Cultivating Success on New Hampshire Farms - NH Dept. of Agriculture … · making uniform public...

1

Introduction

Agriculture is a cornerstone of New Hampshire’sscenic landscape and rich community heritage.Farming in New Hampshire has significantlyevolved as it adapts to increasing urbanization andglobalization. Loss of farmland and the pressuresof encroaching development and increased regula-tion present challenges to farm businesses. At thesame time, this proximity of rising populations andaffluence creates demand for fresh, locally pro-duced farm products and services, and raisesawareness of the values of the region’s rich agri-cultural traditions. Significant opportunities areavailable for agriculture in New Hampshire. Inthis report, the Farm Viability Task Force has iden-tified key public policy issues that New Hamp-shire needs to address now to help farming flour-ish over the next decade, and sustain its potentialfor future generations.

New Hampshire residents and visitors are discov-ering the joys and benefits of eating locally andregionally produced foods, bringing about a grass-roots renewal of our food systems. Young peopleand career-changers are pursuing farming as achallenging and rewarding profession. Farming ischanging, markets are changing, and people andland are critical resource bases to secure the futureof agriculture in New Hampshire.

New Hampshire still has valuable land resources.But most of the state’s top-quality farmland isthreatened with development. New Hampshire’sagricultural infrastructure, especially in the criticalareas of education, research, and extension, is alsounder threat. The Farm Viability Task Force rec-ommends public policy changes and actions forour governing and public institutions to support farmers in making the most of the opportunitiesfor a dynamic agriculture in New Hampshire.

In 2005 the New Hampshire General Court passedSenate Concurrent Resolution 1, authorizing aFarm Viability Task Force, because “farming andother agricultural interests are a vital part of NewHampshire’s economy and need much more atten-tion; and … intertwine many different state agen-cies and programs, which need each other for sur-vival and growth.” The Task Force was asked tostudy and recommend policy and actions to pro-mote the strength and vitality of the state’s agricul-tural sector, in recognition of its role in the state’sfood system, economy, and environment. InNovember 2005, Governor John Lynch appointedthe Task Force, with broad representation fromfarming, food marketing and processing, econom-ics and finance, nutrition, education, conservation,and consumers.

This report is divided into four sections. AnOverview of New Hampshire Agriculture looks atthe current conditions and trends to provide abaseline analysis of farming today. The Recom-mendations section addresses opportunities toenhance short- and long-term farm income andviability, education and attitudes, and burdensomeor duplicative regulations. Each recommendationconcisely explains the opportunity or problemaddressed, outlines goals, implementation, andfunding needs. Further background and support-ing information is described in A Closer Look ateach of the Recommendations. Last, an Appendixidentifies specific State laws or regulations as bur-densome to agriculture, and proposes changes toemphasize favorable law, redirect unfavorable law,and establish a uniform definition of agriculture.

The New Hampshire Farm Viability Task Force Report

Cultivating Success onNew Hampshire Farms

2The New Hampshire Farm Viability Task Force Report: Cultivating Success on New Hampshire Farms

Agriculture in New Hampshire is chang-ing. The resourcefulness and determination of thestate’s farmers has led to a modest increase in thenumber of farms and the aggregate dollar valueoutput of farm businesses. Yet for many in farm-ing there are long-standing problems to addressand new challenges to face.

The diversity in size, type, and amount ofland used by a farm operation is highly variable,making uniform public policy prescriptions diffi-cult to identify. The various sectors of NewHampshire agriculture are adapting to new oppor-tunities, with ornamental horticulture becomingthe largest segment. Innovation of new productsand marketing approaches has occurred in all sec-tors of agriculture as the state’s population hasspread into rural areas and brought with it a cus-tomer base of new residents.

By its nature, farming is both a land useand a business. It is a long-term investment withhigh annual risk. When farm profitability is mea-sured as a return on the value of farm real estate,farmers have been receiving a poorer return overtime. Most of the decrease has not been as a resultof lower farm earnings, but rather a rapid increasein the value of farm real estate. Existing NewHampshire public policy to purchase conservationeasements addresses this problem only to the nom-inal degree that it has been funded.

The focus of the Farm Viability TaskForce was to craft Policy Recommendations thatdeal with specific issues or potential programs.Those Recommendations and goals are:

1. Fund agricultural extension, education, andresearch of direct benefit to agriculture in NewHampshire. Increasing public and private fund-ing for UNH Cooperative Extension and the UNHAgricultural Experiment Station will improve theexpertise needed to provide educational and ap-plied research programs directed at farm viability.

2. Increase direct marketing opportunities forproducers. Direct sale of agricultural productionis the most profitable channel for many NewHampshire farms. A modest increase in promotionof farm product purchases can stimulate largegains in consumer demand and boost farm prof-itability.

3. Establish a Farm Viability Program. Thepurpose of a Farm Viability Program is to increaseon-farm income through business planning andcapital investment in order to keep land in agricul-tural use.

4. Make conservation of farmland a high prior-ity and dedicate a minimum of $3 million annu-ally to buy permanent conservation easementsthat protect agricultural land. Lack of fundingfor the existing statewide farmland conservationprogram puts New Hampshire farmers at a com-petitive disadvantage to those in other states andleaves prime agricultural resources at risk. Therecommended funding level is based on the mini-mum required to match the federal Farm andRanchland Protection Program (FRPP) fundsannually available to New Hampshire. State fund-ing will enable the implementation of a cohesiveNew Hampshire-wide strategy for farmland con-servation, based on well-established criteria andprocedures.

5. Establish a Lease of Development Rights(LDR) program. Leasing development rights fora specific term of years would help communities“buy time” and stabilize farmland ownership thathas come under pressure to be sold. This wouldallow farmland owners the opportunity to carefullyplan the diversification, expansion, or generationaltransfer of their farm business and resist the temp-tation to sell out quickly.

Executive Summary


6. New Hampshire Department of Agriculture,Markets, and Food and University of NewHampshire Cooperative Extension should col-laborate with other Northeast states to enhancethe dairy industry in New Hampshire and theNortheast region. Regional cooperation will helpstrengthen the state’s dairy industry, ensuring thesupply of fresh, locally produced milk and dairyproducts and preserving a cornerstone of NewHampshire’s rural landscape.

7. Strengthen school curricula concerning agri-culture to help students understand our foodsystem. How food is safely produced, transported,prepared, and consumed is essential knowledge.By giving students a broader knowledge aboutagriculture and how it affects their world, weenable them to make informed decisions for futureissues on land use, stewardship, and maintainingthe working landscape.

8. Authorize Agricultural Commissions thatlocal governments may choose to adopt as anadvisory committee. Local Agricultural Commis-sions can be the voice of agriculture in eachmunicipality. They would ensure that agricultureremains in their town by identifying barriers to theviability of farming, such as local regulations orordinances.

9. Remove rules and regulations burdensometo agriculture and identify ways the State ofNew Hampshire can assist. Many rules, regula-tions, and State laws inadvertently hinder the oper-ation of farm enterprises. Modest changes thatremove inappropriate obstacles and promote uni-form application and reasonable interpretation ofrules, regulations, and State law would help main-tain the viability of farms.

10. Continue the Task Force process of lookingat the current status and future needs of agri-culture in New Hampshire. The nature ofagriculture has substantially changed since a taskforce last addressed agricultural issues in the 1979Recommendations for a New Hampshire FoodPolicy. The need for more frequent review andrecommendations addressing the economic viabili-ty of farm enterprises is emphasized by the pace ofchange they must respond to and extent to whichthose farm businesses must now “rub elbows”with residential, recreational, and other land uses.Assuring the survival of a solitary farm can neverbe certain, but ensuring that policy makers consid-er the effect of future challenges to the farmingindustry can be achieved by authorizing a regularreview process.


The Land and the Business of Farming

Farming is both a land use and a business.As a land use, agriculture is significant in NewHampshire because its positive contributionsbroadly promote environmental quality, scenicbeauty, and cultural activity. As a business it issurprisingly large, accounting for over 2% of stateGDP with over $930 million in direct spendingaccording to a 2002 eco-nomic analysis. This eco-nomic activity and landuse is dispersed over entirestate so that its lack of acommon, concentratedlocation belies farming’soverall impact. Agricul-tural businesses in NewHampshire are typicallysmall family operatedbusinesses that reflectlocal market opportunities.

As a land use, agricultureoccupies 7% of the land inNew Hampshire (almosthalf a million acres ofcrop, pasture, and otherland). Farmland use is second to forest land, butagriculture may have greater impact on public per-ception based on its visibility as part of theworking landscape. The particular work beingdone on a farm changes with the seasons,becoming part of the subtle background that rein-forces our concept of New Hampshire as a ruralstate.

The fact that farming is a combination landuse/business that is dispersed throughout the statemeans that it is difficult to describe what is goodpublic policy for a “typical” farm. In general, themost important public policy for the broad rangeof agriculture is Current Use taxation. Beyond thatmainstay of property tax, what is good policy forfarming is a complex mix that varies for each

farm. There is a breadth and depthto farming that defies easy or uni-formly applicable public policyprescriptions. Farm businesses areas unique as the farmers that oper-ate them. Understanding thediverse nature of what constitutesa New Hampshire farm is centralto recognizing the boundaries ofwhat can be done for New Hamp-shire farms and the difficultiesinherent in trying to avoid unin-tended negative consequences forfarmers.

Farmers, in cooperation with theland of New Hampshire, havebeen producing agricultural cropsfor 375 years. This long tenure

can lead to a common misconception: that farmingis static, old-fashioned and quaint. In reality,farming is all about managing change on the land.Farmers are managers of change; they rely on nur-turing change to produce a crop from plantingseed to gathering harvest. Farming has to be asadaptive and market responsive as any other twen-ty-first century business, but within the scope ofits long history and traditions.

An Overview of New Hampshire Agriculture

New Hampshire agriculture pro-duced $930 million in direct spend-ing supporting 11,600 jobs generat-ing household income of over $200million. Agriculture's total econom-ic impact was over $2.3 billionincluding direct, indirect, andinduced spending, linking a total of18,300 jobs to agriculture. The totalof all spending produced $118 mil-lion in state and local governmenttax revenue.

Key findings of “The Impact of Agricultureon NH's Economy in Fiscal Year 2002"

5

The New Hampshire Farm Viability Task Force Report: Cultivating Success on New Hampshire Farms

Trends in New Hampshire Agriculture

The fortunes of different sectors of New Hamp-shire agriculture rise and fall independently overtime. Historically, the crops that made farmersprosperous seemed to be a good bet for a fewdecades, then suffered rapid decline in profitabilitydue to recurring disease or competition from lowercost producers. Like wheat in the Upper Con-necticut Valley in the 1800’s or broiler hens in the1950’s, times were good for a stretch, then itseemed as if whole sectors of agriculture just dis-appeared. Now, the performance of the state’sfarm economy is more closely tied to the perfor-mance of the overall economy than it is to internalfactors that relate one part of agriculture to anoth-er. This trend has been amplified as more of NewHampshire agriculture utilizes direct to consumersales, such as farmers’ markets, farm stands, andpick-your-own.

Some sectors of farm production have been able totake advantage of direct to consumer sales andenjoy a higher retail markup. Another conse-quence of the ability to tap direct retail sales is thatthere are fewer marketing barriers in the way ofstarting a new farm business. The old model ofthe farmer as a commodity producing “price taker”in the wholesale market is being supplemented by

a model where the farmer is aspecialty product producing“price maker” in the retailmarket. This expansion ofmarketing opportunity has ledto creation of new farm busi-nesses in New Hampshire.

The increase in new farmoperations in the New Hamp-shire bucks the national trendof a decrease in the number offarms (see Figure 1). Theeconomic drivers of decliningfarm numbers at the nationallevel tend to be more relatedto wholesale commodity pro-duction of major crops likerice, cotton, corn, soybeans,and wheat. Nationally, a com-

mon response farmers have made to changingfarm economics is by consolidating farms toachieve cost efficiencies. Conversely, the chang-ing farm economics in New Hampshire havefavored the creation of new farm businesses thatare responding to market opportunities based onretail sales. This comparison is certainly an over-simplification of the economic drivers the nationalfarm economy, and this is not to say that someNew Hampshire farms are influenced by thosenational trends (dairy being a prime example).But the New Hampshire trend of new farms thatare small in scale and based on retail marketopportunities is real, and is contributing to thevibrancy and growth of agriculture.

A Quick Look at New Hampshire Agriculture bySector

The overall health of agriculture in New Hamp-shire is strong, and the future looks bright. Thereare many different ways to measure strength inagricultural enterprises such as total acreagefarmed (see Figure 2), increase of farm output, orincrease in sales in a particular sector. The follow-ing thumbnail sketches of agricultural businesssectors are intended to point out the diversity offarm enterprises in this state as well as their rela-tive health.

Trend in Number of Farms for US and New Hampshire,

1980 - 2005

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

Ind

ex

of

19

80

= 1

00

United States

New Hampshire

Figure 1 Source: www.nass.usda.gov.8080/QuickStats/index2.jsp

6


Ornamental horticulture has shown consistentgrowth over the past few decades. It includesgreenhouse and nursery production, turf, and relat-ed services. This segment has demonstrated com-patibility with urban/suburban areas and benefitsfrom direct access to large metropolitan markets.Its aggregate value of annual production is $438million from very small enterprises to those withgross sales over $10 million.

