MAJOR%20POINTS%20OF%20THIS%20TALK

1
MAJOR POINTS OF THIS TALK

• Butler/Cunningham Background
• Current Alabama Agriculture and Rural Life
• Alabama Agriculture Before 1950
• Alabama Agriculture After 1950 Decline and
  Change
• Recent non-row crop agriculture
• Recent non-traditional rural residents and the
  Urban-Rural Interface
• Social effects of changes in rural life
• Corporate role in modern agriculture
• Land value, land use, land tax, development
• Environmental issues
• Polls on attitudes toward agriculture and land use

2
BUTLER/CUNNINGHAM BACKGROUND

• Major sections of this presentation will have
  begin with a slide that has a pale green
  background, and in which the caption is in large
  capital letters, like this slide.

3
Butler/Cunningham Endowment

• Eugene Butler and Emory Cunningham published
  journals about Southern rural life, such as
  Southern Living Magazine and Progressive
  Farmer.
• About 1990, they endowed the College of
  Agriculture of Auburn University with a fund for
  an Eminent Scholar in Agriculture and the
  Environment in Alabama. Normally the term lasts
  from two to five years. The scholar in 2004 is
  Claude E. Boyd of the Department of Fisheries.
• For further information www.ag.auburn.edu/BC

4
Eugene Butler
5
Emory Cunningham
6
Conference Series

• Dr. Boyd began a series of conferences on
  agriculture and the environment in Alabama. There
  have been two conferences so far, in November
  2002 and November 2003. Each lasted for two
  days, had about half-a-dozen major topics with
  about half-a-dozen speakers, and other events.
  The speakers are from around the country. Another
  conference is scheduled for November 2004.

7
Specific Conferences

• FIRST conference was on the history of, and
  issues (problems) with, agriculture and the
  environment in Alabama.
• SECOND conference was on land history, farming
  history, settlement history, land value, land
  prices, the evaluation of land, and some
  questions about taxes.
• THIRD conference will be about the upcoming USDA
  Ag Census release in 2004, and about appropriate
  institutional and private responses to the issues
  raised in the first two conferences.

8
CURRENT ALABAMA AGRICULTURE AND RURAL LIFE
9
Various Land Uses 2004, in acres

• 1,123,249
• 454,486
• 884,891
• 2,212732
• 7,860,345
• 6,657,414
• 7,801,353
• 3,453,377
• 3,110,794
• 33,682,203

• Open Water
• Developed
• Barren
• Wetlands
• Deciduous Forest
• Evergreen Forest
• Mixed Forest
• Pasture/Hay
• Row Crops
• TOTAL STATE

10
Land in Various Ag Uses 2002 (from USDA Bulletin
45, page 11)

• 1000 acres 1000 dollars
• Corn 400 42,768
• Cotton lint 590 117,300
• Hay 800 96,800
• Peanuts 190 63,714
• Soybeans 170 19,902
• Winter Wheat 150 6,960
• Sweet corn 1.9 1,972
• Tomatoes 1.2 7,438
• Watermelons 4.0 2,933
• Peaches - 8,360
• Floriculture (page 28) - 66,234

11
Livestock and Poultry Receipts 2002(from USDA
Bulletin 45, page 29)

• Million dollars Total
• Broilers 1,610 67.6
• Cattle and calves 305 12.8
• Eggs 297 12.5
• Catfish 76 3.2
• Dairy 38 1.6
• Other 34 1.4
• Hogs 20 0.9
• TOTAL about 2,380

12
Revenue from Major Ag Sources(1000 dollars from
USDA Bulletin 45, page 44-45)

• Standard Ag (crops) 583,800
• (row crops, orchard, etc.)
• Floriculture 66,234
• Animal husbandry 2,378,300
• (including aquaculture)
• Hunting, fishing, recreation 2,400,000
• (This figure is the approximate official
  statistic, from Steve Guy of ALFA. We are trying
  to get data on unofficial hunting revenues too)
• Forestry 735,150

13
Who Produces How Much

• The next slide shows that a minority of the
  farms (about 8) produces a majority of the crops
  by value (about 82).
• According to Herb Vanderberry of the Alabama
  State Division of the USDA, the same small group
  of farms (about 11) own about 30 of the
  farmland in Alabama.
• This does not mean there is no place for small
  farms or family fams, but only that small farms
  have been under stress, the rural way of life is
  changing, and rural people need to consider many
  options.

