Why should we preserve farmland?

Farmland is the basis for an industry with nearly $3 billion in annual sales employing more than 56,000 Oregonians.

Agriculture is an important source of jobs for Oregonians. Excluding seasonal labor, 47,720 Oregonians are employed in agricultural-related jobs. In addition, the state has 12,000 full-time and 20,000 part-time farmers and ranchers. (Source: Oregon Agricultural Statistics Service. 1994. 1993-1994 Oregon Agriculture & Fisheries Statistics.) In 1992, these farmers and ranchers hired an additional 21,060 laborers who worked more than 150 days a year. (Source: U. S. Department of Commerce, 1992; 1992 Census of Agriculture, Part 37, Oregon: State and County Data).

The Oregon Progress Board has set the goal of nearly doubling the number of jobs from in-state, value-added processing of agricultural products by the year 2010. (Source: Oregon Progress Board, 1992. Oregon Benchmarks) Department of Agriculture Director Bruce Andrews estimates Oregon can create 30,000 new jobs through in-state, value-added processing, but only if the state's agricultural land base is protected: "We have to ensure that the land base, especially those lands that are prime agricultural lands in conflict with urban growth, is guarded carefully because that is our factory base. That's where we are going to be able to grow the crops for the expanded food processing sector that we want." (Source: Pokarny, Bruce, Oregon Department of Agriculture, 1992. Oregon Agriculture and the Big City)

Is Oregon actually losing farmland?

Yes, almost 9,000 acres a year.

Between 1982 and 1992, a total of 88,900 acres of agricultural land were converted to residential and urban use. (Source: U. S. Soil Conservation Service. 1994. Natural Resource Inventory (unpublished).) This is an area larger than one half of Clackamas County's exclusive farm use zone. During this time, Oregon's population grew by 322,815 people. (Source: Portland State University, Center for Population Research and Census, 1993. Population Estimates for Oregon.) Oregon anticipates a population growth of an additional 376,591 people by the year 2000. Can we afford to lose another 90,000 acres of agricultural land in less than 10 years?

How do we preserve farmland in Oregon?

Through exclusive farm use zoning, preferential property tax assessment and urban growth boundaries.

Oregon's "right-to-farm" laws do not protect farmers from damages due to spray drift, nor do they protect farmers from the expensive and wearisome process of defending a lawsuit. They also do not help farmers who suffer damages from the trespassing, vandalism or just plain carelessness of the nonfarm neighbor based on ignorance of farming practices.

Wasn't SB 100 intended only to protect prime farmland in the Willamette Valley, not the so-called worthless land in Eastern Oregon?

No. The 1973 Legislature adopted a policy to preserve "the maximum amount of the limited supply of agricultural land." This includes the farmland in Eastern Oregon which accounts for over one third of the state's total farm sales.

Oregon's current agricultural lands policy, ORS 215.243, has remained unchanged since it was adopted in 1973; it says nothing about protecting only prime farmland: "The preservation of a maximum amount of the limited supply of agricultural land is necessary to the conservation of the state's economic resources and the preservation of such land in large blocks is necessary in maintaining the agricultural economy of the state…"

"Prime farmland" is a technical definition used by the U.S. Soils Conservation Service. Only 13% of Oregon's farmland (1.9 million acres) qualifies as "prime." Many important commodities, from grapes to grass seed and cattle to cranberries, are produced on non-prime lands. (Source: U. S. Soil Conservation Service Soil Maps.)

Much of Oregon's farm production comes from lands outside the Willamette Valley. In 1992, 63% of the state's harvested cropland and 36% of farm sales came from farmland east of the Cascades. Vegetable and flower seeds, apples, popcorn, wheat, mint, grass seeds, potatoes, canola, cherries, cantaloupes, garlic, asparagus, watermelons, sugar beets, and lima beans are all grown in Eastern Oregon. (Source: U. S. Department of Commerce, 1992. 1992 Census of Agriculture, Part 37, Oregon: State and County Data.)

  Back to Top

Income Test for Farmland Dwellings

What is the $80,000 test?

The so-called "$80,000 test" is a rule developed by the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) in 1994 to determine who is eligible to build a farm dwelling on land zoned for exclusive farm use. The rule states that farm dwellings are allowed on tracts of high-value farmland (approximately 25% of Oregon's farmland) which have generated $80,000 in gross farm income (i.e., farm sales) during each of the last two years or three of the last five years. For non-high value farmland (which includes most of the farmland outside the Willamette Valley), there are different, more lenient criteria.