Dairy farms in New Hampshire produce over 34million gallons of milk each year on 140 farms.The above average genetic quality of New Hamp-shire dairy cattle makes for additional sales ofpurebred cattle for a total of $53 million in annualsales. Although the number of dairy farms hasbeen declining, this segment accounts for a majori-ty of the agricultural land base. Silage for dairyfeed accounts for most of the corn grown in thestate. Dairy farming also accounts for a large partof the agricultural infrastructure such as large ani-mal veterinarians, equipment dealers, feed-grainvendors, and livestock transporters and dealers.

The equine industry in New Hampshire is continu-ing the trend away from producing horses for rac-ing and toward recreational horse use. Countingthe economic productivity of the horse industry isdifficult because it blurs the lines between sport,hobby, and business. Its annual economic effect is

estimated at $50 mil-lion. Equine operationssupport a great deal ofhay production and uti-lize pastureland madeavailable by thedecrease in dairy farms.

Traditional livestockfor home use and com-mercial sale such asbeef, sheep, swine, andpoultry are beingjoined by newcomerssuch as llamas, angoragoats and rabbits prizedfor fiber production.New markets for exoticmeat animals such asdeer bison and elk have

opened, yet limited access to in-state USDAinspected slaughter facilities has hampered expan-sion. Large scale commercial poultry productionhas decreased from its heyday in the 1950’s, assmall scale egg and turkey producers have founddirect sales profitable. Overall, the sectoraccounts for $21 million in annual output.

Hay and forage crop sales of $16 million per yearkeep thousands of acres of farmland open and pro-ductive. The increasing demand for hay to supplythe horse sector has provided opportunities forhigh quality hay.

Vegetable production in New Hampshire is pri-marily sold direct to the consumer through farmstand and Farmers’ Markets. Native grown veg-etables are also featured in some local and regionalsupermarkets. From heirloom tomatoes to sweetcorn, farmers raise $12 million per year.

Orchards in New Hampshire produce about700,000 bushels of apples annually. Many aresold in the region or pressed into cider on thefarm. The value of the crop is $8 million per year.

Christmas trees are grown for sale from the farm,by the truckload, or over the internet. Along withwreaths and roping, total annual sales are $6 mil-lion.

Hay & Misc. Crops,

164,769 acres

Dairy, 83,365 acres

Beef Cattle, 32,080 acres

Horse & Misc. Livestock,

48,184 acres

Other, 79,478 acres

Greenhouse & Nursery,

37,003 acres

Figure 2 Source: www.nass.usda.gov/census02/volume1/nh/st33_1_059_059.pdf

New Hampshire Agriculture by Land Use, 2002

7


Strawberries, raspberries, blackberries, blueberriesand other fruit such as peaches, plums, and cur-rants are often grown as part of a pick-your-ownoperation. Yearly production is $3.5 million.

New Hampshire produces about 75,000 gallons ofmaple syrup in an average year on 400 farms.Beekeepers raise bees that produce New Hamp-shire’s other natural sweetener, honey. Beekeepersalso rent hives to farmers who depend on pollina-tion of flowers by bees. Together, maple andhoney production is valued at $3.5 million a year.

Who is a Farmer Today?

Describing a “typical” farmer is hard to do withoutalso describing the “typical” farmbusiness. New Hampshire farmbusinesses vary greatly in sizeand type, but small dominates.From a demographic standpoint,New Hampshire farmers are gen-erally following national trends.USDA statistics point out onenotable difference: there aremore female operators of farmsper capita in New Hampshire thanin other states.

It is no surprise that since mostNew Hampshire farms are small,most New Hampshire farmers arepart-time farmers. This tracks thenational situation, where 84 per-cent of farmers get more than halftheir income from off-farmsources. This also indicates thatfarmers are active participants inthe rural economy—they are like-ly to have several other jobs orown one or more businesses. This characteristicof “job elasticity” is perhaps why the rural econo-my suffers less during economic downturns thandoes the overall economy.

Farm labor—those who work on farms but are notowners—tend to be seasonal and part-time. Fre-quently this means more than forty hours a weekduring the employment season for part-time labor.

Anecdotally, high school age employees are alarge part of this labor pool. Reflecting the highcost of labor, some farm businesses have utilizedpick-your-own marketing as a labor substitutionstrategy. Farm labor who are permanent, full-timeemployees are concentrated in larger farm busi-nesses, particularly in dairy and greenhouse opera-tions. Full-time farm labor competes for talent inthe same labor market as any other business, fre-quently offering health and other benefits. Suchemployees are typically highly skilled with veryspecific knowledge of production techniques.

Of farmers who reported being on their currentfarms four or fewer years, 24 percent were age 35or younger, while 24 percent were 55 or older.

Such data from the 2002 U.S.Census of Agriculture sug-gests that a significant num-ber of beginning farmers maybe seeking a second careerand rural lifestyle.

People who grew up onfarms traditionally were thenext generation of farmers—agriculture grew virtually allits own replacements.Increasingly, people who didnot grow up on farms nowenter agriculture. The appealof a rural lifestyle and entre-preneurial small businessopportunities attract newentrants to farming.

Another aspect of NewHampshire agriculturaldemographics is the degree towhich farmers are active in

community affairs. Farmers seem to hold morethan the expected share of elected town govern-ment responsibilities, along with other positions ofservice such as fire departments and ambulancesquads. While this kind of community activity canbe partly explained by farmers “being around townall day,” commitment to community remains aprominent characteristic of farm operators.

What is a Farm in New HampshireLaw?

RSA 21:34-a Farm, Agriculture,Farming.

I. The word "farm" means anyland, buildings, or structures on or inwhich agriculture and farming activ-ities are carried out or conducted andshall include the residence or resi-dences of owners, occupants, oremployees located on such land.Structures shall include all farm out-buildings used in the care of live-stock, and in the production and stor-age of fruit, vegetables, or nurserystock; in the production of maplesyrup; greenhouses for the produc-tion of annual or perennial plants;and any other structures used inoperations named in paragraph II ofthis section.

8


The Role of Farm Entrepreneurs

Looking at the relative value of production byagricultural sector is informative, but a differentperspective may be more predictive of future prof-itability for farm businesses. Across all agricultur-al sectors, farm businesses that have been able tosell innovative products have seen greater growthopportunities than farm businesses that do not dif-ferentiate their products. Farmers who can turnnew ideas for products, processes, or services intonew sales are usually taking aim at direct to con-sumer sales, although wholesale markets areaccessible to some producers. Innovative productsfrom New Hampshire farms include items frommilk-based puddings to patented plant cultivars,from frozen cattle embryos to distilled mapleliqueur.

Innovation and market differentiation requires anentrepreneurial spirit that might seem at odds withthe long term investment of farming. Yet manyfarm operations have found ways to assimilate therisks of the marketplace into the same mindset thatallows farmers to take on the risks inherent infarming such as bad weather, crop failure, and sea-sonal production (and therefore seasonal income).

In addition to the innovative aspects of new prod-uct development, many New Hampshire farmersfind success by innovatingnew marketing approaches.Finding new ways to sellfarm products is anotherskill set that many farmershave developed. As morefarm businesses are locatedcloser to population centers(either by new start-ups orby the population centerssprawling out to meet thefarm), some farm ownershave taken the opportunityto leverage this contact intomore direct to consumersales. As a result of thisincrease in higher valueretail sales, the economicsof farm production and loca-tion have shifted toward

population centers. Fifty-nine percent of the dollarvalue of New Hampshire agricultural output isnow produced in metropolitan counties (statisticaldefinitions label all other counties as “rural”).

Farm Viability and Profitability on the Land

By its nature, farming is a long term investmentwith high annual risk. Although not all farm oper-ations need a lot of land, land ownership associat-ed with a farm business is common. The impactof land ownership on the continuing viability ofagricultural enterprises is another occasion wherethe unique nature of farms as both land use andbusiness intersects with public policy. Due to the diversity in farm business size, type,and amount of land it is difficult to find one policy“silver bullet” that would ensure New Hampshirefarm profitability. Likewise, it is difficult to findone measure of farm profitability to gauge success.However, the relationship of farming to the land isso fundamental that relating the amount of incomeproduced from the farm operations (net farmincome) to the value of farmland (total farm realestate value) is illuminating.

The trend line of the graph below (Figure 3)shows that over the past twenty years, farmershave been receiving less income relative to thevalue of their farm property. Most of the decrease

Net Farm Income as % of Total Farm Real Estate Value

State of New Hampshire, 1985 - 2004

0.00%

1.00%

2.00%

3.00%

4.00%

5.00%

6.00%

7.00%

1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Figure 3 Sources: www.ers.usda.gov/data/FarmBalanceSheet/fbsdmu.htmwww.ers.usda.gov/data/FarmIncome/finfidmu.htm

9


has not been as a result of lower farm earnings,but rather a rapid increase in the value of land inNew Hampshire. As a measure of viability, thisindicates that farmers are experiencing more eco-nomic pressure to owning their land in the face ofother alternatives—such as selling it for residentialdevelopment. In short, farmers can’t be expectedto continue to operate viable farm businesses if theeconomically sensible behavior is to sell the landfor development.

Existing public policy in New Hampshire has triedto address this incentive to sell off land by pur-chasing permanent conservation rights (see page25, A Closer Look at Permanent Conservation).This has been effective to the degree that it hasbeen funded. Examining the suitability of this pol-icy approach in terms of farm viability onlystrengthens the case for continuing efforts to pur-chase permanent development rights.

Current Use taxation greatly reduces the propertytaxes on farmland and is the single most importantpublic policy benefit for farm owners. But reduc-ing the annual “carrying cost” expense throughCurrent Use taxation does not address the underly-ing value equation illustrated in the graph thatmakes it attractive for farmers to sell their land.All farmers are income producers and investors intheir farmland. Analogous to a stock marketinvestor, they must always balance the incomeproduced by the investment to the amount ofmoney they have at risk. If a farmer’s incomepotential from his land is stagnant, yet the value ofthe land continues to go up, then the rational eco-nomic behavior will be to sell the land. If afarmer in that situation can sell the developmentrights to his land—in other words, sell a perma-nent conservation easement—then he can recoversome of the increased value of the land withouthaving to stop farming. Using the analogy to thestock market investor, the farmer has put a stop-loss order on the future value of his real estate.By selling permanent conservation rights, thefarmer can get cash money from the increasedvalue of his real estate, reducing his overall invest-ment. The cash money can be used to pay down

debt, reinvest, or fund retirement. And thefarmer’s permanent investment in farm real estatehas been reduced so that the income generatedfrom farm operations is a much larger percent ofnet farm income. In essence, the value of the farmreal estate has been adjusted to better balance thevalue of the income stream.

The Beneficial Land Use of Agriculture

The traditional justification for national public pol-icy to help farmers has been based on the conceptof the public paying a small amount for the publicgood of maintaining food security and avoidingdisruptions to the economy from farm businessfailures. This “social contract” at the nationallevel between farmers and the public has limitedapplication to New Hampshire. Besides the foodand products produced on New Hampshire farms,the outstanding public good that farmers provide isthe ownership and stewardship of land that pro-vides wildlife habitation, watershed purification,open space to enjoy, and the rural character thatcontributes to the quality of life in the state.Thispublic good doesn't stop at the farm gate. Manyfarmland owners allow the public onto their landfor fishing, hunting, skiing, biking, snowmobiling,bird-watching, hiking or other recreational oppor-tunites.

New Hampshire’s interest in continuing to havefarmers and farms is grounded in the public’ssense of the appropriate and beneficial land use ofagriculture. Many towns have allocated local taxdollars for the purchase of permanent farmlandconservation covenants, far exceeding the amountthe state has spent. This indicates state fundingfor farmland preservation programs lags behindthe strong local support evidenced in many com-munities, rather than the towns are somehowspending too much.

The public policy imperative is to secure farmlandconservation covenants in the face of rising landvalues and diminishing percentage returns so thatthe beneficial land use of farming can coexist withother land uses in New Hampshire. Farmers now

10


provide this public good “for free” and are proudto do so as stewards of the natural life processes oftheir own farms and the greater good of providingenvironmental and aesthetic benefits to the public.But with rising land values, how long can farmerswithstand the pressure to sell their land? The Statemust recognize its role in encouraging local initia-tives and providing consistency to the fundingprocess so that farmers are not motivated to selltheir land and stop farming.

From the very beginnings of New Hampshire,farming has provided opportunity for those willingto work hard, be resilient, and trust in the future.The economics and types of farming have con-stantly changed in more than 375 years of ouragricultural history, as have the challenges. Thepioneering settlers defied the vagaries of weather,crop failure, and uncertain markets to earn a livinggrowing food, fiber, and farm products. Today’sagricultural producers face similar challenges, butin addition farmers now face the vagaries of local

zoning boards, failure to be compensated for thepublic benefit they provide to the environment,and uncertain regulatory barriers. Aspects of all ofthese problems, old and new, are addressed by thepolicy Recommendations of the Farm ViabilityTask Force.

The policy Recommendations in this Report aregeared to proposed action. Problems are identi-fied, goals are offered, outcomes are anticipated,implementation is suggested, and the need forfunding is identified. The Recommendations arebrief enough to be understood quickly, with addi-tional details and context following in “A CloserLook” at each of the Recommendations.

The supporters and farmers on the Task Forceintend this Report to tell the story of New Hamp-shire’s agricultural businesses, the problems theyface, and suggested action to increase their viability—so we may farm.

11


Recommendation 1

Fund agricultural extension, education, and research of direct benefit to agriculture in New Hampshire.

Increasing public and private funding for UNH Cooperative Extension and the UNH Agricultur-al Experiment Station will improve the expertise needed to provide educational and appliedresearch programs directed at farm viability.

