Best way to preserve our farmland is not to build on it

By ERIC CAINE
columns@modbee.com

E-Mail

Comments (0)

Text Size:

tool goes here

Several readers of my last column ("Preservation of farms and wetlands better than mitigation," March 21) thought I was far too pessimistic about the uses of mitigation to preserve our world-class farmland. One reader, whose knowledge of farmland issues far surpasses mine, thought I had been dismissive of what she views as our last, best hope of preserving "the best farmland in the world."

Though I wrote that mitigation may not be the best way to preserve our most productive farmland, I by no means intended that statement to be used as an argument against mitigation. Rather, I meant then, and intend to argue now, that we should not be building on our best farmland. Period.

How much sense does it make to cover productive farmland with asphalt and concrete when we are facing a global food shortage and when we have learned time and again that residential growth in the Central Valley comes with ever-increasing costs, inevitably borne by current residents?

Along with global food shortages, rising energy prices are driving food costs beyond the ability of many to pay for much beyond subsistence. Meanwhile, Central Valley residents have yet to circle the wagons around nearby farmland, which provides the most abundant, most nutritious, freshest and cleanest food in the world.

Valley farmers continue to innovate. They are using less water, fewer pesticides and more efficient fertilizers to produce more abundant crop yields. Organic farming promises handsome profits while it satisfies public demand for cleaner food and more benign land and water use.

Sciabica olive oil and Fiscalini Farmstead cheeses consistently do well in worldwide competitions that judge highest quality products. Niche farmers such as Patterson's Charley Fernandez produce specialty items such as mizuna, a lettuce popular in Japan, all the while pioneering ever more efficient methods of organic farming.

While there's no question that mitigation and conservation easements are the most reliable ways to protect our farmland, we should be thinking hard about prohibiting building on productive farmland for any reason -- mitigated or not.

It makes far more sense to build on marginal land, or on land where crops are heavily subsidized and easily replaced by other products.

A few years ago, many of the valley's movers and shakers were arguing that food production was moving to Mexico and South America, and we no longer had to worry about our farmland production. Rising energy costs and questions about pesticide levels in imported foods have for the most part defeated those arguments.

While there always will be competition from imports, the fact is that the United States is far and away the largest contributor of food for foreign aid, and it looks almost certain that no country will be able to compete with us in quality food production in the near future.

This does not mean we should stop using mitigation and easements to protect our ever more valuable farmland. It does mean we should consider a regional plan that identifies and protects our most productive farmland even from "mitigated" development. Period.

Caine, a Modesto resident, teaches in the humanities department at Merced College. E-mail him at columns@modbee.com.