Uncertainty of Land Tenure and the Effects of Sustainability if Agriculture in the United States

Richardson, Jesse J.

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-68885-5_8

Uncertainty of Land Tenure and the Effects of Sustainability if Agriculture in the United States

Jesse J. Richardson¹⁹

Chapter
First Online: 22 December 2017

595 Accesses
1 Citations
3 Altmetric

Part of the International Yearbook of Soil Law and Policy book series (IYSLP,volume 2017)

Abstract

Uncertain land tenure reduces the likelihood that sustainable land management practices, including soil conservation, will be implemented. Agriculture presents a particularly stark case on the clear connection between land tenure certainty and sustainability. This chapter examines this connection in the United States with respect to leasing, conservation easements, and heirs property. In each of these contexts, land tenure certainty is impaired, leading to less likelihood of sustainable agricultural practices. Leases in the United States tend to be oral, year-to-year leases, giving both the landlord and tenant short-term decision horizons that prove to be shortsighted with respect to soil conservation and sustainability. While conservation easements conjure notions of sustainability and healthy soils in theory, in practice many easement provisions increase uncertainty of tenure and imperil implementation of sustainable land practices. With respect to agriculture, the inherent conflicts between the conservation values protected in the easement and production agriculture increase the uncertainty of land tenure and cause results that may reduce sustainability. Finally, heirs property leads to the tragedy of the anticommons and underuse of the property. Although passive neglect may preserve soil health in many cases, the condition prevents active augmentation of soils and sustainable practices. In all of these cases, measures should be undertaken to increase land tenure certainty, leading to better soil health.

This chapter is derived, in part, from Richardson, Jr., Jesse J. (2016). Land Tenure and Sustainable Agriculture, Texas A&M Law Review 3:799–826. This chapter updates the earlier article, condenses much of the material, and redirects the material to the issues of soil conservation.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Notes