What's wrong with houses on farmland?

Oregon's farmland is the factory base for a $4 billion industry. Increased non-farm housing threatens the availability and affordability of farmland and the profitability of farming. It also leads to conflicts between farmers and non-farmers over agricultural practices.

Why did LCDC adopt income criteria for farm dwellings?

The income criteria were developed to implement statutory language allowing "dwellings customarily provided in conjunction with farm use."1 The goal is to ensure that people building farm dwellings are actually engaged in commercial agriculture.

LCDC adopted the criteria because existing standards were not working. Research commissioned by the 1989 Legislature found that 75% of the "farm dwellings" approved by local governments were not related to commercial farm operations: they were rural residences or "hobby farms."

No one has yet come up with a better way of identifying bona fide farmers who should qualify for a farm-related dwelling. LCDC has studied and rejected numerous alternative approaches, including "income capability" and "prudent investor" tests. These tests either have a track record of failure, consistently authorizing houses unrelated to agriculture on our best farmland, or carry too great a risk of being used to allow such houses. Other tests that would adequately protect farmland have also been rejected after being criticized by non-farm interests as too tough.

Isn't $80,000 a lot of money?

No. The $80,000 test refers to gross farm income. On average, Oregon farms generating $80,000 in annual gross income earn a net income of about $14,500, which is much less than half of Oregon's average household income. In fact, $14,500 is below the poverty level for a family of four. Obviously, the $80,000 threshold allows both part-time and full-time farmers to build houses on their land.

Isn't the inability to build a new house a major obstacle to farmers who are just starting out?

No. Farmers generally do not start out in agriculture by building a house. The primary obstacle to starting or expanding a farm operation is a lack of vacant farm parcels, not a lack of houses. A viable option for young farmers who want to live on the farm is to buy farmland with a house on it.

In fact, there are already too many houses in farm zones, not too few. For example, housing densities in high-value agricultural areas in Washington, Clackamas and Hood River Counties already exceed one house for every 20-30 acres, even though the average farm is much larger.

Isn't the $80,000 gross income test elitist, allowing only rich people to qualify for a house?

No. The $80,000 test is democratic—it requires anyone who wants to qualify for a house on high-value farmland to earn the same amount of money from farming. Income from nonfarming sources cannot be considered. So whether you are a former high-tech executive, or a former schoolteacher, you must demonstrate the same level of success in farming before qualifying for a house.

If you cannot meet the income test, can you still build a new house on your land?

There are at least three other, non-income-based ways to get a new house on farmland: 1) nonfarm dwellings; 2) "lot-of-record" dwellings; and 3) family help dwellings.2 These address most special circumstances where we might want to allow new houses on farmland.

Furthermore, the $80,000 gross income test applies to only the 25% of the state's farmland that is high-value farmland. There are different rules on the remaining farmland. Since LCDC adopted the $80,000 test in 1994, the number of houses approved each year in Oregon's exclusive farm use zones has increased. Counties approve over 1,000 houses every year in Oregon's exclusive farm use zones. However, the total number of new houses approved in the Willamette Valley, which has much of the state's best farmland, has significantly decreased.

Oregon also has over 780,000 acres of land zoned for low-density rural residential development; more land than in all of Oregon's urban growth boundaries. These lands are not built out.

Why is the cut-off at $80,000?

The average commercial farm in Oregon grosses well over $80,000. The average gross income for all Oregon farms—excluding hobby farms—is $224,000 annually. In 1995, the Department of Agriculture calculated average gross incomes for three typical family operations in Oregon: 1) nursery operations in the Tualatin Valley area, $300,000; 2) cattle, wheat and hay operations in Eastern Oregon, $160,000; and 3) diversified row crop operations in the Willamette Valley, $250,000.

LCDC wanted to allow new houses for part-time and small-scale farmers, as well as full-time farmers. Earning $80,000 gross means, on average, a net income of about $14,500, far less than half the average household income. Many farmers object to the $80,000 gross income test as too low.

Why does the $80,000 test apply to all tracts of farmland, regardless of size?

Many farmers run operations that consist of multiple small parcels, often several miles apart. While a particular parcel might not be large enough to generate $80,000 in sales, even a small tract of high-value farmland can still contribute to a productive farm. However, the same parcel with a house on it is generally unaffordable as agricultural land and is thus much more likely to fall out of production.

The fact that the income test prevents houses from being built on small parcels means that the test is succeeding at preserving this land as a resource base for commercial agriculture in Oregon.

