protection of Rural or Agricultural Character;Aesthetics, Sense of Place

• Protection of Environmental and NaturalResources

• Prevention of Incompatible Land Uses;Avoiding Conflict

The first four types of goals reflect the mostcommon reasons why communities seek to planfor their agricultural lands. It should be notedthat they are often used interchangeably, and

47

Section 4

plans frequently assume that protectingagricultural resources will necessarilyaccomplish all four goals at the same time.

Despite obvious areas of overlap, it can beargued that these four goals are conceptuallydistinct and may require different objectives,tools, or actions to be accomplished. Is thecommunity interested in preserving the land thatis farmed? Is the community more interested inpreserving actual farms and the act of farming?Is the community interested in preserving thecharacter of the community for aestheticpurposes to maintain our cultural identity? Or isthe community saving agricultural lands toprotect environmental and natural resources?The first key step in any planning process is tofigure out which of these agricultural goals aremost important in a particular community.

The last goal reflects a more generic planninggoal - avoiding conflicting land uses - as appliedto agriculture.

4.1.a) Balancing Growth and Development, Individual and Community

When planning for growth and development, it isimportant to recognize that we live in a worldwhere things are constantly changing. As thingschange around us, communities are faced withmany challenges, not the least of which is anincreasing population. In most Wisconsincommunities, the question is not whether peoplewill come, but where will everyone live andwork? As a result, many communities seek tofind ways to accommodate residential and othernonfarm development in a manner that willprotect agricultural and natural resources andrespect individual property rights to the greatestextent possible.

Not too long ago, most communities adopted apolicy that all forms of growth and developmentwere inherently good. They believed that inorder for a community to be economically welloff they needed to grow. In many cases, thisassumption was well founded, and areas withdynamic population and economic growthfrequently witnessed a growing tax base, new jobopportunities, rising income levels, andimproved public services and entertainmentoptions.

The uncritical acceptance of all forms of growthalso led to a great deal of land being developedwithout much regard for how it might change thedynamics of the community. What sometimesoccurred was an unexpected change in thefundamental makeup of those communities.

Some forms of development also generateddemands on community services that were notcovered by the new taxes paid by these new landuses, leading to a drain on local governmentresources.

The uncertain impacts of growth anddevelopment also apply to planning foragriculture. One of the most common forms ofgrowth in rural communities involves theconstruction of new homes on what wereformerly agricultural fields. As with commercialor industrial development, these forms of growthhave been simultaneously praised and criticizedby various parties.

Certainly, those landowners seeking to sell landfor new home development are able to benefitimmediately from rising land prices and the saleof their property. Those landowners seeking tosell land for new residential development may beable to benefit immediately from rising landprices and the sale of their property. If theselandowners are retiring farmers withoutsignificant pension plans or savings, thecommunity might well see their financial gains asboth legitimate and desirable, although expertsrecognize that land sales are a risky way tofinance a retirement. Meanwhile, neighboringlandowners might find that development onadjacent properties can either enhance ordiminish their own economic and socialinterests. The overall impacts of residentialdevelopment on community well-being and thefiscal status of local governments may also bepositive or negative depending on how andwhere it occurs.

Rather than adopting a blanket statement infavor of (or opposed to) development andgrowth, it is often more useful to engage themore useful question: “what types of lands aremost appropriate for development in ourcommunity?” As you will see below, this thenredirects the conversation toward thesubstantive aspects of the other types ofagricultural goals listed above.

Finally, because of the competing land useinterests among different groups in mostcommunities, the goal of seeking a “balance” hasappeared in many rural plans. While the goal of“balancing interests” is a common andunderstandable one in a planning process, inpractice the devil is in the details. To be useful,you must establish priorities and certain goalswill have to take precedence over others. To theextent that guidelines for balancing interests canbe made explicit during the planning process,

Sect

ion

4

48

the following goal and objective statements willenhance the planning process. To the extentthat they are left vague, communities may findthat they are not useful as a guide fordetermining what to do when confronted withspecific land use decisions.

4.2) Examples of Agricultural Goals and Objectives

The following sections present sample goal andobjective language that might be useful to acommunity as it tries to clearly state itsintentions for addressing agricultural issues.The sample statements are not necessarilymeant to be directly copied or used, but ratherto help facilitate a local discussion of what aparticular community might want to do. In manycases, they also use specific words and termsthat will need to be carefully defined in aplanning process or plan document.

Examples of objective statements are also listedunder each major goal category. The examplesprovided are to be treated with caution. Evenmore than goal statements, objectives must beadjusted and crafted to your local situation.They may contain local place names and identifyremedies that are specifically developed for thatplace. When developing objective statements, itis critical to link the objectives to the goals, to beclear and concise, and to make each objective“measurable” so that you will know when youhave achieved it.

4.2.a) Preservation of FarmlandThe most common kind of goal in theagricultural component of plans is to protectland that can be used for farming from nonfarmdevelopment. In Wisconsin and elsewhere overthe last decade there has been considerablepressure to convert farmland into ruralresidential housing or recreational properties.Where there is competition from nonagriculturaluses, the market price of farmland cansignificantly exceed the value of the land for useas cropland or pasture. As farmland isconverted to nonfarm ownership, there is often aconcern that it is permanently removed fromfuture agricultural production.

As communities seek to preserve farmland, some“goal” statements have become common:

Sample “goal” language:

• Preserve the best farmland for agriculturalproduction.

• Prime farmland permanently retained foragriculture.

• Protect prime agricultural land.

• Preserve prime farmland for agricultural uses.

• Preserve productive farmland for continuedagricultural use.

• Preserving the productive agricultural landsfor long-term farm use.

In each case, some key terms - ‘best,’ ‘prime’ or‘productive’ need to be carefully defined later inthe planning process in order to facilitateimplementation of effective policies.

How do you accomplish these goals? Dependingon your diagnosis of the threats to farmland inyour community, one or more of the followingobjectives might be appropriate to yoursituation.

Sample “objective” language:

• Restrict residential and commercialdevelopment to areas least suited foragricultural purposes (perhaps land wherethere is no history of farming or that isinaccessible)

• Prevent land divisions or subdivisions onprime farmland.

• Limit nonfarm residential development to alow density.

• Discourage the rezoning of land zoned forexclusive agriculture use.

• Encourage participation in the state farmlandpreservation program.

• Protect farming operations from incompatibleadjacent land uses.

• Prevent isolated commercial and industrialuses in agricultural areas.

4.2.b) Preservation of Farming/FarmsMaintaining open agricultural lands is not theonly agricultural issue. For many, keepingfarming viable as an economic activity in thecommunity is important. In other words, thedesired outcome would not be met if theircommunity succeeded in keeping development

49

Section 4

away from agricultural land, but no one decidedto actively farm the land. For these people,policies that allow some farmland to beconverted out of agriculture might be preferableas long as they promoted the economic viabilityof existing and future farms.

In order to maintain the viability of farming,many conditions might be seen as important.These include:

• Local farms must be willing and able to makeinvestments in their operations to remaincompetitive and efficient.

• The local agricultural infrastructure must beadequate to maintain a viable farm sector.

• It may be important to have large blocks ofcontiguous agricultural land that are capableof maintaining a critical mass of farmers.

• Land uses surrounding farm fields need to becompatible with agriculture to minimizenuisances, unwanted environmental impacts,and other conflicts.

This list is not exhaustive. It is designed tointroduce some of the challenges to preservingthe viability of farming. These conditions alsoprovide some direction for how planning policiesmight be targeted to maximize the preservationof farms.

The following sections present sample goal andobjective language that might be useful tocommunities as they try to clearly state theirintentions for preserving farming and farms.


• Preserve agricultural activity.

• Protect/preserve existing farm operations.

• Identify agricultural areas for preservation.

• Identify, sustain and further developagricultural infrastructure to supportagricultural operations.

• Develop a local or regional ‘brand’ foragricultural products.

• Preserve farming as the economic base of thecommunity.

Depending on your goals, the following sampleobjective statements might be useful:

Sample “objective” language:

• Develop programs to make local farms moreeconomically viable.

• Provide assistance to farmers seeking toinnovate or modernize their operations.

• Support local farm product processing andmarketing initiatives

• Find ways to encourage retiring farmers topass farms on to heirs or sell to farmers.

• Adopt an Exclusive Agricultural Zoningordinance.

• Preserve suitable land areas for agriculturaland associated uses.

• Ensure agriculture is not threatened orrestricted by adjacent land uses in significantagricultural areas.

4.2.c) Preserve Rural/Agricultural Character; Aesthetics, Sense of Place

Wisconsin has traditionally been a rural andagricultural state. When most residents andvisitors think of Wisconsin, images of a ruralcountryside dotted with red barns, tall silos, andfields of corn, hay, and grazing cattle comeimmediately to mind. With over half of the landin many Wisconsin communities used foragriculture, the visual image of an active farminglandscape can also be an important componentof the local sense of place or “rural character.”Changes in agriculture may be alarming to manyin Wisconsin in part because they also affect lesstangible qualities of rural life.

In a slightly different sense, traditionalagricultural communities have long felt theyhave a distinctive kind of community culture.While hard to define, people often refer tofriendliness, neighborliness, informal exchangesof labor and assistance, low crime rates,community-mindedness, and accessibledemocratic government as some of the keyfeatures of rural community life. These qualitiescan reflect the ethics, values, and socialdynamics that were associated with apredominantly agrarian economy and lifestyle formany decades.

The declining economic and cultural importanceof farming, and the influx of new, nonfarm peopleinto many rural landscapes are often felt to havechanged the underlying community dynamic.Sometimes the changes are aesthetic - the waynew buildings or developments change the visualcharacter of the countryside. Other times thechanges are social and cultural, reflecting thechanging values, political views, or behavioramong residents of rural communities.

Sect

ion

4

50

Recognizing these qualities and trends has ledsome communities to specifically identify goalsrelated to preserving a rural sense of place.Some examples of goal language found in varioustown and county plans include:


• Preserve and maintain open space.

• Preserve and maintain rural views and vistas.

• Preserve/Maintain/Encourage the ruralcharacter of the community.

• Maintain the rural and agricultural characterof the community

• Preserve the integrity of the rural community.

Examples of objectives that might be used toaccomplish these goals include:

Sample “objective” language”:

• Require that new residents receive a copy of a‘Rural Code of Conduct’ that outlines thetraditional community norms andexpectations for rural residents.

• Submit building plans (including site andlandscaping information) to the plancommittee for approval.

• Preserve scenic views.

• Restrict development that severely alters thenatural topography.

• Limit strip development to specific roadways.

• Limit residential development to densities andlocations that are best suited to preservingthe Town’s distinctive rural character.

4.2.d) Environmental/ Natural Resource Protection

Communities planning for agriculture,particularly those writing comprehensive plans,need to consider ways in which farming affectsthe natural environment. Section 2 of this guidediscussed the integration of agricultural andnatural resources in Wisconsin, and howdifferent kinds of agricultural activities andchanges away from farming towards new uses ofthe land can either impair or enhance soil, water,and air quality.

As part of a goal setting exercise, language canbe found to reflect specific environmental ornatural resource protection goals. Examples ofgoal statements that identify aspects of thenatural environment include the following.

Sample "goal" language":

• Preserve open space.

• Preserve opportunities for outdoor recreation.

• Protect surface and groundwater quality.

• Maintain and expand wildlife habitat.

• Preserve natural resources to ensure theirvalue for future generations.

• Coordinate with the county land conservationdepartment and the land and water resourcemanagement plan advisory committee.

Although there are many objectives that mightbe pursued to accomplish these goals, thefollowing examples specifically relate to thingsthat can be done in the farm sector.

Sample "objective" language":

• Identify environmentally sensitive areas.

• Measure "interspersion" of agriculture andenvironmentally sensitive areas.

• Minimize agricultural activities that threatenenvironmentally sensitive areas.

• Maximize agricultural activities that enhancenatural resources.

• Encourage the use of Best ManagementPractices by farmers.

• Encourage soil conservation practices toreduce soil erosion, improve water quality,and increase farmland productivity.

• Adopt established standards for manurestorage and handling practices.

• Regulate the siting and management practicesof expanding and large livestock facilities(consistent with state rules).

• Avoid disturbance to wetlands, shorelands,and other environmentally sensitive areas.

• Encourage farmers to leave naturallyvegetated buffers and limit agrichemical usein riparian areas. Take advantage of CREP(Conservation Reserve Enhancement Project)

• Encourage enrollment in FarmlandPreservation, Conservation Reserve, ManagedForest Law, and other conservation programs.

51

Section 4

4.2.e) Preventing Land Uses Incompatible with Farming

Rural agricultural communities usually consist ofa mix of farmers and nonfarmers. Many of thelatter are new to the area having recently beenrelocated from an urban environment. In thissetting, collisions between lifestyles, values, andexpectations are inevitable. New residents oftenbring with them expectations of a bucolic, quietpastoral life that may be unrealistic. At times,conflicts arise between farming and nonfarmingneighbors over early morning farming activities,slow moving tractors (or fast moving commutercars), and manure spreading on crops. Becausetransplanted suburbanites do not expect these“intrusions,” they may have little tolerance forthem.

The following examples of goal and objectivestatements will be useful to communities thatseek to use their plan to prevent land uses thatare incompatible with farming.

Sample “goal” language”:

• Limit encroachment on active farmingoperations by nonfarm uses.

• Protect farm operations from conflict withnonfarm uses.

• Protect farm operations from incompatibleadjacent land uses or activities that willadversely affect the long-term agriculturalinvestment in land and improvements.

• Preserve agricultural land in the town fromencroachment by incompatible development.

These goals can be pursued in a variety of ways.Some options might include:

Sample “objective” language”:

• Encourage development that is located so asto keep municipal costs and taxation low.

• Preserve and support agricultural productionactivities in areas that are currently inpredominantly agricultural use and/or arezoned in an agricultural classification.

• Develop and distribute a Code of Rural Livingguidebook for new rural residents.

• Notify new residents about the sights, sounds,and smells associated with normalagricultural operations.

• Establish a Right-to-Farm ordinance to protectfarmers from frivolous lawsuits.

• Establish siting standards for new orexpanding large livestock facilities.

• Establish setback buffers between existingfarms and new houses.

• Establish reverse setback buffers betweenexisting houses and new farms.

• Promote infill development within and aroundexisting dense settlements.

• Establish maximum lot sizes to ensure smallerresidential lots in rural areas.

• Cluster rural residential homes away fromimportant agricultural fields.

• Require commercial and industrialdevelopment to locate in areas with adequatepublic services and transportation facilitiesand adjacent to existing nonfarmdevelopment.

4.3) Methods for DefiningCommunity Goals and Objectives

The process of identifying community goals andobjectives for comprehensive planning caninvolve the use of a variety of techniques ormethods. Every method has certain strengthsand weaknesses. In all cases, however, it isimportant to recognize two distinct challenges:

1. How to identify the views and values ofrepresentative groups of local citizens?

2. How to reconcile value conflicts in thecommunity and produce consensus aroundoverall goals?

4.3.a) Group Process Approaches: Community Visioning

Perhaps the most thorough way to understandcommunity goals and objectives is through acomprehensive visioning exercise.

Recently, the UW Cooperative Extension serviceproduced a guide to community visioning thatoutlines the steps to be taken and offers advice(Building Our Future: A Guide to CommunityVisioning, available on-line atwww1.uwex.edu/ces/pubs/pdf/G3708.PDF; seealso a companion document titled Creating aVision for Your Community — More on the Art ofCommunity Development,www1.uwex.edu/ces/pubs/pdf/G3617.PDF. Thisdocument defines community visioning as “aprocess by which a community envisions thefuture it wants, and plans how to achieve it.”This visioning process can be accomplished in arelatively short time frame, or in a moreelaborate series of meetings taking a year ormore. Both documents also can be obtainedthrough most county Extension offices.

Sect

ion

4

52

Visioning usually requires some kinds ofinformation about the community (seediscussion of inventory activities in Section 3above), and often generates demand or interestin collecting new data or information dependingon the issues that are identified.

If designed and executed properly, a visioningexercise can capture the concerns of mostgroups of local citizens. To ensure this, it iscritical to involve people with conflicting anddiverse points of view. In addition, becausevisioning engages citizens and communityleaders in an interactive process, it allowsparticipants to identify shared goals and values,work though issues that they disagree on, andhopefully negotiate solutions that respect andrecognize the diverse needs of all communitymembers. When linked to a comprehensiveplanning exercise, it may make sense to engagein this type of visioning activity at least once toaddress issues in all nine of the comprehensiveplan elements (instead of having a visioningprocess limited to each separate comprehensiveplan element).

Other resources that provide useful guidance fordeveloping a collaborative process to identifycommunity priorities and also engage citizens inthe planning process include the followingpublication:

• Wiedman, Wilbur A., Jr. 1992. InvolvingCitizens: A Guide to Conducting CitizenParticipation. Bureau of Information andEducation Report. Madison: WisconsinDepartment of Natural Resources.

4.3.b) Traditional Opportunities for Public Input:Public Meetings and Hearings

Traditionally, one key way to ensure thatcommunity plans reflect citizen priorities is tosolicit feedback on draft plan documents inpublic meetings or formal public hearings.Public meetings are an important component ofthe legal process of plan adoption (and in thepassage of other significant legal or legislativedocuments).

Public meetings can be effective mechanisms toaccomplish several goals:

• Early in the process, they are a reasonableway to begin to scope the issues that areimportant to community members. (Whatkinds of concerns exist? What are some of theissues citizens would like to see a planaddress?)

• Later on, they allow local officials or plancommittee members to present a proposedplan to the public. This allows for greaterpublic understanding of a proposed action.

• Throughout the process, they provide anopportunity for interested communitymembers to express their views on proposedplan elements. In particular, they generateopportunities for face-to-face interactions anddebate between public officials and localcitizens.

While effective and widely used for thesepurposes, most experts recognize that the viewsexpressed in formal public meetings are notalways fully representative of the spectrum ofgoals, values, and opinions in the community.This is because public meetings are:

• Usually dominated by the most passionateand vocal citizens;

• Often intimidating to less vocal citizens;

• Difficult for some categories of citizens toattend (working parents, younger or mid-career farmers, commuters, etc.).

In addition, the results of a public hearing maynot always provide input on the key questions athand. Participants often react to previousspeakers, go off on tangents that may or may notbe relevant to the needs of the planning process,and frequently take a critical (rather thanconstructive) tone. Aside from serving as ageneral sounding board, they may not providethe detailed suggestions and feedback that alocal official (or working committee) needs todetermine future courses of action for theplanning process.

There are a variety of resources available thatcan help ensure that public meetings andhearings are successful and designed in a waythat meets legal requirements. In Wisconsin, theUWEX Local Government Center has a variety ofworkshops and on-line resources that may behelpful (see www.uwex.edu/lgc/). Nationally,there are useful tips on Improving theEffectiveness of Public Meetings and Hearingspublished on-line by the U.S. Department ofTransportation (ntl.bts.gov/DOCS/nhi.html), andseveral municipal organizations offer on-lineadvice (see: www.gmanet.com/research/resources/citizen.input.shtml;www.gmanet.com/research/resources/citizen.tips.shtml; andwww.naco.org/pubs/research/issues/meeting.cfm).

53

Section 4

4.3.c) Seeking Representative Viewpoints: Phone and Mail Surveys

The biggest problem with public meetings orhearings as vehicles to identify community viewsand priorities is that it is difficult to determinewhether the people who attend arerepresentative of the larger community. Tobetter measure community opinion on importantland use issues, many communities employ mailor telephone surveys. If done well, they are lesslikely to be biased in favor of the most active,vocal, or opinionated citizens, and it is easier fordiverse kinds of people to participate.

Surveys can be sent to the entire population ofresidents or landowners in a community (if thenumbers are not too large). More commonly,they are sent to random samples of citizens.When response rates are relatively high, randomsampling is a scientifically valid technique foridentifying the importance of diverse viewpointswithout contacting everyone in the area. If thereare particular groups whose views are of specialinterest - new landowners, retiring farmers,commercial agriculturalists, owners of parcels ofland in sensitive areas - random sampling can becombined with quota- or stratified samplingtechniques that “oversample” some people inorder to get a more reliable estimate of the viewsof these groups.

