October 17th, 2024
By Brooks Lamb
State Leaders Set Aside Differences to Support Land Access
New research suggests that legislators are finding common ground to support next-generation farmers.
Policies that help next-generation farmers access land are important, especially given the immense challenges new and beginning farmers face. Research suggests that finding affordable land to farm is a massive hurdle for most young farmers, raising questions about who will grow our food and fiber into the future.
While greater federal attention to this issue is needed, individual states have played an important role in boosting land access for next-generation farmers. When proposed, state-level land access policies often garner strong bipartisan support because of shared interests and values that transcend party lines. Their success reveals a path forward for supporting future farmers—one that bridges typical political divides to provide much-needed assistance.
Breaking Down the Barriers
A new article published by Julia Valliant, Marie O’Neill, and Julia Freedgood in Agriculture & Human Values examines how coalitions and government leaders are breaking down land access barriers for beginning farmers. Drawing on media coverage, legislative documentation, and more than 60 interviews across nine states, the authors highlight how leaders are translating their values into effective policy tools that address land access barriers and resist farm consolidation.
Read the open-access article, titled “Bipartisan creation of US Land Access Policy Incentives: states’ efforts to support beginning farmers and resist farm consolidation and loss,” here.
Valliant, O’Neill, and Freedgood begin their article by reckoning with land access realities and farm transfer patterns. They highlight that many landowners, especially those who are aging, follow a predictable sequence of economic norms and incentives when they sell or lease land. In other words, they usually sell or lease to the highest bidder.
In many cases, the highest bidder is an already-established farmer looking to expand their operation and cover more ground. These farmers often have the capital, collateral, or credit needed to offer high prices, just one of many factors that have led to drastic increases in farmland prices in recent years. In other cases, a real estate developer purchases the land and takes it out of agriculture entirely. Residential, commercial, and industrial development are overtaking a tremendous amount of farmland every day.
When pursuing land that also interests an established farmer or developer, young farmers can rarely afford to compete. Despite their experience, innovation, and capability, they often lack the necessary financial resources.
Even if a seller would rather shift their land into a young farmer’s hands, which is a common preference, financial realities often push them to secure the highest price possible, typically to fund their retirement or other needs. After all, farm household assets are usually weighted toward holdings like land or infrastructure rather than savings accounts, leaving many farmers “land rich and cash poor.” That means aging farmers, or sometimes their non-farming heirs, look to convert land into cash, making it understandable when they sell to the highest bidder.
This, Valliant and her co-authors argue, is where state-level land access policies come in. Thoughtfully designed policies can give young farmers a financial foothold while ensuring that selling or leasing landowners can still receive competitive prices for their land.
Digging Deeper into the Policy Passage
For this article, Valliant, O’Neill, and Freedgood study two types of land access policies: Beginning Farmer Tax Credits and Farmland Purchase and Protection Incentives.
Beginning Farmer Tax Credits compensate landowners who lease or sell to a “beginning farmer” (as defined by each state). These programs, the authors write, “are premised on the idea that financially rewarding landowners will offset the risks of renting or selling to a young or beginning farmer or rancher. Further, since the landowners receive a tax break, it is hoped they charge a discounted price to the [beginning farmer].”
Farmland Purchase and Protection Incentives, on the other hand, combine land access strategies with farmland protection. Usually, these programs award a low-interest loan to help next-generation farmers buy land, which is then protected by a conservation easement, meaning it will remain undeveloped agricultural land in perpetuity. This dual approach helps young farmers access land more affordably while ensuring agricultural acreage remains available, generating agricultural, economic, and environmental benefits. If the farm is resold in the future, it’s done at its agricultural value, potentially helping another cash-strapped beginning farmer down the road.
The nine states the authors analyzed—Nebraska, Iowa, Maryland, Delaware, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Ohio, and Washington—have approached these policies in their own unique, locally informed ways. Five have adopted some sort of tax credit; three have created purchase and protection incentives; one (Pennsylvania) has enacted both programs.
Bipartisan support for these measures is clear. In Maryland, Washington, and Pennsylvania, the proposed policies passed unanimously in both legislative chambers. In Delaware, Kentucky, and Ohio, they passed unanimously in one chamber with minimal opposition—anywhere from 1 to 8 “nay” votes—in the other. Even in the most “divided” states like Nebraska, Iowa, and Minnesota, the margins still indicated overwhelming support for the proposed land access policy. The closest vote was 70-29 in the Iowa House.
These numbers are impressive. But perhaps even more telling are the variety, volume, and force of quotes that Valliant, O’Neill, and Freedgood uplift from elected leaders involved in policy passage. From opposite sides of the political aisle, these officials voiced similar messages, and they found allies in one another.
One comment from an advocate in Ohio captures sentiments from across the nine studied states: “We don’t usually work with them,” the person begins, acknowledging the standard divide between Democrats and Republicans, “but we can agree on beginning farmer issues. It’s rare to have a situation with such overwhelming support.”
Collective, Cooperative, and Collaborative Action for a Better Agricultural Future
Over the last few decades, leaders with diverse ideologies and visions in nine states have teamed up to tackle the pressing problem of land access. These policies are not perfect, and there is certainly more that can be done, even in these leading states, to support beginning farmers. Research suggests that greater efforts are desperately needed to help small and midsized farms and other “underserved” farmers. Yet, as the authors note, this united and common-sense approach is “a rare bright spot in the political landscape.”
Other state leaders would do well to follow this example. The specific policies need not be identical; officials should talk with young farmers and aging landowners in their communities to understand the challenges they face and devise locally relevant solutions. The unified approach, however, should remain. Congress, too, could learn from these forward-thinking states that access to land for the next generation of farmers and ranchers is, or should be, a vital issue with bipartisan appeal.
As American agriculture grapples with a defining question—who will own and tend our farmland in five, ten, and fifty years?—it’s clear we need collective, cooperative, collaborative action. Valliant, O’Neill, and Freedgood’s article shows that such action is possible.
To learn more about American Farmland Trust’s efforts to support next-generation farmers, visit: https://farmland.org/farms-for-a-new-generation/