Not all of Oregon is as productive as the Willamette Valley. Why don't our land use laws recognize regional differences?

They do, in many ways. As mentioned above, the $80,000 gross income test applies only to high-value farmland - the approximately 25% of our state's farmland that is capable of producing high-value crops. Therefore, about three-quarters of Oregon's farmland is not subject to the $80,000 test. Regardless of location, $80,000 is a meager gross income on high-value soils.

Is the $80,000 standard really necessary?

Policymakers must decide whether the long-term value of keeping high-value farmland available for agriculture is more important than having these farmland tracts available for real estate development and speculation. Those tests used before 1994 did not separate the farmers from the speculators. The farm income test does. (June 1999)

1. ORS 215.283 (1)(f).
2. ORS 215.284; 215.705; and 215.213 (1)(e) and 215.283(1)(e), respectively.
3. Defined by Oregon Dept. of Agriculture as those farms grossing less than $10,000 a year.

Back to Top

Why should we protect private forest land? Doesn't our wood supply come from the National Forests?

More than three-fourths of Oregon's timber supply now comes from private forest lands, employing a large share of the 63,300 people who work in the wood products industry.

During the past two years, 78% of the state's timber supply came from private lands. As a rule, private lands are more productive than federal lands. (Source: Bourhill, B. 1994. History of Oregon's timber harvests and/or lumber production. Salem, OR: Oregon Department of Forestry.) Oregon is the nation's leading lumber producer. In 1994, Oregon's forest industries produced 5.7 billion board feet of lumber, or approximately 15% of the nation's production, and 4.3 billion square feet of structural panel board (plywood, oriented strand board, etc.), also approximately 15% of the nation's production.

The state's forest industries employed an estimated 63,300 people in 1995. (Source: Warren, D.D. 1996. Production, prices, employment, and trade in Northwest forest industries, first quarter 1996. PNW-RB-215. Portland, OR: U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.)

Have we been losing private forest land?

Yes, between four and ten square miles a year in western Oregon.

According to the USDA Forest Service, between 1976 and 1986, 28,000 acres of private forest land in western Oregon shifted to urban use. (Source: MacLean, C.D. 1990. Changes in area and ownership of timberland in western Oregon: 1961-86. Resour. Bull. PNW-RB-170. Portland, OR: USDA, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.) Between 1982 and 1992, the Natural Resources Conservation Service (formerly, Soil Conservation Service) estimates that 65,000 acres of forest land shifted from forest use. (Source: Natural Resource Conservation Service, 1992 Natural Resources Inventory (January, 1995).)

Isn't there a lot of land "mis-zoned" for timber production that isn't really productive?

No. The land claimed to be "mis-zoned" is highly productive compared to all other forest lands in the United States.

Oregonians in Action has taken the position that lands capable of producing less than 120 cubic feet of timber per acre per year are miszoned. This would mean rezoning approximately 30% of western Oregon's timberlands as "secondary land." In eastern Oregon, it would be close to 99% of the region's timber land. U.S. forest lands produce, on average, 45 cubic feet of timber per acre per year. This is higher than most other important timber producing nations. (Source: American Forest Institute. 1981. Green America, Wood for the World: America's Role.") "Prime" timberland is land capable of producing 85 cubic feet of timber per acre per year. (Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture Secretary's Memorandum 9500-2, dated 10 March 1982.)

The net annual growth for western Oregon's private timberlands is, on average, an estimated 84.53 (14) cubic feet per acre per year. (Source: Gedney, D.R. 1983. The Privately Owned Timber Resources of Western Oregon. USDA Forest Service Res. Bull. PNW-99. Tables 1 and 17.) Western Oregon lands owned by the forest industry have a somewhat higher estimated average growth of 86.42 (16) cubic feet per acre per year. (Source: Ibid. Tables 1 and 18.)

Why do the planning laws prohibit houses in the woods?

They don't, although building houses in the forest reduces the land supply for timber production and creates problems for timber management.

Between 1990 and 1995, an average of 900 houses were built in the state's forest zones each year. From September 1994 to August 1995, counties approved 654 dwellings in forest zones. (Source: Department of Land Conservation and Development, Forest Use Reports .)

HB 3661, passed by the 1993 Legislature, weakened the standards for building houses in forest zones, especially with its "template" dwelling approval. Forest dwelling approvals appear to be increasing substantially in many parts of Oregon since 1995.

More houses in forests are a problem. Numerous small homesite acreages add up to a substantial decrease in the amount of land available for forestry, and increase the costs of forest management on adjacent lands.