It is worth recognizing that random or statisticalsampling is still a controversial or unfamiliarmethod in some circles, and any concerns abouthow to use or interpret the results of samplesurveys should be addressed before committingtime and money to a survey project.

Most experts agree that surveys - if welldesigned and executed - can be used to gatherstatistically reliable data on the views andopinions of citizens. They can also be designedto test support for various proposed policies andprograms. In the latter case, expressions ofsupport in a survey may provide assurances tolocal officials that they have a mandate to act.

Writing good surveys can take a lot of time andenergy, and implementing them may beexpensive (especially if professional consultantsare hired to do the survey). If poorly designed,relatively few people may return the surveys(leading to low response rates) and the resultsmay not be very reliable and useful. Generallyspeaking, response rates of over 50-60 percent ofthe eligible sample are required to instillconfidence in the results.

To be successful, communities need to have aclear idea of what they want to learn from asurvey. This means writing questions that areprecise, targeted, and useful. Communities willalso need to decide whether they will implementthe survey through the mail or over thetelephone. Each technique offers advantagesand disadvantages. A detailed discussion of howto design and implement telephone and mailsurveys is beyond the scope of this document.However there are numerous on-line resourcesthat may be helpful to local communities. Theseinclude:

• UW Cooperative Extension publicationsregarding survey methods, questionnairedesign, population sampling, etc. (designedfor extension staff, but many of the tips areuseful to a wider audience):www1.uwex.edu/ces/pubs/showpubs.cfm?theid=1606

• Useful brochures about survey research fromthe American Statistical Association:www.amstat.org/sections/srms/whatsurvey.html

• Excellent background information on surveyresearch methods from a professor at CornellUniversity:trochim.human.cornell.edu/kb/survey.htm

• An internet list of web resources regardingsurvey research methods:www.slais.ubc.ca/resources/research_methods/general3.htm

• Other useful tips from a private sectorwebsite: www.surveysystem.com/sdesign.htm

Useful books for people seeking to learn moreabout survey logistics include:

• Salant, Priscilla, and Don A. Dillman. 1994.How to Conduct Your Own Survey. New York:John Wiley and Sons.

• Dillman, Don A. 2000. Mail and InternetSurveys: The Tailored Design Method. 2ndEdition. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Sect

ion

4

54

4.3.d) Exploring What People Mean: Focus Groups

Although surveys can provide statisticallyreliable estimates of different views and opinionsin a community, survey instruments have tosimplify many complex issues and ideas to bepractical. An alternative method that enablesthe community to go into more detail onimportant issues with a smaller number ofpeople is the focus group technique.

Focus groups involve carefully designedmeetings with strategically selected people.Most experts suggest having between 7-12people participate in each focus group session(to allow everyone to feel comfortableparticipating). Questions are usually designed inadvance to explore the views of focus groupparticipants on specific topics. Participants areusually chosen to form relatively homogenousgroups; holding several parallel sessions withdiverse groups of citizens can capture moreperspectives.

Focus groups allow citizens to explain theirviews in greater depth. They generally are notused as an arena to negotiate among conflictingviews or to capture a scientifically valid range ofcommunity viewpoints. In a comprehensiveplanning process, they might be used to identifycritical issues the plan needs to address, tobrainstorm possible goals or objectives for theplan, or to weight the pros and cons ofalternative plan implementation strategies andpolicies.

Focus groups can complement survey researchin two ways. Some communities use focusgroups to identify the important issues for localcitizens, and then design survey questions tocapture these issues from a larger and morerepresentative sample. Others use focus groupsto explore results of mail and telephone surveys.

Again, there are ample background resourcesregarding the design and implementation offocus groups available on the internet. Some keysites to explore include:

• Basics of Conducting Focus Groups:www.mapnp.org/library/evaluatn/focusgrp.htm

• Background to Focus Groups:www.telecom.csuhayward.edu/~psy4820/focusgr.html

• A Focus Group Handbook:child.cornell.edu/child.cornell.edu/army/focus.html#anchor781573

A widely used book on the subject is:

• Krueger, Richard A. and Mary Anne Casey.2000. Focus Groups. 3rd Edition. ThousandOaks, CA: Sage Publications.

4.3.e) Reconciling DifferencesMost communities have diverse citizens withdistinct opinions on specific planning issues.Conflicts among residents can be frustrating tolocal officials seeking to develop consensus orcommunity support for a planning process. Mostof the information gathering techniques listedabove are useful for identifying where differencesexist and how widespread support is for differentpoints of view, but they are not designed to helpreconcile these differences (the main exceptionis the community visioning process, which oftenincludes techniques to mediate and workthrough conflicting positions.)

Several websites offer advice on managingconflict:

• A Guide for Managing Conflict in Watersheds(from Purdue University):www.ctic.purdue.edu/KYW/Brochures/ManageConflict.html

• Examples of how dispute resolution works invarious land use contexts:www.mediate.com/articles/sprawl.cfm

• Some general bibliographies and website lists:www.geocities.com/Athens/8945/osf1.gmu.edu/~jwindmue/conflict.html

In addition, two useful books that may helpcommunities work to reconcile their differencesare:

• Wondolleck, Julia and Steven Yaffee. 2000.Making Collaboration Work: Lessons fromInnovation in Natural Resource Management.Washington, D.C.: Island Press.

• Fisher, Roger, William Ury, and Bruce Patton.1991. Getting to Yes: Negotiating AgreementWithout Giving In. 2nd edition. PenguinBooks.

4.4) Integrating Information and Community Values

As you begin the planning process, you willnotice that there is no fine line between doing aninventory and articulating priorities. In fact, theprocesses of conducting an inventory andidentifying community goals should ideally bedone at the same time.

55

Section 4

Gathering information at all presumes that it willhave some use in the planning process. It is not,as the saying goes, just an academic exercise.The information gathered in the inventoryshould be linked to the basic problems andconcerns that confront the community. At thesame time, as you start finding out what needs tobe addressed in your community, you will

undoubtedly identify new goals (or clarifyexisting goals) for the overall planning process.Meanwhile, the process of creating a communityconsensus around planning goals will suggestareas where more information might be useful.Communities should be prepared to let progresson each of these tasks influence the direction theother takes.

Sect

ion

4

56

Section 5: Strategies and Policies for Planning for Agriculture

5.1) IntroductionWhile developing the agricultural element ofyour comprehensive plan or when planning foragriculture, you should think about how you willcarry out the intentions of the plan. This willhelp you to identify implementation strategiesand action steps your community will use. Thissection discusses a range of possible approachesthat have been taken by various communities toimplement their agricultural plans. The guidepresents a clear description of each policy orprogram option, and provides an objectiveassessment of their strengths and weaknesses.

Implementation of the plan is important. It isimportant to show that the goals and theobjectives of the community are leading toconcrete policies and that the time spent on theplan and public meetings has been meaningful.Implementation is also one of the required nineelements of a comprehensive plan. Theimplementation element requires that youidentify strategies and actions your communitywill take to implement your local plan over theplanning period. The implementation element isa compilation of programs and specific actions tobe completed in a stated sequence to implementthe objectives, policies, plans and programs ofyour community.

The implementation element is required tocontain a description of how each of the othereight required elements in a comprehensive planwill be integrated and made consistent with oneanother. There also needs to be a mechanism tomeasure the local governmental unit’s progresstoward achieving all aspects of theircomprehensive plan. This element must describea process for updating the comprehensive planno less than once every ten years.

As you define the implementation strategies andmechanisms, it will be helpful to refer back tothe overall goals and objectives your communityidentified in the early stages of the planningprocess, and also to goals and objectives that arespecific to agricultural and natural resources.What kind of development will your communityencourage and under what circumstances?Where will the development be targeted anddirected? You will want to write clear decisionmaking criteria into your plan andimplementation tools to answer questions likethese.

This section is organized into severalsubsections:

• First, a general background on the variouskinds of tools that can be used to implement aplan.

• Second, a discussion of a range of regulatoryand nonregulatory strategies to managedevelopment on agricultural lands.

• Third, an examination of local planning andpolicy tools for livestock agriculture.

• And finally, the presentation of a set of programs that might be used to encourage local agricultural economic development.

Throughout this section, you should recognizethat Wisconsin communities do not have toadopt any or all of these policies in order topursue their agricultural planning goals. Infact, for some places, the most attractive policywill be to allow current policies and marketforces to decide patterns of agricultural and landdevelopment without the intervention of localofficials or use of new government regulations. Aplan can be written that is consistent andsupportive of this approach, usually byembracing current trends and validating theimportance of the current approach to thecommunity.

As with goals, there is no predetermined packageof agricultural policies that everyone shouldadopt. Individual communities will want toevaluate the following strategies in relation totheir own unique situation and goals.

5.2) Planning versus ZoningEven though zoning is the most common toolused by local governments to regulate land use,many people are confused about the differencesbetween planning and zoning. This confusion isexacerbated by the fact that some communitieshave adopted a zoning ordinance without goingthrough a planning process first, and others havewritten plans and not chosen to adopt a zoningordinance to implement them. As you can seedoing one does not necessarily require adoptingthe other.

As discussed above, planning refers to a processwhereby community members come together todiscuss how they want their communities to

57

Section 5

look, feel, and function in the future. The typicalplanning process includes taking inventory of thecommunity’s resources, setting goals andobjectives, and considering policies or measuresto accomplish these goals and objectives.Usually the plan itself does not contain theseimplementation tools, although it can point tothem. Rather, plans serve as guides to theselection and administration of various policiesand programs. In addition, the planning processcan serve other purposes, such as to bringcommunity members together and to develop acommon vision for the future of their community.

Zoning, on the other hand, is one of many kindsof specific implementation tools available tolocal communities. Zoning is generally designedto prevent nuisances and conflicts and topromote public goals like healthy and orderlydevelopment. Zoning involves the classificationof a community’s land into different types of uses(zones) and specifies the allowable uses anddensity of development within each zone.Zoning places specific legal restrictions on howland can be developed or used. Zoning occurswhen a community adopts a zoning ordinancewith a zoning map that describes which zoningcategory applies to each specific parcel of land.The zoning ordinance defines the differentzoning categories, identifies what land uses arepermitted in a given zone, notes which otherland uses may occur if special conditional usepermits are granted by the local authorities, andwhich land uses are prohibited.

After adopting a zoning ordinance, local zoningcommittees and administrators are charged withinterpreting and enforcing the law. This usuallyinvolves responding to requests for conditionaluse permits or for changes in the zoning statusof specific parcels of land (rezoning).

As noted above, the zoning ordinances in manycommunities are only loosely guided by a localplan. In the future, planning and zoning activitieswill need to be more closely coordinated by mostmunicipalities. Specifically, under new statestatutes after January 1, 2010 all land useordinances and decisions (including zoning)must be consistent with the goals, objectives,and policies contained in an adoptedcomprehensive plan (see discussion in Section6.3 of this guide).

5.2.a) Types of ZoningA general zoning ordinance is a broad documentthat defines zoning categories throughout anentire municipality or jurisdiction. Rural general

zoning ordinances often include zoningcategories for agricultural, rural residential, orrural transition area zones. In addition tomanaging development, a sophisticated use ofzoning districts can be used to keepincompatible or conflicting land uses separatefrom one another.

Other kinds of special zoning ordinances mayonly apply to specific kinds of land. InWisconsin, three examples of special zoning arefloodplain zoning, shoreland zoning, andexclusive agricultural zoning.

The first two are mandated by the WisconsinState Legislature, and must be adopted andenforced by all counties in the state. Theygenerally restrict development within a specifieddistance from floodplains, lakes, rivers, andstreams. They do not require the presence of ageneral zoning ordinance to apply. Towngovernments cannot override county authorityto implement these ordinances, but can adoptand administer more restrictive regulations(zoning or other types) than contained in thecounty ordinance.

Exclusive agricultural zoning (EAZ) is an optionalzoning ordinance that a municipality uses tocreate a special zoning category in whichagriculture is considered the primary allowableuse. As noted in Section 1 above, state statutesplace specific restrictions on minimum lot sizes,allowable nonagricultural uses, and other factorswithin certified EAZ zones. A certified ExclusiveAgricultural Zoning ordinance is required forlandowners within an exclusive agriculturalzoning district to qualify for farmlandpreservation tax credits under the FarmlandPreservation Program. Towns, counties, citiesand villages in Wisconsin can all voluntarilyadopt EAZ ordinances. EAZ districts areincluded in general zoning ordinances amongother zoning categories. See section s.5.5d forfurther discussion.

Zoning is only one of many types of regulatorytools available to local governments. Othersmay include rules for dividing land into new legalparcels, standards that must be met to receivebuilding and driveway permits, and policies thatregulate septic and water systems to protectpublic health. These are discussed below.

5.2.b) Can We Really Do This? Limitations on Government Action

Given the restrictions on private propertyassociated with zoning and other regulatorytools, it is not uncommon for citizens to question

Sect

ion

5

58

whether local governments have the legalauthority to adopt these policies. Beforediscussing plan implementation strategies morefully, this section of the guide attempts toaddress this broader question.

Local governments in the United States havebeen enacting zoning laws for over 80 years.These zoning laws have been based on theinnate police powers of governments to protectthe health, safety, welfare, and morals of thecommunity. Local governments receive theirspecific zoning authority through state “enablingacts,” which literally enable or allow localgovernments to exercise those rights.

Wisconsin was the first state to enable localgovernments to adopt zoning ordinances toregulate rural areas. Rural zoning ordinanceswere originally adopted by counties that wereconcerned about unregulated forestry andagricultural practices in northern and centralWisconsin. These ordinances generallyauthorized county boards “to regulate, restrictand determine the areas within whichagriculture, forestry, and recreation may beconducted.”

In Wisconsin, there are several statutes thatspecify the powers of cities, villages, counties,and towns (Chapters 59, 60, 61, 62 and 66 of theWisconsin Statutes) including the delegatedauthority to regulate local land use patterns. Inaddition, there are specific legal authoritiesgranted in a wide range of other statutes relatedto environmental protection (Ch. 92 and 281),farmland preservation (Ch. 91), road access (Ch.81); land division and subdivision regulation (Ch.236), and others.

In the last few decades, certain individualproperty rights advocates have questioned thelegality of many planning and zoning restrictionsin state and federal courts. Although this guidecannot provide a detailed analysis of the legalissues involved, the general direction of recentlegal decisions suggests that local governmentswho act reasonably can use their specificdelegated authorities as well as general policepowers to pass and enforce zoning and otherregulations on land use and development. To belegally defensible, local government actions:

• Must pursue a public purpose (usuallyprotection of public health, safety, welfare andmorals);

• Must consistently and objectively enforcetheir rules (enforcement cannot be arbitraryor restrict the free movement of people);

• Cannot remove all reasonable economic use ofprivate property without just compensation;

• Must be supported by a well documented andwritten record (often a “finding of fact”) thatclearly supports the logic and basis for thedecisions of local authorities in each case;and

• Must follow statutory procedures for actionsthat are explicitly defined under state statute.

Using current legal precedents, it is fair to saythat local governments who abide by thesestandards and who develop policies based onspecific statutory language will generally be in astrong position. That is, they are legally justifiedin adopting plans and implementation policiesthat regulate land use within their jurisdictions.Successful challenges to local zoning or otherland use regulation have generally come frominstances where a local government:

• Failed to follow standards and procedures in atimely manner as established by state law;

• Did not demonstrate a compelling publicpurpose for the applicable land useregulation;

• Did not enforce or implement their policiesconsistently for all landowners; or

• Did not develop a documented recorddetailing the facts and logic underlying theirdecisions.

While it is clear that local governments inWisconsin can act, it is up to each localcommunity to decide if and how they want theirlocal officials to act to regulate land use.

5.3) Managing Development on Agricultural Lands: Regulatory Strategies

Many local governments decide to adopt policiesthat affect patterns of development onagricultural lands. Most of these are targeted atprotecting farmland from nonfarm development.Sometimes, they provide rules, guidelines orincentives to encourage specific patterns ofdevelopment. In the following pages, this guidewill discuss two major approaches to managingdevelopment on farmland. These include: (a) traditional regulatory strategies, and (b) non-regulatory, incentive-based strategies.

Many communities have used zoning and otherregulatory strategies to manage patterns ofdevelopment on farmland. This section looks at some of these traditional regulatoryapproaches, and contrasts them with someinnovative regulatory options that have emergedin recent years.

59

Section 5

5.3.a) Traditional Agricultural ZoningThe most common approach to zoning foragricultural areas involves identifyingAgricultural Protection Zones (APZs) thatdesignate areas where farming is the desiredland use, based on soil quality and locationfactors. In Wisconsin, Exclusive AgriculturalZoning (EAZ) is one example of this type ofzoning.

Most APZs are designed to protect agriculture bylimiting nonfarm uses, prohibiting high-densitydevelopment, and restricting subdivision of landinto parcels that are too small to farm. The threeessential features of traditional agriculturalzoning are:

1) Prohibitions or restrictions against nonfarm uses;

2) The use of relatively large minimum lot sizes;and

3) Limits placed on the overall density ofresidential housing.

Restrictions on Nonfarm Uses in Agricultural ZonesIn order to maintain an area as agricultural, thefirst step is to designate that the only allowableuses of land are those that are consistent orcompatible with agricultural activities.

While this seems straightforward, determiningwhat are allowable nonfarm uses can becomecomplicated in practice. Usually exceptions aremade for farm family houses (including homesfor parents and children of farm operators aswell as farm laborers). Generally, APZordinances allow some small family businessesto occur within APZ districts - particularly if theyare related to the processing and marketing offarm products (like roadside stands, on-farm milkprocessing, U-pick operations, etc.). In someareas, larger agribusiness operations are alsoconsidered to be a permitted use, while otherareas expressly prohibit these.

Some general agricultural zoning districts allow amuch wider range of activities, including smallcommercial and recreational businesses, singlefamily homes, extractive industries, and manyother rural land uses.

In practice, some of the most important languagein a zoning ordinance addresses whether or notan agricultural zone allows the construction ofnew single-family homes by persons not engagedin agriculture. Since this type of development isthe primary driver of the conversion of farmland,decisions about whether to allow it in therural/agricultural zoning category can have

dramatic consequences for implementing theagricultural element of a comprehensive plan.

Because much of Wisconsin’s rural landscapeconsists of a diverse mix of crop fields, pastures,woods, and wetlands, it is often the case thatsome places within an agriculturally zoned areamay not be suitable for production agriculture.Recognizing this fact, many communitiesestablish criteria that allow nonfarm homes, butspecify that they need to be located only oncertain parts of the landscape. Typically thisinvolves keeping new houses (and driveways)near roads, on the margins of parcels, and awayfrom productive crop fields and prime soils.

The most restrictive kinds of agricultural zonesrequire that farming be the only allowable use ofland. In Wisconsin, state statutes specifystandards for this kind of “Exclusive AgriculturalZoning” district. The statute includes therequirement that “No structure or improvementmay be built on the land unless it is consistentwith agricultural purposes” (Wis. Ch 91.75(3)).In 2000, 283 local town governments inWisconsin had adopted their county’s exclusiveagricultural zoning (EAZ) ordinance, and another119 towns had developed an EAZ ordinanceindependently of their county. In addition, 17villages and 19 cities had adopted EAZ districts.

Large Minimum Lot SizesFor over 25 years, most agricultural zones haverequired relatively large minimum lot sizes. Thelarge minimum lot size approach is designed tolimit the amount of residential development thatoccurs in agricultural areas, as well as controlthe size of those parcels. The idea is to pickminimum lot sizes that are large enough toprevent the fragmentation of viable agriculturalunits, and to discourage nonfarm homebuyersfrom purchasing land to build on in the country.

In practice, most agricultural zones (particularlyin the Midwest) have established minimum lotsizes that range from 20-40 acres in size. Whilemuch larger than conventional suburban homelots, parcels of this size are usually much smallerthan would be required to maintain a viableconventional farming operation. Of course, insome urban fringe areas, high value marketgardening and greenhouses can generateconsiderable income on relatively smallacreages.