Goal: Secure additional funding for research that helps New Hampshire farm producers and for theAgricultural Specialists (Extension Educators) who communicate the practical knowledge that is respon-sive to the changing needs of agriculture in New Hampshire.

Implementation Strategy: Funding of UNH Cooperative Extension and the UNH Agricultural Experi-ment Station can be assisted by developing an entity to solicit and receive private funds. This privatefundraising effort could be modeled on the 4-H Foundation of NH, which is integrated with the UNHFoundation. An advisory board including agricultural industry representation and UNH CooperativeExtension could be established to set policies and procedures for soliciting, receiving and expendingthese funds.

Funding Mechanism: Secure additional, targeted funding from the legislature to support ExtensionAgricultural Specialist positions and programs supporting agricultural viability. Private resources wouldbe solicited from appropriate sources that support agriculture. (see page 16 for A Closer Look)

Recommendation 2

Increase direct marketing opportunities for producers.

Direct sale of agricultural production is the most profitable channel for many New Hampshirefarms. A modest increase in promotion of farm product purchases can stimulate large gains inconsumer demand and boost farm profitability. New Hampshire’s rich agricultural backgroundand the deep resonance of farm values cannot be underestimated as a public benefit that must becherished: direct marketing of farm products by farm people is the best means to offer this con-nection to the public.

Goal: Effectively utilize the State’s marketing activity to encourage buying local and supporting localfarms. Coordinated public communications can increase the value of agriculture as a supplier of qualityof life perceptions as well as direct consumables for both tourists and residents.

Implementation Strategy: Create a permanent marketing and promotion position within the Depart-ment of Agriculture, Markets, and Food to foster marketplace demand and public communications. Thisposition will support general promotion of agricultural interests such as NH Made, the NH Farm andForest Expo, the BigE (Eastern States Exposition), and NH agricultural fairs by expanding opportunitiesfor direct marketing of farm products and direct contact with farm experiences for consumers. Thisposition will also allow intensified networking with other state agencies and non-governmental organiza-tions to amplify mutual benefits of agricultural promotion.

Funding Mechanism: Increase state funding to fully fund a Promotion and Public Communicationsposition within the New Hampshire Department of Agriculture, Markets, and Food.(see page 18 for A Closer Look)

12


Recommendation 3Establish a Farm Viability Program.

The purpose of a Farm Viability Program is to increase on-farm income through business planning and cap-ital investment in order to keep land in agricultural use. The Program would utilize farm business planningassistance and limited grants for farm transition in exchange for temporary land use covenants. This wouldallow farmland owners the opportunity to carefully plan the diversification, expansion, or generationaltransfer of their farm business by stabilizing farmland ownership and providing a well-founded plan forfuture success of the farm operation.

Goal: Assist participating farm businesses to enhance the local economy, resist sprawling development, providebenefit to the environment, and maintain open space that promotes our quality of life.

Implementation Strategy: Pass statewide legislation to provide for a three step program that would 1) develop abusiness plan with a team of outside experts to enhance farm income, 2) provide payment to implement the businessplan, and 3) to require that the farm property be placed in a term covenant for ten years to protect the land fromdevelopment. Preference for inclusion in the Farm Viability Program would be encouraged for farms already underpermanent easements, and for farms seeking to convert term covenants to permanent land protection easements.

Funding: This program would require funding for development of a farm business plan, implementing suggestedimprovements, and purchase of the term covenant. (see page 22 for A Closer Look)

Recommendation 4

Make conservation of farmland a high priority and dedicate a minimum of $3 million annually to buy permanent conservation easements that protect agricultural land.

Lack of funding for the existing statewide farmland conservation program puts New Hampshire farmers ata competitive disadvantage to those in other states, and leaves prime agricultural resources at risk. The rec-ommended funding level is based on the minimum required to match the federal Farm and Ranchland Pro-tection Program (FRPP) funds annually available to New Hampshire. State funding will enable the imple-mentation of a cohesive New Hampshire-wide strategy for farmland conservation, based on well-estab-lished criteria and procedures.

Goal: Conserve high quality agricultural land through permanent conservation easements that make land availablefor farming now, and to ensure New Hampshire’s capacity to produce food and other agricultural crops and live-stock for future generations. Predictable funding enhances opportunities for farm owners to sell conservation ease-ments, thereby giving access to equity without developing their land. Access to this farmland equity can make pos-sible transfer of farms to the next generation, and enable farm investment and diversification.

Implementation strategy: State money for purchasing conservation easements can be dedicated to the state’sexisting Agricultural Land Preservation program (RSA 432:18-31-a) or earmarked within the Land and CommunityHeritage Investment Program (LCHIP). The state Technical Advisory Committee that advises USDA NaturalResources Conservation Service on FRPP expenditures has developed an effective application and selection processto identify the best farmland for protection. In most neighboring states, this committee would also award statefunds to match the federal grants to assure coordination.

Funding: Increase direct state funding by no less than $3 million annually. Public and private partners stand readyto significantly leverage each dollar the state dedicates to conserving farmland. But without participation and lead-ership at the state level, farmland conservation will continue to occur predominantly in well-organized, wealthycommunities rather than on the basis of the quality of agricultural land protected. (see page 25 for A Closer Look)

13


Recommendation 5Establish a Lease of Development Rights (LDR) program.

Leasing development rights for a specific term of years would help communities “buy time” and stabi-lize farmland ownership that has come under pressure from expanding residential development. Thiswould allow farmland owners the opportunity to carefully plan the diversification, expansion, or genera-tional transfer of their farm business and resist the temptation to sell out quickly.

Goal: Create a mechanism for landowners and communities to keep land in agricultural use while longer termstrategies to strengthen the farm business and permanently protect farmland are implemented.

Implementation Strategy: Pass statewide enabling legislation to allow towns, cities, and private land trusts tocontract for direct lease payments for term covenants. Farmland owners would agree to a non-developmentcovenant with a rolling term of seven or fourteen years in exchange for lease payments (or credit against localproperty taxes) and a right of first refusal.

Funding: This program considers only local or private land trust funding sources. Enabling legislation wouldallow towns to enter multi-year lease contracts as well as the ability to offset lease payments with credits (ormulti-year abatements) for property taxes. No state funding would be required.(see page 29 for A Closer Look)

Recommendation 6

New Hampshire Department of Agriculture, Markets, and Food and University of New Hampshire Coop-erative Extension should collaborate with other Northeast states to enhance the dairy industry in NewHampshire and the Northeast region.

Regional cooperation will help strengthen the state’s dairy industry, ensuring the supply of fresh, locallyproduced milk and dairy products and preserving a cornerstone of New Hampshire’s rural landscape.

Goal: New Hampshire should join forces with Vermont, New York, Pennsylvania and other Northeast states tocoordinate the direction, goals, and resources necessary to ensure a competitive and profitable Northeast dairyindustry—including optimizing the intellectual talent serving the Northeast dairy industry, researching dairy busi-ness models to increase profitability, and marketing and public relations initiatives that promote the Northeastdairy industry’s economic contributions, strengths, and advantages.

Implementation strategy: The New Hampshire Department of Agriculture, Markets, and Food should join thememorandum of understanding signed in June 2006 by the agriculture commissioners of Vermont, New York,and Pennsylvania to develop and implement cooperative programs to improve dairy profitability and productivi-ty. The University of New Hampshire and the state’s dairy farming and allied industries can participate in collab-orative efforts to enhance the stability and prosperity of dairy farming.

Support for the Northeast Dairy Compact concept will continue by maintaining authorization in New Hampshirelaw to provide for rapid re-establishment in the event Congress approves it or something similar. The New Eng-land states created and Congress approved the Compact in 1996 to ensure adequate supply of fluid milk, main-tain a fair and equitable wholesale fluid milk price, and preserve economic viability of dairy farming in theregion.

Funding Mechanism: UNH and Cooperative Extension should continue to pursue funding from governmentand other sources to maintain research and information transfer services that sustain and enhance the state’s dairyindustry. The Northeast Dairy Compact or its successor would require no state funding. (see page 31 for A Closer Look)

14


Recommendation 7

Strengthen school curricula concerning agriculture to help students understand our food system.

How food is safely produced, transported, prepared, and consumed is essential knowledge. Bygiving students a broader knowledge about agriculture and how it affects their world, we enablethem to make informed decisions for future issues on land use, stewardship, and maintaining theworking landscape.

Goal: Promote the development and use of instructional materials to prepare students in all aspects ofthe food system to foster critical thinking, problem solving, leadership, and academic and technical skillattainment. Build awareness of New Hampshire agriculture and its historic, cultural, economic, andquality of life contributions to the state that are necessary to be an informed citizen.

Implementation Strategy: Make adequate resources available for the NH Farm to School and NewHampshire Agriculture in the Classroom programs to provide elementary educators with the necessarymaterial, background information, and local resources to integrate agricultural themes into their curricu-la. Increase access to Vocational Agricultural Education Programs that provide students elective classesfor training in agri-science related fields. Fill the vacant educational consultant position within the NHDepartment of Education, assigning that position state-wide responsibility for the agri-sciences educa-tional programs at New Hampshire high schools.

Funding: Develop a cooperative effort between state legislature and agencies, local communities andagri-businesses to move beyond current funding levels. (see page 33 for A Closer Look)

Recommendation 8

Authorize Agricultural Commissions that local governments may choose to adopt as an advisorycommittee.

Local Agricultural Commissions can be the voice of agriculture in each municipality. They would ensure that agriculture remains in their town by identifying barriers to the viability of farming, such as local regulations or ordinances.

Goal: Create local agricultural champions who promote farms and offer advice to other town boards onhow to encourage towns to be farm-friendly.

Implementation Strategy: Pass state-wide legislation allowing local governments the choice to formand implement Agricultural Commissions.

Funding Mechanism: This program considers only local and private funding. Background informa-tion, operating procedures, and best practices have been assembled into a Toolkit for establishing volun-tary town Agricultural Commissions by The Coalition for Sustaining New Hampshire Agriculture.(see page 35 for A Closer Look)

15


Recommendation 9

Remove rules and regulations burdensome to agriculture and identify ways the State of New Hampshire can assist.

Many rules, regulations, and State laws inadvertently hinder the operation of farm enterprises.Modest changes that remove inappropriate obstacles and promote uniform application and rea-sonable interpretation of rules, regulations, and State law would help maintain the viability offarms.

Goal: Create awareness in State and Local regulatory authorities that “agricultural activities are a ben-eficial and worthwhile feature of the New Hampshire landscape” (RSA 672:1). Farm enterprises shouldnot suffer from rules, regulations, laws, and ordinances that are directed primarily at non-farm activities,the unreasonable interpretation of which often ignores the traditional, fundamental and accessory uses ofland for farming purposes.

Implementation Strategy: The Farm Viability Task Force has combed through State law to finddetailed examples of conflicting word of law and failure to consistently define agriculture according toRSA 21:34-a, the existing best definition of agriculture. Specific recommendations for changes toRSA’s are too detailed to list here, and so appear in the Appendix of this report.

Funding: The detailed changes recommended in the Appendix do not require additional State funding,nor do they incur additional costs to municipalities.(see page 36 for A Closer Look)

Recommendation 10

Continue the Task Force process of looking at the current status and future needs of agriculture in New Hampshire.

The nature of agriculture has substantially changed since a task force last addressed agriculturalissues in the 1979 Recommendations for a New Hampshire Food Policy. The need for more fre-quent review and recommendations addressing the economic viability of farm enterprises isemphasized by the pace of change they must respond to and extent to which those farm busi-nesses must now “rub elbows” with residential, recreational, and other land uses. Assuring thesurvival of a solitary farm can never be certain, but ensuring that policy makers consider theeffect of future challenges to the farming industry can be achieved by authorizing a regularreview process.

Goal: Direct the State Agricultural Advisory Board to serve as the body authorized to review and makerecommendations relative to the continuing viability of agriculture in New Hampshire.

Implementation Strategy: Pass legislation to direct the existing Agricultural Advisory Board to engagein a Farm Viability Study and make recommendations based on their findings no less often than everyfive years. The process should allow the ability to take testimony and consider proposals by others asthe Board conducts the review.

Funding: This proposal would incur additional time to be served by the volunteer Agricultural Adviso-ry Board. No additional state funding would be required.(see page 38 for A Closer Look)

16


A Closer Look—at Recommendation 1

Fund agricultural extension, education, andresearch of direct benefit to agriculture in NewHampshire.

Goal: Secure additional funding forresearch that helps New Hampshire farmproducers and for the Agricultural Special-ists (Extension Educators) who communi-cate the practical knowledge that isresponsive to the changing needs of agri-culture in New Hampshire.

UNH Cooperative Extension (UNHCE) provides aneeded connection between the scientific knowl-edge of the University and its practical applicationin the field. For farmers, Cooperative Extension isoften the first call for questions about crop produc-tion, such as identifying soil fertility problems,insect pests, or plant diseases. Having rapidaccess to Agricultural Specialist Extension Educa-tors to consult on production problems that maylead to immediate crop damage or livestock lossesis a beneficial leveraging of agricultural researchknowledge to mitigate crop production risk.UNHCE is a prudent institutional solution to pro-tect the economic value of crops and livestock inthe state. Agricultural producers rely on UNHCEto respond quickly, effectively, and carefully whendealing with new pest and disease problems, aswell as successfully managing existing cropthreats.

UNHCE provides the communication pathway forscientific knowledge that keeps agriculture sus-tainable and attentive to emerging environmentalconcerns. This background information is thebasis of Best Management Practices, which arespecific guidelines adopted by the Department ofAgriculture. UNHCE provides the aggregatedknowledge of academic research about agriculturalpractices from other institutions across the worldso that New Hampshire farmers are supplied withthe most current and reliable technical advice.