1.
Parsons et al. (2010), p. 5.
2.
FAO (2002).
3.
Richardson (2016).
4.
Vermont Law School (2015).
5.
Parsons et al. (2010), p. 16.
6.
Dekker (2006), p. 1.
7.
Ibid.
8.
Ibid.
9.
FAO (2002).
10.
Dekker (2006), p. 5.
11.
Ibid.
12.
Ibid.
13.
Ibid.
14.
Dekker (2006), p. 3.
15.
Dekker (2006), p. 4.
16.
Cox (2010), pp. 369, 370–371; Clearfield and Osgood (1986), http://www.ssi.nrcs.usda.gov/publications/2_Tech_Reports/T014_Adoption01Main.pdf; Arbuckle et al. (2009), pp. 73, 74; Soule et al. (2000), pp. 993, 993–94, 1003 [hereinafter Soule et al., Land tenure]; see also Arbuckle (2010), available at http://www.soc.iastate.edu/extension/ifrlp/PDF/PMR1006.pdf (noting ownership plays a role in the environmental effects of farming); Duffy et al. (rev. 2008), available at http://www.extension.iastate.edu/Publications/PM1983.pdf [hereinafter Duffy et al., Farmland ownership] (discussing length of tenure and the effect on soil conservation); Carolan (2005), pp. 387, 398 (noting there is more incentive for conservation if leases are for multiple growing seasons); cf. Lee and Stewart (1983), pp. 256, 257 (noting tenure arrangements that separate ownership from operation can hinder conservation).
17.
https://casfs.ucsc.edu/about/publications/Teaching-Direct-Marketing/pdf%20downloads/Unit.9.pdf.
18.
Parsons et al. (2010), p. 5.
19.
Clark (1944).
20.
Salamon (1998), p. 160.
21.
Ibid.
22.
Parsons et al. (2010), p. 12.
23.
Id.
24.
Bigelow et al. (2016), p. 3.
25.
Ibid.
26.
Ibid.
27.
Bigelow et al. (2016), p. 5.
28.
Ibid.
29.
Ibid.
30.
Bigelow et al. (2016), pp. 6–11.
31.
Bigelow et al. (2016), p. 6.
32.
Ibid.
33.
Bigelow et al. (2016), p. 7.
34.
Ibid.
35.
Bigelow et al. (2016), pp. 7–8.
36.
Bigelow et al. (2016), pp. 7–8.
37.
Ibid.
38.
Ibid, at 8.
39.
Bigelow et al. (2016), p. 9.
40.
Ibid.
41.
Ibid.
42.
Bigelow et al. (2016), p. 10.
43.
Ibid.
44.
Ibid.
45.
Ibid.
46.
Ibid.
47.
Alabama, Arkansas, California, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Texas, Washington, and Wisconsin.
48.
Bigelow et al. (2016), p. 12.
49.
Bigelow et al. (2016), p. 15.
50.
Bigelow et al. (2016), p. 17.
51.
Bigelow et al. (2016), p. 22.
52.
Bigelow et al. (2016), p. 25.
53.
Ibid.
54.
Bigelow et al. (2016), p. 27.
55.
Bigelow et al. (2016), p. 26.
56.
Bigelow et al. (2016), p. 26.
57.
Ibid.
58.
Bigelow et al. (2016), pp. 26–27.
59.
R.T. Ely and G.S. Wehrwein, Land Economics 1940, quoted in Parsons et al. (2010), p. 48.
60.
Lichtenberg (2007), p. 294.
61.
Land Use Planning and Development Regulation Law § 13:3, fn. 4.
62.
Ibid.
63.
Cox (2010), pp. 370–371.
64.
Ibid.
65.
Soule et al. (2000); Sklenicka et al. (2015).
66.
Clark (1944).
67.
Arbuckle (2010), p. 1.
68.
Ibid.
69.
USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) (1999).
70.
Duffy and Smith (2009).
71.
Cox (2010), pp. 382–383.
72.
Parsons et al. (2010), p. 13; Grossman (2000), pp. 127–128.
73.
Duffy and Smith (2009).
74.
Duffy (2008), p. 2.
75.
Parsons et al. (2010), p. 13.
76.
Ibid, 14.
77.
Higby; Soule et al. (2000).
78.
Cox (2010), p. 387.
79.
Ibid.
80.
Ibid.
81.
Cox (2010), pp. 382–383.
82.
Lichtenberg (2007).
83.
Soule et al. (2000).
84.
Fraser (2004).
85.
Carolan (2005) and Carolan et al. (2004).
86.
Cox (2011), p. 13.
87.
Cox (2011), p. 17.
88.
Ibid, 19.
89.
Ibid.
90.
Cox (2011), p. 14.
91.
Ibid.
92.
Cox (2011), p. 15.
93.
Ibid.
94.
Ibid.
95.
Ibid.
96.
Cox (2011), p. 21.
97.
Ibid.
98.
Ibid, 22.
99.
Ibid, 23.
100.
Ibid.
101.
Unif. Conservation Easement Act § 1(1) (2007).
102.