In Wisconsin, many communities that haveagricultural zoning ordinances mandate aminimum lot size of 35 acres. The impetus formany of these ordinances was the state

Sect

ion

5

60

Farmland Preservation Law (Ch. 91, WisconsinStatutes), which until recently required thatareas under Exclusive Agricultural Zoning (EAZ)had to have lots no smaller than 35 acres.

In 1999, the state legislature changed the law toallow individual communities the flexibility tolower their minimum lot size threshold under theEAZ statute. This change took effect on January 1, 2001.

As communities consider their options forrevising EAZ ordinances (including increasing ordecreasing their minimum lot sizes), it is worthnoting that the change in state law did not relaxthe other requirements of the EAZ statute. Inparticular, regardless of minimum parcel size, thelocal government must make sure that anystructures built on land in exclusive agriculturaluse districts must be consistent with agriculturaluse. The statutes define uses consistent withagricultural use as meeting all of the followingconditions:

a) the activity will not convert land that hasbeen devoted primarily to agricultural use;

b) the activity will not limit the surroundingland’s potential for agricultural use;

c) the activity will not conflict with agriculturaloperations on land subject to farmlandpreservation agreements; and

d) the activity will not conflict with agriculturaloperations on other properties (sees.91.75(3), s. 91.01(1) and s. 91.01(10)).

Moreover, in order to continue to receiveproperty tax credits under the FarmlandPreservation Program, landowners mustcontinue to have EAZ parcels of at least 35 acresin size.

The use of large minimum lot sizes has a numberof possible strengths and weaknesses (see Box5A). A community must weigh those strengthsand weaknesses to determine whether or not theuse of large minimum lot sizes will be aneffective way to achieve their community goals.The weaknesses can be addressed bysignificantly raising minimum lot sizes todiscourage rural estates, by placing restrictionson rezoning out of EAZ districts, by using overlaydistricts for residential uses that have smallmaximum lot sizes of one to three acres, and byusing conditional use permits to allow residentialuses that are consistent with agricultural use.

Box 5A: Strengths and Weaknesses of Large Minimum Lot SizesStrengths:• Prevents creation of small housing lots

• Helps protect large agricultural fields

• Limits overall housing density in agricultural zones

• Discourages purchasing land for uses other than farming

• Smaller parcel sizes encourage speculative land markets and increase the chance land will sell for residential purposes

• Smaller parcels are harder for farmers to buy or rent for farming

Weaknesses:• Not a strong disincentive to rural home

development; people like living on large acreages

• Each housing site may consume relatively large amounts of agricultural land

• Makes access to rural home sites more expensive, such that only upper-income households are able to acquire larger lots

• Minimum lot sizes still may be too small to be a viable farm unit

Density LimitsAnother approach used to determine the amountof development that can occur in agriculturalprotection zones is to place limits on the densityof housing that is allowed. Generally, densitylimits are determined by establishing themaximum number of dwelling units that can beplaced on a contiguous parcel of land.

Typical density limits in Midwestern agriculturalzoning ordinances range from 1 house per 20 acres (1:20) to 1 house per 40 acres (1:40).Under a 1:20 density limit, the owner of a 120-acre parcel would be able to build up to 6 houses on their land (or 3 houses if the densitywere 1:40). Usually the existing farm dwellingscount against the total density limit.

Density limits can be based on a fixed area or asliding-scale area basis. Fixed area limits havethe same density requirements regardless of howmuch land a particular person owns. Slidingscale limits have different densities allowed forparcels of different sizes. Usually larger parcelsare given lower allowable density for newhouses. For example, parcels under 140 acres

61

Section 5

might be allowed 1 house per 35 acres, whileparcels larger than 140 acres might be allowedonly 1:50 acres. Specific allowances mightdepend on the nature of farming systems in thearea and other local factors.

Box 5B: Strengths and Weaknesses of Density Limits

Strengths:• Limits overall density

• Avoids dense housing developments; spreads development across the landscape

• Allows all landowners to participate in homesite development

Weaknesses:• Can be complicated and confusing

• Requires significant investment to track density over time

• Says nothing about the size, configuration, or location of homesites

• May encourage development to occur everywhere, even where the best agricultural resources are located

The allowable housing sites associated withdensity limits are sometimes referred to as“density units,” “lot credits,” or “building siterights.” Once a parcel contains the maximumallowable number of housing units under thezoning ordinance, the “density units” associatedwith that parcel are said to be exhausted and nofurther homes would be allowed.

One difficulty encountered when implementingdensity limits reflects the fact that the ownership(and size) of land parcels may changesignificantly over time as people buy and sellland. Agricultural zoning ordinances that use adensity standard need to carefully consider howthey are defining the conditions under whichdensity is calculated.

Usually, density allowances are determinedbased on the total size of any contiguous landowned by a single person on the date theordinance is adopted and effective. If a personowned more than one parcel, but these were notcontiguous, they usually have separate densityallowances on each discrete parcel.

The first complication comes when there arefractions of parcels that are left over once initialdensity is calculated. For example, if you allow 1house per 35 acres and a person owns 100 totalcontiguous acres, does that person get 2 building

sites (since they do not have enough for three35 acre lots, which require 105 acres). Someplaces require a full number of acres to getadditional density units (i.e., 30 acre remaindersare not enough to get a density unit.). Othershave a threshold whereby fractional remaindersthat are more than ½ the size of the requiredacreage can receive a unit (i.e., 18 acres wouldbe enough to get a final density unit in a 1:35 scheme).

Once initial density allowances are determinedfor all parcels of land, the second complicationinvolves how to deal with the purchase or sale ofparcels of farmland. In the first case, a personwho already owns some land might expand theirfarm by buying neighboring acreage. Thedensity units from each parcel generally do notchange when they are combined (i.e., the totaldensity units determined at the time the law waspassed reflect the maximum total available).

Similarly, if part of a parcel is sold off, there needto be clear rules to decide how the density unitsassociated with the original parcel will becalculated on the resulting split parcels. In sometransactions, the fate of these density units isspecified in the deed accompanying the transferof the land. Some counties record separate taxparcels within one contiguous ownership unit forpurposes of calculating allowable density. Newowners may then expect new density units whena new tax number is assigned. Further, landtransfers may not require a certified survey to bedone, so that zoning administrators might not beaware of splits until the new owner of the split-off lot applies for a building or septic permit.These administrative matters need to be takeninto account when contemplating a densitystandard.

5.3.b) Innovative Agricultural Zoning ConceptsSeparating Density from Lot Size: Maximum Lot Sizes with Restricted DensityBecause most agricultural zoning ordinancesestablish both minimum lot sizes and densitylimits, the net effect is to simplify the calculationof density units. If the allowed density is 1 per35 acres, and the minimum lot size is 35 acres, itis impossible to create new housing lots thatviolate the density limits. As a result, manyplanners and local officials that have AgriculturalProtection Zoning ordinances think density andminimum lot size are essentially the same thing.

There are a number of innovative approaches toagricultural zoning that have separated theconcept of density and lot size. The basic idea is

Sect

ion

5

62

63

Section 5

to retain the limits on overall density, but toencourage nonfarm housing to locate onrelatively small lots. This may mean using muchsmaller minimum lot sizes (say 2 or 5 acres).Some communities have even replaced largeminimum lot sizes with smaller maximum lotsizes for residential properties.

The way this works is best explained with agraphic illustration. Figure 5.1 illustrates twoways in which a 1 per 40-acre density limit mightbe applied to a 160-acre parcel of land.

Figure 5.1: Implications of lot size requirements under similar density limits.

Option A: Option B: Four 40 Acre lots Four 5 Acre lots

In Option A, four 40-acre parcels are created(perhaps because of a 40 acre minimum lot sizerequirement). The resulting homes are usuallydistributed within the middle of their lots andhave relatively long driveways.

In Option B, four homes are again allowed in the160 acres, but the lot size is capped at 5 acresper house. The result will usually keep lotstowards the edges of an agricultural parcel andwill leave large amounts of land (140 acres in thiscase) available for farming.

Since smaller parcels can potentially reap largersale values per acre (and the remaining 140 acrescan still be sold for non-housing uses), the totalreceipts to the landowner can be similar undereither option (though this depends on specificconditions in local land markets).

The goals of this maximum lot size strategy areto keep homesite parcels small, to directdevelopment to certain areas of a parcel, and toleave large contiguous blocks of farmland forfuture agricultural use.

This idea can be extended to encourage theclustering of new rural housing into areas on thelandscape where they least impact agriculturalresources. This would occur if residential lotswere designed to have common borders. Such

clusters may be limited in size to groups of 3-8houses, or - particularly if individual landownersare permitted to sell or transfer their densityunits among themselves - one might haverelatively large clusters that begin toapproximate rural subdivisions. Innovative newseptic technologies that have been approved foruse in Wisconsin may facilitate the clustering ofmodest numbers rural houses on relatively smallacreages since individual homes will not need tomaintain separate septic systems.

Differentiated Agricultural Zoning DistrictsAlmost all general zoning ordinances establish asingle zoning category to cover agriculturallands. In recent years, increased awareness ofthe diversity of agriculture has led some tosuggest elaborating the agricultural zoningcategory to include several different types ofagricultural districts.

Examples of specific agricultural districts couldinclude:

• An expansion livestock farming district, whichhas large minimum lot sizes and prohibits newnonfarm residential development

• A commercial farm district which requires aminimum lot size of 80 or 160 acres

• A medium-sized farm district that keeps a 35-acre minimum and is geared to specialtyfarms, hobby farms, and other small-acreageagricultural establishments

• A farm tourism district to facilitate directmarketing of vegetables, fruit, and other farmproducts at roadside stands, U-pickoperations, community supported agriculturefarms, bed and breakfast farming operations,and other similar enterprises.

The main purpose of differentiated agriculturaldistricts is to recognize and accommodatedifferent types of farming and to developdifferent lot sizes, performance standards, andbuffer and setback requirements in relation toadjacent uses that are appropriate for eachmajor kind of farming area.

Overlay ZoningAnother approach to farmland preservation is totreat the exclusive agricultural district as anoverlay district over a less restrictive generalagriculture, open space, or rural residentialdistrict. Uses in the “underlying” district wouldhave to be compatible with agricultural uses.Overlay districts specify requirements that takeprecedence over those of the underlying district

they cover. As an example, an EAZ district with aminimum lot size of 35 acres could cover a ruralresidential district with a minimum lot size of 2acres. Lands rezoned out of the EAZ overlaydistrict would then automatically be subject tothe 2-acre minimum lot size for residential use.

RezoningAlthough all zoning classifications are intendedto be relatively permanent, changes in localmarket conditions and emerging patterns ofdevelopment often lead to requests to rezonespecific parcels of land into new categories or toreceive variances to allow nonconforming landuses. With respect to agriculturally zoned land,rezoning is one common way that nonfarmdevelopment can occur without violating thelimits associated with agricultural zoningcategories.

While rezoning under special circumstances maybe necessary, zoning experts agree that it shouldnot become the normal mode of administering azoning ordinance. If rezoning is frequent, it is agood indication that something is wrong with theplan or vision upon which the ordinance isbased. The experience of exclusive agriculturalzoning in Wisconsin can be instructive in thisregard. In order to maximize FarmlandPreservation tax credit benefits for all of theirlandowners, many county plans inflated theiragricultural preservation areas. Tax creditelibigility is dependent on being included in theagricultural preservation area and it is probablyto be expected that agricultural preservationareas were expanded. Chapter 91, WisconsinStatutes, requires, however, consistency betweenthe exclusive agricultural zoning ordinance andthe agricultural preservation plan. The exclusiveagricultural zones on the ordinance maptherefore closely resemble the agriculturalpreservation area on the agriculturalpreservation plan maps. For any kind of nonfarmdevelopment to occur, town or county boardsmust continually entertain rezoning petitions.Thus monthly or biweekly meetings of the townor county boards have become a continuousstream of hearings regarding rezoning petitionsto take lands out of exclusive agricultural zoning.

This situation could have been avoided if thecounty agricultural preservation planning effortcould have been more discriminating aboutwhich parcels of land warranted agriculturalpreservation status, leaving forests, wetlands,and more marginal farmlands out of thepreservation areas.

Having unrealistic plan maps in the agriculturalpreservation plans that now result in continualchanges in the zoning status of rural parcels isfrustrating and a bad use of public time andresources.

To protect land against rezoning in areasdesignated as Exclusive Agricultural, statestatutes require findings for granting rezoningpetitions. These include:

(a) Adequate public facilities to accommodatedevelopment either exist or will be providedwithin a reasonable time.

(b) Provision of public facilities toaccommodate development will not place anunreasonable burden on the ability of affectedlocal units of government to provide them.

(c) The land proposed for rezoning is suitablefor development and development will notresult in undue water or air pollution, causeunreasonable soil erosion or have anunreasonably adverse effect on rare orirreplaceable natural areas.

Summary of Agricultural Protection ZoningAgricultural protection zoning (APZ) is usuallycombined with other farmland protection toolsthat will be discussed below. Some states orcommunities make access to public funds orprograms for farmland protection or farmeconomic development contingent on theaffected land being placed under protectiveagricultural zoning.

As with any tool used to promote specific typesof land uses, there are a number of advantagesand disadvantages to using APZs (see Box 5C onnext page). It is important to consider eachbefore deciding whether or not it is an effectiveand appropriate means of protecting agriculturalareas.

Sect

ion

5

64

Box 5C: Strengths and Weaknesses Associated with Agricultural Protection Zoning Strengths: • It limits land speculation, which keeps

land affordable to farmers

• It can protect scenic landscapes

• It can keep large tracts of land free from nonfarm development

• It is an inexpensive way to protect large blocks of agricultural land

• It is flexible- the zoning category for specific parcels can be changed if economic or other conditions change

Weaknesses:• It restricts the rights of landowners to

use their land as they see fit

• It is not permanent and can be changed

• It may be difficult to monitor and enforce on a day-to-day basis

5.3.c) Land Division and Subdivision Controls1

Aside from zoning ordinances, there are a largenumber of other tools that town and countygovernments use to regulate land use in theirjurisdictions. Some of the most important non-zoning options for land use regulation arecontrols over the division of land.

A land division is a legal action taken to formallydefine the boundaries of a parcel of land. Landdivision usually occurs when a landowneranticipates selling or developing parts of theirproperty. Sometimes it takes place before thesale of parcels; in other instances it takes placeconcurrently with the transaction.

The division of land is an important indicator ofcurrent or impending nonfarm development.The manner in which a piece of land is dividedcan have a major effect on how that land can beused. A good piece of land, if divided intoinappropriate sizes or shapes, can lose much ofits usefulness. Land divisions do not alwaysfollow natural boundaries, but frequently breakup the land into fragmented pieces, bisectinglarge blocks of contiguous farmland.

Where parcels that are created through landdivision are relatively large, or where there is nozoning present in a town or county, landdivisions usually receive little attention or reviewfrom local authorities. However, to monitor andmanage the parcelization of their lands, manyWisconsin municipalities have adoptedordinances to regulate the division of land.These ordinances are distinct from zoningordinances and have their own legal force.

Subdivision versus Land Division OrdinancesStrictly speaking, land divisions refer to all typesof parcel boundary changes. In Wisconsin,however, there are two distinct types ofdivisions: Subdivisions and Land Divisions.

Under state statutes, a “Subdivision” is a divisionof a lot, parcel or tract of land by the ownerthereof or the owner’s agent for the purpose ofsale or of building development, where: (a) Theact of division creates 5 or more parcels orbuilding sites of 1½ acres each or less in area; or(b) Five or more parcels or building sites of 1½ acres each or less in area are created bysuccessive divisions within a period of 5 years.(Wis. Ch. 236.02(12)).

As used here, a “Land Division” refers to thedivision of land into parcels larger than 1½ acresor a situation where fewer than five small parcels(1½ acres or less) are created over a 5-yearperiod.

Legal Authority to Regulate Subdivisions and LandDivisionsLocal governments have a great deal of power inregulating divisions of land within their borders.This power originates in § 236.45 of theWisconsin Statutes, and allows any municipality,town or county that has established a planningagency to regulate nearly any land division.

Part of chapter 236 specifically regulatessubdivisions as defined in § 236.02 (12), and anumber of rural municipalities have passedsubdivision ordinances that specify thestandards for new subdivision development.They tend to focus on the engineeringspecifications, design standards, and proceduralrequirements for the installation of adevelopment containing five or more parcels orbuilding sites. Specific rules for the approvaland recording of subdivision plats are outlined inChapter 236.

1 The material in this section was excerpted from an unpublished article by Lisa MacKinnon, Staff Attorney for 1000Friends of Wisconsin, with the research assistance of Michael Engleson, Spring 2000 Rural Counsel Project intern. Allreferences to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 1999-2000 edition. Because of the complex and changing nature of thelaw, this material should be used for general information only. The information provided here is not intended to be asubstitute for legal advice from a practicing land use attorney.

65

Section 5

In other places, however, town governmentshave passed ordinance language that prohibitssubdivisions, which they view as inconsistentwith their rural character and agriculturallandscape.

While well intentioned, these subdivision rulesdo not tend to affect many of the proposednonfarm housing developments within townboundaries. This is because - outside of themore densely populated towns on the outskirtsof major cities and villages - relatively few“subdivisions” are created in rural Wisconsin.Most private home development appears to takeplace on larger lots and in less dense patternsthat do not legally qualify as subdivisions.

To regulate these less dense forms of landdivision, § 236.45 allows local governments withestablished planning authorities to enact landdivision regulations more restrictive than thosecontained in the chapter in general. Specifically,local governments are allowed to control“divisions of land into parcels larger than 1½ acres or divisions of land into less than 5parcels, and may prohibit the division of landwhere such prohibition will carry out thepurposes of this section.” Section 236.45 (2) (a).The purposes of the section are listed in Box 5D,and should be included in a “Purpose” section ofany ordinance enacted under this statute.

Unlike with zoning, town governments can adoptland division ordinances that are more restrictivethan county rules, and they do not depend oncounty officials for the interpretation orimplementation of their ordinances.

Box 5D: Definition of the Legal Purposes ofLand Division Ordinances under WisconsinStatutes Chapter 236.45(1).

“…to promote the public health, safety andgeneral welfare of the community and theregulations authorized to be made aredesigned to lessen congestion in the streetsand highways; to further the orderly layoutand use of land; to secure safety from fire,panic and other dangers; to provide adequate light and air, including access tosunlight for solar collectors and to wind forwind energy systems; to prevent theovercrowding of land; to avoid undueconcentration of population; to facilitateadequate provision for transportation, water, sewerage, schools, parks, playgroundsand other public requirements; to facilitatethe further resubdivision of larger tracts intosmaller parcels of land…” (Wis. Ch. 236.45(1)).

Examples of Land Division Ordinance ProvisionsGenerally, land division ordinances focus moreon the suitability of land for division in the firstplace. They provide an opportunity for localofficials to become aware of pending homesitedevelopments and to avoid the parcelization ofland into lots that are unsuitable for agriculturaluse among other things.

If a land division ordinance is in place,procedures are defined whereby persons seekingthe division of land can get permission to createnew lots. They frequently require thepreparation and submission of a Certified SurveyMap (CSM). In addition, land division ordinancescan define the conditions under which landdivisions are approved or denied. Examples ofthese conditions might include preventing landdivisions that:

• Materially interfere with existing agriculturaluses;

• Create parcels that are inconsistent with theexpressed goals and policies in acomprehensive plan;

• Create parcels that are unsuitable for theproposed land use; or

• Create unsafe conditions or otherwise wouldbe harmful to the health, safety and welfare ofthe community.

Sect

ion

5

66

Penalties for failure to comply with the landdivision rules may include fines, denial ofbuilding or driveway permits, or any other legalsanctions permitted under the state statute.

What a Land Division Ordinance Can and Cannot Do• A land division ordinance can alert local

governments to potential development andchanges in land use.

In many cases, particularly in rural townswithout many local regulations, the localgovernment does not learn of a landdivision and potential new developmentuntil the county has already approved it. Byenacting its own land division ordinance,local governments are made a part of theprocess from the start and may weigh in onwhether the land is suitable for dividing,and on how land is divided according to thegoals and policies of the local government’scomprehensive plan.