14
Who Produces How Much (from 1997 Ag Census)

• Farm size range Total Farms Total Ag Sales
• Less than 10,000 68.9 2.7
• 10,000 - 49,000 16.5 4.5
• 50,000 99,999 3.3 3.1
• 100,000 249,000 3.5 7.6
• 250,000 499,000 3.3 16.2
• 500,00 or more 4.5 65.9

15
ALABAMA AGRICULTURAL HISTORY BEFORE 1950
16
Alabama Agriculture History Before 1950

• European and African settlement was delayed
  until the Native Americans were moved out or
  forced out.
• Original European and African settlement was in
  the best farmland in the valleys, along the Black
  Belt and near Huntsville.
• Later settlement moved into the smaller
  northern valleys and hills, mostly by small scale
  white farmers of Scots-Irish descent.
• By 1920, pretty much all land was densely
  settled and farmed
• The northern areas were in small farms, on
  sandy soil, with mixed forest cover and
  pastureland, and with a long tradition of animal
  raising. Chicken farming later developed here.

17
Early Alabama Population Distribution, 1820
18
Later Alabama Population Distribution, 1860
19
Early Alabama Farm Distribution, 1850
20
Later Alabama Farm Distribution, 1950
21
Table of Alabama Cropland 1850-1950
22
ALABAMA AGRICULTURE SINCE 1950 DECLINE AND
CHANGE
23
Highlights of Alabama Agriculture Since 1950

• Total number of farms has decreased
• Average farm size has increased
• The few remaining row-crop farms are viable
• Originally, Alabama farmland was both
• A. Row crop land
• B. Mixture of pasture and light forest cover
• The pasture and light forest cover was
  converted to pure forest without pasture
• The total forest land grew because of the
  conversion
• Farms that could not raise row crops converted
  to chickens, catfish, and other alternatives

24
Number of Farms and Land In Farms (in acres, all
numbers x 1000)USDA, Economic Research Service
(ERS), "Farm Real Estate Historical Series Data,
1950-1992", Statistical Bulletin No. 855

• Year Number of Farms Land in Farms
•  
• 1950 220 21300
• 1954 168 21200
• 1959 129 17600
• 1964 102 16200
• 1969 85 15000
• 1974 78 14600
• 1978 59 12500
• 1982 55 11800
• 1987 49 10700
• 1992 46 9800
•  

25
Ag and Forest Land Use (in acres, all numbers x
1000)USDA, Economic Research Service (ERS),
"Major Land Uses 1945-1992", Stock No. 89003

•   A. B. C. D. E.
• Year Total Crop Total Forest Woodland
• Only Land Forest Use, as Pasture
• Not
• Grazed
•  
• 1945 32690 8266 18748 4889 13859
• 1949 32690 8271 18817 8305 10512
• 1954 32690 7481 20766 10785 9981
• 1959 32678 6028 20771 16000 4771
• 1964 32545 5211 21749 17241 4508
• 1969 32452 5885 21748 19437 2311
• 1974 32452 5797 21333 19444 1889
• 1978 32452 5888 21333 19452 1881
• 1982 32491 5642 21179 19479 1700
• 1987 32491 4803 21659 19965 1694
• 1992 32480 4539 21941 20337 1604

26
Why Row Crop Agriculture Has Declined

• Crops can grow in Alabama but they cannot compete
  with other areas of the country
• Climate too severe and unpredictable
• Late, early, unpredictable frosts
• Severe storms
• Occasional droughts
• Soil is poor, except for a few good areas in the
  Black Belt and by Huntsville
• Still, some alternatives have opened up

27
(No Transcript)
28
(No Transcript)
29
Climatic Variability Last Frost

• The next slide is a map showing the average date
  of last frost in various places in Alabama.
  There is almost three months difference between
  the north and south of the state. Because of
  this difference across the state, each point in
  the state varies considerably in the date of last
  frost. In Alabama, crops have to be planted
  later than people think, and the growing period
  is shorter than people think. This makes Alabama
  farmers less able to compete.