A 1993 Oregon Department of Forestry study on wildfires found that residential development on forest land significantly increases the risk of wildfire and significantly increases the cost of wildfire control. (Source: "Wildlife Prevention and Control in Areas of Residential Forest Land Development: An Analysis of Fire Data" (ODOF Technical Bulletin, March, 1993).)

A good example of the problem is the Hull Mountain fire in Jackson County. That fire burned 8,000 acres, destroyed 10 houses, threatened hundreds more, and cost $8-million to control. $75 million in marketable timber was destroyed during the 1987 fire season in Oregon, while state fire suppression costs exceeded $42 million. (Source: "An Action Plan for Protecting Rural/Forest Lands from Wildfire," Wildlife Planning Task Force (various agencies), November, 1988). The increased costs of fire control are shared by forest land owners and taxpayers, with the forest land owners bearing the largest share.

Back to Top

If people own a parcel that is no good for farming or ranching, like a rocky outcrop, why can't they be allowed to build a house on it?

They can: Since 1973, state laws have allowed landowners to build a house on a parcel in an exclusive farm use (EFU) zone if it was "generally unsuitable" for crops or livestock. Thousands of these houses have been allowed in EFU zones since then.

In 1973, the Legislature passed Senate Bill 101 (the companion bill to Senate Bill 100) which enacted provisions (now codified at ORS 215.213(3) and 215.283(3)) that allowed a "nonfarm dwelling" on any parcel that was "generally unsuitable" for the production of crops or livestock. In 1975, LCDC adopted Goal 3, which applied these provisions to all agricultural land. Between 1988 and 1993, counties approved 2,066 nonfarm dwellings in Exclusive Farm Use zones, including 281 in Deschutes County, 371 in Jackson County, and 174 in Marion County.

In 1993, HB 3661 replaced these provisions with ORS 215.284, which established different standards for nonfarm dwellings inside and outside the Willamette Valley. Outside the Willamette Valley, it is now possible to divide off the unsuitable part of an existing farm parcel and create a new parcel for a nonfarm dwelling. In the Willamette Valley, any existing parcel which is not primarily Natural Resource Conservation Service Class I, II, or III is eligible for a nonfarm dwelling even if it is part of a commercial farm. Both standards are weaker than the earlier standard. HB 3661 also authorized other types of nonfarm dwellings on "less productive" farmland. See ORS 215.700 to 215.705.

There are a lot of parcels in rural areas that might have productive soils but they already have a house or two on them. There are other lots which have so much residential development nearby and are so small, they really aren't good any more for farming or timber production. Why should land already developed or affected by development be zoned for farm or forest use?

They aren't: Since 1983, state law and LCDC rules have allowed approximately 780,000 acres of such "developed" and "committed" lands to be "excepted" from the laws protecting farm and forest land.

Between 1978 and 1986, LCDC laboriously reviewed counties' information about areas they believed were too developed or affected by development to be used for farming and forestry. LCDC approved approximately 780,000 acres of "exceptions" to the farmland and forest land preservation laws. (See table below.) Statewide, the total acreage of "exception areas" is larger than Marion County, and more than three times the amount of land inside the Portland metropolitan Urban Growth Boundary.

Some land is just so worthless that it shouldn't be considered farm and forest land. Why should that land be protected?

It doesn't have to be. The Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) has approved 53,500 acres of "non-resource" zoning in Klamath and Josephine Counties.

The statewide planning goals contain definitions of farm and forest land. When LCDC was reviewing counties' draft plans, some counties contended that parts of their rural areas were so unproductive that they didn't meet those definitions. In Klamath County, LCDC approved zoning of 41,380 acres as "non-resource land." LCDC also approved non-resource zoning for 12,120 acres of land in Josephine County which contains serpentine soils which the Commission believed precluded timber production. (Source: DLCD's "County Zoning Districts," October 16, 1990.)

NOTE: 1000 Friends agrees that land not meeting state definitions of farm and forest land does not have to be protected for those uses under current law. However, it does not necessarily agree with LCDC regarding the land in Klamath and Josephine Counties.

Back to Top

What was House Bill 3661?

HB 3661 was a 32-page bill passed in 1993 in place of numerous" secondary lands" proposals. It made significant changes to rural land use laws; most importantly, a "lot-of-record" provision allowing more homes on less productive farm and forest land.