• A land division ordinance can set minimum lotsizes.

The Supreme Court of Wisconsin has heldthat a town has the authority to regulateminimum lot size by a land divisionordinance, even when they do not havezoning powers.2 The Court stated that thesubdivision power of local governments isbroad, and held that a minimum lot sizeordinance is a valid expression of theauthority granted under sec. 236.45.

• Local governments that do not have zoningauthority cannot use a land divisionordinance to regulate the use of newly createdlots.

While you can use land divisions to regulatethe size, configuration, and location of landdivisions, Wisconsin courts have ruled thata land division ordinance cannot specificallyregulate how parcels of land are used.3 TheCourt of Appeals, however, has expresslyallowed that divisions might be turneddown if the ordinance conditions approvalupon preservation of natural features,natural resources and environmentallysensitive land, or if the provision is toensure the quality of the entire subdivision.This means that an ordinance designed topreserve agricultural land, a commonpurpose of town land division ordinances,would likely be valid.

A model land division ordinance will be availablethrough the Wisconsin Towns Association officesin early 2003.

5.3.d) Conservation Subdivisions and Rural Clustering

While land division ordinances govern thesplitting of relatively large tracts of land, somerural Wisconsin communities also haveentertained proposals for relatively densehousing subdivisions. Conventional subdivisionsinvolve the creation of large numbers ofrelatively small housing lots (often one-quarteracre to five acres in size) on large contiguousblocks of land. Conventional subdivisions areprevalent throughout suburban areas in mostcities and villages in America.

In both urban and rural areas, critics ofconventional subdivisions have noted thatsignificantly more land is consumed perhousehold than most families use in traditionalurban communities. In addition, conventionalsubdivisions often do not provide public parksor other open spaces where people can recreate,congregate, or enjoy views of undeveloped areas.

To minimize the consumption of land for housingand to protect open spaces, a number ofplanners have proposed the concept of“conservation subdivisions” (Arendt, 1996, 1999).In essence, conservation subdivisions requiredevelopers to set aside a certain percentage of atract of land for common open space. Theresulting subdivisions may have the samenumber of housing units (some may even havemore housing units) as conventionalsubdivisions, but require smaller private lots andlarger contiguous blocks of undeveloped landthan is commonly owned or used. Houses areconcentrated or clustered in certain areas, whileremaining open space is protected.

Over the last decade, a number of conservationsubdivisions have been built in the Midwest.The experience of these new developmentssuggests that they are popular for manyhomebuyers - particularly those who appreciatethe environmental and aesthetic values of thecommon open spaces. Moreover, they generallyhave been profitable for developers and providesignificant tax bases for local communities.

Conservation subdivisions are seen as one wayfor rural communities to allow for dense

2 Town of Sun Prairie v. Storms, 110 Wis.2d 58, 327 N.W.2d 642 (1983).3 Gordie Boucher Lincoln-Mercury Madison Inc. v. City of Madison Plan Commission, 178 Wis.2d 74, 503 N.W.2d 265 (Ct. App. 1993); see also Lake City Corporation v. City of Mequon, 207 Wis.2d 155, 157, 558 N.W.2d 100, 101-02 (1997).

67

Section 5

subdivision housing developments while at thesame time retaining some of the open space andvisual aesthetics associated with the rurallandscape. In some instances, developers havemade arrangements with local farmers to utilizethe open space for agricultural purposes (usuallymarket gardening, pastures, and low-intensityhay crop production). In this way, conservationsubdivisions can be used as another tool toallow some of the land that would have beendeveloped for housing to remain in agriculturaluses.

In many places, conservation subdivisions aredifficult to develop because of provisions in localsubdivision ordinances and zoning regulations.Usually the problem lies in requirements forrelatively large minimum lot sizes, and the factthat conventional subdivision rules tie lot size todensity standards.

Box 5E: Strengths and Weaknesses of Conservation Subdivisions and Rural Cluster DevelopmentsStrengths:• Encourages smaller rural lot sizes

for houses

• Protects larger blocks of open space

• Reduces the amount of land that is converted from agriculture or open space uses

Weaknesses:• Dense clusters of rural homes may not be

compatible with some kinds of commercial agriculture

• Many people moving to the country don’t want to live on small lots or in clustered housing developments

• Existing conservation subdivisions have tended to cater to the high end of the housing market, which can make housing less affordable to some rural residents

• If the overall permitted density of homes is not increased, the total value of lots sold for development may be lower compared to conventional subdivisions

To facilitate the development of conservationsubdivisions in Wisconsin, the state legislatureasked the UW-Madison to develop a modelordinance. The model ordinance and a generaldiscussion of the issues surroundingconservation subdivisions are available on theweb at: www.wisc.edu/urpl/faculty/ohmf/project/consub.pdf.

Even when true conservation subdivisions arenot created, there is broad relevance for theconcept of clustering houses on smaller lots, andplacing houses on the landscape in a mannerthat conserves contiguous open spaces. Policiescan be adopted to encouraging clustering ofrural houses away from the most productivefarm fields, close to existing roads, and on plotswith high residential amenity values. As morerural residential plots begin to share commonboundaries, the potential for agriculture-residential conflicts will decline and theopportunities for efficient provision of publicservices increases.

In the Town of Troy in St. Croix County, forexample, the local community adopted a ruralcluster development ordinance that allowslandowners to develop more total housingparcels if they place them on small lots andcluster them away from important agriculturalfields.

5.3.e) Driveway and Road Ordinances or Standards 4

Another implementation tool available to localgovernments in Wisconsin is the power to adoptstandards for driveway construction. Drivewayordinances are designed to regulate access topublic roads (to protect public safety,convenience and welfare) as well as the designand siting of new driveways (usually to protectthe welfare of the community and enforce thegoals of local land use or comprehensive plans).

Local governments, including towns that haveadopted village powers pursuant to WisconsinStatutes §§ 60.10 (2) (c), 60.22 (3) and 61.34, mayadopt a driveway ordinance under their policepower authority. The police power authorityallows a governmental unit to adopt regulationsthat promote the general health, welfare, andsafety of the local government and its citizens.5

4 This section was adapted from material written by Lisa MacKinnon, Staff Attorney for 1000 Friends of Wisconsin. All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 1999-2000 edition. Because of the changing and complex nature of the law, the information provided here is not intended to be a substitute for legal advice from a practicing land use attorney.5 See Wis. Stat. § 61.34 (5), (1999-2000).

Sect

ion

5

68

Some local governments simply adopt a“driveway access ordinance,” which regulatesthe entrance onto and departure from roads,highways, and streets in the interest of publicsafety, convenience and welfare. This type ofordinance is authorized by §§ 83.027 (10) and84.25 (10) of the Wisconsin Statutes, whichgoverns county highways and trunk highways,respectively. The purpose is usually to preventthe proliferation of driveway access points onbusy highways, and to ensure that drivewaysprovide sufficient views in both directions toallow for safe entrance to and exit from publicroads.

Other local governments enact morecomprehensive and detailed drivewayordinances, adopted under the general policepowers authority pursuant to §§ 60.10 (2) (c),60.22 (3) and 61.34 (1) and (5) of the WisconsinStatutes. These ordinances often list as theirpurpose the ability to regulate the establishment,construction, improvement, modification orreworking of a driveway to assure that the site,method of construction and conservationpractices used will promote the health, safetyand general welfare of the community, as well asenforce the goals and policies set forth in thelocal government’s land use or comprehensiveplan.

Driveway ordinances typically set forth formalstandards and specifications for the constructionof a driveway. They usually address slope,width, surfacing, culverts, turnaround, clearspace, emergency service vehicle access, erosioncontrol, and storm water management, amongother things. Because of the technicalcomplexity of some of these specifications, anengineer is often consulted.

In addition to technical constructionspecifications, another purpose that drivewayordinances may serve is to help furtherimplement the land use goals and policies of thelocal government. If part of the ordinance’sstated purpose is to enforce or implement thegoals and policies of the local government’sadopted land use plan (or comprehensive plan),then the local government may consider how theproposed driveway would affect those goals andpolicies.

An example of how this might work is in asituation where a landowner has submitted apermit application for a long driveway thatwould traverse diagonally across productiveagricultural land. If one of the “goals andpolicies” of the local government’s land use plan

is “to preserve agricultural land for current andfuture agricultural use,” then the localgovernment might ask the permit applicant toconsider alternatives to the proposed plan, suchas locating the driveway along the perimeter ofthe property or otherwise modifying thedriveway plan so that it does not have anadverse impact on productive agricultural land.

As with all ordinances it is important toremember that the standards in the drivewayordinance and the land use plan that the localgovernment relies upon to enforce the ordinancemust be sufficiently detailed, and that the localgovernment’s use of the standards must not bearbitrary, oppressive, or unreasonable.

A model driveway ordinance will be availablethrough the Wisconsin Towns Association officesin early 2002.

5.3.f) Building PermitsAnother common regulatory role for localgovernments is the issuance of building permitsfor new construction and significantmodifications of existing structures. Theapproval process for permits is usually designedto ensure that structures meet current statebuilding code standards. In some instances,local governments have added an additionalbuilding permit review process to ensure thatnew construction also is consistent with theirland use goals.

This approach may use the building permitissuing authority of local government toinfluence the precise siting or location of newconstruction within a parcel of land. Sometownships in Wisconsin have language in theirland use plans to encourage new houses tolocate close to existing highways. As notedabove, this can help minimize driveway length,which helps in the provision of public servicesand can minimize fragmentation of contiguousfarm fields. Others might encourage landownersto situate their new homes in such a way thatthey are shielded from the views of neighboringhomeowners. Siting of homes also may bedirected to parts of a parcel that minimizeenvironmental impacts from construction runoffand septic systems.

69

Section 5

5.3.g) Septic, Water, and Sewer PoliciesSeptic, water, and sewer policies are all indirectcontrols that can influence patterns ofdevelopment on the landscape. Generallyspeaking, they are designed to ensure that waterand sewage systems are developed in a mannerthat protects human health and the environment.

There is insufficient space to delve into thedetails of septic, sewer, and water codes here. Inbrief, they establish minimum conditions thatmust be met before permits are issued forconstructing new septic systems or houses. Thisusually involves requiring sufficient soil depthand drainage to allow for private septic systemsto function.

For many communities that lack any land useplans or zoning ordinances, septic and watercodes have traditionally served as de factochecks on residential development in some ruralareas. Given the diverse terrain in mostWisconsin towns, certain areas of land (steepslopes, shallow soils, etc.) might be unsuitablefor installation of conventional septic systems,and therefore these areas would be protectedfrom residential development.

Local septic system codes are based onstatewide rules promulgated by the stateDepartment of Commerce. Recent revisions ofthe Wisconsin Administrative Code’s rules forthe Department of Commerce that governsprivate septic systems (COMM 83) allow anumber of innovative new septic systemtechnologies to be used in the state. (A copy ofthe revised code and technical details areavailable on-line at www.commerce.state.wi.us/sb/SB-Comm83Jan19.pdf.)

Because these new systems do not require asmuch soil cover as conventional septic systems,they will permit new homes to be built in areaswhere thin soils or steep slopes historicallylimited development. According to thedepartment’s environmental impact statement onthe new rule, these septic systems would makean additional nine million acres of land (25% ofthe Wisconsin landscape) available for privatehome development.

Recognizing that the implementation of the newCOMM 83 rules might open up significant land tonew housing, and noting that manymunicipalities had relied on the old septic codes

as a check on development pressure, the statelegislature has allowed local units of governmentto impose a moratorium on use of the new septicsystems for up to 3 years (until January 1, 2003).During this time, communities seeking toinfluence rural development patterns areexpected to put into place other land usecontrols to specify where and under whatconditions new houses can be built.

Shortly after the code went into effect, severalmunicipal and environmental groups filed alawsuit in Dane County circuit court to suspendthe rule on the grounds that it violated state lawand policy regarding groundwater protection,land use, and process. In late 2000, the circuitcourt ruled in favor of the Wisconsin Departmentof Commerce and in early 2001 the plaintiffsappealed to the Wisconsin Court of Appeals.That suit is pending.

5.4) Managing Development on Agricultural Lands: Non-Regulatory Tools

In addition to the regulatory options discussedabove, there are a number of strategies or toolsavailable to local governments that are designedto provide incentives to landowners to maintaintheir lands in agricultural uses.

5.4.a) Right to Farm and “Notification” Provisions6

Farmers who are experiencing rural residentialdevelopment in their area often worry aboutpotential conflicts with nonfarm people who maynot appreciate the noise, smells, and dustassociated with normal agricultural activities.While informal and formal legal confrontationsbetween farmers and nonfarm neighbors havebeen relatively rare in Wisconsin, experiences inmore heavily populated agricultural areas inother states suggest that these fears may be wellfounded.

To protect farmers from complaints, some stateshave adopted “right to farm” laws that attemptto provide farmers with legal protection fromnuisance suits. Generally speaking, these lawssay that farmers using “normal agriculturalpractices” cannot be sued in court for anynuisances created for neighboring landowners.In most cases, however, the legal protection islimited to nuisances that do not createdocumented health or safety risks.

6 Much of the material in this subsection was adapted from a recent publication from the University of California (Wacker, Matthew, Alvin D. Sokolow, and Rachel Elkins, “County Right-to-Farm Ordinances in California: An Assessment of Impact and Effectiveness,” AIC Issues Brief No. 15, University of California Agricultural Issues Center, Davis. May 2001.)

Sect

ion

5

70

Wisconsin’s nuisance statute (Ch. 823.08) wasamended in the 1990s to clarify and expand thespecific rights of farmers to be protected againstunreasonable lawsuits. Specifically, thelegislature determined that agricultural practicescannot be found to be a nuisance if the followingconditions apply:

• The agricultural use or practice alleged to bea nuisance preexisted before the complainantmoved to the area; and

• The agricultural use or agricultural practicedoes not present a substantial threat to publichealth or safety.

To date, this “right to farm” law has beensuccessfully invoked in a few Wisconsin courtcases to protect agricultural interests. However,there is conflicting experience in other statesabout the degree to which such laws can be usedto provide blanket protection for farmers.Specifically, nuisance statutes must be carefullycrafted to avoid infringing upon the propertyrights of adjacent landowners to enjoy the use oftheir property. Also, other state courts haveruled that noises, orders, nutrients, and diseasesthat leave a farm may be considered examples oftrespass and hence cannot be protected by rightto farm laws.

Since state rules govern nuisance lawsuits foragriculture, at the local level the most importantpolicy tool appears to be notification ordinancesthat seek to prevent conflicts (and lawsuits) bynotifying homebuyers who move to the countryabout what are considered normal aspects ofliving in an agricultural community.

Notification ordinances typically have fiveprovisions .

1) A statement of purpose that outlines theintent of the ordinance;

2) A set of legal definitions that clarify themeaning of agricultural operation, normalagricultural practices, and the specificfarmland that is affected by the ordinance;

3) A reference to the state nuisance code thatprotects farmers from nuisance suits;

4) A disclosure requirement that specifies whenand how a potential purchaser of land nearfarms will be notified about the impacts ofagricultural operations; and

5) A grievance procedure that outlines howcomplaints against agricultural operations willbe resolved.

The most important part of these localordinances usually relates to the disclosurerequirement.

It is important to clarify what should be includedin the disclosure notice. This can be a simplestatement that requires the individual toacknowledge that they are living in anagricultural area. Alternatively, it can include thedistribution of detailed manuals or “Codes ofRural Conduct” that discuss the formal andinformal ways of life in traditionally agriculturalcommunities.

Next, the community needs to decide whoshould receive the notification or disclosureinformation. Since the primary target of theseordinances are nonfarm households (especiallynew residents), some options include sendinginformation in annual tax bills to area propertyowners, incorporating notification information aspart of a building permit or subdivision platapproval process, and including disclosure formsin all real estate transactions located nearagricultural areas.

Finally, the community needs to decide if theywant the developer/builder or purchaser of ruralproperty to sign a disclosure notice (andperhaps to register this form with localauthorities).

In practice, these ordinances serve primarily aseducation tools, rather than as mechanisms tomanage or adjudicate actual disputes. As such,the timing of disclosure is important. Includingthe information only after a real estatetransaction has been completed (or after aperson has already moved to the country) maybe less effective than disseminating informationto prospective homebuyers or othersconsidering moving to the area.

A recent analysis of county right-to-farm andnotification laws in California found that “the keylies in specific disclosure requirements and howthey are implemented. Formal grievanceprocedures are far less essential, consideringtheir limited use in the counties that have themand the greater importance of informal methodsfor resolving farmer-resident conflicts” (Wackeret al., 2001).

Ultimately, good neighborliness is difficult tolegislate and regulate, and efforts to promotegreater understanding and cooperation amongfarmers and nonfarm residents are likely to bethe most effective strategies to reduce conflict inrural Wisconsin. An example of a notificationguide developed by the Illinois Farm Bureau

71

Section 5

Federation can be found on-line atwww.fb.com/ilfb/specfiles/codeofco.pdf. Localcommunities in Wisconsin that seek to increasenew residents’ understanding of rural ways of lifecan also refer to a recent UW CooperativeExtension publication, Country Acres: A Guide toBuying and Managing Rural Property (G3309),that is available from local county extensionoffices and is also viewable on-line atwww1.uwex.edu/ces/pubs/pdf/G3309.PDF.

5.4.b) Agricultural Conservation EasementsLand use restrictions on the use of farmland fornonfarm development are often opposed byfarmland owners, particularly if they are nearingthe end of their farming career or need to sellsome of their land to help finance theirretirement. Recognizing the strong interests ofproperty owners, a wide range of public andprivate groups have developed programs thatcompensate landowners for voluntarily giving uptheir rights to develop their farmland.

Purchase of Agricultural Conservation Easements (PACE)The most common approach is to purchaseagricultural conservation easements fromindividual landowners. A conservation easementis a legally binding document that transfers therights to develop a parcel of land to anotherentity - usually a local government agency orprivate land trust. Usually they are voluntarilysold by the landowner, although somelandowners find it advantageous for taxpurposes to donate their easements to anonprofit organization. This is particularly truewhen the value of the donated easement canminimize estate tax burdens. The entity thatpurchases the easement (or receives it, if it isdonated) is then responsible for enforcing theterms of the easement.

Since they are recorded with the deed, theeasement usually remains in place in perpetuity,regardless of future ownership or the sale of theproperty. In some cases, however, theeasements are only in effect for specified periodsof time (20 or 30 years, for example) and must berenewed or renegotiated again if they are tocontinue beyond that future date. To get taxbenefits from the sale or donation of easements,the easement must be in perpetuity.

The basic idea of conservation easements issimple. Owners of property have the right toutilize their property in a variety of ways(subject to any local, state, or federalregulations). One of these ways is to develop

their land for new housing. Other propertyrights might include the rights to extractminerals or water, to harvest timber, or to huntand fish on their property. In each instance, alandowner has the ability to voluntarily lease,sell or transfer specific rights to their propertyto another person, organization, or governmentagency in return for compensation. Mostlandowners are familiar with the example ofmineral rights, which can be sold or leased tomining companies.

Agricultural conservation easements function ina similar way. The landowner who sells theconservation easement retains all other rights touse their property for permitted purposes(including farming, residential use, and othertraditional uses). They can still sell, lease, ortransfer their land to other people, although therestrictions associated with the conservationeasement remain in effect for future buyers ofthe property.

The value of an easement is usually determinedby calculating the difference between the marketprice of a parcel with and without the presenceof the easement restrictions. For example, if a100-acre parcel of farmland would normally sellon the open market for $3,000 per acre(reflecting its potential for homesitedevelopment), and the same parcel would sell foronly $1,000 per acre if it could not be developed,the value of the easement would be roughly$2,000 per acre. Specific values would bedetermined by local market conditions and thewillingness of the landowner to sell theeasement.

Paying property owners for voluntarily giving uptheir right to develop their lands can helpprotect local agriculture in two main ways.Initially, it can put cash in the hands of currentfarmers, which can then be used to invest in themodernization of farm buildings and facilities, aswell as to improve the quality of life for farmfamilies. Second, it can reduce the costs offarmland for future generations of farmers (sinceland protected by an easement should sell forless on the open market), making entry intofarming a more viable proposition.