30
(No Transcript)
31
Alabama Has Poor Average Yields

• The next two slides compare Alabama yields of
  bushels of corn per acre, and pounds per milk of
  cow, with three other states, for two periods
  1960 and 2000.
• Alabama improved its yields, especially with
  milk, but it has not been able to match
  production in other states regardless of how much
  effort has gone into research and extension.
  Notice how production in other states has held
  more steady. Much of the apparent improvement in
  Alabama actually came about because poor
  producers dropped out rather than because all
  producers improved.

32
Average Bushels of Corn per Acre
State/Year 1960 2000
Alabama 26 65
Indiana 68 146
Iowa 64 144
Oregon 69 180

33
Average Pounds of Milk per Cow
State/Year 1960 2000
Alabama 3970 13920
Indiana 7460 16568
Minnesota 8120 17777
Oregon 6980 18222
34
RECENT NON-ROW CROP AGRICULTURE AND OTHER RURAL
ENTERPRISE
35
Recent Non-Row Crop Agriculture,and Other Rural
Enterprise

• Recall current agriculture from the beginning of
  this presentation. Important growth activities
  include
• Poultry and other livestock
• Catfish growing
• Forestry
• Hunting and recreation
• Tourism
• Rural residences of various kinds

36
Graphs of Change in Crops(from Ag Bulletin 45,
courtesy Herb Vanderberry)

• The following sequence of graphs shows changes in
  Alabama crops, mostly since 1950.

37
(No Transcript)
38
(No Transcript)
39
(No Transcript)
40
(No Transcript)
41
(No Transcript)
42
(No Transcript)
43
(No Transcript)
44
(No Transcript)
45
(No Transcript)
46
(No Transcript)
47
(No Transcript)
48
RECENT NON-TRADITIONAL RURAL RESIDENTS AND THE
URBAN-RURAL INTERFACE
49
Alabama Rural Population

• According to the 2000 US Census, now only a
  minority of Alabama rural residents call
  themselves farmers, or live on farms (see next
  slide). We do not know much about the non-farm
  rural residents.

50
Alabama Population 2000 (US Census Data)

• Total Population 4,447,100
• Urban Population 2,465,539
• Rural Population 1,981,561
• Rural Non-farm Population 1,927,390
• Farm Population 54,171
• Total Housing Units 1,963,711
• Urban Housing Units 1,080,525
• Rural Housing Units 883,186
• Rural Non-farm Housing Units 862,385
• Farm Housing Units 20,801

51
Various New Residents

• Old farmers with small plots of land
• Retired people looking for a cheap place to live
• People on pensions
• Poor people in general, many of whom have moved
  back to the countryside
• Mobile home park residents
• Ex-urbanites with a job in town and 1-30 acres of
  a home site
• Ex-urbanites with 10-200 acres of land, and who
  often raise some livestock
• Hobby farmers and cattle growers

52
The Urban-Rural Interface

• In the past 30 years, cities, satellite towns,
  suburban housing developments, and ex-urbanites
  home sites have all expanded rapidly into
  farmland.
• Counties that were once predominantly farming now
  have many non-farming residents living right next
  to farms. The non-farming residents might
  outnumber the farmers.
• The farmers and non-farmers do not always know
  each others way of life, and get along.
• The following pictures were borrowed from various
  presenters at the 2003 conference.

53
(No Transcript)
54
Southeast Fastest Growing Region

• Over 3.26 million acres developed 1992-1997
• Over 652,000 acres per year

55
Atlanta in 1972
56
Atlanta in 1993
57
SOCIAL EFFECTS OF CHANGES IN RURAL LIFE
58
The Rural Life Cycle

• Rural life forms a cycle between successful
  farms, schools, young people, farm-related
  business, social institutions such as the church,
  and decisions to say on the farm.
• When one part of the cycle is broken, the whole
  cycle comes apart.
• Declining relative farm income alone has been
  enough to break the cycle, as people need
  off-farm jobs and young people leave the
  countryside.
• The following slides come from Dr. William Hardy
  of Auburn.