Byers and Ponte (2005), p. 14.
103.
26 U.S.C.A. §170(h).
104.
26 U.S.C.A. §170(h)(1).
105.
26 U.S.C.A. §170(h)(2)(C).
106.
26 U.S.C.A. §170(h)(3).
107.
26 U.S.C.A. §170(h)(5)(A).
108.
26 U.S.C.A. §170(h)(4)(A)(i).
109.
26 U.S.C.A. §170(h)(4)(A)(ii).
110.
26 U.S.C.A. §170(h)(4)(A)(iii).
111.
26 U.S.C.A. §170(h)(4)(A)(iv).
112.
26 U.S.C.A. §170(h)(4)(A)(iii).
113.
Gentry (2013), p. 1395.
114.
IRS Regs. §1.170A-14(d)(4)(i)(B).
115.
IRS Regs. §1.170A-14(d)(4)(i).
116.
IRS Regs. §1.170A-14(d)(4)(B).
117.
IRS Regs. §1.170A-14(f)(4) Example 5.
118.
Ibid.
119.
Parsons et al. (2010), p. 18.
120.
Ibid.
121.
Gentry (2013), p. 1396.
122.
Vermont Law School (2015), pp. 8–9.
123.
Land Trust Alliance (2007), p. 9.
124.
Land Trust Alliance (2007), p. 17.
125.
Ibid.
126.
Ibid, at 18.
127.
Ibid.
128.
Ibid.
129.
26 C.F.R. § 1.170A-14(g)(6)(i) (2007).
130.
Ibid.
131.
Land Trust Alliance (2007), p. 21.
132.
Ibid, 23–32.
133.
IRS Regs. §1.170A-14(e)(2).
134.
Ibid.
135.
Anderson and Cosgrove (1998), pp. 11–12.
136.
Ibid.
137.
Virginia Outdoors Foundation, paragraph 3. (i).
138.
Ibid, paragraph 3. (i)(d).
139.
Ibid, a portion of paragraph 4. (i).
140.
The Nature Conservancy, Inc. v. Sims (2012).
141.
Sims, 674.
142.
Sims, 675.
143.
Ibid.
144.
Sims, 676–677.
145.
Long Green Valley Ass’n v. Bellevale Farms, Inc. (2013).
146.
Ibid, 296.
147.
Ibid, 300.
148.
Ibid, 301.
149.
Id, 305.
150.
Ibid.
151.
Ibid, 321.
152.
“The costs of going organic were dwarfed by lawyer fees. Paying lawyer bills put the grain bill out of reach.” Rachel Gilker, “Grazing Profitably With a Cherry on Top”, On Pasture, http://onpasture.com/2014/03/24/grazing-profitably-with-a-cherry-on-top/ (March 24, 2014).
153.
Wetlands America Trust, Inc. v. White Cloud Nine Ventures, L.P. (2016).
154.
Ibid.
155.
Ibid.
156.
Ibid.
157.
Ibid.
158.
Ibid, 2.
159.
Ibid.
160.
Ibid, 9.
161.
Ibid, 6.
162.
Ibid.
163.
Ibid.
164.
Ibid.
165.
Ibid.
166.
Ibid.
167.
Deaton (2012), pp. 615–616.
168.
Ibid.
169.
Deaton et al. (2009), pp. 2344–2345.
170.
Ibid, 2345.
171.
Deaton et al. (2009), p. 2345; Deaton, p. 617.
172.
Ibid.
173.
UNIF. PARTITION OF HEIRS PROP. ACT, Prefatory Note, at 2. Little or no empirical evidence exists to either confirm or disprove these claims.
174.
Deaton et al. (2009), p. 2346.
175.
Deaton et al. (2009), p. 2346; Parsons et al. (2010), p. 16.
176.
Baucells and Lippman (2001).
177.
UNIF. PARTITION OF HEIRS PROP. ACT, Prefatory Note, at 8.
178.
Parsons et al. (2010), p. 16.
179.
Deaton et al. (2009), p. 2344.
180.
20 Am. Jur. 2d Cotenancy and Joint Ownership § 32.
181.
20 Am. Jur. 2d Cotenancy and Joint Ownership § 31.
182.
20 Am. Jur. 2d Cotenancy and Joint Ownership § 31.
183.
20 Am. Jur. 2d Cotenancy and Joint Ownership § 32.
184.
20 Am. Jur. 2d Cotenancy and Joint Ownership § 31.
185.
Ibid.
186.
20 Am. Jur. 2d Cotenancy and Joint Ownership § 39.
187.
20 Am. Jur. 2d Cotenancy and Joint Ownership § 40.
188.
Ibid.
189.
20 Am. Jur. 2d Cotenancy and Joint Ownership § 41.
190.
Ibid.
191.
20 Am. Jur. 2d Cotenancy and Joint Ownership § 43.
192.
20 Am. Jur. 2d Cotenancy and Joint Ownership §§ 43, 44.
193.
20 Am. Jur. 2d Cotenancy and Joint Ownership § 43.
194.
Heller (1998); Deaton et al. (2009), p. 2347; Deaton (2007a), pp. 927–928.
195.
Ibid.
196.
UNIF. PARTITION OF HEIRS PROP. ACT, Prefatory Note, at 7.
197.
Ibid.
198.
Heller (1998), p. 677.
199.
Ibid.
200.
Heller (1998), p. 668.
201.
Heller (1998), pp. 674–675.
202.
Higby et al. (2006), p. 73.
203.
Deaton (2007b), p. 929.