A listing of some of the strengths andweaknesses of PACE programs can be found inBox 5F. For more information about developing alocal PACE program, contact the AmericanFarmland Trust at their Upper Midwest fieldoffice (www.farmland.org/regions/upperMW/index.htm or at (608) 848-7000.

Sect

ion

5

72

Land trusts provide another option forlandowners wishing to protect their land. Theyare private, non-profit conservationorganizations that can offer landowners severalprotection scenarios. Options for landownersinclude outright purchase of land or purchase ofa conservation easement. There are severalfinancial benefits to the landowner, depending onthe conservation option chosen. If the land ispurchased outright the landowner, obviously,receives the profit from the sale. If they decideto donate the land to the conservationorganization, then the assessed value of the landmay be taken as a tax deduction. The sameoptions apply if a conservation easement optionis pursued. If the easement is purchased, thepurchase price generally reflects the differencein market value of the land before and after thedevelopment restrictions were placed on it. Ifthe easement is donated, then that value may betaken as a tax deduction.

There are currently over 40 local land trustsoperating in the state of Wisconsin, some withfull-time staff and others that are run entirely byvolunteers. To date, land trusts in Wisconsinhave helped landowners to protect over 80,000acres. More information about these land trustscan be found on the web at:www.gatheringwaters.org/.

Box 5F: Strengths and Weaknesses of Purchase of Conservation Easement Programs

Strengths:• Compensates farmland owners for

restrictions on development

• Provides capital for investing in farm operation or paying off debts

• Aids intergenerational transfer of farms by reducing costs of land purchase

• Signals to community and to farmers that farming in area is a valued and permanent use

• The selection criteria to identify parcels for purchase can be customized to local priorities.

Weaknesses:• The voluntary nature of the program cannot

assure preservation of large contiguous blocks of farmland

• The high cost of the program limits the extent of farmland that can be preserved

• Conservation easements do not assure that land will be farmed

Transfer of Development RightsAlthough the PACE model is the most commonapproach, an alternative model is a “transfer ofdevelopment rights” (TDR) program. The TDRmodel is similar to PACE programs in that it alsoinvolves the purchase of conservation easementsfrom voluntary landowners. However, it differsin that it requires people who seek to developresidential housing in one part of a municipalityto acquire “development rights” by purchasingconservation easements from farmers in otherparts of that same municipality.

To be effective, a TDR program requires the localauthorities to identify both a “sending” and“receiving” area. The sending area is typically anarea that has been identified as strategicagricultural farmland that the community wantsto protect. The receiving area is typically anarea that has been planned for future residentialdevelopment, and is usually adjacent to (orwithin) the boundaries of existing residentialareas.

By requiring developers in the “receiving area” tobuy development rights from farmland owners inthe “sending area,” the local government canusually avoid acquiring development rightsthemselves. In effect, they can use the newresidential development activity to finance theprotection of farmland that might be threatenedby such activity. Moreover, the TDR approachrelies on open market negotiations betweenwilling buyers and sellers to determine the valueof conservation easements/development rights.

There are many variations on the TDR idea,including programs that allow one propertyowner to voluntarily transfer a developmentright to an adjacent property and deed restrictthe original land. A discussion of the strengthsand weaknesses of TDR programs is listed in Box5H. There is also a wealth of information aboutTDR programs available from the book Saved byDevelopment by Rick Preutz.

73

Section 5

Box 5G: Strengths and Weaknesses of Transfer of Development Rights Programs

Strengths:• Same as the PACE programs (See Box 5G)

• Identifies areas in which developed is to be channeled

• Supports more regional planning

• Does not require significant public outlays for acquiring development rights

Weaknesses:• Similar to PACE programs

• More difficult and complex to implement

• Potential difficulty finding community willing to serve as receiving area

• Appropriate receiving areas may be in different jurisdictions from the sending areas, thus requiring intergovernmental agreements

• Requires active development market and balance between supply of and demand for development rights

• Equity concerns among landowners in “receiving areas” and those areas that cannot receive additional development rights

PACE and TDR programs can be complex anddifficult to design. Local governments seeking todevelop conservation easement purchaseprograms can obtain detailed information aboutthe various ways they have been employed inlocal and state land use planning programs onthe world wide web at the following sites:

• farmlandinfo.org/fic/tas/tafs-pace.html

• farmlandinfo.org/fic/tas/tafs-tdr.html

• www.ag.ohio-state.edu/~ohioline/cd-fact/1261.html



Government Programs to Purchase Conservation EasementsMost local programs raise revenues to buyeasements through local property taxes. InWisconsin, the Town of Dunn has passed a levyon local property tax bills to raise funds topurchase conservation easements on strategic

parcels of farmland. Information about the Townof Dunn program is available on their website at:town.dunn.wi.us/.

States, tribes, non-profit groups, and local unitsof government that set up their ownconservation easement programs can pursuematching funds from the U.S. Department ofAgriculture Farmland Protection Program. TheFPP was authorized in the 1996 Farm Bill andreauthorized in the 2002 Farm Bill. Through theFPP, the USDA works with existing programs tokeep productive farmland in agriculture throughthe purchase of conservation easements or otherinterests. The USDA FPP provides matchingfunds to existing farmland protection programsfor up to 50 percent of the fair market value ofthe conservation easement. From 2002 to 2011,$985 million in cost share assistance will beobligated to local programs through the FPP. Formore information, check the Wisconsin FPP webpage: www.wi.nrcs.usda.gov/soil/fpp.asp

The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resourcesalso administers an Acquisition of DevelopmentRights program that can potentially assist localofficials or landowners seeking to sellconservation easements to protect farmland,natural resources, and wildlife. For moreinformation, contact Janet Beach-Hanson [email protected] or (608) 266-0868.

5.4.c) Other Incentive Programs to Protect Agricultural and Natural Resources

Aside from programs designed specifically toprevent future nonfarm development onagricultural lands, there are a number of stateand federal programs that provide financialincentives for farmers and landowners to protectenvironmental and natural resources. Theseinclude:

• The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP)administered by the USDA Farm ServicesAgency (FSA). Under this program, farmersbid to enroll sensitive farmlands for 10-yearperiods of time in return for an annual CRPrental payment. By entering into CRPcontracts, the landowner agrees not to till theland or plant crops during the contractperiod. In some cases, they also agree toplant trees on these lands. Historically, thisprogram has been used mainly to protecthighly erodible cropland, and entire farmfields were enrolled. More recently, theConservation Reserve Enhancement Program(CREP) has been targeted at other

Sect

ion

5

74

environmentally sensitive landscapes, such asriparian areas and wellhead recharge areas,and money was made available to helplandowners install specific conservationpractices to protect these areas.

• There is a related USDA program called theWetland Reserve Program (WRP) thatprovides funds to encourage landowners torestore wetlands previously altered byagricultural use. Administered by the USDANatural Resource Conservation Service(NRCS), landowners may use WRP funds torestore wetlands under permanent and 30-year easements or 10-year contracts.Permanent easements pay 100% of theagricultural value of the land and 100% cost-sharing; 30-year easements pay 75% of theagricultural value and 75% cost-sharing; 10-year contract pays 75% cost-share only.Permanent or 30-year easements are recordedwith the property deed. The 10-year contractis not recorded with the deed.

• The USDA-NRCS also administers theEnvironmental Quality Incentives Program(EQIP). The EQIP program provides up to 75percent cost-sharing assistance to farmerswho agree to implement environmental bestmanagement practices that protect soil andwater quality. Generally administered by localcommittees of farmers and conservationists,the EQIP cost-sharing funds significantlyreduce the cost of implementing practicessuch as grassed waterways, stream fencing,critical area planting, terraces, and manuremanagement systems including storagestructures and barnyard runoff protection.Assistance is available to agriculturalproducers in the form of 5 to 10 yearcontracts up to a total of $10,000 per year or$50,000 for the life of the contract.

• The USDA-NRCS also provides funding throughthe Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program(WHIP) to develop or improve fish and wildlifehabitat on privately owned land. Almost anytype of land is eligible, including agriculturaland non-agricultural land, woodlots, pastures,and streambanks. The program pays up to 75percent of restoration costs (includingseeding, fencing, instream structures, etc.) toa maximum of $10,000.

• The USDA-NRCS offers financial assistance tolandowners and communities seeking topromote increased and improved grazingpractices. The Grazing Lands ConservationInitiative (GLCI) is designed to providetechnical, educational and other help toconserve and improve privately ownedgrazing and pasture lands. It provides cost-sharing to farmers seeking to implementprescribed grazing, animal trails andwalkways, and electric fencing. It can alsosupport local educational programs tofacilitate the dissemination of informationabout improved grazing management systems.

• Finally, there a number of state governmentincentive programs designed to support localplanning efforts, farmland preservation, andnatural resource preservation. Many of thesecan be important sources of financialassistance for communities and privatelandowners seeking to merge agricultural andnatural resource protection goals. Acomprehensive discussion of these programsis available in the recently published Planningfor Natural Resources: A Guide to IncludingNatural Resources in Local ComprehensivePlanning.

5.5) The Wisconsin Farmland Preservation Program

The Farmland Preservation Program wasdeveloped in the late 1970's and early 1980's toachieve three goals: land conservation, tax relieffor farmland owners, and land use planning.County agricultural preservation plans weredeveloped in those days and have been the basisof the program since then. Seventy of the 72Wisconsin counties currently have in placecounty-wide agricultural preservation planscertified by the Wisconsin Land and WaterConservation Board as meeting the requirementsof Chapter 91, Wis. Stats. Many of these planswere the first land use plans that the countiesever produced. The plans provided the factualbasis and the rationale for the delineation ofagricultural areas to be preserved. Soil surveys,aerial photographs, on-site survey and otherstudies were used in the planning process. Thestandards for preparing and updatingagricultural preservation plans are detailed insubchapter IV of Ch. 91, Wisconsin Statutes, andare outlined below.

75

Section 5

5.5.a) Statutory Requirements for Agricultural Preservation Plans

An agricultural preservation plan must includecertain basic features in order to comply withCh.91 certification requirements. Most of theserequirements are reviewed for procedural andstatutory compliance rather than a critical viewof the content, although internal consistency isrequired. Such a review assures only thatcertain minimum conditions are met thatstatutorily qualifies targeted land for tax credits.For a community wanting only to plan foragriculture there is no requirement that it mustseek certification for its plan from the LWCB ormeet the requirements of Chapter 91.

Agricultural preservation plans submitted forcertification must be consistent with countydevelopment plans prepared under s.59.69 (3).The county development plans must incorporatethe master plans and official maps of cities andvillages within the county. At a minimum,agricultural preservation plans must alsoinclude:

• Policy statements related to agricultural landpreservation, provision of public facilities,protection of natural and historic resourcesand open space.

• Maps identifying agricultural areas are to bepreserved, areas of special environmentalsignificance, and if desired, agricultural-transition areas identified for futuredevelopment. Preservation areas must be inblocs of at least 100 contiguous acres.Transition areas must be in blocs of at least35 contiguous acres. If transition areas areidentified, they should be of a size necessaryto accommodate expected development overa period of between 10 and 20 years.Agricultural preservation plans should not be“build-out” plans.

• The county must submit maps showingexisting land uses, areas not suitable forprivate septic systems, and a plan mapdesignating future land use under thepreservation plan. The preservation planmap must be at a scale of one inch equal to2000 feet, or greater in detail. The designationof agricultural preservation and transitionareas on these maps must correspond toexplicit mapping criteria included in the plantext.

5.5.b) Updating the County Agricultural Preservation Plan

Local units of government may draft agriculturalplans under the recent WisconsinComprehensive Planning legislation (s. 66.1001,Wisconsin Statutes). They may wish, however,to update their agricultural preservation plansand do so in conjunction with a comprehensiveplanning effort. If the community is interestedin continued participation in the FarmlandPreservation Program, updating agriculturalpreservation plans is important for a number ofreasons. Most of the county plans are, as of thedate of this publication, over twenty years old.Given the rate of land use change in the pasttwenty years in Wisconsin, these plans and planmaps are no longer realistic representations ofthe agricultural resource. Our ability to map theland has changed greatly too over the pasttwenty years. Geographic information systems(GIS) and remote sensing were technologies thatwere in their infancy in the late 1970's. Thesetechnologies can be used now to produce muchmore varied and accurate maps of Wisconsin'sagricultural resource. Finally, the comprehensiveplanning law requires that, "[b]eginning onJanuary 1, 2010, any program or action of a localgovernmental unity that affects land use shall beconsistent with that local governmental unit'scomprehensive plan, including all of thefollowing . . . .n) Agricultural preservation plansthat are prepared or revised under subch. IV ofchapter 91." It is not likely that a countyagricultural preservation plan completed in 1981will be consistent with a comprehensive plancompleted in 2009.

In the process of development of the new s.66.1001 comprehensive plans, counties shouldevaluate whether they wish to preserve farmlandand other agricultural resources, and, if so,whether the ch. 91 approach to agriculturalpreservation will be part of their plan for thecounty. That means those comprehensive plansmust meet the ch. 91 requirements in addition tothose in ss. 66.1001 and s. 59.69. A new countyagricultural preservation plan, under current lawin ch. 91, Wisconsin Statutes, must be certifiedby the Wisconsin Land and Water ConservationBoard. A town may petition the county to adoptthe town's comprehensive plan as the county'sagricultural preservation plan for that town. Inthat case, once again, the town's comprehensiveplan must meet the ch. 91 requirements inaddition to those in s. 66.1001 and s. 59.69.

Two counties in the past few years that haveupdated their agricultural preservation plans areDodge County and Jefferson County. Jefferson

Sect

ion

5

76

County has monitored lands rezoned out ofExclusive Agricultural Zoning for over twentyyears and has noted that in the first year aftertheir new plan was adopted, the amount of landrezoned out of exclusive agricultural zoning wasnearly 90% less than the average of the past 20years.1 There are substantial benefits to renewedplanning for agriculture.

5.5.c) Farmland Preservation Agreements The agricultural preservation plan is"implemented" in two different ways: farmlandpreservation agreements and exclusiveagricultural zoning ordinances. A farmlandpreservation agreement (or contract) is arelationship between a farmland owner and theState of Wisconsin, although it must first beapproved by the county board. When theprogram began in the late 1970's, it was assumedthat farmland preservation agreements would bea temporary means of preserving farmland andthat counties and towns would eventually moveto zone and thus to exclusive agricultural zoningordinances. This did not happen completely andfarmland preservation agreements continue to bea substantial part of the program. Farmlandpreservation agreements are available to thoselandowners in jurisdictions that do not have anexclusive agricultural zoning ordinance and meetthe other eligibility requirements. Eligibility forthe program is described by statute (subch. II,ch.91) and outlined in Box H. Farmlandpreservation agreements can be contracted for10 years or 25 years.

Box H Eligibility and other provisions offarmland preservation agreements

Land Eligibility:• Parcel must be 35 acres or larger.

• Land must produce $6,000 gross farm receipts in the last year or $18,000 in the last3 years or 35 acres or more are enrolled in the federal conservation reserve program.

• Land must be farmed in compliance withcounty soil and water conservation standards.

• Land must be in agricultural area to bepreserved on agricultural preservation planmap.

Individual Eligibility:• Must be farm owner.

• Must be resident of Wisconsin.

Benefits:• Landowner is made eligible for an income

tax credit at the 80% credit level. Landowners with higher incomes are eligiblefor a minimum credit of 10% of propertytaxes.

• Landowner is protected from specialassessments (such as sewer or waterutilities). This does NOT apply to transitionarea agreements.

• Land uses must be agricultural or consistentwith agricultural use.

Requirements:• Land must be kept in agricultural use.

• Only farm structures can be built. (Farmstructures include hztee. Landowner mustnotify Land Conservation Committee that they intend to file a Schedule FC.

General:• No public access to the land is required.

• The agreement transfers with the land whenownership changes on all or part.

• Agreements are from 10 to 25 years induration, to be determined by landowner.

1 Jim Schneider, University of Wisconsin Extension, Local Government Center, and Steve Grabow, University of Wisconsin Extension, Jefferson County, 2002,

77

Section 5

5.5.d) Exclusive Agricultural ZoningThe standards for exclusive agricultural zoning(EAZ) ordinances are given in subch. V of ch. 91.The EAZ ordinance may be a county, city, village,or town ordinance and in order for farmlandowners to be eligible for tax credits, it must becertified by the Wisconsin Land and WaterConservation Board. Lands contained within theEAZ district(s) must be land contained within thecounty agricultural preservation plan and theordinance must be consistent with theagricultural preservation plan. The uses withinthe EAZ ordinance must be agricultural asdefined in s. 91.01(1) or "uses consistent withagricultural use." (See page 61 for the statutorydefinition of "use consistent with agriculturaluse.") The use of this definition in a localgovernmental unit's zoning ordinance can beuseful in regulating land use for agriculture. Allconditional uses within an EAZ district as well asall structures or improvements are required tobe "consistent with agricultural use" as definedby s. 91.01(10). What this means is that theperson who lives in the city and buys 35 acres inan EAZ district cannot place a home in themiddle of it and take the rest of it out ofagriculture. Proper application of the law, asfound in subch. V, ch. 91, can prevent this. Theeligibility requirements for participation in thefarmland preservation program are similar tothose through a Farmland PreservationAgreement (See Box H), except that the landmust zoned in an exclusive agricultural zoningdistrict certified by the Wisconsin Land andWater Conservation Board. Tax credits underzoning are at the "100%" level, not the 80% levelavailable to farmland preservation agreements."Zoning certificates" that show eligibility for taxcredits are available at the jurisdiction's zoningadministrator's office.

For further information on the FarmlandPreservation Program, please contact that officeat the Department of Agriculture, Trade, andConsumer Protection, 2811 Agriculture Drive,P.O. Box 8911, Madison, WI 53708-8911, phonenumber 608-224-4603.

5.6) Local Planning and Policy Tools for Livestock Agriculture

Local officials in Wisconsin communities areincreasingly called upon to respond to changesinvolving livestock agriculture. These changesrange from an industry characterized by largerand more concentrated livestock operations to amore complicated set of state and federalenvironmental programs directed at livestockagriculture. Particularly on the county level,

local officials will have an important role inimplementing new state rules controlling farmrunoff. Through effective planning andoversight, local leaders usually strive to strike abalance that establishes reasonable protectionsfor local citizens and natural resources with theflexibility required by local farmers to modernizetheir operations.

It is important for communities to build acomplete and accurate picture of their localsituation. The public is generally aware of thetrend toward larger and more concentratedlivestock operations, but many may notappreciate key details. More than likely theseoperations will not be run by out-of-statecorporations, but by local farm families growingto maintain a competitive edge. While very largeoperations (over 1,000 animal units) captureheadlines, Wisconsin is experiencing the mostgrowth in terms of herd size in operationsbetween 200 to 500 animal units. On the otherside of the equation, rural communities cannotoverlook the concerns and conflict created by agrowing number of new rural residents who maynot see the most traditional livestock operationsas compatible land uses.

Basic to decision-making, local officials must gaina working knowledge of the available toolsimplement planning goals related to regulation ofagriculture. This section highlights importantoptions available to local governments inWisconsin to protect the natural environment,minimize conflicts, and promote community well-being. Even though livestock regulation is thefocus of the section, local governments may usethese and other tools to address issues relatedto crop production. See the discussion inSection 5.6f)

Box 5I: Planning and Policy Resources Bigger Livestock Farms: Ideas for localgovernments and citizens, UW CooperativeExtension pub. A3763.

A useful overview of the community issues and policies related to expanding livestock operations. Available from Dr. Bill Bland at 608-262-0221, [email protected].

