Impacts on Rural Land Values / Straight Talk by Martha Stevens

Martha Stevens is livestock farmer who lives and farms near Hatfield, Missouri. This article is part of an ongoing series by Martha Stevens - Straight Talk - commenting on the life and politics of farming in Missouri and the U.S. as a whole.

Hot off the FAX machine came two documents outlining studies done by the University of Missouri. They most assuredly got my attention.

The first study was conducted by Mubarek Hamed, Thomas G. Johnson, and Kathleen K. Miller of the University’s Community Policy Analysis Center, The Impacts of Animal Feeding Operations on Rural Land Values. It was originally presented in Saline County in May of last year -- and my, didn’t they keep it quiet! (Remember the ‘The closer they are, the better they’re liked’ quote from this same university a few years ago?)

In a nutshell, the study reported how recent trends toward larger and more concentrated operations have had some positive, but also notable negative impacts on the rural communities of their vicinity. Although they create positive impacts through job creation, they negate that impact through odor from manure handling facilities and the barns. As a result of those negative impacts, the report concludes that the operations have a dramatic effect on property values of nearby property and that there is definitely a relationship between the proximity to a CAFO and the value of surrounding property.

Data was collected on 99 rural land real estates transactions, with similar access to a primary road, improvements, etc. Those within 3 miles of CAFO property (Bear in mind this is distance from the land boundaries, and not from the lagoons or buildings) resulted in an average loss of property value of approximately $112 per acre.

The study went on to state that there is a clear equity issue when long-term residents experience such a decrease in their property value due to a CAFO locating in the vicinity.

The second Univ. of Missouri study, by Michael Seipel, Mubarak Hamed, J. Sanford Rikoon and Anna M. Kleiner of the Dept. of Rural Sociology and Dept. of Ag Economics, reached a similar conclusion.

This study, conducted in Putnam County, concluded that there was a $58 per acre reduction, but also pointed out that that figure was somewhat flawed in that the study included land purchased by Premium Standard Farms for their operation at a higher market rate. Also, it should be noted that the $58 per acre price reduction for those located within the 3.2 km equates to approximately 14 %.

In their summary regarding the study, the researchers concluded that a number of factors combined to influence the land prices close to CAFOs, including an unwillingness of neighboring farms to expand in the area, a reluctance of investors or other farmers to acquire land in close proximity, (I can’t imagine why!) and increasing consideration of the residential and recreational potential of rural land located near a CAFO.

In 1996. the Missouri legislature passed a bill requiring a 914.4 meter buffer between buildings or lagoons and public buildings or residences - -considerably less than the 3.2 km used in the study. Further, this study also used property boundaries as the starting point, and not the source of the problem: buildings, lagoons, and spreading area. The researchers concluded that the negative impacts of swine odor may extend much farther than the law currently recognizes, and suggests a definite need for greater setback distance requirements.

Perhaps it is time for county assessors to get out their maps, draw a circle from the CAFO property lines -- on all sides -- to cover the 3 mile area and refigure those land assessments! Maybe, just maybe, if you use the decreased land value in your calculations - -and you should - -the mega opportunities have not been such an "economic boom" to the area as some first thought.

Today’s Quote: "The truth of the matter is that you always know the right thing to do. The hard part is doing it."--Gen. H. Norman Schwarzkopf