59
(No Transcript)
60
(No Transcript)
61
(No Transcript)
62
Departure of Skilled Workers and Youth
Loss of Jobs
Decrease in Public And Private Investment
Drop in Birth Rate
Consolidation of Government Services Closure
of Businesses, Schools, Churches
63
Here ends the slides from Dr. Hardy
64
ROLE OF COROPORATIONS IN MODERN AGRICULTURE
65
Effects of Corporations

• The family farm has had to adopt the structure of
  a corporate business, which also has changed the
  character of rural life.
• Many farms now are partners with corporations.
  They get their seed from corporations and sell
  their crops (animals) to corporations.
• For example, the chicken industry is done almost
  entirely in partnership with corporations.
• Only a few large corporations now dominate all
  the agribusiness in the world and shape the
  markets.

66

• The following slides are from Professor Taylor
  of Auburn University.

67
The Changing Structure of Global Agriculture

•  

68
The New Cowboy Economy

• The world is going to have a global economy
  without a global government. this means a global
  economy with no enforceable, agreed-upon set of
  rules and regulations, no sheriff to enforce
  codes of acceptable behavior, and no Judges and
  Juries to appeal to if one feels that justice is
  not being done.  
• Lester Thurow

69
Economics of Wealth Creation in the Global Economy

• Businesses bring Labor and Capital together to
  create wealth or profit
• How is wealth distributed in the global economy?
• The investor class increasingly capture wealth
  that is created
• With less and less going to the working class
• Profits increasingly flow to financial centers,
  and not to rural areas

70
The Deadly Combination

• Horizontal concentration
• Vertical integration
• Interlocking spider web of directorates,
  subsidiaries, joint ventures, strategic
  alliances, and partial ownership of other
  agribusiness firms
• No real structure to the global economy
• Only Imposing facades Thurow
• No global antitrust laws or police
• Dated domestic antitrust laws
• Increasingly narrow interpretation of domestic
  antitrust laws
• External (community) costs

71
Early Antitrust Interpretation

• It is not for the real prosperity of any
  country that such changes should occur which
  result in transferring an independent business
  man . . . into a mere servant or agent of a
  corporation . . . having no voice in shaping the
  business policy . . . and bound to obey orders
  issued by others.
• Justice Peckham one of the first substantive
  decisions interpreting the Sherman Antitrust Act
  (from Carstensen)

72
Independent Businessmen?

• Many of us admire the fierce independence of
  farmers and farm families
• Are farmers really independent any more?
• No!
• They are increasingly puppets of the corporate
  world
• Their independence has hindered actions for them
  to band together to countervail corporate power

73
Free Markets?

• There isnt one grain of anything in the world
  that is sold in a free market. Not one! The only
  place you see a free market is in the speeches of
  politicians.
• Dwayne Andreas, CEO of ADM

74
Is the Global Food System Out of Control?

• Our present economic system has emerged without
  any apparent forethought about what kind of
  economic/social system citizens want
• Change has been driven by corporate interests
• Fathers of a competitive market economy
  recognized that there is an inherent instability
  in the system
• A competitive market economy may evolve, through
  natural growth, acquisitions or mergers, to
  monopoly
• Unless the market is regulated
• Antitrust laws were intended to prevent this
  outcome
• Contract production is part of the corporate
  mindset

75
Giant Corporate System

• Big business is not necessarily bad, but
• An imbalance of market power or economic power
  often leads to abuse, which is bad
• Concentration was initially driven by economies
  of size, which do not include costs imposed on
  the environment and on rural communities
• Concentration is now driven more by attempts to
  gain raw economic power than by economies of size
• Corporations are more concerned about immediate
  profit, rather than long-term conservation and
  stewardship
• Increasing control of food production technology

76
Lost in the Fifties

• Small and mid-sized producers of commodities
  selling on the cash market
• Returns will likely be dismally low, at best
• Some markets are disappearing with vertical
  integration
• Many markets thinning due to contracting
• Less accurate and more easily manipulated
• Partial vertical integration transfers risk to
  what remains of the market
• Markets are increasingly manipulated by giant
  transnational corporations

77
Traditional Family Farms

• Growing size
• Attempt to compete within the industrialized
  system
• Some may produce bulk commodities, while others
  will produce identity preserved products
• Even with large size, they cannot countervail the
  market power of buyers of their products, or the
  market power of input sellers
• Thin profit margins

78
Giant Corporate System

• Participation in commercial production
  agriculture is increasingly by invitation only
• Who will be invited?
• Independent, outspoken, astute businessman and
  entrepreneurs?
• Or Servile, submissive, not particularly astute
  businessmen?
• The free market allows for cultural diversity in
  the production system the evolving global food
  system may not
• Are a few CEOs through their economic and
  political power becoming the social planners
  for the world?

