agriculture and development
In Missoula, Stopping Subdivisions from Eating Up Local Food
As the push to localize our food systems is countered by the outward push of development, Missoula's Community Food and Agriculture Coalition is working to find common ground.By Matthew Frank, 5-24-08
 |
|
 | |
| An excavator frames one of the houses being built on the Flynn Ranch development off Mullan Road. Photo by Alexia Beckerling | |
|
Two trends in Missoula, and indeed across the West, are at odds: the push to localize our food systems and preserve the viability of agriculture, and the outward push of development on top of finite fertile soils.
In Missoula, because of the vibrancy of the local food movement and steady growth -- and rising gas prices that affect both -- the issue has "bubbled to the top," says Roger Millar, director of the Office of Planning and Grants.
In January, City Council rejected a subdivision proposal, the "Sunshine Addition" in the Orchard Homes neighborhood, in part because members of the public pleaded that it portended agriculture's death by 1,000 cuts -- marking the first time agricultural value influenced such an outcome.
Because of this sentiment, the Community Food and Agriculture Coalition was then invited by the city to the subdivision review table as an "interested party." The group, sanctioned by Missoula County in 2005 to implement a comprehensive food policy for the county, now reviews subdivision applications and offers facts to the city and county on projects' potential impacts to agriculture.
"It could possibly -- and hopefully will -- change the way we grow, change the way we subdivide the land, change the way we develop land," says CFAC's Paul Hubbard.
That the value of agricultural land is considered isn’t new; the 1973 Montana Subdivision and Platting Act requires it. But, as Hubbard explains, local governments have generally accepted its incremental loss. "We just haven’t really known how to deal with it," he says. "And so CFAC is coming to the floor and providing some ways that we might deal with it."
Plus, recent city and county subdivision regulation and growth policy updates included in their definitions of agriculture agricultural land itself, not just agricultural activities, giving the state law more sway.
|
|
| |
| A small farm flanked by a development along Reserve Street. Photo by Alexia Beckerling | |
|
"We realize that there are a lot of issues around growth. Agricultural land is one of them and it's an important one," Hubbard says. "But we accept that there's a lot of things (local government) needs to think about and so we have an approach that says, 'Here are the facts about impacts to agriculture. We hope you consider them.'" In doing so, Millar says CFAC has been "thorough and meticulous."
Localizing food systems is an emerging issue nationwide, and in ways Missoula, with its bustling farmers' markets, is out in front. The National Association of Counties featured Missoula as a national model (opens PDF) for its Farm to School program, now getting traction in communities around the state. One of the city's long-term planning efforts, the Urban Fringe Development Area project, is considering agricultural values in suggesting how and where the city ought to grow. (Click here to download an UFDA map of Missoula soils of agricultural importance.)
But no matter the merits of local food, some, including WGM Group planner and developer Nick Kaufman, say the subdivision review process isn't the appropriate forum to be weighing how much the community values its remaining agricultural land. "This discussion needs to be a community-wide discussion," he says, "not just developers…. What bothers me is when we take these issues of preservation of agriculture just to residential projects."
Instead, Kaufman thinks the loss of agricultural land should be mitigated either through the transfer of development rights away from productive agricultural land to areas close to services and infrastructure, or through public funding, something akin to Missoula's open space bond.
|
|
| |
| Lot markers punctuate a subdivided tract of land destined for development on Deschamps Road. Photo by Alexia Beckerling | |
|
On this point, and on infill in general, CFAC and Kaufman seem to agree. Refusing growth in these areas can push development farther away from the city, increasing the costs to tax payers and carving up other agricultural lands.
But, Hubbard says: "There is a way to build more homes on less land; to place those homes on less productive soil while permanently protecting the most fertile land for farming; to keep existing irrigation infrastructure and water rights intact; to arrange clustered homes so residents can enjoy surrounding farms for the open views, bucolic atmosphere and fresh food they provide…all without having to mow and weed a quarter-acre lot."
Millar says developers appear to be headed that way. "I think the development community is beginning to realize that agricultural soil is a resource and an asset to their development."
Hubbard looks forward to the day when he can point to subdivisions that are models for how to grow while simultaneously protecting agricultural land, and to testify before City Council and County Commissioners in support of developments that seek to do so. "But the developers need to provide that leadership," he says. "Hopefully by applying some pressure on these subdivisions that want to convert prime agricultural land…that will help provide some impetus for creating some that are much wiser and more respectful of a resource that is not going to recreate itself."