Cooperative Extension effectively supports thefuture of agriculture by putting Agricultural Spe-cialists in contact with farm producers who are

trying out new crops and production methods.Extension Agricultural Specialists are often calledon as consultants to critique emerging technologiesas they are first put into practice on the farm.Cooperative Extension’s on-farm delivery of expe-rience and knowledge requires a hands-onapproach. On-farm viewing of a complex collec-tion of crop symptoms that requires analysis ofsoil or tissue samples can’t be done with mouseclicks. Face to face visits, tours, and instructionalseminars by experienced UNHCE AgriculturalSpecialists who constantly compare practices theysee on different farms has built a knowledge forcewith high technical proficiency in the scientificbackground that is a competitive advantage forNew Hampshire growers.

UNHCE is in the knowledge communication busi-ness, and not just with farmers. Extension Special-ists also respond to the general public’s questionsabout gardening, tree care, insect pests, and nutri-tion. Cooperative Extension’s technical communi-cations efforts on behalf of the non-farm publictouches a much larger client base than commercialon-farm recipients of these services.

It is beyond the scope of this Task Force report torecommend changes in the mission or structure forUNHCE. Our recommendation addresses the needfor public support of UNHCE, and suggests twoadditional mechanisms: private support of agricul-ture-related programs at UNH, and increased fund-ing of agriculture-related programs at UNH.

We recommend establishing a private fundraisingeffort to support specific programs related to pro-duction agriculture. Modeled on the existing UNHFoundation/4-H Foundation structure, the indepen-dent entity would be directed by farmers. This cangarner industry support and provide impetus forUNHCE to respond to farmer needs. SpecificExtension Agricultural Specialists that serve thepurpose of increasing farm viability are those in:agricultural business management, agriculturalengineering, agronomy, dairy, equine, horticulture,and livestock. Some of these Agricultural Special-ist functions may best be provided in cooperationwith other Land Grant Universities in the region,such as the Universities of Connecticut, Maine,

17


Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont, andCornell and Rutgers. A cost effective way to bringsome very specific Agricultural Specialist func-tions to New Hampshire may be through contract-ed services, as has recently been done for agricul-tural engineering assistance.

Program areas closely interconnected to UNHCEinclude the Agricultural Experiment Station, Col-lege of Life Sciences and Agriculture, and theThompson School. The agriculture-related areasat UNH are a complex combination of sharedfunctions, personnel, and funding sources.Because some tasks carried out by UNHCE arefunded from sources that require particular pro-gram content, the total number of dollars budgetedfor UNHCE are not fully transferable from oneprogram to another. For example, some dedicatedfunding for nutrition programs comes directlyfrom USDA. Such program-specific funding doesnot “compete” for dollars that fund UNHCE Agri-cultural Specialists and their on-farm responsibili-ties.

There are other ways for farm business owners toobtain information that supports agricultural via-bility. Private consultants that provide a higherlevel of management, operational, investment, andmarketing advice are available for hire, oftenemployed by larger farm businesses or those deal-ing with complex financial situations such as inter-generational transfer of the farm. Technical infor-mation about how to comply with new regulatoryrequirements may be best designed and deliveredby providers who are hired by a regulatory agencyto train farm business owners about the newrequirements. For example, new regulations onmanure storage might be best explained by expertscontracted by the Department of Agriculture, Mar-kets, and Food. Specific expertise can be focusedon farmers who need to conform to the regula-tions, reinforcing the practice by the Departmentof Agriculture, Markets, and Food of informingfarm businesses of upcoming regulatory changesin order to encourage compliance. This sort ofdirected knowledge transfer activity is not areplacement for UNHCE, but can be effective inlimited circumstances.

18



Increase direct marketing opportunitiesfor producers.

Goal: Effectively utilize the State’s mar-keting activity to encourage buying localand supporting local farms. Coordinatedpublic communications can increase thevalue of agriculture as a supplier of qualityof life perceptions as well as direct con-sumables for both tourists and residents.

Sale of New Hampshire agricultural productsdirect to consumers has been an expanding mar-keting channel for decades. What was a revolu-tionary concept in the 1980’s is now recognized asa valid aspect of farm business, and not just a“sideline.” Where previous generations of farmersdebated investment in gas or diesel poweredmachinery to maximize commodity production,now many farmers worry about attracting andkeeping customers to exploit the return on produc-tion of niche farm products. Like the computer-driven information economy where ideas arebought and sold, now much of agriculture dependson marketing ideas of how to sell farm products.

A strategy of increasing direct marketing opportu-nities fits well with the positive benefits that agri-culture provides in New Hampshire. In addition tothe substantial economic impact of farming, agri-culture provides the backdrop of open space fortourism, one of the state’s largest and most stableindustries. Yet it is not just the backdrop of farm-land that has a positive impact in terms of tourism.Tourists come to New Hampshire for directencounters and experiences, and agriculture canprovide that through Farmers’ Markets, farmstands, agricultural fairs and exhibitions, pick-your-own fruits and berries, and other agri-tourismactivities. While we often view tourists as out-of-state visitors, many New Hampshire residents tourother parts of the state and are interested in findingfarm experiences.

Agriculture is easily connected to tourism becausedirect encounters with agriculture can be on alltypes of farms to highlight their unique activities.Many of the established promotional activities in

agriculture (agricultural fairs, Maple Weekend,apple harvest, etc.) are ripe for cross-promotionwith tourism. In fact, the “New Hampshire expe-rience” promoted by the Division of Travel andTourism Development (DTTD) relies heavily onimages that include farming and rural life. Toexpand the partnership between DTTD and agri-culture would efficiently utilize the existingavenues for reaching potential customers for farmbusinesses. By building off the available advertis-ing and promotional resources of DTTD and otherstate agencies (such as the Department of Trans-portation for signage), agriculture can effectivelygain positive promotional exposure and subse-quent economic benefit at a low incremental cost.

Forming Partnerships for Effective Promotion

Agricultural promotion has benefited from con-scious efforts to form partnerships with groupswho have a likely affinity to farms or farm prod-ucts. Local collaborations with Chambers ofCommerce, Main Street Programs, historic preser-vation associations and many others have openedup possibilities for marketing farm products andrecognizing the role of local farms in the commu-nity landscape. For example, a local HistoricalSociety may sponsor a Farmers' Market, drawingpeople's interest to both local food and the town'shistory of agriculture. Partnering with groups notdirectly related to farming helps them gain a betterunderstanding and appreciation of farming as botha local business and a rural neighbor.

Broad community acceptance of agricultural enter-prises opens opportunities for further partnershipswith business and trade groups who can directlybenefit from links to farm businesses. For exam-ple, promoting the use of New Hampshire grownfoods has led to the "Farm to Restaurant Connec-tion" as a way to help local restaurants featurelocal farmers-and vice versa. Cooperation hasincreased with the New Hampshire Lodging andRestaurant Association and the Granite StateAmbassadors, opening doors for partnerships withmany more tourism and hospitality industry busi-nesses. Agriculture is seen as a valuable partnerthat contributes far more than a backdrop totourism, becoming a source of economic activityin its own right.

19


Forming partnerships and building relationships topromote agriculture involves many farm producerorganizations and individuals. The Division ofAgricultural Development (wihin the New Hamp-shire Department of Agriculture, Markets, andFood) has played a key role in fostering theserelaionships. They have convened the NewHampshire Agricultural Marketing Council, madeup of representatives of agricultural organizationsand associations. All of theagricultural groups workingtogether under the umbrella ofthe Agricultural MarketingCouncil can develop and imple-ment a campaign such as “BuyLocal This Season” with a con-sistent message and commonlogo. The overall goal is to pro-mote the purchase of NewHampshire agricultural productsand build the visibility of NewHampshire agriculture.

The “Buy Local This Season”project includes a number ofseparate but related partnershipsand activities that collectivelywork together. Where possible,every activity promotes both nutrition and agri-clture, and includes outreach information on pro-grams such as the Farmers’ Market Nutrition Pro-grams (FMNP) and the Food Stamp Program, toinclude Electronic Benefits Transfer (EBT). Withvery little state funding for agricultural marketing,the “Buy Local This Season” project and its part-ners have become very creative at developinggrass-roots agricultural marketing efforts, as wellas seeking grants and sponsorships. Future activi-ties to be undertaken will be determined by theAgricultual Marketing Council membership withinput from the respective commodity organizationsin New Hampshire.

The Agricultural Marketing Council is also com-mitted to working with “NewHampshire Made”,the non-profit membership organization that sup-plies the “New Hampshire’s Own” logo and label-ing program. Establishing a collective identity forlocally produced goods and services helps to cre-

ate higher consumer awareness for all New Hamp-shire products. Joint promotion of food and winewith the New Hampshire Liquor Commission cancreate a presence in their stores for agriculturalproducts.

Other partnership opportunitites indentified in theStrategic Marketing Plan include working wih theNew Hampshire Department of Transportation

(NHDOT) to develop a sig-nage plan for agricultural des-tinations to enable spontaneousvisits.

The Agricultural MarketingCouncil’s formation and direc-tion stem from the “MarketingResearch and Recommenda-tions” study of 2003. Thegoals of this strategic planhave advanced as supportwithin farm groups has coa-lesced. Direct to consumeradvertising on radio, televi-sion, and in movie theaters canbe leveraged with Public Ser-vice Announcements in associ-ation with the New Hampshire

Association of Broadcasters. The Department ofAgriculture’s own website reflects the increasedimportance of this method for consumers to findagricultural locations to get local foods, entertain-ment, and farm experiences. To a large degree, allof the above examples represent partnerships thatmake use of organizations and resources that arealready in place. The Department of Agriculture’sDivision of Agricultural Development has accom-plished many of these initiatives with limited staffand resources. In order to continue progress onthe Strategic Marketing Plan, the Division needsan additional permanent marketing and promotionposition.

Opportunity in the Marketplace

Local agricultural products are in demand, andconsumers need to find where to buy them. Arecent tourism survey indicates that consumerswould buy more local farm products if they were

"In order to increase the economicimpact of agriculture, leverage itsimportance to New Hampshire'squality of life, and ensure its sustain-ability, there is a critical need toincrease the exposure people have toit. The more direct experience peoplehave with New Hampshire agricul-ture and its products, the more theywill buy, the more they will appreci-ate the importance of agriculture, andthe more they will work to protectagricultural assets."

Marketing Research and Recommenda-tions for the New Hampshire Departmentof Agriculture, 2003

20


more available and more clearly labeled. Aware-ness of the location of markets, farm stands, andpick-your-own operations would also increasesales. Purchasing local agricultural products isabout more than just buying food in the con-sumer’s mind. Another recent survey shows thatconsumers understand the connection betweenbuying local and having open space, authenticlocal culture, and fresh food. Consumers reportthat they would be willing to pay more for localfarm products because they understand the largerbenefits.

The Role of Locally Grown

Many retail farm businesses offer products that aredifferent than what can be bought from othersources. “Locally grown” is the prime differentia-tor for retail sales of New Hampshire farm goods.Consumers recognize many positive attributesabout locally grown foods, such as freshness, taste,and a desire to support the economic viability oflocal farms. Consequently, the value of locallygrown farm goods has steadily increased in NewHampshire as a percent of total farm output. Pro-tection of this marketing advantage has beenaccomplished by strict farm product labeling lawsthat put specific meaning to terms like “native”and “our own” to prevent misleading advertising.

Other strategies have been adopted by New Hamp-shire farm businesses to find a unique productoffering based on the characteristics of the productor how it was produced. There are now about 80certified organic producers in the state includingvegetable, flower, small beef, and dairy farms.Several organic food processors are also certified.Consumer preferences for locally grown farmproducts that are produced in a certain mannerhave driven this increase. Organic food produc-tion satisfies consumer desire to buy food thatfood is raised without synthetic fertilizers, synthet-ic pesticides, or antibiotics under standards adopt-ed by USDA and certified by the New HampshireDepartment of Agriculture, Markets, and Food.

Some farm operations provide a different market-ing channel that combines the consumer prefer-

ence for “knowing where their food came from”and “how it was produced” into Community Sup-ported Agriculture (CSA) farms. CSA farms typi-cally sell subscriptions to individuals or familiesthat allow for a certain share of the weekly harvestto be picked up—or picked by—the subscriber.This brings the consumer closer than ever to thefarm operation by allowing (or requiring) somefarm work in exchange for a share of the harvest,as well as being an investor in the year’s crop.Subscriptions are usually paid before the crops areseeded as a way of providing funds for theexpense of planting. If there is a crop shortfall thesubscriber gets to share in the reduced yields. Pro-duce in excess of what subscribers are due may besold at a farm stand or Farmers’ Market.

Another way that New Hampshire farm businessescapitalize on consumer preference for locallygrown foods is to process their crops into value-added products such as jams, jellies, relishes, andciders. Converting consumable farm produce likestrawberries into a storable farm product likestrawberry jam extends the ability of the farmbusiness to market additional goods to visitors.Some farms have expanded their offerings withbaked goods produced in on-farm licensed com-mercial kitchens. Farm processed specialty foodsare closely tied to overall profitability for retailfarm operations.