Livestock Guidance, Department of Agriculture,Trade and Consumer Protection

A multi-part publication that provides guidance to local officials developing policies for livestock operations in their area (described in greater detail in section 5.6b below). Available from Richard Castelnuovo, 608-224-4608,[email protected]

Sect

ion

5

78

Planning also allows communities to carefullyevaluate the range of choices that includeoptions that pinpoint or target regulatory action.If road maintenance is a community’s mostpressing concern, the community may focus onits authority under Section 349.16, Wis. Stats., toimpose special weight limits on roads servinglivestock operations. Using this power, localgovernments can issue permits to allow certainoverweight vehicles access to restricted roads aslong as vehicle owners provide financialassurances to cover damage that may be causedby their road usage. Communities shouldconsider a “no action” option as well. Forexample, a community could decide to foregolocal regulation and rely on external programsrun by a county or the state.

5.6.a) Federal and State Regulation of Large Livestock Operations

Under authority delegated by the federalgovernment, the Wisconsin Department ofNatural Resources (DNR) regulates ConcentratedAnimal Feeding Operations (CAFO) throughWisconsin Pollutant Discharge EliminationSystem (WPDES) permits. The permit program isintended primarily to protect water quality byregulating manure runoff, storage, andapplication in the field. It is not intended toaddress questions of facility siting and odormanagement.

CAFOs are generally defined as livestockoperations with 1000 “animal units” or more.Animal units are calculated based on the averagesize and manure production associated withdifferent species. Box 5J illustrates how manyanimals of each major farm species areequivalent to 1000 animal units.

Box 5J: Approximate Numbers of Animals that Comprise 1000 Animal Units

• 700 mature dairy cows

• 900 dairy heifers (800-1200 lbs)

• 1700 dairy heifers (400-800 lbs)

• 5,000 dairy calves (under 400 lbs)

• 1,000 beef cattle (over 1,000 lbs)

• 2,500 swine (over 55 lbs)

• 10,000 swine (15-55 lbs)

• 55,000 turkeys

• 100,000 layer chickens

• 200,000 broiler chickens

• 10,000 sheep

• 500 horses

Source: WI-DNR form 3400-25A “Animal UnitsCalculation Worksheet”

To obtain a WPDES permit from DNR, anoperator must develop an acceptable nutrientand waste management plan, and implementstructural and management practices to protectwater quality. Before a permit issues, the WPDESprocess requires public notification and hearingprocess. Operations with less than 1000 animalunits are regulated under ch. NR 243 and theNotice of Discharge (NOD) program. Thesesmaller operations are regulated if they havemanure discharges that significantly affect waterquality. Operations that fail to address thedischarge in the time period specified in the NODare subject to the WPDES permitting process.

Currently, a little over 100 operations out of themore than 40,000 active livestock farms inWisconsin have WPDES permits, but the DNR hasexperienced a significant increase in the numberof applications for permits in recent years.

In addition to the WPDES permitting system,DNR has issued Interim Air and WatershedManagement Guidance (WDNR, 2000) to fieldstaff on how to handle complaints on odor andair emissions from Confined Animal FeedingOperations (CAFO) and Animal FeedingOperations (AFO). The guidance states that theDNR has limited regulatory authority to addressodors and hazardous air emissions (e.g.ammonia and hydrogen sulfide) from livestockoperations.

79

Section 5

5.6 b) Using Local Zoning Authority to Regulate Large Livestock Operations

Counties, towns, and villages may use zoningauthority to regulate new or expanding livestockoperations in different ways. Building on earlierdiscussions about zoning, local governmentsmay use zoning to create a system of multipleagricultural zoning districts, which feature aspecial district to support intensive agriculturesuch as large livestock operations. Withinexisting agricultural districts, they can regulatelivestock operations by requiring conditional usepermits for larger operations, establishingsetback distances from natural and man-madefeatures, and imposing environmentalperformance standards.

Responding to increasing interest in zoning andother local livestock regulation, the Secretary ofthe Department of Agriculture, Trade andConsumer Protection (DATCP) convened anadvisory committee to provide advice on theseimportant issues. The committee presentedrecommendations in the form of work productsthat provide guidance in fashioning localresponses to livestock operations.

The advisory committee’s work productscollectively known as the Livestock Guidancecover these zoning-related topics:

• The critical role of effective planning inaccommodating competing interests anddeveloping reasonable responses.

• Issues of program and ordinanceadministration such as local capacity toimplement a proposed course of action. Forexample, communities need to ask if theyhave the resources and expertise toimplement certain types of local regulations.

• Understanding the difference between ‘bans’on livestock operations, which are legallyproblematic, and ‘temporary moratoria,’which may temporarily halt construction orexpansion of livestock facilities to aidplanning or regulatory decisions.

• The use of innovative zoning techniques tosupport changes in the livestock industry,including Agriculture Enterprise Districts tosustain intensive agriculture, performancestandards as an alternative to traditionalsetback requirements, and stipulatedagreements to streamline the permittingprocess.

• The wise use of conditional use permits, acommonly used method to regulate livestockoperations, to ensure fair treatment of permitapplicants and reduce uncertainty involvingthe application process.

• The role of setbacks in protecting waterquality, minimizing odor, and providing visualbuffers by requiring that new livestockoperations locate their facilities a certainnumber of feet from different features such aslakes, streams, and neighboring residentialbuildings.

• The use of reverse setbacks and otherrestrictions that prevent construction of newhousing close to existing livestock operations.

• The pros and cons associated with settingperformance standards for minimizing offsiteimpacts from livestock operations.Performance standards can control impactsfrom animal confinement facilities, manurestorage structures, and manure application infields by stressing management and structuralcontrols to achieve an acceptable level ofperformance.

For further information on the LivestockGuidance, contact Richard Castelnuovo, policyspecialist at the Department of Agriculture,Trade, and Consumer Protection, 2811Agriculture Drive, P.O. Box 8911, Madison, WI53708-8911, phone number 608-224-4608, email:[email protected].

5.6.c) Local Authority to Protect Public Healthand the Environment

Local governments also may regulate livestockoperations based on the power to protect healthand the environment. This subsection focuses onlocal regulation under Chapter 92, WisconsinStatutes, but local governments may also haveauthority under chapters 59-66 of the statutes toadopt protective measures.

Section 92.16, Wis. Stats. is the most widely usedregulatory authority. As Figure 5.2 indicates 75%of Wisconsin counties have manure storageordinances. Section 92.16, Stats., authorizescounties, as well as cities, villages, and towns, toadopt ordinances requiring that manure storagefacilities meet technical standards. A farmermust submit a construction plan and secure apermit to build or alter a storage facility.Coupled with a requirement to submit a nutrientmanagement plan, this ordinance offers essentialwater quality protection from poorly managed

Sect

ion

5

80

manure. In addition to these basic requirements,manure storage ordinances may require farmersto close unused storage facilities, obtain a permitbefore closing a storage facility and file annualnutrient management plans. A new agriculturalperformance standard (s. NR 151.05, Wis. Admin.Code) establishes state minimums for facilityconstruction and alteration, closure of unusedfacilities, and leaking and failing facilities.

Figure 5.2: Counties with Manure Storage Ordinances in Wisconsin

Under section 92.11, Wis. Stats., counties, cities,villages, and towns may enact ordinances thatprohibit land uses and management practicesresponsible for excessive soil erosion,sedimentation, nonpoint source water pollutionor stormwater runoff. Under this broadauthority, local governments may regulate mosttypes of farm practices (related or unrelated tolivestock production) to protect water quality.Ordinances under this section do not becomelaw unless approved by a referendum. In 1998,the towns in Manitowoc County voted toapprove an ordinance under this authority toregulate manure applications and livestockgrazing near waterways.

Local governments, including towns, may alsopass agricultural shoreland management (ASM)ordinances under section 92.17, Wis. Stats., tocontrol soil erosion, livestock activity, and runoffnear streams, lakes and ponds. DATCP mustreview and approve all ASM ordinances.Requirements in ASM ordinances cannot beenforced against landowners unless cost-sharefunding to implement corrective measures isprovided. DATCP may be a source of funding for

landowner cost-sharing if counties make ASMordinances a priority in their land and waterresource management plans. With the adoptionof new state agricultural performance standards,these ordinances offer a focused approach tocompliance (emphasizing protection ofshorelands) that should be appealing to countiesand other local governments that are expectedto implement these standards.

Newly added in 1997, section 92.15 of theWisconsin Statutes authorizes local governmentsto regulate livestock operations consistent withperformance standards, prohibitions,conservation practices, and technical standards.As more fully discussed later in 5.6.e), thisstatute is part of a state framework thatestablishes minimum standards for farms toprotect water quality.

Under the authority to protect the environmentand public health, a local government may set upa permit or licensing program for livestockoperations. A local licensing system functions inimportant ways like a ‘local’ WPDES permit,granting new, expanding and existing livestockoperations in certain categories the right tooperate if they meet certain standards. Unlikeordinances that prohibit certain farm practicessuch as manure runoff, a licensing system is notcomplaint driven and is designed to preventproblems.

As an example of this approach, Polk Countyadopted an ordinance adopted under s. 92.15,Wis. Stats., other non-zoning authority toregulate certain classes of livestock facilitiesthrough “certificates of operation.” As theirprimary focus, these certificates or operatinglicenses are designed to ensure compliance withmanure management standards. Polk Countyuses a policy manual to evaluate the level ofmanure management necessary to protect waterquality. Management options includeincorporation of manure within 72 hours,cropping practices such as reduced tillage, andnutrient-reduction practices.

5.6.d) A Comparison of Zoning Versus Environmental Regulation

Why might a local government, such as PolkCounty, select health and environmentalregulations instead of zoning authority? Zoningmay not be an option because a localgovernment has not adopted zoning in its area orlacks the authority to adopt zoning.Administering zoning laws typically involveszoning officials and demands coordination with

81

Section 5

conservation staff (e.g. Land ConservationDepartment) to ensure the necessary technicalexpertise to evaluate livestock facility design andoperation. On the other hand, LCDs canadminister health and environmental regulationsuch as licensing permits without theinvolvement of zoning officials. Creating andenforcing environmental controls in a non-zoningordinance, however, may be more difficult thanmaking modifications to an existing zoningsystem to address livestock issues. As one of itsadvantages, zoning modifications make changesto a well-established scheme that is familiar tozoning administrators. If regulations areconfined to land use controls, local officials maynot need the resources and expertise to setcriteria for proper management, to applystandards in reviewing plans, and to monitoroperations for compliance.

Zoning may not provide the type of controlsought by a local government. It primarilyregulates the future use and development ofland. While zoning allows regulation ofmanagement practices, such as odor controlmeasures, its strength is separation of land usesto avoid conflict. Also, existing livestockoperations cannot be forced to comply with newzoning requirements. They can operate as non-conforming uses until they change their land use.

Unlike zoning provisions, public health andenvironmental regulation can apply to existingoperations. In Polk County’s case, existingfeedlots are subject to permitting only after theLCD completes a site evaluation and makes acompliance determination. By its nature, thistype of regulation cannot be applied selectivelyonly to new operations without compromising itsessential purposes: protecting water quality,promoting sanitation, and maintaining healthysurroundings. The example of restaurantregulation makes this point clear. No restaurantwould expect to avoid new food preparationrules simply because it was operating prior tothe rules.

Jim Schwab’s Planning and Zoning forConcentrated Animal Feeding Operations,available from the American PlanningAssociation, is a good resource on the subject ofzoning and non-zoning regulatory approaches.

5.6.e) Regulating within a State FrameworkWhen they regulate to protect water quality,local governments must understand that theyoperate within a larger framework. Two statutes,sections 92.15 and 281.16, set out requirements

for minimum performance standards for farmsand impose limits on local enforcement of thesestandards.

As part of the legislature’s redesign of the stateprogram to control farm and urban runoff, itdirected DNR and DATCP to adopt regulationsthat set statewide performance standards andconservation practices to protect water quality.Chapter NR 151, Wis. Admin. Code, contains thestate performance standards and prohibitions tocontrol nonpoint source pollution from farms.These state standards build on familiar NRCStechnical standards, and address the followingcritical issues related to cropland and livestockoperations.

1. Preventing erosion from exceeding tolerablesoil loss “T.”

2. Constructing, expanding, maintaining andclosing manure storage facilities.

3. Diverting clean water from livestock facilities.

4. Developing nutrient management plans forapplication of manure and fertilizer.

5. Setting livestock prohibitions: No manureoverflows, No direct runoff from facilities, Nounconfined manure piles near waterways, Nounlimited grazing near waterways.

Revised ch. ATCP 50, Wis. Admin. Code,establishes the conservation practices andtechnical standards to meet DNR’s performancestandards

As part of the state implementation strategy,counties in particular will have a pivotal role insecuring compliance with state standards. Theyare expected to rely primarily on voluntaryapproaches, but they must be prepared as a lastresort to require compliance throughenforcement mechanisms. Counties may enforceordinance requirements or pursue these optionsto gain compliance:

• Suspend a landowner’s eligibility for farmlandpreservation tax credits (see ATCP 50)

• Seek a DNR order requiring a landowner toobtain a pollution discharge permit (see NR 243)

• Ask the Department of Justice or a DistrictAttorney to file a civil forfeiture action (see s. 281.98, Stats.)

Under s. 92.15, Wis. Stats., no local livestockordinance may exceed state standards unlessDATCP or DNR finds that the ordinance is neededto protect water quality. According to an

Sect

ion

5

82

informal opinion from the Attorney General,zoning and other regulations adopted under Ch. 59, Wis. Stats., are subject to review under s. 92.15 if they regulate livestock operations.DNR and DATCP rules spell out a procedure bywhich a county or local government may seeksuch state approval. These rules allow livestockoperators to challenge an ordinance in court ifthey believe that it exceeds state standards andhas not been approved by DATCP or DNR.

Here are some ordinance provisions that maytrigger concern as more stringent than statestandards:

• Prohibiting manure storage beyond a certainperiod (e.g. 12 months).

• Requiring closure of an idle manure storagefacility that (a) is unused for less than 2 years,or (b) meets state criteria to remain open.

• Requiring livestock operations to install a 20-foot riparian buffer.

• Deviating from nutrient managementstandards by imposing (a) more stringentphosphorous-based requirements, (b) morerestrictive requirements for land applicationof manure, and (c) annual plan requirementsin advance of the phase in of the statestandard.

When they enforce ordinances or take otheractions to require compliance with statestandards, local governments must meet cost-sharing requirements. Under 281.16 (3)(e), Wis.Stats., the owner or operator of existing farmingoperations may not be required to comply withthe performance standards, prohibitions,conservation practices or technical standards,unless cost–sharing is offered. Sec. 92.15, Stats.,specifically imposes this requirement withrespect to local regulation of livestockoperations.

Chapters NR 151 and ATCP 50, Wis. Admin. Code,establish the standards and procedures forsatisfying the cost-sharing requirement. Cost-sharing normally must be offered if a county orlocal government requires a farmer to installconservation practices that change an “existing”farm operation. In deciding whether a farm is“existing,” a local government must evaluate thefarm’s status as of the effective date of thestandard that is being enforced. The cost-shareoffer must cover at least 70% of the farmer’s costto install and maintain the required practice. Afarmer is entitled to a higher rate if the farmerdemonstrates economic hardship.

5.6.f) Local Oversight of Crop Production Practices

While livestock operations are often the focus oflocal action, it is important to keep in mind thatcommunities may be called upon to considerissues related to crop production. MoreWisconsin farmers are making a living growingcrops—primarily in cash grain, especiallysoybean production. As farmers switch frommilking cows to growing crops, for example,communities may face new conservationchallenges such as soil erosion control. As theyevaluate potential responses, communities mustaccount for all facets of agriculture.

The key points raised in the prior section applyhere. Planning is a critical tool to helpcommunities accurately define and sort out farm-related issues. A comprehensive plan can set thestage for appropriate and responsible actions toaddress issues of soil erosion and nutrientmanagement. As part of the planning process,communities should become familiar with thestate and federal programs that help farmersmanage cropland. These programs largely relygovernment payments and other voluntaryapproaches to promote conservation.Authorized by Congress in 1985, theconservation reserve program (CRP) has provedeffective in reducing soil erosion by setting asidesensitive croplands in permanent vegetativecover. CRP has spawned a new federal statepartnership called the conservation reserveenhancement program (CREP). In Wisconsin,$240 million is available for CREP to install manymiles of buffers and secure habitat for wildlife.The Environmental Quality Incentives Program(EQIP), established in the 1996 Farm Bill,provides cost-sharing for practices such asnutrient management.

Should they identify an unmet need, localgovernments have the authority to manage theimpacts of crop production. Among theprovisions in chapter 92, Stats., section 92.11provides broad authority for soil and waterconservation. DNR has new rules that allowgovernments to pass ordinances to controlconstruction site erosion and mange stormwater.Using zoning and other land use authority power,a local government may seek to preservecropland for its environmental (e.g. groundwaterrecharge) and other benefits.

As noted earlier, local governments have certainresponsibilities in implementing the new stateagricultural performance standards under ch. NR151, Wis. Admin. Code. They may useordinances or other tools to secure compliance

83

Section 5

with cropland standards related to soil erosioncontrol and nutrient management. If they requirefarmers to make changes to existing cropland tocomply with these standards, local governmentsmust meet the cost-share requirements in 281.16(3)(e), Stats. A local livestock ordinance may notexceed state standards for nutrient managementwithout approval of DATCP or DNR.

5.7) Agricultural Economic Development Policies7

Although most of the plan implementation toolsdescribed thus far relate to management ofnonfarm development in agricultural areas, thefuture of farming in most communities willdepend just as much on whether it can remain aprofitable and rewarding enterprise for farmfamilies.

As communities work through the planningprocess, it is likely that they are going to want toexplore options to make agriculture moreviablein their area. Fortunately, there are anumber of strategies that local communitieshave adopted that can help current farmers stayin business, assist new farmers interested instarting new operations, and that enhance theeconomic benefits of farming to the local area.

It is important to appreciate at the outset thatthere are important limits on the influence localgovernments can have on the agriculturaleconomy. For example, the prices farmersreceive for their agricultural commodities, andthe competitiveness of Wisconsin agriculturerelative to other regions, is primarily influencedby national and international agricultural policiesand larger market forces. These policies andforces are normally beyond the reach of a town,village, city, or county board.

That said, there are a surprising number oflevers that local governments can use to affectthe economic performance of the local farmsector. This section is devoted to a discussion ofseveral important ways that local governmentscan promote agricultural economic developmentas part of their planning process.

5.7.a) Supporting Local Farm Expansion and Modernization Efforts

Many of the important forces driving change inagriculture reflect the declining profit margins fortraditional agricultural commodities. Onestrategy that farmers adopt to survive is farmexpansion and modernization.

Expanding the size of a farming operation canhelp farmers maintain their net incomes byincreasing output and gross sales volume. Insome instances, expansion can also produceefficiencies and lower costs of production.

While expansion is a common response tofinancial pressure, it is not the only option forimproving the competitiveness of farmingoperations. It is also important to supportmanagement strategies that improve thetechnical, labor, and cost efficiencies on farms.These may involve adoption of new technologiesand management practices that increase output(or decrease the cost per unit) using the existingland base or livestock inventories.

Local officials can facilitate the expansion andmodernization of local farms in two key ways.

First, they can offer technical or financialassistance to farmers. Usually, this means localcontributions to county agricultural programs,but it can also involve unique local projects tocreate and support farmer-to-farmer networksthat facilitate the exchange and dissemination ofnew farming information. When promotingmodernization, it is helpful to recognize thatthere are many different paths to success in thefuture agricultural economy. In Wisconsin, thetwo fastest growing new types of dairyenterprises are large-scale, confinement farmsand low-cost, intensive rotational grazingoperations. In other commodities, small-scale,specialized direct-marketing operations areflourishing alongside large farms that sell tomore traditional commodity outlets.

The Wisconsin Department of Commerce has aprogram called Dairy 2020 Early Planning GrantProgram whose goal is to encourage andstimulate the start-up, modernization, andexpansion of Wisconsin dairy farms. Since itsinception in 1996, the Dairy 2020 program hasprovided more than $1,700,000 to over 700Wisconsin dairy producers. For more informationon this program, contact Tim Griswold,Executive Director, Dairy 2020 Program, P.O. Box7970, Madison, WI 53707, ph. # (608) 266-7370Fax (608) 264-6151 and e-mail:[email protected].