The 1993 Legislature rejected proposals to rezone less productive "secondary lands" for low-density development. Instead, the Legislature concluded the appropriate solution was to address fairness: before land use laws went into effect, certain individuals had purchased land in farm and forest zones expecting to one day build a home. To help these landowners, and avoid a long and expensive secondary lands process, the legislature authorized a dwelling outright for "lot-of-record" owners on all but the best farm and forest land. These less productive lands (based on soil types that could be easily identified) include over 75% of the land in exclusive farm use (EFU) zones. Many counties still have not incorporated HB 3661 into their local zoning regulations. HB 3661 addressed other topics not discussed in this paper.

Did HB 3661 allow other dwellings on less productive lands in addition to "lot-of-record" dwellings?

 Yes. HB 3661 weakened previous law for most agricultural lands by allowing several new types of "nonfarm" dwellings in EFU zones.

In addition to "lot-of-record" dwellings for non-high-value farmland, HB 3661 revised the law to allow: (1) simplified, less restrictive standards for nonfarm dwellings within the Willamette Valley; (2) a new house on every portion of a parcel outside the Willamette Valley that is not suited to farming (the portion with the new house can be carved off the parent parcel), ORS 215.284(2); (3) new nonfarm dwellings to replace old farm dwellings, ORS 215.283(1)(t), and (4) additional lot-of-record dwellings for small high-value farm lots. ORS 215.705(2) and (3).

Did HB 3661 also relax standards for dwellings in forest use zones?

Yes. It replaced the strict "necessary and accessory" test for forest dwellings and the prior "nonforest" dwelling test with three alternate, significantly weaker sets of standards.

HB 3661 repealed LCDC's tests for "forest" and "nonforest" dwellings in forest zones and allowed a house (1) on ownerships of 160 to 320 acres (contiguous or non-contiguously owned); (2) on a "lot-of-record" for tracts owned since 1985 if the tracts fall below certain productivity thresholds; and (3) on parcels in areas of modest parcelization and housing ("template dwelling"). ORS 215.720 through 215.750. These standards significantly weakened the approval standards for forest dwellings.

Did HB 3661 address regional differences?

 Yes, in several important ways: 1) regional standards for all forest dwellings; 2) regional standards for "lot-of-record" farm dwellings; 3) regional standards for "nonfarm" dwellings; and 4) subregional  differences for minimum parcel sizes.

HB 3661 distinguishes between land west and east of the Cascades for all dwellings on forest land. ORS 215.720 through 215.750. For "lot-of-record" dwellings, HB 3661 distinguishes between high-value farmland regions of the state (less than 25% of existing EFU zones, primarily in the Willamette Valley) and Oregon's remaining 11 million acres of farmland. ORS 215.705. HB 3661 also establishes regional standards for nonfarm dwellings, authorizing much weaker criteria for nonfarm dwellings outside the Willamette Valley. ORS 215.284. HB 3661 also allows counties to continue their current practice of adopting different minimum parcel sizes for different farming regions within a single county. See ORS 215.780(2). Yamhill County, for example, identified at least seven different farm and forest regions and adopted three different minimum parcel sizes reflecting this variety.

Did HB 3661 balance more opportunities to build on less productive lands with stronger protection for more productive lands?

Yes. The Legislature relaxed standards for development on most EFU land while codifying LCDC's use of numeric minimum parcel sizes to govern land divisions and leaving to LCDC the authority to improve high-value farmland rules.

HB 3661 provided some increased protection to farm and forest lands by establishing 80-acre minimum parcel sizes for farm and forest lands (160 acres for range land), with allowances for smaller minimums where justified. ORS 215.780. LCDC was left the authority to retain or improve its high-value farmland rules and to expand the definition of high-value farmland for certain uses (but not to further restrict lot-of-record dwellings). (July 30, 1993 Letter from Governor's Office read by the carriers of the bill during both the House and Senate floor debates on HB 3661, August 2 and 3, 1993).

Does 1000 Friends of Oregon support the laws enacted by HB 3661?

1000 Friends supports parts of the new law and opposes others.

1000 Friends supports HB 3661's numeric minimum parcel sizes and standards recognizing regional differences in commercial farming, ranching, and forestry practices. 1000 Friends opposes: (1) the principle that lands capable of commercial farming and timber production, but nevertheless described as "less productive," should be targeted for more houses; (2) the "template test" for forest dwellings (because it may significantly diminish the forest industry's land base and increase conflicts with forest management); (3) authorization of any more nonfarm dwellings in EFU zones; and (4) the narrow definition of high-value farmland that does not include land producing annual crops (for example, high-value crops in Jefferson County).