The variety of local produce, fruit, and farm-pre-pared food offerings is nowhere on more exuber-ant display than at local Farmers’ Markets. Con-sumer acceptance of Farmers’ Markets reachesbeyond the demand for local food, and touches adeep need for community affirmation by providinga healthy, authentic place where people can meet.There are over fifty Farmers’ Markets in NewHampshire, providing valuable access to a prof-itable selling environment. Selling through one ormore Farmers’ Markets is an economically viablemarketing strategy for a farm business. BecauseFarmers’ Markets occur on different days in differ-ent locations, many farmers do more than oneMarket in a week, sometimes in addition to havingan on-premises farm stand. The popularity of Farmers’ Markets has led to a

21


shortage of farmers selling goods at some Markets.Fortunately, entry into the business of selling farmgoods through a Farmers’ Market is relatively easyand low in cost, so that demand is likely to be ful-filled. Consumers of fresh New Hampshire pro-duce and fruits are well aware of the benefits ofbuying local. The main barrier for farm opera-tions successfully tapping this demand remainsknowledge of where to find the products they arelooking for.

Forming partnerships with groups who have alikely affinity to farms or farm products is valu-

able strategy to increase public encounters withagriculture. The economic value of farm productsales generated from these new marketing oppor-tunities is hard to accurately measure, but is cer-tainly increasing. Measuring sales at Farmers'Markets, fairs, exhibitions, open houses, or otherevents is difficult because most of the activity issmall scale and spread over many locations.Direct sales by farmers have the added benefit ofputting dollars back into the local economy. Inaggregate these sales are an important boost forrural economic development.

22



Establish a Farm Viability Program.

Goal: Assist participating farm businessesto enhance the local economy, resistsprawling development, provide benefit tothe environment, and maintain open spacethat promotes our quality of life.

Farm Viability is a term that is used in two differ-ent ways. First, as a general term relating to prof-itability and business feasibility, and second, as aspecific public policy that involves a structuredprogram of business planning, capital invest-ment, and establishment of non-developmentterm covenants. This Task Force Recommenda-tion considers a structured program for farmbusinesses as public policy.

The purpose behind a Farm Viability Program(FVP) is to keep land in agricultural use byenhancing the sustainable profitability of anindividual farm. In general, a FVP can be sum-marized as a farm operator getting businessplanning assistance and a grant payment toimplement the business plan, in exchange foragreeing not to develop his farm land. Thismakes a FVP a combination of land use policy(preserving the agricultural use of land througha non-development term covenant) and econom-ic development policy (farm business assistancethrough planning and grants). Which of thesepolicy goals has primacy is a matter of perspec-tive. In the end, a FVP program gains moresupport and confers more benefits because it isa hybrid of two different policy goals.

Farm Viability Programs in Nearby States

Many surrounding states have FVP’s that aregenerally similar to the hypothetical exampleabove. Massachusetts has the most compre-hensive program of the six New England states.Their program has served as a model for severalother states and is well designed and well fund-ed given the size of the state’s agriculturalindustry. Eligible farmers must intend to havetheir land in continued agricultural use and havea desire to enhance the economic viability of

their farm. Criteria for selection in the Massachu-setts FVP include: the number of acres of land tobe placed in the program; the suitability and pro-ductivity of the land for agricultural use based onsoil classification, physical features, and location;the degree of threat to agriculture continuing on theproperty (such as financial stability or urbanencroachment); the degree to which the projectwould accomplish environmental objectives such asprotecting water resources or the preservation ofhistorical, open space, or aesthetic amenities; andthe number of years and type of agricultural experi-ence of the applicant.

The following hypothetical example illustrates how a FVPmight work:

Consider an existing dairy farm business thatseeks to diversify the products it sells as a strategy to mit-igate low earnings from milk. Such a farm could requestbusiness planning assistance from the FVP through a com-petitive application process. A team of experts that mayinclude Cooperative Extension Agricultural Specialists,marketing consultants, farm lenders, facilities experts, andother successful dairy farmers would be assembled andpaid for by the FVP. Their collective business assessmentmay result in a proposal developed in cooperation with thedairy farm business owners for the dairy farm to takeadvantage of its good location for retail sales by buildingan ice cream stand. The experts would assess the businessopportunity in retail diversification, and the ability of thefarm to make such a transition in terms of management,capital, and operational capacity.

The dairy farm business would then have theopportunity to accept or reject the plan for any reason. Ifthe plan is accepted, the dairy farm business can apply tothe FVP for a grant payment to be used for building the icecream stand and other improvements. In exchange for thispayment, the dairy farm business must enter in to a non-development covenant, legally restricting converting theuse of the farmland for a period of ten years. On receipt ofthe grant payment, the ice cream stand can be built alongwith any other changes to fulfill the agreed upon businessplan. Included in the business plan are methods to moni-tor the financial performance of the new ice cream standventure in order to assess its contribution to the overallprofitability of the dairy farm business. At the end of theten year period, the farm business owners are releasedfrom the non-development covenant and may continue tooperate the diversified, more successful farm business.

23


Technical assistance and the developmentof business plans are provided at no cost to thefarmer. If a farm owner accepts the business planand agrees to a non-development term covenant,the owner would be available to receive grant pay-ments to carry out the business plan of up to$20,000 for a five-year covenant and up to$40,000 for a ten year covenant. Grants of up to$60,000 may go to farms that agree to a ten yearcovenant with more than 135 acres that meet cer-tain farm criteria.

Since the Massachusetts Farm ViabilityProgram was initiated in 1996, 294 farms havebeen selected to participate, with 264 completingthe business planning phase and 246 farms beingprotected by covenants. These 246 farms put23,430 acres in non-development covenants.

The Maine program is based on the Massachusettsprogram and also provides business planning andgrant funding for farms in exchange for non-devel-opment of land. As of November 2005, 122 farmshave participated and placed 17,505 acres in non-development covenants. Maine has estimated thatevery $1.00 of state investment has leveragedanother $4.40 in former investment and outsidefunds.

The program is administered by CoastalEnterprises Incorporated (CEI). CEI is a nonprofitCommunity Development Corporation and Com-munity Development Financial Institution foundedin 1977. CEI provides capital and support in thedevelopment of job-creating small businesses, nat-ural resource industries, community facilities, andaffordable housing. CEI’s primary market isMaine, but in recent years it has expanded severalof its financing programs to northern New Eng-land and upstate New York. This innovative useof a nonprofit to manage the farm viability pro-gram is a potential model for implementation inNew Hampshire.

Connecticut authorized legislation in July, 2005which will provide substantial funds for farm via-bility efforts. Currently, every deed transfer in thestate includes a $30.00 fee dedicated to programssuch as agricultural viability. This fee will likelyraise nearly $30 million annually. About a quarter

of those funds will be dedicated to agriculture,amounting to about $6 to $7 million per year. InNovember, 2005, the Connecticut Department ofAgriculture held their first meeting to start theprocess of allocating an initial $500,000.00 inmatching farm grants. Grants of up to $40,000.00per firm will be considered, but each farm musthave a business valuation and plan. Such plans canbe developed with the assistance of cooperativeextension Educators or private providers.

New York State has established a New York FarmViability Institute. The Institute addresses farmviability from several angles including farm busi-ness planning, expanding market opportunities,and supporting value-added endeavors. The non-profit Institute receives funds from the state andoutside sources. From July to December 2005, theInstitute made grants totaling $3 million that willaddress barriers to agricultural production enter-prises, emphasize producer participation in projectplanning, and emphasize the measurement of eco-nomic results at the farm business level. The Insti-tute determines the success of the programs that itsupports primarily through their impact on the via-bility of farm enterprises, in recognition of thecontribution that a strong agricultural industrymakes to the state economy, environment, and wayof life.

The Vermont Farm Viability Enhance-ment Program is run by the Vermont Housing andConservation Board in collaboration with the Ver-mont Agency of Agriculture, Food, and Markets.It was established in 2003 following an agricultur-al policy recommendation of the Vermont Agricul-tural Viability Council (a group similar to the NewHampshire Farm Viability Task Force).

The Vermont program is similar to theMassachusetts program, except it provides onlythe business planning and technical assistanceparts of the program. No grant money is availableto fund farm improvements. However, the pro-gram works with partners such as the farmer-owned Farm Credit bank, which looks more favor-ably on lending to farmers who have undergonethis type of detailed business review.

24


The New Hampshire Agricultural Innovation Pro-gram (NHAIP) is similar in approach to the Ver-mont program. It is an independent farm viabilityprogram administered in by the New HampshireResource Conservation and Development Council(RC&D) as lead partner. Other partners include:the New Hampshire Department of Agriculture,Markets, and Food; the New Hampshire FarmBureau Federation; and UNH Cooperative Exten-sion. The NHAIP is a statewide program to helptwenty beginning and transitioning farms improvetheir business plans over the course of two years.The program secured a one-time grant of $154,000through the USDA's Rural Development agencyand their Rural Business Enterprise Grant Pro-gram.

Business plan assistance is offered toselected farms after a competitive applicationprocess. Customized business assistance teamshave been created for each farm. The businessassistance team is made up of professionals in var-ious agricultural fields as well as specialists inbusiness financing, marketing, organizationaldevelopment, and legal issues. The business assis-tance team will work with the farms over thecourse of two years helping the farmers developand implement their business plans. In return forthis assistance, participating farmers are obligated

to mentor another farmer through the businessplanning process or perform some related commu-nity service.

The farms are located around the state.The farms come is various sizes and descriptions.One is a traditional dairy farm that wants to addvalue to milk by bottling and making other prod-ucts with their milk. Several farms raise livestockfor both meat and other dairy products. Otherfarms raise vegetables, herbs, plant materials, hayor medicinal products. While diverse in theircharacteristics, all of the farmers share a passionfor farming and a desire to be successful so thatthey can sustain the farm and remain a steward ofthe land.

One of the purposes of the New Hamp-shire Agriculture Innovation Program is to demon-strate its suitability for assisting New Hampshirefarms. It is hoped that the NHAIP will serve as aproof of concept for the effectiveness of a FarmViability Program in New Hampshire, even thoughthe NHAIP program design does not include grantpayments and non-development covenants. TheNHAIP has been initiated with the conviction thata farm having a sound business plan is more likelyto stay in business, and help maintain the presenceof agriculture in New Hampshire.

25



Make conservation of farmland a high priorityand dedicate a minimum of $3 million annually tobuy permanent conservation easements that pro-tect agricultural land.

Goal: Conserve high quality agriculturalland through permanent conservation ease-mentsthat make land available for farmingnow, and to ensure New Hampshire’scapacity to produce food and other agricul-tural crops and livestock for future genera-tions. Predictable funding enhances oppor-tunities for farm owners to sell conserva-tion easements, thereby giving access toequity without developing their land.Access to this farmland equity can makepossible transfer of farms to the next gen-eration, and enable farm investment anddiversification.

The continuing loss of farmland, and concern forthe loss of New Hampshire’s trademark landscapeand character point to the need to accelerate invest-ment in permanent conservation of farmland. Sev-eral different public and private entities areengaged in farmland conservation, each contribut-ing to the overall goal.

How Farmland Conservation Works in New Hampshire

Permanent conservation in New Hampshire hasbeen accomplished by leveraging a relatively largesource of money to raise matching funds at thelocal or regional level. For example, the federalFarm and Ranchland Protection Program (FRPP) atabout $3 million per year or the state Land andCommunity Heritage Investment Program (LCHIP)budgeted but not approved at $6 million per yearboth serve as “attractors” of additional money.When available, these relatively large funds holdout the possibility of grants to particular conserva-tion easement projects if funds can be matched bylocal or regional grants. Local matching funds areoften the result of specific votes at Town Meeting,or contributions from individuals. Regional match-

ing funds are often from Land Trusts that raise andexpend money for land conservation easementswithin a particular geographic area of the state.The recommended funding level of $3 million peryear is based on the minimum required to matchthe federal Farm and Ranchland Protection Pro-gram (FRPP) funds annually available to NewHampshire. The FRPP funds require a 50% matchfunding from non-federal sources. If the State ofNew Hampshire annually funded this $3 millionmatch funding, it would bring needed predictabilityto the overall goal of permanent conservation ease-ments. Grants from the federal FRPP program areadministered by the Natural Resource ConservationService (NRCS), which is an agency of the UnitedStates Department of Agriculture (USDA). TheNRCS is responsible for setting up the rating sys-tem by which all lands applying for FRPP fundsare scored to achieve an objective list of priorities.Qualifications include high quality agriculturalsoils, sufficient size to support a viable farm busi-ness, the presence of an active agricultural opera-tion, and immediate access to funds for both the50% match and all related transaction costs.NRCS administration of this process is by federalemployees already based in New Hampshire, andlocal farmers and others are represented on thepanel that makes funding recommendations.

When the approximately $3 million in FRPP fundsis made available each year, the NRCS contactsapplicants starting at the top of their

priority list to see if they have immediate access tothe 50% match funding. For example, if the appli-cant is seeking a total of $200,000 to protect 100acres of farmland, the potential FRPP grant wouldbe $100,000—if the applicant has immediateaccess to an additional $100,000 from non-federalsources. If the applicant does not have immediateaccess to such funds from local or regional sources,then the FRPP withdraws its conditional grant offerand proceeds down the list of conservation ease-ment priorities to the next applicant.

Because there is no active state program imple-menting farmland conservation in New Hampshire,local governments and non-governmental organiza-

26


tions apply for FRPP funds and work directly withNRCS to finalize the conservation transactions andraise the required matching funds. This reliance onlocal funding and private initiatives means thatfarm owners only from towns which have passedconservation bonds or maintain large standingfunds for land conservation have this advantage insecuring conservation easements. Others may besimply out of luck. Prime agricultural resourcesare being lost in some communities, while less sig-nificant resourcesmay be protectedelsewhere.Because there isnot a cohesivestatewide farmlandconservation pro-gram, eligible NewHampshire farmersare at a competitivedisadvantage tothose in otherstates.