79
Here end the slides from Dr. Taylor
80
Degree of Corporate Concentration

• The following data is from Professor William
  Heffernan of the University of Missouri
• Economists worry when the top four firms control
  more than 40 of the industry. The following
  industries were under such control
• Beef packers Flour Milling
• Cattle Feedlots Dry Corn Milling
• Pork packers Wet Corn Milling
• Turkeys Soybean Crushing
• Animal Feed Plants Ethanol Production
• Multiple Elevator Companies

81
Worlds Largest Agribusiness Firms

• The following data is also from Prof. Heffernan
• The worlds largest agribusiness firms are
• Phillip Morris Novartis
• Nestle Continental
• ConAgra
• Archer Daniels Midlands (ADM)
• Cargill
• Dow Chemical
• Monsanto

82
Here ends the slides from Dr. Heffernan
83
LAND USE, LAND, VALUE, TAXES, AND DEVELOPMENT
84
Land Use, Value, and Taxes Main Points

• Rural land in Alabama is valued (1500-1900 per
  acre) about the same as in Georgia and South
  Carolina, less than in Florida, more than in
  Kansas and Mississippi.
• The value of land here does not come primarily
  from its use in agriculture or from its innate
  productivity.
• Land in Alabama has held its value consistently,
  and is a good deal for investment.
• Land taxes in Alabama are the second lowest in
  the nation, lower than all our regional
  neighbors.
• Evaluation for land taxation is not done on the
  basis of current market value but on the basis of
  current use value. Current use evaluation
  results in a value of about 500 per acre.

85
(No Transcript)
86
(No Transcript)
87
(No Transcript)
88
(No Transcript)
89
Alabama Land Values Over Time

• The following slides come from Professor Walt
  Prevatt of Auburn University.
• They show the changes in Alabama land values over
  time, in comparison to the region and to the
  country.

90
Farm Real Estate Values,Alabama, 1950-2003
91
Farm Real Estate Values,Alabama, 1950-2003
1Alabama Farm Real Estate Values were deflated
using the Gross Domestic Product Deflator,
1950100.
92
Annual Percent Change In Farm Real Estate
Values,Alabama, 1950-2003
93
Farm Real Estate Values,Alabama U.S., 1970-2003
94
Here ends the first series of slides from Dr.
Prevatt
95
Population Determines Rural Land Value

• The following slides, also from Dr. Prevatt of
  Auburn, show what influences the value of
  agricultural land. The r2 indicates how
  strongly a factor influences land value.
• The first two slides show that cotton prices and
  calf prices have almost no influence on land
  value. Productivity is not key.
• The third slide shows that timber value accounts
  for about 35 of land value.
• The fourth slide shows that population accounts
  for about 61 of land value (96 35 61).
• Population has influence because of the demand
  for housing and other development. Land can be
  held for speculation because of the low tax.

96
Econometric Analysis Of Value

• Cropland ValueCropland Value f ( Alabama
  Cotton Prices ) Cropland
  Value 1,362 - 525 CP
  R2 0.0693

97
Econometric Analysis Of Value

• Pastureland ValuePastureland Value f (
  Alabama Calf Prices )
  Pastureland Value 937 0.5019 CP
  R2
  0.0009

98
Econometric Analysis Of Value

• Timberland Value
• Timberland Value f ( Alabama Timber Prices
  ) Timberland Value 9.2193
  30.3644 PP
  R2 0.3459

99
Econometric Analysis Of Value

• Farm Real Estate Value (FREV)
• FREV f ( Forestry Receipts Population)
  FREV -1234 2.85
  FR 39.01 POP
  R2 0.9617

100
Here ends the second series of slides from Dr.
Prevatt
101
Raising Taxes

• Alabama land taxes are low. Low land taxes allow
  land to be held by speculators, by successful
  timber growers and farmers, by poor farmers, and
  by poor rural residents.
• Raising taxes might gain some revenue for the
  state, and might cause the land to move.
• Raising taxes might also adversely affect poor
  farmers and poor rural residents.
• Land tax changes have to be part of a larger view
  about taxes and development.