References

Anderson J, Cosgrove J (1998) Agricultural easements: allowing a working landscape to work, exchange. Land Trust Alliance, Washington, DC, Fall, pp 11–12
Google Scholar
Arbuckle JG Jr (2010) Iowa State Univ. Extension, rented land in Iowa: social and environmental dimensions 1. Available at http://www.soc.iastate.edu/extension/ifrlp/PDF/PMR1006.pdf
Arbuckle JG Jr et al (2009) Non-operator landowner interest in agroforestry practices in two Missouri watersheds. Agroforest Syst 75:73, 74
CrossRef Google Scholar
Baucells M, Lippman SA (2001) Justice delayed is justice denied: a cooperative game theoretic analysis of hold-up in co-ownership. Cardozo Law Rev 22:1191
Google Scholar
Bigelow D, Borchers A, Hubbs T (2016) U.S. farmland ownership, tenure, and transfer, economic research service. Economic Information Bulletin Number 161
Google Scholar
Byers E, Ponte KM (2005) The conservation easement handbook 14, 2nd edn
Google Scholar
Carolan MS (2005) Barriers to the adoption of sustainable agriculture on rented land: an examination of contesting social fields. Rural Soc 70:387, 398
Google Scholar
Carolan MS, Mayerfeld D, Bell MM, Exner R (2004) Rented Land: Barriers to Sustainable Agriculture. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 59(4): 70A–75A
Google Scholar
Clark N (1944) Improving farm tenure in the Midwest. Agricultural Experiment Station. University of Illinois. Bulletin #502
Google Scholar
Clearfield F, Osgood BT (1986) Soil Conservation Serv., sociological aspects of the adoption of conservation practices 9
Google Scholar
Cox E (2010) A lease-based approach to sustainable farming, Part I: farm tenancy trends and the outlook for sustainability on rented land. Drake J Agric Law 15:369, 370–371
Google Scholar
Cox E (2011) A lease-based approach to sustainable farming, Part II: farm tenancy trends and the outlook for sustainability on rented lands. Drake J Agric Law 16:5, 13
Google Scholar
Deaton BJ (2007a) A review and assessment of the Heirs’ property issue in the United States. XLVI J Econ Issues 927, 927–928
Google Scholar
Deaton BJ (2007b) Intestate succession and Heir property: implications for future research on the persistence of poverty in Central Appalachia. J Econ Issues 41(4):927–942
CrossRef Google Scholar
Deaton BJ (2012) A review and assessment of the Heirs’ property issue in the United States. XLVI J Econ Issues 615, 615–616
CrossRef Google Scholar
Deaton BJ, Baxter J, Bratt CS (2009) Examining the consequences and character of ‘Heir Property’. Ecol Econ 68:2344–2345
CrossRef Google Scholar
Dekker H (2006) In pursuit of land tenure security. Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam, NLD, p 1
Google Scholar
Duffy M (2008) Iowa State Univ. Extension, Survey of Iowa leasing practices, 2007. AG Decision Maker, Sept. 2008, p 2. http://www.extension.iastate.edu/Publications/FM1811.pdf
Duffy M, Smith D (2009) Farmland ownership and tenure in Iowa, 2007. Iowa State University Department of Economics
Google Scholar
Duffy M et al (2008) Iowa State Univ. Extension, farmland ownership and tenure in Iowa 2007, at 18 (rev. 2008)
Google Scholar
FAO (2002) Land tenure and rural development, FAO land tenure series 3. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Rome. http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/y4307e/y4307e00.htm
Fraser EDG (2004) Land Tenure and Agricultural Management: Soil Conservation on Rented and Owned Fields in Southwest British Columbia. Agriculture & Human Values 21:73–79.
CrossRef Google Scholar
Gentry PM (2013) Note, applying the private benefit doctrine to farmland conservation easements. Duke Law J 62:1387, 1395
Google Scholar
Grossman MR (2000) Leasehold interests and the separation of ownership and control in U.S. farmland. In: Geisler C, Daneker G (eds) Property and values: alternatives to public and private ownership, pp 119, 127–128
Google Scholar
Heller M (1998) Tragedy of the anticommons, property in the transition from Marx to markets. Harv Law Rev 111:621
CrossRef Google Scholar