Back to Top

Why can't the planning program take into account regional differences and differences between urban and rural areas?

It does, in many ways, from the standards for dwellings and land divisions in farm and forest zones to urban growth boundary expansions and procedures for the review of developments.

Many regional differences are recognized in farm use zones. In exclusive farm use (EFU) zones outside the Willamette Valley, it is now possible to divide off the unsuitable part of a preexisting farm parcel and create a new parcel for a nonfarm dwelling. See ORS 215.284. In the Willamette Valley, any existing parcel which is not primarily Soil Conservation Service Class I, II, or III is eligible for a nonfarm dwelling even if it is being productively farmed. State law also defines "high-value farmland" to differentiate between the Willamette Valley farmland, farmland on the Coast, and the remainder of the state. ORS 215.710. LCDC's rules require more gross annual sales in order to establish a farm dwelling on high value farmland than elsewhere. State law also sets a 160-acre minimum parcel size for rangeland, and an 80-acre minimum for farmland, reflecting differences between farming activities in eastern and western Oregon. ORS 215.780.

In forest zones, standards for allowing a house on a "lot-of-record" include a productivity test that varies by region. ORS 215.705 and 215.720. East of the Cascades the maximum productivity is 4,000 cubic feet/tract/year per contiguous ownership; west of the Cascades it is 5,000 cubic feet/tract/year.

The planning program also distinguishes between small towns, medium sized cities, and the state's four major metropolitan areas. ORS 197.712, for example, exempts smaller cities from having to develop public facilities plans. Under the Transportation Planning Rule, only the four metropolitan areas are required to stabilize and then reduce per capita vehicles miles traveled. The rule exempts local governments with populations under 25,000 from many provisions while cities with populations of less than 2,500 can be completely exempted. Finally, the "urban reserve" rule, which requires cities to identify areas for 50 years of future expansion, applies only to the Portland and Medford metropolitan areas.

Shouldn't the planning program recognize that some regions of the state, like Eastern Oregon, aren't growing and therefore don't need the kind of regulations needed in high growth areas?

It isn't true that Eastern Oregon isn't growing. Also, it is important for all communities to plan their growth to assure a high quality of life, regardless of the pace of growth; sprawl occurring slowly is still sprawl. Growth can occur suddenly, communities often find it very hard to replace or amend land use regulations quickly once growth has accelerated.

Between 1990 and 1993, the population growth rate in Multnomah, Clackamas, and Washington counties (the core of the Portland metro region) was 7.98%. This was a lower rate of growth than Jefferson County (8.95%), Crook County (8.43%) and Deschutes County (15.3%). Significant growth took place in Umatilla County (6.33%) and Malheur County (5.61%) (which rank third and fourth in agricultural production).

In 1992, the PSU Center for Population Research and the Census projected population growth rates for 1995-2000 for Crook, Curry, Jefferson, Polk, and Yamhill counties higher than in the tri-county Metro area. Jackson, Josephine, and Columbia counties will grow at about the same pace as the Portland area; all but four or five counties in the state are expected to have at least some growth.

During the early and mid-1980's the Curry County Commissioners argued that they didn't need to be concerned about managing growth in their county because there was no growth. Now Curry County is growing faster than the Portland metropolitan region.

Shouldn't we be concentrating on protecting the prime farmland in the Willamette Valley, not the worthless land in Eastern Oregon?

It isn't true that the farm and range land in Eastern Oregon is worthless; it accounts for over one-third of the state's total farm sales and produces a wide variety of crops.

"Prime farmland" is a technical definition used by the U.S. Soil Conservation Service that applies to only 13% of Oregon's farmland (1.9 million acres). Many important commodities, from grapes to grass seed and cattle to cranberries, are produced on non-prime lands. (Source: U. S. Soil Conservation Service Soil Maps.)

Much of Oregon's farm production comes from lands outside the Willamette Valley. In 1992, 36% of total farm sales came from farmland east of the Cascades, which had 63% of the state's harvested cropland. Vegetable and flower seeds, apples, popcorn, wheat, mint, grass seeds, potatoes, canola, cherries, cantaloupes, garlic, asparagus, watermelons, sugar beets, and lima beans are all grown in Eastern Oregon. (Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, 1992. 1992 Census of Agriculture, Part 37, Oregon: State and County Data.) In 1992, Umatilla County ranked third statewide in agricultural sales ($166,561,000) and Malheur County ranked fourth ($163,498,000).