102
Alabama Development Problems

• The following sequence of slides comes from Dr.
  Sumners of Auburn University. It shows that the
  traditional development policy in Alabama has not
  worked.
• The traditional development policy was low land
  taxes, little provided infrastructure, with a
  poor and undereducated work force (but hard
  working). This policy actually resulted in
• High rural poverty
• Poor education, including low test scores
• No infrastructure development
• Out migration
• Break-down of the rural lifestyle
• No Development

103
Economic Development Issues for Rural Alabama
Joe A. Sumners, Ph.D. Director Economic
Development Institute Auburn University 334-844-4
704 sumneja_at_auburn.edu
104
Alabama Rural Distress

• County June 03 Unemployment
• Washington 17.4
• Wilcox 15.4
• Lowndes 13.8
• Dallas 13.7
• Sumter 12.9
• Greene 12.7
• Bullock 12.5
• Choctaw 12.0
• Perry 11.7
• Lamar 10.9
• Hale 10.5
• Butler 10.1
• Randolph 10.0

• County Over 65
• Covington 17.9
• Crenshaw 17.1
• Tallapoosa 16.6
• Clay 16.5
• Henry 16.4
• Geneva 16.3
• Fayette 16.1
• Etowah 16.0
• Lamar 15.9
• Randolph 15.9
• 9. Cherokee 15.9

105
Alabama Rural Distress

• Counties with Lowest SAT Scores
• 1. Bullock
• 1. Macon
• 1. Perry
• 1. Sumter
• 2. Barbour
• 2. Greene
• 2. Lowndes
• 2. Wilcox
• 3. Marengo
• 4. Butler
• 4. Coosa
• 4. Pike
• 4. Russell
• 5. Chambers
• 5. Clarke

• County Median Family Income
• Wilcox 22,200
• Sumter 23,176
• Bullock 23,990
• Greene 24,604
• Perry 26,150
• Macon 28,511
• Lowndes 28,935
• Dallas 29,906
• Butler 30,905
• Crenshaw 31,724

106
History of Economic Development in Alabama

• Throughout the 20th Century, Alabamas economic
  development strategy was built on low taxes and
  unskilled, low-cost labor.
• In the later 20th Century, the U.S began to
  export low wage, polluting industries new focus
  on high technology.
• Alabama was poorly positioned to compete when
  question became not what does labor cost but
  what does labor know.

107
The State of the South 2002 Shadows in the
Sunbelt Revisited (MDC, Inc.)

• National recovery wont bring jobs back to the
  rural South. Production has moved to other
  countries with lower wages, or plants have
  substituted technologically advanced machines for
  people. Tens of thousands of jobs are not coming
  back.
• Gone forever is the kind of economic development
  strategy that Alabama and other Southern states
  used for decades to lure industry Enticing
  companies from afar to relocate with the bait of
  cheap land, low taxes and a surplus of
  hardworking but undereducated workers. That old
  recipe no longer works.

108
Tax Burden

• TOTAL PER CAPITA STATE AND LOCAL TAX REVENUE (FY
  2000)
• STATE TAXES NAT. RANK
• Georgia 2,841 25
• North Carolina 2,664 31
• Florida 2,624 35
• Kentucky 2,517 39
• Louisiana 2,436
  41
• South Carolina 2,379
  44
• Arkansas 2,230 47
• Mississippi 2,214 48
• Tennessee 2,185
  49
• Alabama 2,117 50
• National Average 3,100
• Alabama 68 of Nat. avg 75 of Georgias tax
  burden

109
Property Tax Revenue 2002 (Per Capita)

• PROPERTY TAX REVENUE PER CAPITA (FY 2000) 
• STATE PROP TAXES NAT. RANK
• Florida 882 22
• Georgia 725 33
• South Carolina 668 36
• North Carolina 572 39
• Mississippi 514 40
• Tennessee 507 41
• Kentucky 426 45
• Louisiana 390 46
• Arkansas 361 48
• Alabama 301 50
•   National Average 885
• Alabama 34 of Nat. avg. 54 of other southern
  state avg. (561)

110
Education Spending

• EDUCATION SPENDING PER K-12 PUPIL (2000-01)
• STATE SPENDING NAT. RANK
• Georgia 7,620 19
• Kentucky 7,047 25
• South Carolina 7,012 26
• North Carolina 6,364 39
• Florida 6,254 40
• Louisiana 6,010 41
• Mississippi 5,699 44
• Tennessee 5,693 45
• Arkansas 5,684 46
• Alabama 5,210 47
• National Average 7,463
• Alabama 70 of national average 82 of other
  southern state avg.