As of 2005, NRCShad provided over$11.8 million overthe life of the pro-gram to permanent-ly protect 70 farmsencompassing5,657 acres of agri-cultural land inNew Hampshire.Matching funds of$21 million werealso provided fromlocal appropria-tions, private con-tributions, and NewHampshire’s Landand CommunityHeritage (LCHIP)program. But since these are unpredictable andunstable funding sources, some of New Hamp-shire’s best farmland remains at risk or has alreadybeen lost.

Funding the State Contributionto Farmland Protection

The core of this Task Force recommendation is tohave the state of New Hampshire budget the $3million in funds necessary to match the approxi-mately $3 million annually made available byFRPP grants. Because the state does not matchthese federal funds, the process of prioritizing thebest farmland to be protected becomes subject to

disruption. State fund-ing will enable theimplementation of acohesive New Hamp-shire-wide strategy forfarmland conservation,based on well-estab-lished criteria and pro-cedures. The carefuland valid process ofprioritization adminis-tered by the NRCSwould not be compro-mised by the currentsituation that ends upfavoring well-fundedconservation ease-ments over those thatare more agriculturallysignificant. It is alsoimportant to note thatan effectively fundedstate matching fundsprogram may allow acompetitive advantagein obtaining funds forNew Hampshire farmswith respect to farmsin other states.

The State of NewHampshire could fundthe $3 million match

for FRPP through the existing LCHIP program,but this would require a specific set-aside withinLCHIP for agricultural purposes. This sort of spe-cific allocation for agriculture over the historicpreservation purposes is a policy step that LCHIP

Map Courtesy of American Farmland Trust

27


has not been willing to take. However, directionof such funds specifically to FRPP match fundingpurposes could be legislated and then administeredby LCHIP.

Another option for the Stateof New Hampshire to fundthe $3 million match is toutilize the existing Agricul-tural Land DevelopmentRights purchase program.This program is adminis-tered in the Department ofAgriculture, Markets andFood by the authority ofRSA 432:18 through :31-a.The law provides for a ninemember Agricultural LandsPreservation Committee andstandards by which potentialacquisitions will be evaluat-ed. The Committee is alsoauthorized to “…accept fed-eral funds and to use anddispose of money, servicesand property received fromcontributions and gifts…”The program has the abilityto put funds into a non-laps-ing account and for the statetreasurer to issue ten yearbonds to provide funds forappropriations made by thelegislature.

Paying for PreservationRestrictions

Unlike regulatorymeasures, conservation andagricultural preservationrestrictions are voluntary. Alandowner can sell or donatesuch easements. Conserva-tion land stays in privateownership, remains taxed atcurrent use values, and canbe mortgaged, sold, gifted or

willed. The restrictions remain intact throughouteach ownership, ensuring the land remains avail-able for plows, plants and livestock.

Few farmers can afford to donate a conservationrestriction, even thoughtthere are federal incometax incentives. Instead,farmers usually rely on asizeable payment in returnfor entering into a conser-vation restriction agree-ment. A payment allows afarmer to pay off debt,upgrade equipment andinfrastructure, purchasemore land, or fund a retire-ment while transferring thefarm in an affordable wayto the next generation.

Land Conservation Policyin New Hampshire

New Hampshire has longvalued farming for its abil-ity to produce crops andeconomic value from theland. More recently, thestate has recognized thevalue of the farmland itselffor the scenic beauty itprovides as an importantbackdrop to the success ofthe tourism industry. In1969, out of a concern forloss of farmland and farmsdue to burdensome proper-ty taxes, voters passed aconstitutional amendmentthat allowed the CurrentUse program to be enactedin 1972. The Cur-rent Use Taxation programplays a critical role inkeeping open land avail-able for farming. Main-taining Current Use, which

One Farm's Experience with Farmland Protection

In the spring of 2006, New Hampshirereceived 19 FRPP applications, requesting atotal of $5,466,000 to protect 1,222 acres offarmland. In total the covenants were worthnearly $12,000,000. New Hampshire's FRPPallocation was less than a third of that.

Each application was carefully reviewed andranked by the FRPP Technical Advisory Com-mittee and the NRCS State Conservationistcontacted applicants, making funding offersstarting with the highest ranked applicationand continuing down the list until the moneyran out.

Shirley Peters' farm in Bath was amongthose eligible for funding. The Upper ValleyLand Trust (UVLT), a private organizationwith a long track record in farmland conserva-tion, had submitted an application to conserveover 134 of the Peters' acres in active use fordairy farming. The value of the conservationcovenant was appraised at $260,000.

The Peters farm was not in those initiallycontacted with awards. But some of the higherranking projects could not accept the terms ofthe grant. So UVLT received a funding offer -on the condition it could commit $130,000immediately.

In the past, UVLT had accepted FRPPawards and then proceeded to raise the fundsneeded to close transactions. But beginning in2006, applicants were told that if they acceptedthe award they must be prepared to sign alegally binding federal Cooperative Agreementindicating the matching funds "are availableand have been obligated specifically for thepurchase of the subject covenant." Like theothers who had turned down FRPP offers,UVLT had to tell Shirley Peters she wouldneed to wait until matching funds were actual-ly in hand, and then reapply.

28


allows landowners to be taxed on the value of thecurrent use of their land rather than the theoreticalvalue of developed use of unimproved land, isessential to preserving farm and forest landresources in the state. A Current Use Changepenalty of 10% of the value of the property isassessed when Current Use properties are convert-ed to other uses. Many towns have voted to dedi-cate part or all of Current Use Change tax penaltyfunds for purchase of permanent conservationeasements on land. Current Use is not a permanentprotection program.

Recognizing the many benefits of undevelopedagricultural land and the threats to it, the NewHampshire legislature enabled landowners to con-tractually prohibit development on agriculturalland with “conservation restrictions” and “agricul-tural preservation restrictions” by enacting NHRSA Chapter 477:45 in 1973. This established thelegal basis for separating the “conservation ease-ment” as an independently transferable propertyright from the actual fee simple deed of a piece ofland.

Further concern for loss of farmland to develop-ment resulted in the Agricultural Land Develop-ment Rights purchase program in 1981. This pro-gram is administered by the State Department ofAgriculture, Markets, and Food and has not hadfinancial support past the two appropriations in1981-83 (when it recieved funding through theReal Estate Transfer Tax) and 1987-89. This pro-

gram currently holds and monitors easements on32 different farm properties, comprising 2,923acres.

The Land Conservation Investment Program(LCIP) operated from 1987 to 1993 with its pri-vate partner, the Trust for New Hampshire Lands,to protect just over 100,000 acres of land—mostlyforest—across New Hampshire. About half ofthese lands were protected with conservation ease-ments, and the other half were fee-purchased andcontinue to be held by the State of New Hamp-shire. Its funding was established by bonding thecost of actual land purchases and conservationeasement purchases, and raising the associatedadministrative costs through private donations.LCIP was effectively subject to a sunset provisionby the full expenditure of its bonding authority.

The Land and Community Heritage InvestmentProgram (LCHIP), is the current mechanism forstate funding of the purchase of conservation ease-ments, historical structures, and stewardshipgrants. LCHIP is an independent 501:c-3 non-profit organization that is funded by appropriationsof the legislature; it is not an agency of state gov-ernment. LCHIP was established with an annualfunding goal from the legislature of $12 million.Despite this level of funding never being reached,LCHIP has successfully leveraged the funds it hasobtained by covering on average 20% of the costof projects while 80% of the funds come from thecommunity. The State funding holds the project

29


together and helps ensure that it gets done.A Closer Look—at Recommendation 5

Establish a Lease of Development Rights Pro-gram.

Goal: Create a mechanism for landown-ers and communities to keep land in agri-cultural use while longer term strategies tostrengthen the farm business and perma-nently protect farmland are implemented.

This proposal is intended to open a discussion on anew and innovative idea that may help some farm-ers to keep farming, and their communities to pro-tect farmland. A Lease of Development Rightsprogram (LDR) would keep land in agriculturaluse and retain existing farm businesses. LDR isnot intended to be a permanent farmland conserva-tion method. It is meant to be a mechanism that acommunity can use to “buy time” and stabilizefarmland ownership that has come under pressureto be sold. This pressure can come in many differ-ent forms, but the underlying similarity is that thefarmland owner’s response to that stress is from aperception of urgency to extract the equity valueof their farmland.

Pressures to sell farmland can include expandingresidential development (and therefore rapidlyincreasing land values), potential changes in localzoning ordinances (that may reduce the value ofthe farmland for development), change in manage-ment of the farm (sometimes due to illness ordeath of the principal), change in profitability ofthe farm (sometimes due to external forces such aslow prices for the crop), or transfer of the farm tothe next generation. LDR is intended as a mecha-nism to provide payments to the farm owner inorder to provide the time to seek long-term alter-natives to the short-term response of selling thefarm.

LDR provides a way for the community toencourage farmland preservation and avoid thepotential costs of rapid development of the farm-land to residential use. The community may seegreater value in paying the farmland owner not todevelop residential housing, than the cost of

development in community services such asschools, police, fire, and roads. Farm owners ben-efit from the payment received, and communitiesbenefit by avoiding expensive responses to rapidresidential growth.

Farm owners and community gain time to assessthe value to each party of a permanent conserva-tion easement, or the time to find a buyer for thefarm who will continue farm operations and sell apermanent conservation easement. It can takeyears to apply for, build matching funds, andsecure grant money for a permanent conservationeasement. LDR is intended to provide a mecha-nism where both the farmland owner and the com-munity voluntarily agree on the future of the farmproperty. If the farmland owner decides to sellthe property under lease, the community can beprotected by a right of first refusal.

For many farmland owners, the largest componentof personal wealth accumulation is equity in theland. The income-generating capacity of the farmbusiness may have to be balanced against theopportunity to develop the land. A complex anddynamic array of issues can be involved in thesedecisions, including farm business performance,transfer of farm ownership to the next generation,retirement needs of farm owners, and health offarm owners. In essence, how profitable the farmbusiness is and who will be running it in thefuture. In times of pressure to sell the land, theneed to get a short-term return can lead to a deci-sion to sell farm real estate without investigatingthe possibility of a permanent conservation ease-ment.

It is certainly true that many farms benefit fromCurrent Use assessment. In effect, Current Useassessment lowers the annual operating costs forthe farm business by lowering the amount of taxesto be paid. However, when the farm owner comesunder pressure to cease operations and sell theland, Current Use provides no incentive to keepfarming, it only offers the disincentive of the 10%Land Use Change penalty on the selling price ofthe property. Current Use is a valuable tool forcommunities to keep open land, but the Current

30


Use tax incentive alone is not sufficient to preventconversion of land when owners are under duressor need to liquidate an estate.

There is little experience with LDR in the UnitedStates. Implementation in New Hampshire mustbe discussed in the context of how LDR wouldeffect existing programs, such as Current Use andpurchase of permanent conservation easements.It is unclear whether current New Hampshire law

would have to be changed to allow contracts forlease payments by communities. Offsetting leasepayments with credits for property taxes that ineffect create multi-year abatements would almostcertainly require changes in state law. We presentthis not to upset the proven, beneficial aspects ofpresent practices, but instead to open discussionon a new and innovative idea that may help somefarmers to keep farming, and their communities toprotect farmland.

31



New Hampshire Department of Agriculture,Markets, and Food and University of New Hamp-shire Cooperative Extension should collaboratewith other Northeast states to enhance the dairyindustry in New Hampshire and the Northeastregion.

Goal: New Hampshire should join forceswith Vermont, New York, Pennsylvaniaand other Northeast states to coordinatethe direction, goals, and resources neces-sary to ensure a competitive and profitableNortheast dairy industry—including opti-mizing the intellectual talent serving theNortheast dairy industry, researching dairybusiness models to increase profitability,and marketing and public relations initia-tives that promote the Northeast dairyindustry’s economic contributions,strengths, and advantages.

The New Hampshire dairy industry remains a vitalpart of the agricultural economy of the state.There are approximately 140 dairy farms that pro-duce more than 34 million gallons of fresh milkper year. This quantity of milk would satisfy thefresh drinking milk needs of all the children andadults in the state. However, additional milk isneeded to satisfy the cheese, butter, yogurt, icecream and other dairy product consumptiondemands of New Hampshire.

The average New Hampshire dairy farm milksabout one hundred cows. One hundred cows willproduce about 240,000 gallons of milk per yearper farm. New Hampshire dairy farms providemuch more than just milk to the state’s citizens.These farms are the primary stewards of agricul-tural open space in the state. Dairy farms keeplarge tracts of land in agriculture as they growcorn, hay and other crops to feed their herds.They create a diverse working landscape for therecreational and scenic enjoyment of their neigh-bors and visiting tourists, particularly supporting

such activities as snowmobiling, hunting and fish-ing. They support local businesses, rural commu-nities, and the local economy. Combined, NewHampshire family dairy farms generate nearly$100 million in economic activity.

New Hampshire dairy farms are now facing severeeconomic problems which have been repeatedmany times in the past. Basic farm milk prices areset by USDA using a national survey of marketprices for cheese, butter and non-fat dry milk.Very large dairy operations that milk thousands ofcows each in states like New Mexico, Texas, Idahoand California have helped increase the overallsupply of milk nationwide. The combinedincrease in milk production in New Mexico,Texas, Idaho and California this spring was twelvetimes the total amount of milk production on NewHampshire farms. Overproduction of milk andlow prices are not caused by New Hampshire orNew England dairy farmers, nor can it be correct-ed by them. The irony is that if fresh milk had tobe transported from those western states, it wouldcost New Hampshire consumers far more than itwould to pay local farms a higher price.

