Rising land values, outdated payment cap hurt farmland preservation program, audit finds

Rising land values and an outdated cap on funds paid to farmers to avoid land sell-offs are constraining a state-run program to preserve vital farmland, according to a new audit by state Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli.

New York State lost nearly 365,000 acres and 2,800 farms between 2017 and 2022, the audit noted, making the state Department of Agriculture and Markets farm-protection program all the more important to keep more than 7 million remaining acres of state land farmed, the audit said.

New York ranks within the country’s top 20 “most threatened states for farmland conversion,” with some 2 million acres considered “vulnerable” to other uses as it changes hands to family heirs. Around a third of New York farmers are over 65 and own those 2 million acres. At current rates, some 452,000 acres could be lost to suburban sprawl or other uses by 2040, the audit notes.

Farm-preservation efforts are helping but a $2 million cap on what can be paid to individual farmers in transactions to buy the development rights or other protections to keep the land as farms has not kept pace with the accelerated increase in land values since that limit was set in 2014, DiNapoli’s office said. Buying a farm’s development rights allows the property to remain in a farmer’s possession but limits any future use of the property to farming.

That $2 million limit “poses a challenge depending on the size of the farm needing protection,” DiNapoli’s audit continued. “Rising land values and funding constraints make it increasingly challenging for the program to compete with other developmental pressures.”

That cap “has a greater impact on regions with higher land values and greater development pressures,” notably on Long Island, the audit found. “Farms in high-value areas may not be able to obtain adequate funding for the farmland conservation in one application.”

The state Department of Agriculture and Markets, in a response to the audit, acknowledged some program elements could use reevaluation but emphasized that the agency has done so throughout its history.

A separate report by the comptroller’s office in 2024 that is referenced in the audit found that Long Island had a “major farming presence but losses of farmland to suburban development resulted in this region having the lowest number of farms and the least amount of farmland of any region outside New York City.” Long Island has some 34,486 farmed acres, but only 1,008 acres, or 3% are preserved under the farm-protection program.

By comparison, the Capital region (around Albany) has 798,678 acres, with 28,448 acres, or 4%, preserved. The Capital, Finger Lakes and Central regions of upstate account for 44% of the state’s total farmland. In all, 27 of the state’s 62 counties have never received a farmland preservation grant, the audit noted.

Worse, the state program for getting money to farmers who apply can be hindered by bureaucracy, including the timely redistribution of money that is allocated to regions that are not even eligible for preservation funds.

The state Department of Agriculture and Markets “allocates funding to the New York City region although it is ineligible to apply for grants, and then subsequently reallocates this funding, resulting in grant delays,” the audit found.

Two recent rounds of funding for farmers were delayed from 181 days to 233 days because of the red tape, the audit found.

That is not to say the department hasn’t accomplished its goals. The program, between 2005 and 2023, has helped to preserve more than 400 farms encompassing some 114,000 acres, the audit notes. The program paid some $274 million to preserve the land, with $4.5 million allocated to preserve farms in each of the 10 New York regions. Unused funds by any one region are later shared among the others.

DiNapoli’s auditors suggest raising the $2 million cap to an unspecified level and revising the regional allocation of funds with an emphasis on those regions that are eligible and could use more funding. They also recommended increasing outreach and education so that farmers are aware of the programs benefits.

“We found that some [land trusts] may not be fully informed at all grant requirements or even that the program is available to assist in preserving farmland,” resulting in low allocations in some regions, the report said.

In a response letter included with the report, Agriculture and Markets commissioner Richard Ball said he “generally agrees” with the audit’s recommendation to revise the regional allocation approach, increase funding caps and use more relevant data to base grant decisions, indicating the process has been ongoing.

The agency “has continuously evaluated the [program] over its 20-year history and will continue to do so,” Ball wrote. “Numerous adjustments to the process have been made over the course of the entire program … And [Ag and Markets] will continue to assess the program and make changes as necessary.”

Ball conceded that the grant program could benefit from better outreach and promotion but noted that the program “relies upon locally led efforts to identify/select which farms are submitted” for funding. The agency itself doesn’t enter into the individual conservation easement with farmers, leaving that up to local land trusts or other eligible parties.

By Mark Harrington

mark.harrington@newsday.comMHarringtonNews

Mark Harrington, a Newsday reporter since 1999, covers energy, wineries, Indian affairs and fisheries.