111
Rural Schools

• Local funding for education in Alabamas rural
  school systems is only 57 of the local support
  provided to school systems in the states
  metropolitan areas.
• County and city school systems in Alabamas 45
  rural counties average 793 per student in local
  support.
• County and city school systems in the states 22
  counties located in metropolitan statistical
  areas average 1,386 per student a difference
  of 593 per student.
• (Source Public Affairs Research Council of
  Alabama, Samford University, Local Support for
  Public Schools Tax Rates and Revenues Per
  Student, 1999).

112
Economic Growth

• ECONOMIC GROWTH
• ( change in employment 2002-03)
• STATE NAT. RANK
• Florida 4
• Tennessee 10
• Mississippi 12
• Arkansas 16
• Louisiana 18
• Georgia 25
• Kentucky 28
• South Carolina 32
• North Carolina 40
• Alabama 41

113
Economic Growth

• INDEX OF STATE ECONOMIC MOMENTUM (September 2002)
• STATE NAT. RANK
• Florida 5
• Tennessee 12
• South Carolina 20
• Georgia 22
• Arkansas 23
• Kentucky 24
• Mississippi 25
• North Carolina 27
• Louisiana 33
• Alabama 38
• The Index looks at one-year changes in 1)
  employment, 2) personal income, and 3) population

114
Here ends the series from Dr. Sumners
115
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
116
Summary of Environmental Issues

• Along with the country in general, Alabamas
  physical environment improved after 1970, due to
  urban migration, less chemicals on the farm and
  forest, better technology , and the Clean Air and
  Water Acts.
• Alabama actually has a pretty good physical
  environment, largely because it is still largely
  rural (if not agricultural).
• Alabama has some problems left over from the
  past.
• Alabama has some problems in its urban areas.
• Alabama has many concerned groups monitoring the
  environment and helping maintain quality.

117
Summary of Environmental Issues, cont.

• Aside from state actions, land in Alabama is
  conserved in these ways
• Private foundations and trusts
• Farmers finding alternatives uses including
  agro-tourism and rural expensive, extensive
  housing
• Sports, particularly large hunting tracts
• The perception that Alabama has a poor
  environment partly comes from the notion that the
  general quality of life in the South is poor, and
  thus the misconception that the physical
  environment must be poor too. This material may
  be found on the website.

118
Environmental Problems from the Past

• Old mining and manufacturing scars in the north,
  especially around Montgomery.
• Chemicals and radioactive agents from the defense
  industry.
• Lakes, ponds, and streams that had been polluted
  or that had undergone eutrophication, and have
  not recovered.
• Poorly planned water supplies and sewage systems
  for urban areas of all sizes.
• Alabamas physical environmental is fragile due
  to the climate and soil. Some (national)
  forested areas had been logged off or overused,
  and have never properly recovered.

119
Present Environmental Issues

• Alabama gets cheap electricity but it generates
  this electricity primarily through coal-fired
  plants. Some of the plants choose the cleanest
  coal and have installed clean modern technology,
  but hardly all. These plants contribute
  significantly to air quality problems in urban
  areas.
• Urban areas have paved over or covered up old
  mining and manufacturing scars.
• Birmingham in particular has air problems caused
  both by cars and by generating plants.
• Birmingham has sewage problems, and intends to
  solve those problems with a super sewer.

120
Present Environmental Issues, continued.

• Near urban areas, Alabama rivers are overused.
  Too much water is taken out, and the water that
  is put back in is not always best treated. See
  the Birmingham super sewer.
• Medium sized towns have expanded without
  planning. Where they have expanded into
  unincorporated areas (or into another county)
  there is no clear supervising authority.
• Dense rural residences (trailer parks) have
  expanded without planning and without any clear
  supervising authority.
• See the urban-rural interface from previous
  slides.

