The rift in Delaware farmland preservation
Delaware agriculture officials declined to apply for federal land conservation dollars for the past two years, money that they sought in the past and used to preserve farmland.
The reason, said Austin Short, deputy secretary of agriculture, is the new regulations adopted by the Natural Resources Conservation Service didn't meet the requirements of the state's Agricultural Lands Preservation Act.
For instance, state law allows a farmer to subdivide his land so long as the subdivision is for farming, such as selling off land for construction of poultry houses, Short said. In addition, Delaware allows farmers to have up to three homes on the property. Neither is allowed under the new federal rules, written after the most recent version of the Farm Bill was adopted by Congress.
But when the state didn't apply, New Castle County did. So far, the county has received $5.4 million in federal aid for farmland preservation in 2014 and 2015.
Some $3 million of that money will likely go to the purchase of two farms near Port Penn at a total cost of about $6 million. The county will provide 50 percent of the $6 million purchase price, said Mary Jacobson, land use attorney for New Castle County. The remaining money will likely go to purchase other farmland in the same area, she said.
"It's very, very restrictive" what landowners can do when the federal dollars are used, she said.
The federal funding is one more place where state and some in New Castle County's farm community have grown apart. The county once had a cooperative relationship on farmland preservation and, over the years, provided millions of dollars to help purchase easements and keep working farms in operations.
Some in the New Castle County farm community, like county farm bureau President R. Stewart Ramsey, suggested the state wasn't proactive enough when it came to protecting farmland.
One reason, state officials say, is that farmland is more costly in northern Delaware. Another is that in a voluntary program where farmers ask to be included, there is no mechanism to force owners of highly desirable land at risk of development from applying.
Last week, the state's Agricultural Lands Preservation Foundation took steps to sweeten the pot for farmers who own land within a half-mile of municipalities or designated growth areas. When those farms are appraised and go through the process, a 5 percent reduction is factored in the cost of purchasing the easement. The farmer gets the same amount of money for selling development rights, but high-value farms in developing areas will score better than lesser-valued properties.
Some say the bonus isn't enough to really tip the balance and give high-value land a shot at the program.
Jacobson said that although she doesn't know much about the state rules, she questioned whether preserving farming in developing areas was wise.
The Port Penn properties, she said, are outside the county's designated growth area.
Tentative OK for costly Port Penn farm deal
While the county's new program is still being developed, the idea, Jacobson said, is to preserve working farms without paying more than the appraised value.
Meanwhile, other farmers are outraged by the county's step into farmland preservation especially at such a high cost.
"It's absolutely insane what they are doing with our tax dollars," said Tony Domino, a Port Penn-area farmer, of New Castle County's efforts to purchase development rights on two nearby farms. "We're vying for the same pot" of federal money, Domino said.
Delaware is not alone in concerns about the federal rules, said F. Michael Parkowski, the attorney who represents the Delaware Agricultural Lands Preservation Foundation, which administers the state farmland easement purchase program.
Before the rule changes, Delaware received millions of dollars and put the money toward purchases of easements.
Parkowski said the Delaware program, contrary to some complaints, has preserved 24 percent of farmland in the state. Of that, 20 percent has been preserved in New Castle County, 35 percent in Kent and 10 percent in Sussex.
"I just blows my mind that people want to bash this program," Parkowski said, at the recent agland foundation meeting.
The county, with federal help, plans to buy the development rights on 123 acres owned by former state Farm Bureau President Gary Warren and the development rights on 110 acres controlled by an interest of Jaymes Lester, former Public Service Commission member who now manages family farm holdings. Both would retain ownership of the land for farming.
The state program is similar in that state officials purchase development rights on the land and the farmer continues to control agricultural use of the property. The difference in the state program is that it is a two-step process where farmers first join a preservation district and then vie with other farmers for the state purchase of development rights. Because there is a limited pot of state money, farmers who heavily discount the appraisal and "donate" a percentage of the land value to the state, often with a tax benefit, end up being selected.
Jacobson said that the Port Penn land owners also will be discounting their land value. And the discount will likely be higher before the land transaction is complete, she said. A recent appraisal came in higher than the one the landowners and county officials are using to calculate the purchase of development rights.
These farms and three others were part of the defunct Port Penn Assemblage, more than 600 homes planned by Toll Brothers. A court settlement, stemming from the county's pulled plan to extend a sewer interceptor, is also a factor in the proposed land deal, Jacobson said.
While the sewer line might be cheaper to build than purchasing the land, Jacobson said the county has made a decision to limit growth to a corridor area west of U.S. 13. That corridor doesn't include the Port Penn farms, she said. In addition, she said, the land purchase has other benefits, like keeping farming active in the county and allowing the county to set up a program where they can preserve open space in one area and sell off those development rights in a growth zone. Jacobson said that could fund future land purchases.
Meanwhile, state Secretary of Agriculture Ed Kee said he planned to ask state budget writers for $10 million, the maximum allowed under the state law, for farmland preservation in the coming budget year.
"The federal money is drying up one way or another," he said.
Reach Molly Murray at (302) 463-3334 or mmurray@delawareonline.com. Follow her on Twitter @MollyMurraytnj.
Editor's note: Previous versions of this story appeared online with incorrect information. Jaymes Lester is a former state Public Service Commission member who now manages family farm holdings.