The national supply and demand imbalance hasdriven farm milk prices below the level of 25years ago at a time when local milk productioncosts have skyrocketed. Dairy farmers pay to havetheir milk hauled to dairy plants every day or two,in addition to all the energy and fertilizer costsincurred on the farm itself. These income andexpense conditions have driven net farm income torecord low levels on dairy farms throughout theNortheast.

The federal Government has two farm price safetynet programs in place, but neither adequatelyaddresses the problem. The dairy price supportprogram was established in 1949, and now sets aminimum price level that is less than half the costof milk production on farms in the region. TheUSDA has a short term milk income loss contract(MILC) program, in place from 2002 to 2005 andrecently extended at a reduced farm payment levelthrough 2007. However, the payment rate is low

32


and the program does less to help large dairyfarms that support several families.

The Northeast Dairy Compact, in place from 1997through 2001, created a price safety net for dairyfarmers supplying milk to New England con-sumers. The main opposition to the NortheastDairy Compact came from milk processing organi-zations and from other regions of the country. TheCompact had to be allowed in federal law, andagreed to by participating states. Federal autho-rization for the Compact ceased in 2001. NewHampshire should continue to support the North-east Dairy Compact approach that was so success-ful in getting consumer dollars to farm producers.

Individual state actions to raise farm milk priceshave occurred in Maine, Vermont, and Connecti-cut. The programs in the Vermont and Connecti-cut involve a short term direct payment to dairyfarms as a specific response to the current dairyfarm income crisis. The Maine program is alonger term approach intended to guarantee localdairy farmers their average cost of production.New Hampshire does not currently have any typeof program to address low net dairy farm income.However, direct payments to dairy farmersremains a policy option that could be explored.

Regional cooperation provides an option for NewHampshire to accomplish changes in federal dairypricing policy that will help strengthen the North-east dairy industry. The Northeast Dairy Compact,regarded as the most successful pricing policy inrecent years, was a regional approach. As a funda-mental first step, New Hampshire law must main-tain the authorization to join a newly constitutedDairy Compact to provide for rapid re-establish-ment in the event Congress approves it or some-thing similar.

Cooperation with the large milk producing statesin the Northeast (Vermont, New York, and Penn-sylvania) goes beyond working together for betterregional pricing mechanisms. For example, theNortheast States’ Land Grant Universities (such asthe Universities of Pennsylvania, Connecticut,Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Hamp-shire, and Vermont, and Cornell and Rutgers) andtheir related Extension Services can cooperate toimprove dairy profitability and productivitythrough research and information transfer services.Gaining stability and prosperity in New Hamp-shire’s dairy industry is doubtful without regionalcooperation.

33



Strengthen school curricula concerning agricul-ture to help students understand our food system.

Goal: Promote the development and useof instructional materials to prepare stu-dents in all aspects of the food system tofoster critical thinking, problem solving,leadership, and academic and technicalskill attainment. Build awareness of NewHampshire agriculture and its historic, cul-tural, economic, and quality of life contri-butions to the state that are necessary to bean informed citizen.

How food is produced and how it gets to the tableis basic information abut how the world works.Some students in New Hampshire receive thiscontent through existing curricula that deal withnutrition, food preparation skills, the taste appealof fresh foods, and the connection of food to loca-tion. Of special concern to farmers is the degreeto which students are taught about New Hamp-shire agriculture and its role in stewardship, con-servation, and maintaining a working landscape tobenefit everyone’s quality of life. This particularknowledge about farming in our state is whatfuture voting citizens need to have as context forinformed decisions about everything from localzoning ordinances to constitutional amendments.

Farm organizations have developed different pro-gram materials for use in elementary schools tobegin the education process with a sense of won-der about the subject and direct experience withthe farm. With origins as a USDA project, NewHampshire Agriculture in the Classroom (Ag inthe Classroom) is an independent, non-profit orga-nization funded by donations from farmers andfarm organizations. Ag in the Classroom is gearedto fourth grade students. It provides curriculummaterials, classroom project materials (such asgrowing seeds in controlled conditions), teachertraining workshops, and helps coordinate farm vis-its. Food, Land, and People is another elementaryeducation program that focuses on farming in thecontext of food supply and environmental steward-ship. Project Learning Tree is an additional ele-

mentary education effort that concentrates on theforestry industry.

All of these programs are aimed at building aware-ness of farming and how it touches the lives ofstudents. None intends to train farmers. Butbeginning in high school, students may enroll inVocational Agricultural Education Programs(VoAgEd). Such programs are available in sixteenhigh schools around the state, and out-of-districtstudents must obtain permission to attend. Cur-rently, there are about 1,800 students takingVoAgEd classes in New Hampshire, with enroll-ment trending modestly upward. Course offeringsinclude agri-science subjects from animal agricul-ture as well as crops, with courses related togreenhouse agriculture predominating. Withemphasis on biological processes, the VoAgEdclasses provide practical background for studies intechnical life sciences like genetics and bioscience.

To assist in the coordination of programs for the1,800 enrolled students, the state Department ofEducation has an educational consultant position.This position is currently budgeted for, yet vacant.Filling the position with an educational consultantwhose responsibility is specifically directed at sup-porting VoAgEd programs could provide manybenefits. Keeping the existing programs strongbenefits all of agriculture through workforce train-ing that supplies a skilled labor force to the indus-try, in particular the greenhouse sector. VoAgEdprograms can also serve as small business genera-tors as some students decide to start their ownbusiness, often in greenhouse or landscaping.

There are other efforts that are not strictly relatedto educational programs in elementary or highschools that bear mention because of their positiveimpact on educating youth about farming. The 4-H programs organized by UNH CooperativeExtension have long been a vital part of growingup for farm kids, and now have many more mem-bers who are not farm residents. Exhibiting ani-mals in competitive 4-H shows at New Hamp-shire’s county fairs or attending 4-H summer campmay not qualify as an academic class, but as ameans to strengthen the social fabric of the NewHampshire farm community these activities can’t


be beat. 4-H is a fundamental part of agriculture,forming a base of experience and personal bondsthat carry on into professional careers in farmingand leadership in the community.

Another program that is part of the agriculturaleducation landscape is FFA, formerly known asFuture Farmers of America. The focus of FFA ison leadership development and training for highschool age youth. The state FFA Executive Direc-tor is housed in the New Hampshire Department

of Agriculture, Markets, and Food. The position isfunded by Carl Perkins grants (Federal grant dol-lars), and a small line item in the State Departmentof Education budget for Career and Technical Stu-dent Organizations. FFA also has a majority of itsmembership that are non-farm kids that have anopportunity to learn about farming. FFA continuesto provide experiential leadership skills trainingthat benefits the farm community and the entirestate.

35



Authorize Agricultural Commissions that localgovernments may choose to adopt as an advisorycommittee.

Goal: Create local agricultural championswho promote farms and offer advice toother town boards on how to encouragetowns to be farm-friendly.

Many towns are trying to find ways to supportagriculture and preserve a rural quality of life.Based on experience in neighboring states, Agri-cultural Commissions can help protect farm lands,provide a voice for farm businesses, and encour-age the establishment of more farm enterprises.Agricultural Commissions provide a structuredmechanism for towns totake positive action tostay farm-friendly bysetting up a town com-mittee whose job is tolook out for the interestsof agriculture andencourage others to doso, too.

Agricultural Commis-sions would not haveany enforcement powersor regulatory authority.Their role is to adviseother town boards andadvocate farming.Potential activities of anAgricultural Commissionmay include fundraisingfor local farmland pro-tection, starting a localfarmers’ market, servingas mediator for disagreements about agriculturalpractices between farmers and non-farmers, assist-ing the Planning Board in the analysis of develop-ment proposals that would effect existing farms oragricultural resources, and obtaining technicalassistance on farmland management issues such asconservation planning, Best Management Practicesfor farm activities, and environmental stewardship.

Statewide enabling legislation that spells out welldefined duties and limitations of AgriculturalCommissions would allow local voters to make aninformed choice on whether to adopt AgriculturalCommissions for their municipality. Clear pur-pose, composition, powers, and duties for Agricul-tural Commissions that is set up in state lawshould parallel the legal framework of other localboards that have only advisory and review authori-ty, such as Heritage Commissions. This wouldprovide a uniform structure for towns that chooseto adopt Agricultural Commissions and improvetheir ability to cooperate between towns and sharesuccessful approaches to problems.

Some towns in New Hampshire have already cre-ated “Agricultural Committees” by action of thelocal legislative body at Town Meeting. However,

this method of creating atown sanctioned body to actin the interest of agriculturerequires annual reauthoriza-tion at Town Meeting.

The Coalition for SustainingNew Hampshire Agriculture,an unofficial group of repre-sentatives from many differ-ent agricultural, land use,and nutrition organizations(including UNH CooperativeExtension), is developing atoolkit of information onformation and operation ofAgricultural Commissions.The Coalition has a historyof developing backgroundinformation, operating pro-cedures, and best practicesrelated to keeping townsfarm-friendly. The Coalition

typically develops such training materials, thenprovides training seminars and workshops to dis-seminate the information. Ongoing access to theinformation is provided through the Coalition’sfrequently updated manual, “Preserving RuralCharacter Through Agriculture,” which is alsoavailable on-line. The Coalition provides this ser-vice at no cost to the towns or other organizationsthat benefit from this training.

The Role of Agricultural Commissions

Agricultural Commissions can serve their com-munities as an information bridge between farmbusinesses and the non-farm public. In this role,Agricultural Commissions can work with othertown boards on issues that effect farmers. Forexample, if the Planning Board has proposed anamendment to the town zoning ordinance thatregulates signs, the Agricultural Commission cancooperate with the Planning Board to makeknown the potential pitfalls for farm businesses.The Agricultural Commission can also make rec-ommendations about how that ordinance couldbe altered to assist farm businesses, such asallowing temporary signs for seasonal crops.Actions taken by town boards that unduly restrictfarm businesses are often done without specificconsideration of consequences to farmers. Agri-cultural Commissions provide a way for the gov-erning bodies of the town to consider the effecton agriculture before taking action.

36



Remove rules and regulations burdensome toagriculture and identify ways the State of NewHampshire can assist.

Goal: Create awareness in State andLocal regulatory authorities that “agricul-tural activities are a beneficial and worth-while feature of the New Hampshire land-scape” (RSA 672:1). Farm enterprisesshould not suffer from rules, regulations,laws, and ordinances that are directed pri-marily at non-farm activities, the unrea-sonable interpretation of which oftenignores the traditional, fundamental andaccessory uses of land for farming purpos-es.

New Hampshire is known for its favorable envi-ronment for small businesses. This advantageoussituation extends to farm enterprises. However,the unique nature of farming as both a land useand a business can, in some instances, create amaze of overlapping jurisdictions or misappliedregulatory power. Those regulatory agencies thatfrequently deal with farm businesses from a stand-point of regulating farm production—such asweights and measures, food product safety, andpesticide control—are typically less a source ofdisagreement than regulators that do not regularlydeal with agriculture.

For example, milk inspectors regularlyvisit farms to assure proper sanitation and milkstorage. While few would say that they actuallyenjoy being inspected, such examination is gearedtoward improvement of deficiencies through con-structive criticism by inspectors that are familiarwith industry standards and practices. Dairy farm-ers actually compete for awards based on cleanli-ness and purity standards as a matter of pride andpeer recognition (and also get a premium price,too). It is a regulatory situation where everybodyinvolved knows the intent of the rules, how therules will be applied to practical experience, andhow those rules benefit both the producer and theconsumer.

Perhaps the opposite end of the farm regu-latory spectrum is the application of powers that

don’t seem to fit agricultural enterprises in scopeor intent. For example, Non-residential Site PlanReview regulations that are written to control theaccess, lighting, and parking of commercial busi-nesses are sometimes misapplied to farm business-es. The intent of Site Plan Review regulationsshould not be to assure uniformity of all commer-cial businesses at the expense of removing therural experience of buying farm products directfrom the grower. Where many farm businesses areseasonal and of limited impact, regulating them bythe same standards as would apply to a shoppingmall seems to have little justification beyond“everybody else has to do it.” Expecting start-upfarm businesses that may grow summer berries, orfall pumpkins, or winter Christmas trees to complywith the same site plan standards as year-roundbusinesses is a sure way to reduce the number ofnew farm enterprises. In addition, requiringexcessive site plan improvements, such as a pavedparking lot, is at odds with the dirt farm road feelthat most consumers are looking for when theyvisit a farm to buy local produce.

The above examples of milk inspection and SitePlan Review regulations give some specificinstances of the variety of rules and regulationsthat farm businesses face. Uncovering the broadthemes of how rules and regulations effect farms ismore difficult. First, farm businesses are hard tofit into a uniform regulatory scheme because ofthe wide diversity in farm size, annual revenue,ownership structure, and marketing approaches.There is a powerful need to assess rules and regu-lations in terms of many small producers ratherthan a few big employers. Second, there has beena fundamental change in patterns of farm opera-tion, entry into farming, and farm labor usage.Compared to the past, more farm businesses arenow part-time, seasonally operated, started bymature owners, and more reliant on part-timeemployees.

These two broad themes—diversity in the natureof farm businesses, and variability in the opera-tional characteristics of farm businesses—indicatea need for additional regulatory flexibility to dealwith the changing circumstances. For example,the Bureau of Food Protection (part of the Depart-

37


ment of Health and Human Services) has recentlyproposed new rules for a homestead food licenseto simplify food licensing for residential, non-commercial kitchens. Acting on authorizing legis-lation from the 2006 session (HB 1683-FN), newrules allow processing of certain foods in homekitchens for retail sale at farmers’ markets, farmstands, or residences. This expands the marketingpossibilities for many small farmers, yet still pro-tects public safety by requiring training and certifi-cation.

