Are Conservation Easements Like the One at Green Hill Farm Selling Our Children’s Future? (Opinion)

This will be the second time now that I’ve written about conservation easements and how we need to re-think our approach to such things. Previously I wrote about how conservation easements in fact made it easier for utility companies to run new power lines through family farms, sometimes running counter to the original intent of the owner when signing the easement. And now once again, we find ourselves facing a similar dilemma, in that property owners had no idea that farming would lose its ability to provide enough revenue for land owners without significant changes in how we approach agriculture.

Recently a local farm has come under fire from the Town of Sharpsburg’s Mayor Russ Weaver for hosting agritourism events, claiming that the events violate the Maryland Environmental Trust easement which was entered into by the owner’s parents. And while we can split hairs and argue all day about if happy hours are considered part of agrotourism, we’re overlooking an important aspect of environmental easements – they’re selling our children’s future.

It sounds like a great idea at the surface – agree that a farm won’t be developed into houses or warehouses or strip malls, and get a significant tax credit. For those not aware, I also run a small farm that specializes in peppers, tomatoes, and hot sauce, called Honeypot Acres Farm. I have looked into environmental easement programs, and while I don’t qualify for most due to my limited acreage, I’d still be hesitant to enter into one of these agreements due to unforeseen consequences.

Something that Mayor Weaver didn’t touch on when he talked about all the preservation easement work in the 1980’s is the fact that many farms didn’t see much other choice than to sign the conservation easements due to the 1980’s farming crisis. Farm income decreased as a direct consequence of the boom period ending in the late 1970s. After reaching a record high of $92.1 billion in 1973, nearly double the income from three years prior, the agricultural economy faced a severe reversal. This decline was triggered by the Federal Reserve Board’s decision to tighten monetary policy, which caused interest rates to soar, and by global market changes that led to a sharp drop in the export demand for farm commodities. These pressures caused real farm income to plummet to $22.8 billion in 1980 and then to a devastating low of just $8.2 billion in 1983.

So with farm income dropping so drastically, farmers needed to pinch every penny they could. If this meant signing paperwork saying they’ll keep the property as a farm and never turn it into houses or warehouses, then so be it – after all, why would they ever want to give up the family farm?

Unfortunately, what the farm owners at the time didn’t understand is that over time the face of farming would evolve. Imports of crops from overseas has significantly increased driving down domestic demand, and inflation and equipment costs continue to rise for farmers. This has led to farmers looking for other ways to make ends meet, such as agritourism events, wedding venues, and even rustic Airbnb style opportunities. These efforts at farms across the country show that farmers are continuing to explore creative ways to make ends meet without giving up the family farm. Unfortunately, previous generations’ agreeing to environmental easements creates significant obstacles to keeping the farm running with new and creative methods to generate revenue.

It’s easy to sit back and say “look how expensive food is, these farmers must be rich!” but the sad truth of the matter is farmers only make pennies on the dollar from traditional grocery store sales. To put this in better perspective, in 2023 farmers were estimated to make approximately $164 profit per acre of corn in that year. If a farm has 100 acres, that’s $16,400 per year profit. Could your family live on $16,400 per year?

Is it any wonder that the number of farms in the United States is shrinking? And as the children of these farmers inherit a business in a shrinking industry, they’re left with few options due to the perpetual agreement signed by their parents, and face significantly lower property value should they desire to sell the farm, since it can’t be subdivided or modified. And many don’t want to give up the family farm anyway, because it’s their home and has deep emotional ties.

So can we really blame the new generation of farmers for trying to adapt to changing economic conditions?

Don’t get me wrong. I’m a firm believer in trying to protect the environment, and limiting urban sprawl. I fully believe that environmental easements were well-intentioned to help ensure the land would be preserved for generations. But when those contracts were drawn up, the owners at the time had no idea of the unintended consequences, and how the face of farming would change.

While I certainly don’t agree with the Mayor’s intent to sue Green Hill Farm or other farms for hosting agritourism events, I can also relate and sympathize with his concerns. Where do we draw the line between a farm hosting events to help stay sustainable, and a farm operating as a full-time bar and music venue? How does the Town of Sharpsburg account for traffic travelling through it on a road designed for residential usage now seeing increased usage due to such events? I don’t know if I truly have the answers. But what I do know is that maybe instead of threatening to sue, perhaps a better approach would be asking how we can work together to make sure everyone succeeds, while the historic nature of the Sharpsburg area is preserved. Perhaps, by building relationships instead of threatening legal action, both Sharpsburg and local farms could prosper from these events.

Opinion article by Ken Buckler, President of Radio Free Hub City. All opinions are his own, and do not reflect those of our clients or sponsors.

---