Higby AM et al (2006) In: Smith M (ed) A legal guide to the business of farming in Vermont 73. Available at http://www.uvm.edu/farmtransfer/?Page=legalguide.html
Knowler D, Bradshaw B (2007) Farmers’ adoption of conservation agriculture: A review and synthesis of recent research. Food Policy 32: 25–48.
Google Scholar
Land Trust Alliance (2007) Amending conservation easements: evolving practices and legal principles. Research Report, 9 (August 2007)
Google Scholar
Lee LK, Stewart WH (1983) Landownership and the adoption of minimum tillage. Am J Agric Econ 65:256, 257
CrossRef Google Scholar
Lichtenberg E (2007) Tenants, landlords, and soil conservation. Am J Agric Econ 89(2):294–307
CrossRef Google Scholar
Long Green Valley Ass’n v. Bellevale Farms, Inc., 432 Md. 292, 68 A.3d 843 (2013)
Google Scholar
Parsons R et al (2010) The farmlasts project: farm land access, succession, tenure, and stewardship 12. Available at http://www.uvm.edu/farmlasts/FarmLASTSResearchReport.pdf
Richardson JJ Jr (2016) Land tenure and sustainable agriculture. Texas A&M Law Rev 3:799–826
Google Scholar
Salamon S (1998) Cultural dimensions of land tenure in the United States. In: Jacob HM (ed) Who owns America: social conflict over property rights. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, WI, pp 159–181
Google Scholar
Sklenicka P et al (2015) Owner or tenant: Who adopts better soil conservation practices? Food Policy 47: 253–261.
CrossRef Google Scholar
Soule MJ, et al (2000) Land tenure and the adoption of conservation practices. Am J Agric Econ 82: 993–1005
CrossRef Google Scholar
The Nature Conservancy, Inc. v. Sims, 680 F.3d 672 (2012)
Google Scholar
Unif. Conservation Easement Act § 1(1) (amended 2007). Available at http://www.uniformlaws.org/shared/docs/conservation_easement/ucea_final_81%20with%2007amends.pdf
USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) (1999) 1997 census of agriculture: agricultural economics and land ownership survey (1999). USDA, Washington, DC. Available at http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/1997/Agricultural_Economics_and_Land_Ownership/
Vermont Law School (2015) Land tenure convening report. Center for Agriculture and Food Systems (March 2015)
Google Scholar
Virginia Outdoors Foundation, Intensive Agriculture Easement Template. Available at http://www.virginiaoutdoorsfoundation.org/protect/donating-an-open-space-easement-to-vof/documents-for-easement-donors/
Google Scholar
Wetlands America Trust, Inc. v. White Cloud Nine Ventures, L.P., 2016 WL 550339 (2016)
Google Scholar

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

West Virginia University College of Law, Land Use and Sustainable Development Law Clinic, Morgantown, WV, USA
Jesse J. Richardson

Authors

Jesse J. Richardson
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jesse J. Richardson .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

German Environment Agency, Dessau, Germany
Dr. Harald Ginzky
Farmer Center, Iowa State University, Urbandale, Iowa, USA
Prof. Dr. Elizabeth Dooley
Sustainable Soils and Desertification, IUCN World Commission on Environmental Law, Kleinmachnow, Germany
Dr. Irene L. Heuser
Kampala, Uganda
Prof. Dr. Emmanuel Kasimbazi
Research Centre for European Environmental Law, University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany
Dr. Till Markus
Research Institute of Environmental Law, Wuhan University, Wuhan, China
Prof. Dr. Tianbao Qin

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Richardson, J.J. (2018). Uncertainty of Land Tenure and the Effects of Sustainability if Agriculture in the United States. In: Ginzky, H., Dooley, E., Heuser, I., Kasimbazi, E., Markus, T., Qin, T. (eds) International Yearbook of Soil Law and Policy 2017. International Yearbook of Soil Law and Policy, vol 2017. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-68885-5_8

Download citation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-68885-5_8
Published: 22 December 2017
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-68884-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-68885-5
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)