A second approach involves creating apredictable land use policy environment to guideand facilitate farmers seeking to expand orchange their operations. Most of the specifictools involved were discussed in the section

7 This section benefited from the research and written contributions of Mike Wyatt, Agricultural Resource Management Division, Department of Agriculture, Trade, and Consumer Protection.

Sect

ion

5

84

above. Agricultural planning can, however,identify areas of a community that are spatiallyappropriate for large-scale agriculture andprotect those areas from incompatibledevelopment.

5.7.b) Promoting New Farm Commodities and Farm Diversification

Raising traditional commodities more efficientlycan help improve the economic viability of localfarms. Many of the problems in the farm sector,however, are related to increasingly unfavorableterms of trade for producers of many of thesetraditional crops and livestock. To protectthemselves from increased price volatility anddeclining profit margins, many farmers havebegun to diversify by raising new kinds of cropsor livestock, or by adding non-traditionalenterprises to their farming operation.

Examples include diversification to additionalfood products like fruits and vegetables, herbs,milking goats or sheep, and production of exoticanimal species (like deer, elk, emus, llamas, andalpacas). Shifts to new enterprises cansometimes be accommodated without needing toinvest in new farm machinery. There can be highfailure rates for start-up operations due to lack ofmanagement skills and adequate marketresearch.

Other options include producing renewable non-food energy sources. Biomass and ethanolplants can use traditional crops (like grasses andcorn) to produce important sources of fuel forenergy production (for a discussion of biomassenergy potential in Wisconsin see a recent reporton-line at:www.doa.state.wi.us/depb/boe/publications/pdf_files/utility_coburn3.pdf; for informationabout ethanol production in Wisconsin, seedatcp.state.wi.us/mktg/business/value-added/alt_fuels.html).

Wind energy also offers a potential source ofincome to farmers in some parts of the state (seea state map of Wind Energy Potential at:www.doa.state.wi.us/depb/boe/publications/pdf_files/wind.pdf). However, initial plans forinstalling wind towers in the state have met withsignificant local opposition. (Wisconsin StateFarmer, 12/22/2000) Identifying where windtowers may fit into an overall comprehensiveplan may help mitigate conflicts amongresidents.

Power companies have also begun buyingelectricity generated from methane capturedfrom farm manure stores. (Country Today,11/15/2000) Some farms have also been able tomarket composted manure to gardeners,homebuilders, tree nurseries and landscapers.

Woodlots and managed forest land can produceadditional farm income through timber sales,cattle grazing, Christmas tree production, sale ofpine-needles as mulch, and marketing offirewood. Farms may also be adapted toencourage deer, turkey or pheasant productionto increase income from private or club huntinguse. The Wisconsin DNR offers incentiveprograms to landowners to open their land tothe public during hunting season.8

Agricultural tourism is another potential profitcenter for increasing farm family income andrural economic development. These can rangefrom roadside markets, pick-your-ownoperations, agricultural festivals, farm tours ofhistorically restored sites, bed and breakfasts,scenic picnic areas, camping, horseback riding,etc.

Local governments can assist farmers’diversification efforts by:

• Funding feasibility studies and marketresearch

• Subsidizing the distribution of technicalinformation and advice

• Ensuring that local land use policies canaccommodate these non-traditional activities

5.7.c) Promoting Local Agricultural Markets and Products

A related type of agricultural economicdevelopment involves public efforts to promotethe development of local markets for agriculturalproducts.

One of the most common types of localagricultural marketing is direct sales toconsumers at roadside stands or U-pickoperations. These enterprises can provideimportant income to farm households and cangenerate higher prices than selling to masscommodity markets. In larger urban areas, localfarmers markets have developed into significantsources of income for farmers and providecultural and social benefits to the community aswell.

8 S. 895.52(6), Wis. Stats. States that limit the liability of a private property owner or of an employee or agent of a private property owner whose property is used for a recreational activity is not limited if . . . “(a) The private property owner

collects money, goods or services in payment for the use of the owner's property for the recreational activity duringwhich the death or injury occurs, and the aggregate value of all payments received by the owner for the use of the

owner's property for recreational activities during the year in which the death or injury occurs exceeds $2,000.".

85

Section 5

Another common type of direct-sale businessinvolves Community Supported Agriculture(CSA) operations. CSA customers buy shares inadvance from farmers that entitle them toregular delivery of a bundle of various farmproducts. Through such pre-marketing, farmersget predictable sales revenue up front forworking capital and investment and can receivehigher farm-gate prices by cutting out themiddleman. Consumers benefit by receivingfresh, local farm products at a reasonable price.Many also appreciate knowing where their foodis coming from and developing direct ties tofarmers. CSAs frequently offer organic produceas well as livestock products produced usingenvironmentally and socially beneficial methods.Wisconsin is one of the leaders in CSAs, with 56such farms in 1997. More information aboutCSAs can be found on the web atwww.umass.edu/umext/csa/ andwww.wisc.edu/cias/macsac/.

Other examples of promoting local agriculturalmarkets include programs that connect localfarmers with major institutional food buyers(restaurants, universities, and institutional food.Increasing the use of local foods in publicprograms by even a small amount can providesignificant benefits to local food suppliers. For aWisconsin example of an institutional local foodbuying project, seewww.wisc.edu/cias/research/institut.html#institut.

Local food production can also be tied toprograms designed to increase the food securityof low-income residents. The Madison AreaCommunity Supported Agriculture Coalition(MACSAC), for example, has developed aprogram to subsidize low-income people toparticipate in the purchase of food from CSAsusing funds from foundations, local businesses,and other contributors.

Another way to develop markets for localfarmers involves institutional support forfarmers seeking to sell to emerging regional andnational specialty and niche markets. Two keyexamples are the rise of organic food marketsand the development of labeling programs topromote food produced in particular places.

Organic product markets usually provide apremium price for farmers and have beengrowing significantly over the last decade. Localgovernments can support organic producers byhelping form organic farmer informationnetworks, assisting farmer marketinginstitutions, and ensuring that organic farmerscan be protected from potential drift of

pesticides and pollen from genetically-engineeredcrops from neighboring conventional farms.

Another example of niche marketing involvespromotional efforts to develop a marketingidentity for agricultural products produced in aspecific place (region, state, etc.). Wisconsindairy products are one common example whereregional identity is associated with certain kindsof desirable qualities. The state Department ofAgriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection hasa special labeling program that can be used topromote Wisconsin-made products. Thisapproach also capitalizes on growing consumerdemand for high quality foods produced inenvironmentally friendly ways. In some cases,consumer attention is also drawn to productsproduced by certain kinds of farms (like small-scale family farms or livestock operations thatdo not confine their animals).

Local governments can assist in developing andpromoting local agricultural products in severalways:

• Ensure that on-farm sale of agriculturalproducts is allowed under agricultural zoning

• Encourage high quality signage for roadsideproduce stands and U-Pick operations

• Make efforts to purchase local products inpublic institutional programs that buy andserve food products

• Assist farmers seeking to develop newmarketing options by funding marketfeasibility studies and helping form producermarketing organizations

• Develop regional food labels, promotionalpublications, and other efforts to promotelocal food products.

• Establish and promote farmers markets(perhaps by encouraging neighboring cities orvillages to integrate farmers markets intotheir plans for their Main Street developmentprograms)

5.7.d) Promoting Value-Added Processing of Agricultural Products

Since a large share of the consumer’s food dollargoes to processors, wholesalers, and retailers,many economic development specialists havesuggested ways to retain more of the value onthe farm. Typically this means developingprocessing facilities (either on-farm or in thelocal area) to take raw agricultural commoditiesand convert them into higher value consumergoods.

Sect

ion

5

86

In recent years, there has been considerableinterest in developing more small-scale foodprocessing. In Minnesota and Wisconsin, dairyfarmers are creating milk and cheese processingbusinesses to complement their traditional dairyoperations. Efforts in Wisconsin to develop on-farm milk processing and other specialty or craftcheesemaking have received increasingconsumer recognition nationwide.

Another example of local value-added processingof agricultural commodities is conversion oflocal corn and grains into ethanol. Federalincentive programs for ethanol production haveled to the construction of many new ethanolplants around the Midwest. A summary of thesignificance and future potential for ethanolproduction in Wisconsin can be found on-line atdatcp.state.wi.us/mktg/business/value-added/alt_fuels.html).

The Wisconsin Department of Commerce has aprogram entitled The Agricultural DevelopmentZone (ADZ) that assists the development ofagricultural businesses. ADZ will have available$5 million in tax credits for use by locating orexpanding agribusinesses. Agribusinesses canclaim income tax credits for the creation of jobsand capital investment and for environmentalremediation activities. An agribusiness is part ofthe Agricultural Business/Food ProcessingCluster. The cluster includes all the activitiesand/or operations that are involved in thegrowth, production, processing, manufacturing,distribution, wholesale and retail sales ofagricultural and food products.

The ADZ may contain regions throughoutmultiple counties. Only counties that do nothave a Technology Zone designation may apply.The Department of Commerce encourages jointapplications that demonstrate strong regionalcooperation. Applicants will be evaluated bytheir local capacity to attract, promote, retain,and expand agribusiness. The ADZ will be ineffect for 10 years.

Applications are available from the Departmentof Commerce home page atwww.commerce.state.wi.us. For more informationabout the Agricultural Development ZoneProgram, or contact Peggy Burke, theDepartment of Commerce, at 608/266-3751.

Several state programs are designed to providefinancial assistance to local communities andlocal businesses that promote value-addedagricultural processing. A good summary ofthese programs can be found on-line at:datcp.state.wi.us/mktg/business/value-added/index.html.

With respect to all forms of value-addedagricultural economic development, localgovernments can support new economicenterprises through subsidized technical andmarketing assistance, low-interest loans, andother promotional activities.

In addition, it is important that localgovernments anticipate the growth of these newprocessing enterprises in any land use oragricultural preservation policies they adopt. Inrecent years, for example, some Wisconsincommunities have had serious disputes overwhether on-farm business ventures (like road-side stands, U-Pick operations, and agriculturalprocessing facilities) are acceptable uses in areaszoned exclusively for agriculture. Some haveargued is that these are not really “agricultural”activities and could be incompatible withfarming or farmland protection. Others believethat these activities may be an important way toensure the survival of individual farm operators,and note that the separation of food productionand processing is a relatively modernphenomenon and one not always beneficial tothe farmer.

The lessons learned from these cases suggestthat the comprehensive planning process shouldintegrate agricultural preservation and economicdevelopment elements carefully. Specifically,communities that expect to see road-side stands,on-farm milk processing, or ethanol plantsshould develop clear policies and proceduresunder which such ventures can be encouragedand allowed.

5.7.e) Facilitating Farm Transitions and Retirement Programs

One of the most significant problems facing mostagricultural communities is the relatively lowrate of entry by young people into farming.Research has shown that the rate of exit fromfarming has not changed markedly in recentyears, but the rate of entry has slowedconsiderably. The result has been an increase inthe net loss of farms in most parts of the state.

Low entry rates are caused by a combination offactors, including poor economic conditions infarming, strong nonfarm labor markets, and

87

Section 5

logistical and financial difficulties transferringworking farms at a price that allows the elderfarm family to retire and the younger farm familyto prosper. In addition, many older farmers havenot yet planned how they will supportthemselves and how they might transfer theirfarm to another generation after they retire.

Communities seeking to retain a vibrant localagricultural economy will need to considerstrategies that encourage the entry of newpeople into farming. Such strategies may includethe agricultural economic developmentprograms discussed above (which make farmingmore economically attractive) as well asprograms designed specifically to help youngeroperators enter successfully.

Despite the pessimism in most quarters of thefarm sector, there are several good examples ofprograms that have provided opportunities foryoung people with a “fire-in-the-belly” desire tofarm. Examples include the County farmapprenticeship program in Trempealeau County,the School for Beginning Dairy Farmers andmarket-gardeners courses at the UW-Madison(see information on-line atwww.wisc.edu/cias/schools/dairysch.html, andwww.wisc.edu/cias/schools/mktgardn.html,respectively), and private apprenticeshipprograms operated by the Professional DairyProducers of Wisconsin(www.pdpw.org/intership.html) and the MichaelFields Institute www.mfai.org/internships.htm).

Box 5J: Value-Added AgricultureIn its simplest form, value-added agriculture is a process of increasing the economic value andconsumer appeal of an agricultural product. Itallows farmers to benefit by being part of a“specialized” supply chain and affords them the chance to receive a larger share of theconsumer’s dollar. Usually producer-driven,there is room for both small- and large-scaledevelopment within value-added agriculture.

There are myriad options within value-addedagriculture. Some of the food options are trends (organic, specialty, fancy and ethnic),new commercial crops, different processingmethods of foods like cheese or meat, and direct marketing to consumers. Some non-food -or bio-economy - options include bio-fuels(ethanol), bio-lubricants, bio-chemicals, bio-pharmaceuticals, bio-medicines, buildingmaterials, textiles, bio-plastics, bio-filtering and renewable energy (biomass).

The Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection has anambitious vision for value-added agriculture inWisconsin. The department is working toenhance the state’s specialty foods reputationwith development rooted in specialty meats,livestock and dairy; to promote strong marketdevelopment efforts to create branded products with a “From Wisconsin” identity; todevelop high-value industrial crops forneutraceutical and pharmaceutical uses, alongwith ethanol and fiber crop production; and toestablish industry-led entrepreneurialagricultural with a state partnership and aproven development framework.

The department’s focus is to cultivateimprovement in the economic well-being offarmers and rural communities. Thedevelopment of alternative crops and livestockor new agricultural enterprises creates jobs andincreases the investment in rural communities.

Adapted from datcp.state.wi.us/mktg/ business/value-added/index.html

Additionally, the WI-DATCP Farm Center operatesa number of programs to encourage youngfarmers and facilitate the smooth retirement ofsenior farm operators. The most active is the“Farm Link” program (see box) that helpsretiring farmers locate young individuals who areseeking to get into farming. This service isavailable free of charge and can also assistrelocating farmers. Another project involves

Sect

ion

5

88

creating local “transition teams” to assist newfarm operators as they get established. Usuallythese teams include a combination of lenders,veterinarians, extension agents, and otherprofessionals who can provide coordinatedadvice and assistance to beginning dairyfarmers.

Finally, a number of observers have noted theimportance of effective communication andinterpersonal relationships to a successful farmtransfer. Often, poor planning and breakdownsin communication can make an otherwise viablefarm transfer fail. Programs to help farmers planfor retirement, and workshops that help buildcommunication skills across generations of farmfamily members have proven useful in facilitatingfarm transfers and new entry.

Box 5K: Farm TransfersThrough its Farm Link program, the Farm Center can help farmers who want to start theirown operation, retiring farmers who wantsomeone to take over their operation, or farmers who want to relocate due to urban orenvironmental pressures. For more informationon the farm transfer services provided by theFarm Center, call the helpline at 1-800-942-2474.

(From datcp.state.wi.us/mktg/agriculture/farm-center/transfers.html)

5.7.f) Urban Food Systems PlanningAlthough many agricultural planning policies areprimarily relevant for rural farming communities,it is also the case that urban areas (cities,villages, and urbanizing counties) havepotentially strong interests in the future ofagriculture in their region. Aside fromsupporting neighboring rural municipalities whoseek to protect agricultural resources, the largestarea where urban planning can impactagriculture is through improved planning forurban food systems.

Urban food systems planning recognizes thatagriculture and high quality food products areimportant to urban residents. City people livingin traditionally agricultural areas generally wantto protect the surrounding agricultural landscapefor aesthetic, environmental, and recreationalvalues. In a recent survey of Wisconsinresidents, for example, an overwhelmingmajority cited agriculture and farmlandpreservation as among their top goals for futureland use planning (On Common Ground, 1999).

Moreover, as noted above, a growing number ofurban residents are interested in reconnecting to

agriculture by buying more of their food directlyfrom local farmers. In some cities, farmersmarkets have become important markets forarea farmers and consumers, as well as valuablesocial and cultural assets. Municipalities canencourage and support these farmers markets bysetting aside public spaces, such as a dedicatedvenue on the main street or adjacent to animportant public building, and providingadministrative assistance.

Other urban areas have recognized the values ofcommunity gardens and other forms of ‘urbanagriculture.’ Community gardens are usuallyconstructed on vacant lots of publicly ownedland and residents pay nominal fees to reserveplots in the gardens to produce vegetables andother foods. Experience with communitygardens shows they can be important sources offood for low-income families, provide a place fornew immigrants and long-term residents tointeract, and improve the quality of life in urbanneighborhoods. Because most urban planningand zoning failed to anticipate the rise ofcommunity gardens, however, these projectsoften operate on shaky legal foundations withinsecure tenure and possible zoning ordinanceproblems. For more information aboutcommunity gardens, contact the AmericanCommunity Garden Association atwww.communitygarden.org/ or the UrbanCommunity Gardens website atalexia.lis.uiuc.edu/%7Esewells/communitygardens.htm.

89

Section 5

Section 6: Challenges Of Implementing The Plan

The extended discussion of policy options inSection 5 was meant to stimulate discussion anddebate in communities that are developingagricultural elements for comprehensive plans.It is unlikely that any community will be able (orfind it desirable) to implement all of the policiesor programs described above. Past experiencetells us that communities need to be realisticabout their capacity to implement their plans.Most local governments in Wisconsin havelimited staff and budgets to implement plans,and many have citizens who will be skeptical ofseveral of the planning tools discussed above.

This final section discusses some of thechallenges likely to be experienced bycommunities implementing agricultural plans. Italso presents some suggestions for how toaddress these challenges and increase thechances for success in the comprehensiveplanning process.

6.1) Challenge 1: Ensuring Public Support for the Plan

For a plan to be successful, community leadersmust build a strong foundation based on publicunderstanding and support. Citizen support canbe particularly important to ensure publiclegitimacy when leaders are forced to makedifficult decisions.

While it is not realistic to expect full consensusor agreement among all citizens about particularplan elements, there are a number of steps thatcan be taken that will increase the legitimacy ofthe final product in the eyes of the public.

The first and most effective strategy is to involvecitizens in all phases of the planning process. Itis worth reiterating that state statutes requirethat comprehensive plans develop a formalpublic participation process (ch. 66.1001(4)(a),Wisc. Stats.). Regardless of whether it isrequired, bringing diverse residents into theplanning effort is the most important way toensure that their voices are reflected in the finalproduct.

Citizens can be involved in a number of ways.They can be invited to informational meetings,sit on advisory committees, be formally invitedto serve on the committees that draft actual planlanguage, and be asked to ratify a plan through anon-binding referendum at the end of theprocess.

Aside from involving people in the process, someadditional steps that are likely to increase publicsupport for your plan include:

• Making the process transparent andinclusive. There is nothing that torpedoes aplanning effort more quickly than the publicsense that the process is secretive or beingcontrolled by a small minority of communitymembers. Many communities have found itworth going the extra mile to publicizeplanning meetings and events, maintain aninviting and open atmosphere at meetings,and actively encourage diverse residents toparticipate.

• Taking the time to do it right. Land use plansoften reveal deep differences of opinion inrural communities over important issues likeproperty rights, agricultural economicdevelopment, residential, commercial, andindustrial development, and environmentalprotection. Taking time for participants toshare divergent points of view may alloweveryone to develop a deeper understandingof each other’s positions. Most mediationexperts agree that providing opportunities forextended discussion and negotiation is themost effective way to find areas of commonground and reasonable solutions to complexproblems. Rushing to closure on importantissues before everyone has had a chance toweigh in can also backfire if it generates anentrenched opposition to the plan.

• Avoiding the existence or appearance ofconflicts of interest. Given that many localofficials have strong personal interests in thegoals and policies that a planning effort mightgenerate, there is a continual risk that theirefforts to promote certain options will beperceived as a conflict of interest. It is worthdeveloping guidelines and safeguards toassure citizens that the private interests oflocal officials are not interfering with theirpublic duties to serve the greater good. Rulesthat require individuals to refrain from votingon general policies (and specific land usedecisions) that might materially benefitthemselves or members of their immediatefamily are a common first step.