121
CAFO Pollution

• CAFO concentrated animal feedlot operation.
  This is a large scale chicken or hog farming
  operation.
• These produce about three times as much manure
  and other by-product as can be absorbed by the
  local environment or the state market for manure
  fertilizer.
• The state has enacted regulations calling for the
  limitation but it is not clear that CAFOs can
  comply.
• Most CAFOs are run well, but some are not. The
  state keeps a list of all CAFOS, and of their
  record of operation.
• Neighbors often complain of smell from CAFOs even
  when they are run well

122
Environmental Groups

• A comprehensive list of dozens of groups
  concerned with the environment and land can be
  found at the following website
• Alabama Grassroots Clearinghouse
• www.ag.auburn.edu/grassroots

123
Various Conservation Programs

• The following two sets of slides illustrate some
  conservation initiatives by the federal
  government and by one private agency in Madison
  country.

124
Protecting Working LandsThrough USDA
Conservation Programs

• Denise Coleman
• National Farm and Ranch Lands Protection Program
  Manager
• USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service

125
2002 Farm Bill Changing the Focus
126
Conservation Programs

• Easement Programs
• Cost-Share Programs
• Stewardship Program

127
Here ends the series by Dr. Coleman
128
A Greenprint for Growth

• A Master Land Preservation Plan for Madison
  County, AL
• (from the Land Trust of Huntsville and North
  Alabama)

129
(No Transcript)
130
Who we are and how far we have come.

• MISSION STATEMENT
• The Land Trust of Huntsville North Alabama is a
  non-profit organization dedicated to preserving
  lands for public use to enhance recreation,
  education, conservation and prosperity in the
  North Alabama region.
• As of 2002
• 1800 members
• 3,240 acres across Madison County one in
  Limestone County
• Partner support from the City of Huntsville,
  the Madison County Commission and the City of
  Madison.

131
The Land Trust of Huntsville North Alabama

• Percentages for 2002
• Income 
• Fundraising 30 
• City Appropriation 29
• Membership 24
• Contributions 17

132
Historical and Projected Land Use
Change, Madison County
1984
1990
2000
2020
133
(No Transcript)
134
Here ends the series from the Land Trust of
Huntsville and North Alabama
135
POLL RESULTS, 2002 and 2003

• For each conference, Dr. Boyd commissioned a poll
  of Alabamans on attitudes toward rural life, or
  toward land use and land value. About 100 people
  responded to each poll. The margin of error is
  about - 5 for any given question. The
  following slides give selected results.

136
Selected Results from 2002 Poll onAttitudes
Toward Rural Life

• 56 think Alabama is a leading agricultural state
  in the U.S.
• 77 think Alabama soil and water is well suited
  for agriculture
• 90 think that the climate is well suited for
  agriculture
• Over 50 know that the number of farms has
  declined
• 53 know that farming is generally not profitable
• 73 know that farmers need a second income
• 60 are willing to pay more for food to protect
  farms
• 76 are willing to limit imports to protect farms
• Only 4 felt that agriculture was the leading
  cause of pollution

137
Selected Results from 2003 Poll onLand Use, Land
Value, Land Taxes

• A selection of slides follows this summary
• Many people bought and sold land. Land moves in
  the market.
• People want rural land kept in stereotypical row
  crop farms and orchards.
• People do not know that Alabama is largely
  forested.
• People think that owners should be free to do
  whatever they wish with their land.
• At the same time, they think that owners should
  be good stewards and should keep rural land as
  natural as possible.
• People support current use evaluation for taxes.
• At the same time, most people thought that rural
  land taxes were more than 2 per acres, or more
  than 5 per acre, and that this was fair.

138
Motivations for Past Future Purchases of Rural
Land
139
B-1.Perceived Economic ValueEstimates of Current
versus Fair Annual Taxes on Rural Land
140
B-1.Perceived Economic ValueEstimates of Current
versus Fair Annual Taxes on Rural Land
141
C-1. Rural Land Usage

• Respondents indicated whether or not each of 11
  land uses would be acceptable

142
D-1. Maintenance Protection

• 56.1 agreed that rural landowners should be
  awarded government subsidies to maintain land in
  its natural state.
• 61.3 agreed that more rural land should be put
  into protected state or national forests.

143
D-2. Maintenance Protection
144
D-2. Maintenance Protection
145
END OF SLIDE SHOW