With an Orchard Homes development proposal (involving WGM Group) on the table -- Chickasaw Place, on 10 acres of prime agricultural land with irrigation -- the issue is sure to grow more contentious. CFAC has recommended the denial of the request for re-zoning and the subdivision itself based on the impacts to agriculture. Because roughly half of the 10 acres has been somewhat degraded, according to farmers who have worked it, CFAC instead proposed clustering houses on those five acres to protect the agricultural resources on the other half. It will likely head to City Council in July or August.
"Agriculture exists in harmony next to settlement throughout Montana," Kaufman says, "but communities have to have room to grow."
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
Oregon is the only state with similar zoning. All growth is in the urban growth boundary. Some Ag land does get developed, but the bulk of the Ag land remains in agriculture.
Go to the Willamette Valley in Oregon where 70% of all Oregon residents live, and including the cities of Portland, Salem, and Eugene, and you will find that it's still dominated by Agriculture.
Of course, most of the land doesn't grow food for humans. Lke the rest of the country we use most of our Ag land for growing livestock feed or worse. In the Willamette Valley the two biggest crops by acreage are hay and grass seed. Hardly a valuable use of the best farmland in the country.
It's ironic that everywhere in the country people bemoan the loss of Ag lands, and they pay dearly with Ag subsidies and environmental subsidies to keep farmers and ranchers solvent, but refuse to use the one tool that has shown to work--zoning.
Until Montanans and other westerners lose the archaic attitude that "no one can tell me what to do with my land by God" than we'll continue to get exactly what we deserve and simultaneously switch their diets to primarily vegetarian fare, we'll always have such a dilemma.
I agree with Mr. Kaufman that we need a community-wide discussion about how to protect agricultural land.
I am surpised, though, that he would suggest it is not appropriate to discuss protecting ag land in the context of particular subdivision proposals.
As he well knows, state law REQUIRES that the impacts to agriculture and agricultural water users be considered for each subdivision proposal. These critical points of decision making about particular parcels are indeed a legitimate time to analyze these issues -- indeed, local governing bodies must consider them.
2500sf. Sidewalks, footpaths etc take about 1000 sf. this leaves around 6500sf which we could use to grow small farms.
even if only half of this were actually used as food cultivation and the other half were used for native plants trees etc. we could easily grow enough food to supply ourselves and trade with other neighbors who grow as well.
3,250sf is a little over 50ft X 50ft.
this would solve many problems and supply us with safe local food.
has MUDD ever checked this out for a test program? grant idea?
just a thought.
it seems as if this could really complement the good work of lots of folks on this issue.
Interesting comment since livestock is one of the major sources of weed spread in the West. And except for very targeted grazing (which is for the most part not feasible in real life) grazing does not remove weeds. Typically livestock graze the more desirable grasses, and other plants first, leaving the weeds behind.
To graze an area to the point where fire hazard is significantly reduce d means eliminating nearly all wildlife cover. Better to have subdivisions than livestock under those circumstances.
That's one of the most pervasive myths spread by the livestock industry. Just a bunch of livestock industry propaganda.
For one thing elk aren't the only wildlife out there and they survived for generations without livestock.
Sure one can focus on specific species and find where grazing "might" benefit some species taken out of context just as I can show you that logging "benefits" whitetail deer, dumps in the desert "benefits" ravens and pollution of water "benefits" carp. But that is using narrow definitions of "benefits" and "wildlife."
Biodiversity preservation is about preserving native species in something approximately natural distribution. How can you put the majority of forage in the belly of an exotic animal and suggest you are sustaining biodiversity--which is the preservation of NATIVE species? Every blade of grass going into a cow or sheep is that much less for native species. Then there are the diseases transmitted to wildlife, the trampling of soil crusts, the pollution of waterways, the damage to riparian areas, the loss of hiding cover for ground nesting birds, the loss of flowers that feed everything from butterflies to birds, and so on. If taken from a holistic viewpoint, livestock production is counter to biodiversity preservation.
My understanding is that Oregon's Willamette Valley topsoil, which largely originated in Montana (glacial Lake Missoula), is relatively low in clay especially when compared to places like California's central valley. As to water...
With 40+ inches of rainfall per year (and virtually none of it falling as snow) things are bound to get a little wet. Grass has traditionally been grown simply because it generated more profit per man hour than food crops. While wheat is better grown elsewhere, just about everything else does well there. Many grass growers are switching to corn (agreed, another mono-cot) to satisfy the demands of the ethanol industry.