Perhaps less apparent is the need to clear up themany contradictory definitions of farming in statelaw. It is increasingly important to establish that aparticular farm business is indeed a farm anddeserves regulatory treatment as a farm. Farmoperations face an operational risk by beingdeclared “not a farm” by some regulatory body,and therefore being denied the opportunities thatalready exist in state law. For example, somelocal land use boards take advantage of the hybridland use/business aspect of a farm by declaring theoperation “commercial” and therefore subject tomore restrictive regulation. The state definition of

agriculture (RSA 21:34-a) resolves such misinter-pretation by spelling out the activities of a farmrelated to production and marketing of crops andlivestock. A uniform definition of farming (as bestdescribed in RSA 21:34-a) that is consistentthroughout state law and used by local land useboards would significantly assist farm businesses.

The need to respond to the changing nature offarming by further regulatory adjustment is abroad policy perspective that seeks to maintainfarm viability and encourage new farm businesses.The abundant justification for this policy perspec-tive has long been a part of how New Hampshireviews agriculture. Existing state law presumesthat farming provides unique, positive benefits tothe community “…and the tradition of using theland resource for agricultural production is anessential factor in providing for the favorable qual-ity of life in the state.” (RSA 672:1 III-b).

Discussion and details of eleven proposed changesto specific New Hampshire laws appear in theAppendix.

38



Continue the Task Force process of looking atthe current status and future needs of agriculturein New Hampshire.

Goal: Direct the State Agricultural Advi-sory Board to serve as the body authorizedto review and make recommendations rel-ative to the continuing viability of agricul-ture in New Hampshire.

The business of farming has changed a great dealsince an effort similar to this Task Force report 27years ago. The pace of change in agriculture hasaccelerated during that time. Like the rest of theglobalizing world of business, the need for rapidresponse to consumer demands and the swift con-sequence of misreading market signals havebecome further challenges to farm business opera-tors. Timely review of the appropriate administra-tive, legal, and regulatory environment of agricul-tural businesses is an essential exercise. Thosewithin the agricultural industry must take it uponthemselves to periodically identify major trends inhow farming is conducted and suggest policy thatresponds with opportunities for viable farm opera-tions.

What farmers grow, who they sell to, and howthey grow it changes quickly. Agricultural tech-nology continues to transform this generation’sfarm business just as the tractor and hybrid seedtransformed its grandparents’. Farmers todaycarry on a legacy of innovation and creative use ofavailable resources. New Hampshire farmers havesome success in direct innovation in plant genet-ics, equipment design, and production techniques.But where New Hampshire farmers shine is inadaptive use of new technology to gain marketadvantage within nearby population centers.

The new technology used by New Hampshirefarmers is often related to marketing and promo-tion. Exploiting the Internet for marketing prod-ucts or buying farm inputs is an example. Butbeyond the positioning, labeling, and storytellingabout a farm product is a native ability of NewHampshire farmers to figure out what the public

wants and find a way to sell it to them. The influ-ence of consumer choice has become more imme-diate and requires quick response. Health anddietary concerns have made some consumers moresensitive and selective about food choices. Thishas generated a plethora of organic, low-fat, cho-lesterol-free, calcium-fortified, low-carbohydrate,high-protein, sugar-free food and beverage prod-ucts. Creative New Hampshire farmers havefound ways to meet these needs…or re-direct con-sumers to products that represent an entirely dif-ferent quality of authenticity to the consumer.

Consumer preferences will continue to have influ-ence into the future. That influence will spreadbeyond just the farm products offered and reach tohow the farm product is grown. The brisk expan-sion of organic growing in New Hampshire is justone way consumer preference is changing the wayfarming is done. Another example is beef that isgrown for the local customers who buy a wholeanimal for their freezer. While not strictly organic,it is seen by some consumers as more natural andmore humane than anonymous beef from thesupermarket. Perhaps the greatest opportunity forNew Hampshire farmers is to find ways to tap intothe consumer preference for locally grown foodand products.

The New Hampshire farmer of the future typicallywill bring more education, more marketing savvy,more business management experience, and abroader understanding of business risk to the task.All this will be in the face of global competitionfor food production and a rapidly changing localfarm business environment. Newly formed smalland niche agricultural businesses will continue toinject vitality into New Hampshire. Agri-tourismenterprises will attract more people to live thefarm experience on a hay ride or overnight at afarm Bed & Breakfast.

These seemingly disparate trends point to a futurewhere the public consistently demands more thanjust farm products from farmers. They will expectfarmers to be valuable stewards of the land, pro-duce crops and products with integrity, and, ifoffered, be effective guides of the farm experience.New Hampshire farm businesses of the future will

39


have many opportunities, but they will most cer-tainly require more interaction with the public asconsumer and as neighbor.

Regular review of the trends in agriculture and theexpectations of the public are essential for thefuture of farming in New Hampshire. The meth-ods and technologies of agriculture are well regu-lated as sources of public risk from several per-spectives: food-borne illness prevention by licens-

ing and inspection (HHS); zoonotic disease pre-vention by livestock vaccination (NHDAMF);environmental safety by pesticide registration andcertification (NHDAMF); and irrigation manage-ment by water use reporting requirements (DES)to name just a few. Future reviews of technologi-cal trends in farming are necessary for regulationsto be effective. Less apparent is the need forreview of what the public expects from the landuse/business of farming.

40


Detailed Recommended Changes to State LawRegarding Burdensome, Confusing, or Conflict-ing Law

Proposal 1. Add language to RSA 672:1 III-b toclarify that the spirit of RSA 672:1 applies to Stateagencies and political bodies. Added words areshown italicized for RSA 672:1 III-b to read asfollows:

Agriculture makes vital and significantcontributions to the food supply, the econ-omy, the environment and the aestheticfeatures of the state of New Hampshireand the tradition of using the land resourcefor agricultural production is an essentialfactor in providing for the favorable quali-ty of life in the state. Natural features, ter-rain and the pattern of geography of thestate frequently place agricultural land inclose proximity to other forms of develop-ment and commonly in small parcels.Agricultural activities are a beneficial andworthwhile feature of the New Hampshirelandscape and shall not be unreasonablylimited by use of municipal planning andzoning powers or by the unreasonableinterpretation of such powers, nor shallagriculture be unreasonably limited byother government agencies or politicalbodies.

Proposal 2. Add language to RSA 672:1 III-d toclarify that the spirit of RSA 672:1 applies to Stateagencies and political bodies. Added words areshown italicized for RSA 672:1 III-d to read asfollows:

III-d. For purposes of paragraphs III-b, III-c,and III-e, “unreasonable interpretation” includesthe failure of local land use authorities and othersto recognize that agriculture, forestry, and com-

mercial and recreational fisheries, when practicedin accordance with applicable laws and regula-tions, are traditional, fundamental and accessoryuses of land throughout New Hampshire, and thata prohibition upon these uses cannot necessarilybe inferred from the failure of an ordinance or reg-ulation or law or administrative rules to addressthem;

Proposal 3. Establish in RSA 674:43 IV that agri-cultural enterprises may be considered below thethreshold for site plan review by nature. Thischange would enable towns to recognize that agri-culture is a beneficial land use within the town,and strict conformity with site plan review regula-tions as applied to commercial development isinappropriate for review of farms. Add languageto RSA 674:43 IV to clarify that towns mayexempt farms from strict conformity with site planreview regulations. Added words are shown itali-cized for RSA 674:43 IV to read as follows:

IV. The local legislative body of amunicipality may by ordinance or resolu-tion establish thresholds based on the sizeof a project or a tract below which siteplan review shall not be required. If amunicipality establishes a size limit belowwhich site plan review shall not berequired, the planning board shall adopt oramend its regulations to clearly reflect thatthreshold. Agricultural operations con-forming to the definition of agriculture inRSA 21:34-a may be considered below thethreshold for site plan review by nature.Nothing in this paragraph shall precludethe planning board from establishing suchthresholds in the absence of action by thelegislative body.

Appendix

41


Site plan review regulations adopted without con-sideration for the unique characteristics and needsof agriculture risk discouraging farming and pre-venting farmers from making changes andimprovements needed to remain economicallyviable. The increasing technical sophistication oflocal site plan review regulations places excessiveburdens on the agricultural community. The plan-ning board in a community that wants to encour-age agriculture can take several steps to preventburdensome regulatory costs. State law (RSA674:43) allows the local legislative body or theplanning board to establish threshold limits belowwhich site plan review is not required, but suchthresholds are based only on the size of the projector tract. Communities uncomfortable with com-plete exemption of farms from this local reviewprocess could establish a reduced or modified siteplan review process. Modern farm systems can bevery complex and specialized. Planning boardscan get the expert information and advice theyneed to understand and evaluate these plans prop-erly from UNH Cooperative Extension, USDANatural Resources Conservation Service, the NewHampshire Department of Agriculture, Markets,and Food, or conservation districts.

Proposal 4. Rescind RSA 259:3 (Title XXI,Motor Vehicles, Words and Phrases Defined) andRSA 259:32 (Title XXI, Motor Vehicles, Wordsand Phrases Defined). A more comprehensive andcurrent definition of “Farm, Agriculture and Farm-ing” appears in RSA 21:34-a, which includes sub-stantially all of the content of the RSA’s proposedfor deletion.

Proposal 5. Add the following definition to RSA21:34-a. “Agritourism: based on attracting visitorsto farm operations for the purpose of eating ameal, making overnight stays, enjoyment, educa-tion or active involvement in the activity of thefarm or operation.”

Proposal 6. Strike the following from RSA147:10. “… and no pen or sty for swine, …” .RSA 21:34-a defines agriculture, RSA 147:10 istoo vague and can be misconstrued to encompassall swine operations commercial or otherwise.

Proposal 7. Amend RSA 147:13 with the follow-ing, “or agricultural operations as defined by RSA21:34-a.”. As written the law is vague and can bemisinterpreted to include agricultural activities.

Proposal 8. Rescind RSA 259:32. A better moreencompassing definition occurs in RSA 21:34-a.

Proposal 9. RSA 261:84 Farm Plates. Add asection similar to section V of RSA 261:82 Agri-cultural Plates to this RSA. It would provide aclerk justification for issuing the plate and puts theonus on the applicant to state that they are in fact afarmer.

Proposal 10. Restrict Cities and Towns from over-riding an RSA that provides a specific exemptionto that RSA. RSA 320:3, II, specifically exempts,“Any person selling the product of his own laboror the labor of his family or the product of his ownfarm or the one he tills” from the requirement fora license under RSA 320:2, which states “Nohawker or peddler shall sell or barter or carry forsale or barter, or expose therefore[e], any goods,wares or merchandise, unless he holds a license todo so as herein provided.” RSA 47:17 Bylaws andOrdinances, grants certain cities the right to beself-inspecting and to establish their own ordi-nances that are more restrictive than state RSAs.The City of Nashua, for example, requires both theNashua farmers’ market and the vendors selling atthat market to obtain Hawkers and PeddlersLicenses. This places an undue economic burdenon the farmers’ market and the vendors.

42


Proposal 11. Amend RSA 72:12-d to allowdemountable, plastic covered greenhouses to haveinstalled electricity, heat, ventilation, and irrigationthat allows use when such utilities must be pro-tected from freezing. The amended version wouldinclude changes in language to read as follows:

For purposes of this section, the term “demount-able, plastic covered greenhouse” means:

c) Electric services may be fixedto the underlying real estatee) A source of heat may be fixedto the underlying real estatef) A source of ventilation may befixed to the underlying real estateg) An irrigation system may befixed to the underlying real estate

43


THE FARM VIABILITY TASK FORCE Fall 2006

ELIZABETH CORELL, 9 Liberty St, Concord, 03301 224-1845 [email protected]

HELEN COSTELLO, Nutrition Crossroads, 4 Wildemere Terr, Concord, 03301 344-5639 [email protected]

NANCY HIRSHBERG, Stonyfield Farm Inc, 10 Burton Dr, Londonderry, 03053437-4040 x 2270 [email protected]

COURTNEY HODGE, Echo Farm, 573 Chesterfield Rd, Hinsdale, 03451 336-7706 [email protected]

JON HUNTINGTON, 7281 Pleasant St, Loudon, 03307 435-5002

WAYNE MANN, 35 Fife Rd, Canterbury, 03224-2015783-9886 [email protected]

GARY MATTESON, 95 Swamp Rd, Epsom, 03234 736-8185 [email protected]

JEANIE MCINTYRE, Upper Valley Land Trust, 19 Buck Rd, Hanover, 03755 643-6626 [email protected]

LORRAINE MERRILL 73 College Rd., Stratham, NH 03885772-6398 [email protected]

LISA DERBY ODEN Blue Ribbon Consulting, PO Box 435 New Ipswich, NH 03071878-1694 [email protected]

JACK POTTER, Shaker Woods Farm, 30 Lower Smith Rd, Sanbornton, 03269 528-1990 [email protected]

DIANE SOUTHER , 580 Mountain Rd, Concord, NH 03301224-8862 [email protected]

ROBERT WELLINGTON, 6 Hilltop Circle, Hooksett, 03106 485-2240/978-689-4442 [email protected]

Special thanks to:Jim Putnam of First Pioneer Farm Credit for the charts and graphs contained in this report.Caroline Robinson of Stratham for design and layout

Date post:	08-Oct-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

Cultivating Success on New Hampshire Farms - NH Dept. of Agriculture … · making uniform public...

Documents