• Avoiding surprises. There is nothing worsethan investing significant time, money, andeffort into developing a comprehensive planand then discovering that a significant group

Sect

ion

6

90

of citizens is alarmed by (if not steadfastlyopposed to) the implementation of that plan.Having an open and inclusive process canensure that critical voices get heard beforethe plan gets set in stone.

6.2) Challenge 2: Using the Plan to Guide Specific Decisions

Remember that the goal of the planning processis not just to develop and adopt a plan. The realvalue comes from having a plan that is useful inguiding specific land use decisions and thathelps accomplish the vision of communitymembers for their future.

To ensure your plan will be useful, it is importantto anticipate the most common land usedecisions in your community. The plan shouldthen be written to provide specific guidance tolocal officials who have to make those kinds ofdecisions. For example, in many ruralmunicipalities, decisions about whether to allowresidential housing to occur in agricultural areascan dominate the monthly town or county boardmeetings. A useful plan might: (a) describe thecircumstances under which housing can beapproved and (b) highlight which decisioncriteria are mandatory, and which reflectdesirable but not hard-and-fast standards.Deciding upon decision standards in theplanning process is much easier than trying towork them out ad hoc in the face of a particularrequest for a new project.

Having clear standards enables local officials tomake consistent decisions. Treating allresidents fairly and equally is important to thecredibility of the plan, and is good public policy.It is also important to protect local officials fromlegal challenges to their land use decisions.

Several decades of litigation in Wisconsin make itclear that arbitrary or inconsistent enforcementof plan language and zoning ordinances is thesingle biggest problem governments face in theland use arena. Having a plan on which to baseday-to-day regulatory decisions is goodinsurance against legal challenges to town boardor zoning board decisions filed based on equalprotection or discrimination grounds. Courts aremore likely to support the reasonableness ofregulatory decisions if a written plan backs upthe rationale for the regulation and itsapplication to the case at hand. For example, inPeterson v. Dane County (136 Wis. 2d 503 (1987))a town’s land use plan was upheld as the basisfor denying rezoning out of EAZ. In the recentLake City Corp. v. City of Mequon case, the

Wisconsin Supreme Court upheld the reliance ona master plan as the basis for rejecting asubdivision plat.

Of course, plans should not be so specific thatthere is no room for flexibility and pragmatism.It is impossible to anticipate every conceivablesituation, and local officials need some latitudeto operate.

6.3) Challenge 3: Ensuring Consistency Between the Plan and Land Use Decisions

In all cases, it is important that communitiesmake decisions and take land use actions thatare consistent with their plan. In the past,agricultural preservation or land use plans havenot always been well integrated into local landuse decision-making. Currently, there are manyexamples of Wisconsin communities that haveadopted specific land use policies (includingzoning ordinances), but which have not adopteda corresponding land use plan. In addition, thereare other places that have adopted plans, butnever developed implementation policies toachieve the goals of these plans. Even whenboth exist, since plans and ordinances may havebeen developed at different points in time or bydifferent groups of people, there are manyinstances of inconsistency between local plansand land use regulations.

By 2010, under the new state ComprehensivePlanning law (also known as the “Smart Growth”law), all local programs and actions affectingland use must be consistent with acomprehensive plan (§66.1001 (3) pars. (a) to(s).). The law will require that local governmentsdevelop comprehensive plans and take actionsconsistent with those plans. Because of theseconsistency requirements, communities thatdevelop comprehensive plans need to recognizethat these plans will have significantly more legalauthority and impact than many previousplanning tools they may have used. Localgovernments that already have land use policiesin place will be required to amend these policiesto ensure they are consistent with an adoptedcomprehensive plan.

A list of possible policies that will need to beconsistent with the plan is included in Box 6.1 onthe next page.

91

Section 6

Box 6.1: Examples of land use actions thatmust be consistent with a comprehensive plan:

• Municipal boundary-related activities.

• Examples include such things asmunicipal incorporation procedures,annexation of land, consolidation orattachment of territory, or boundaryagreements between two or morejurisdictions.

• Zoning.

• Examples would include the adoption oramendment of zoning ordinances or zoning maps, issuance of conditional use permits, and administration of general,shoreland, agricultural, or other types of zoning ordinances.

• Subdivision regulation, including drivewayaccess ordinances or plat review.

• Transportation improvements, includingbuilding new roads or expanding existingroads.

• Agricultural preservation plans. (as preparedor revised under subch. IV of ch. 91, Wisc.Stats.)

• Impact fees.

• An impact fee includes such things asassessing a developer of a residentialsubdivision a fee or requiring the dedication of acreage for public purposes to compensate for any costs to publicinfrastructure associated with the newdevelopment.

• Land acquisition for public parks or facilities.

• Official mapping of urban service boundariesor zoning districts.

• Construction site erosion control and stormwater management.

• Any other ordinance, plan, or regulation of alocal governmental unit that relates to landuse.

• This would likely include many othertypes of local ordinances, plans, orregulations such as sewer service plans,landscaping ordinances, manure storageordinances, a watershed plan, buildingpermits, or regulations such as buildingcodes.

6.4) Challenge 4: Working with Neighboring Municipalities

Local government relationships are particularlyimportant in Wisconsin. The state ranks thirdnationwide in the number of local governmentalunits per capita. Having many smallgovernmental units allows for localrepresentation and provides Wisconsin residentswith numerous opportunities for participation inlocal decision-making.

The sheer number of governmental units withoverlapping decision-making authority alsopresents numerous challenges. Decisions thataffect neighbors can sometimes affect multipleboards, commissions, committees, mayors,executives, administrators, and citizens. Moregovernmental units can make communication,coordination, and action more difficult. In aplanning context, overlapping jurisdictions(between counties and towns, or between townsand neighboring cities and villages) may producemultiple visions for comprehensive plan goalsand plan implementation policies.

In addition, even when jurisdictions do notoverlap, many important land use issues crosscommunity boundaries. Economic forces (likecommuter patterns, housing markets, andimpacts of population growth and change) aswell as environmental concerns about air andwater quality are all issues that spill overmunicipal boundaries and can affect a region asa whole.

Agricultural issues are often regional in nature.For example, it is most often growth pressurefrom expanding cities and villages that affectsdemand for agricultural land in nearby towns.As a result, unless the town communicates withthe county and surrounding cities and villagesabout their development policies, it is difficult,maybe even impossible, to target and controlgrowth or preserve agricultural land. Otherexamples of regional agricultural issues thatpotentially involve many local units ofgovernment include:

• Maintaining agricultural infrastructure,including retail and cooperative outlets forfeed, seed, and other supplies; agriculturalservice providers, and food processing andmarketing organizations.

• Transportation system maintenance for easyand cost-efficient transport of agriculturalgoods.

• Promoting viable farmers markets.

Sect

ion

6

92

• Watershed and aquifer management.

• Soil management to reduce soil erosion,improve water quality, and increaseproductivity.

• Manure storage practices.

• Large-scale livestock facilities siting.

• County agricultural preservation plans.

• Countywide zoning.

These linkages also suggest that local units ofgovernment should explore ways to work withneighboring municipalities to coordinate theirplanning efforts. Whether it is a formal or aninformal arrangement, two or more communitiesworking together on an issue is often referred toas “intergovernmental cooperation.”

6.4.a) The “Intergovernmental Cooperation Element”

The state comprehensive planning law requires acomprehensive plan to include anintergovernmental cooperation element (ch. 66.1001(2)(g) Wisc. Stats.). In general terms,intergovernmental cooperation is a process inwhich officials of two or more jurisdictionscommunicate visions and coordinate adoptedpolicies to address and resolve issues of mutualinterest. It could include anything from simplysharing information, to borrowing equipment, tocoordinating service provision, to developingmulti-year revenue sharing agreements.

When coordination with neighboringmunicipalities is an important goal for thecommunity, it might be worth making thisexplicit when developing language for goal andobjective statements in a comprehensive plan.

For more information about intergovernmentalcooperation or the requirements of theintergovernmental cooperation element of acomprehensive plan, please refer to “ The Guideto Preparing the Intergovernmental CooperationElement of a Comprehensive Plan”. This guide isavailable from the Office of Land InformationServices at (608) 267-2707 orwww.doa.state.wi.us/olis.

6.4.b) Strategies for Informal CollaborationThere are a number of strategies localgovernments can explore to develop informalcollaboration with their neighboringmunicipalities.

The first is the most simple - get to know oneanother. Surprisingly, personal contacts and

informal communication among localgovernment officials can be rare. Without goodinterpersonal relationships, relatively simpledisagreements can quickly escalate into full-blown conflicts.

Although it may seem obvious, it is important toalways bear in mind that behind governmentalentities are people. These people, like all otherpeople, have ideas, hopes, and dreams abouttheir own future and that of the community.Communities in Wisconsin with successfulintergovernmental cooperation have discoveredthe importance of interpersonal relations. As aresult, these communities spend time getting toknow the people who represent adjacentcommunities and area governmental entities,including understanding their values,motivations, and personalities. Thesecommunities know that positive relationshipsdon’t just happen; you have to work at it, andyou may even have to give at times in order toget at other times.

While getting to know neighboring local officialsis always a good idea, it is also important tobuild relationships between local officials andcounty or state agency staff who are responsiblefor natural resource management. For example,county land and water conservationists andregional DNR agricultural runoff staff are likely tobe interested in local planning efforts and mayhave important information and resources tooffer to local communities. A list of WI-DNRagricultural runoff staff members is available onthe internet at:www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/water/wm/nps/agcontacts.htm.

The second suggestion is to share informationabout ongoing planning efforts and emergingpolicies with neighboring municipal leaders.

Open and frequent communication is critical togood intergovernmental relations. Local officialsand staff need to be aware of the issues facingtheir neighboring communities and areagovernmental entities. Awareness of issues willenable local officials and staff to spot potentialopportunities for cooperation. Local officialsand staff also need to identify potential conflictswith a neighboring community in order toaddress them before they become biggerproblems.

Sharing information need not imply agreementabout goals, objectives, or policies. However, itensures that the possibility of cooperation ismaximized and the chances of

93

Section 6

misunderstandings (or surprises) are minimized.

Establishing regular meetings withrepresentatives of adjacent town and countygovernments can provide a forum for sharingongoing planning efforts as well as exploringopportunities for coordinating planning,development, conservation, and regulatoryprograms.

6.4.c) More Formal Options for Intergovernmental Cooperation

While building open and informal relationshipswith neighboring communities is generally agood way to conduct business, there are furthersteps that can be taken to increase formalcooperation and collaboration.

One option is to coordinate the planning effortsof neighboring municipalities. Thecomprehensive planning assistance grantprogram is designed to encourage and rewardgovernments that are willing to go through aplanning process together. Several models thathave emerged in rural areas are:

• Clusters of towns that jointly go through aplanning process, but that still developdistinct plans and policies unique to eachtown

• Counties that devote significant staffresources towards supporting town planningefforts, particularly when the planningprocess is being designed, and whenagricultural inventory information is beingcollected.

Coordinated planning for agriculture may involvesimple steps, such as gathering information forthe agricultural inventory stage jointly. Thereare many efficiencies to be gained in poolingresources for data acquisition and interpretationacross neighboring jurisdictions. They may alsoinvolve going through the early stages of aplanning process together - jointly hiring aconsultant or working with the same countyplanner to learn collectively about the planningprocess and planning options.

In each case, individual municipalities generallyseek to develop a localized plan that is uniqueand specific to their own community’s needs,concerns, and priorities.

A more formal option is to develop acoordinated plan that covers multiplejurisdictions. This may require giving up adegree of local independence in order to ensure

formal consistency in planning goals and planimplementation policies across a larger region.

Joint planning can occur between anycombination of cities, villages, counties, towns,and regional planning commissions. In addition,school districts, special purpose districts,metropolitan planning organizations, countydevelopment authorities, and state and federalagencies can also participate. Joint planningusually occurs between governmental entitiesthat share a common interest or boundary. Bydeveloping a plan together, the same backgroundinformation is used and possibly the sameplanner. The jurisdictions have an opportunityto talk about and reconcile their individual visionand goals during the planning process so thatproblems during implementation of the plan willbe less likely.

The legal basis for intergovernmentalcooperation in Wisconsin is provided bySubchapter III of ch. 66, Wis. Stats. Under thissubchapter, it is possible for one or moreincorporated municipalities to combine withcontiguous towns to develop inter- or multi-governmental agreements and plans that arefocused on agriculture, and institutions toimplement the agreements and plans.Agreements could be forged under s. 66.0305 ands. 66.0307 to fund an “agricultural andintergovernmental planning department” thatwould include incorporated municipalities andcontiguous to rural and agricultural towns. Thedepartment could be charged to do rural andagricultural planning in the sub-region, definedas the incorporated municipality ormunicipalities and their contiguous towns. Thisdepartment could be accountable to a boardcomposed of representatives from all theparticipating towns and incorporatedmunicipalities.

Another way to transcend jurisdiction bordersand link agricultural communities within aspecified region is possible, although it wouldnot have the force of law under s. 66.1001,Wisconsin Statutes. Agricultural producerorganizations could prepare area plans for theirindustries. These documents could assume theform of a local government comprehensive planand follow the same steps including inventory ofresources, maps of the agricultural landresource, groundwater, soils, agriculturalinfrastructure, and so on. Such a plan wouldalso contain an inventory and evaluation of theagricultural policies of the separate politicaljurisdictions with the agricultural area. Thecompilation of information, including goals and

Sect

ion

6

94

objectives developed through participation withfarm operators, could be made available to eachof the jurisdictions within the agricultural area.

Aside from coordinating the planning process(and policies), effective intergovernmentalcoordination may also uncover opportunities toshare in the provision of public services.

Public officials increasingly find themselves inthe difficult position of being asked to delivermore services in an environment of shrinkingfederal and state aid, and local pressure toreduce taxes. New services, as well as thosewith a long history, are now being scrutinized insearch of better and more efficient deliverymethods. In this environment, the concept ofservice sharing is experiencing a renaissance.Many of Wisconsin’s governmental entitiesalready cooperate to provide services. In fact,responses from a 1997 survey by the WisconsinLegislative Audit Bureau indicated that 75percent of all local governments participate inone or more cooperative service agreements.

Some of the specific services currently shared bygovernmental entities in Wisconsin include thefollowing:

• Police or fire protection, and emergencymedical services

• Hazardous materials response and rescueservices

• Shared buildings, employees, and technology

• Recycling/Solid waste collection/Landfills, aswell as municipal sewer and water systems

• Road and street construction andmaintenance, snow removal, and streetcleaning

• Cooperative purchasing or procurement,including jointly purchasing and owningequipment

• Shared recreational programs and facilities

• Shared maintenance of grounds and municipalvehicles

Sharing capital-intensive services increases theefficiency of providing services and can enablesome communities to provide their residentswith services that would otherwise be too costlyfor them to assume by themselves. Sharingresources and costs also saves money byavoiding wasteful duplication.

95

Section 6

References

American Farmland Trust. 1997.Saving American Farmland: What Works.Northhampton, MA: AFT publications.

Arendt, Randall, Elizabeth Brabec, Harry Dodson,Christine Reid, and Robert Yaro (eds.) 1994.

Rural by Design: Maintaining Small TownCharacter. Chicago: APA Planners Press.

Arendt, Randall. 1996. Conservation Design for Subdivisions: APractical Guide to Creating Open SpaceNetworks. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.

Arendt, Randall. 1999. Growing Greener: Putting Conservation intoLocal Plans and Ordinances. Washington, D.C.:Island Press.

Bukovac, Jill. 1999. “Town Government’s Role in Explaining theSpatial Variation of the Rate of Farmland Loss:Dane County, Wisconsin,” Unpublished mastersthesis, University of Wisconsin-Madison.

Country Today. 2000 “Co-op Marketing Seen as Key to Farm Survival.” Nov.15.

Daniels, Thomas. 1999. When City and Country Collide: ManagingGrowth in the Metropolitan Fringe. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Daniels, Thomas, and Deborah Bowers. 1997. Holding our Ground: Protecting America’s Farmsand Farmland. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Daniels, Thomas, John Keller, and Mark Lapping. 1995.

The Small Town Planning Handbook. 2nd Edition. Chicago: American Planning Association Planners Press.

de Tocqueville, Alexis 1945Democracy in America. Volume 1. New York, Vintage Books.

Dillman, Don A. 2000. Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored DesignMethod. 2nd Edition. New York: John Wileyand Sons.

Duncan, James and Associates. 1996. Planning and Zoning for Animal Agriculture inMinnesota: A Handbook for Local Government,Minnesota Department of Agriculture. St. Paul:Minnesota.

Edelman, Mark A., Jon Roe, and Davit Patton.1999.Land Use Conflict: When City and Country Clash,Farm Foundation.

Edwards, M., D. B. Jackson-Smith, S. Ventura, J.Bukovac, D. Last, E. Sanden. 2000.

“Cost of Community Service Studies inWisconsin,” WLURP Research Report No. 2.Madison: Wisconsin Land Use ResearchProgram, Program on Agricultural TechnologyStudies, University of Wisconsin-Madison.

Fisher, Roger, William Ury, and Bruce Patton.1991.

Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement WithoutGiving In. 2nd edition. Penguin Books.

Heyer, Fred. 1990. Preserving Rural Character. PAS Report No. 429.Chicago: American PlanningAssociation Planners Press.

Jeer, S., M. Lewis, S. Meck, J. Witten, and M.Zimet. 1997.

Nonpoint Source Pollution: A Handbook forLocal Governments. Planning Advisory ServiceRpt. No. 476. Chicago: American PlanningAssociation Planners Press.

Krueger, Richard A. and Mary Anne Casey. 2000. Focus Groups. 3rd Edition. Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage Publications.

Oakerson, Ron 1999Governing Local Public Economies: Creating theCivic Metropolis. Oakland: Institute forContemporary Studies.

Ohm, Brian W. 1999. Guide to Community Planning in Wisconsin.UWEX Report G3697. Madison: UWCooperative Extension.

Ohm, Brian J.D. and Erich Schmidke, J.D.. 1999. An Inventory of Land Use Plans in Wisconsin.Extension Report 98-3. Extension Report Series.Madison, Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin-Extension.

On Common Ground Foundation. 1999. Farmland Preservation, Special issue of OnCommon Ground magazine, Vol. 2(3) Fall.

Pruetz, Rick. 1997. Saved by Development: PreservingEnvironmental Areas, Farmland, and HistoricLandmarks with Transfer of Development Rights.Burbank: Arje Press.

Ref

eren

ces

96

Schneider, Jim and Steve Grabow 2002"Jefferson County Plan Saves Agricultural Land." Wisconsin Counties Magazine. June.

Salant, Priscilla, and Don A. Dillman. 1994. How to Conduct Your Own Survey. New York:John Wiley and Sons.

Schwab, James. 1998.Planning and Zoning for Concentrated AnimalFeeding Operations. APA Planning AdvisoryService Report No. 482. Chicago: AmericanPlanning Association.

Slattery, Patrick. 2000.“Community Food Project Helping Low-incomeHouseholds.” Wisconsin State Farmer. Dec.22.

Stokes, Samuel N., A. Elizabeth Watson, andShelley S. Mastran. 1997.

Saving America’s Countryside: A Guide to RuralConservation. Second Edition. Baltimore:Johns Hopkins University Press.

Wacker, Matthew, Alvin Sokolow, and RachelElkins. 2001.

“County Right-to-Farm Ordinances in California:An Assessment of Impact and Effectiveness,” AICIssues Brief No. 15. Davis: Agricultural IssuesCenter, University of California.

Wiedman, Wilbur A., Jr. 1992. Involving Citizens: A Guide to ConductingCitizen Participation. Bureau of Informationand Education Report. Madison: WisconsinDepartment of Natural Resources.

Wisconsin State Farmer. 2000. “Town Splits Over Wind Farms.” Dec.22.

Wondolleck, Julia and Steven Yaffee. 2000. Making Collaboration Work: Lessons fromInnovation in Natural Resource Management.Washington, D.C.: Island Press.

97

Referen

ces

Notes:__________________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

Notes:__________________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

Documents

Planning Agriculture Wisconsin - University of Wisconsin ... · Wisconsin Towns Association Wisconsin Farm Bureau Federation National Farmers Organization ... 2010, all programs,