Print Version (PDF)

Supporting the Chile Capital of the Southwest: The Role of Local Government in Sustaining Farming Traditions in Luna County, New Mexico

In March 2015, Luna County, New Mexico was selected as one of eight Communities of Opportunity (COOs) in the country with significant potential to strengthen ties between small- and medium-sized farmers and residents with limited food access.¹ Working with the Growing Food Connections (GFC) project team, county stakeholders have since established a steering committee that has charted a vision for the future of Luna’s food system.²

This brief, which draws on interviews with Luna County stakeholders and secondary data sources, provides information about local government-policy opportunities and challenges in the food system to inform the work of the GFC steering committee and stakeholders in Luna County.

Background

Bestowed with picturesque, arid landscapes, Luna County, New Mexico is home to a vibrant chile-pepper production and processing industry. Home to 24,947 people,³ Luna County is a rural place where community matters and water is the real gold. Located in southwest New Mexico (see Figure 1), Luna County spans approximately 3,000 square miles across the desert, encompassing mountain ranges, wilderness areas, and farmland.⁴ The federal and state governments manage most of the land area in the county (69%).⁴ The remaining 31% of the land area, or 919 square miles, is privately owned.⁴

The county is bordered by Sierra and Grant counties to the north, Grant and Hidalgo counties to the west, and to its east lies Doña Ana County, which is also a designated Growing Food Connections (GFC) Community of Opportunity. Luna County is an international point of entry between Chihuahua, Mexico and the United States and shares 54 miles of its southern border with Mexico.⁴

Enabled by the legal framework of “home rule” in the state of New Mexico, governance in Luna County occurs through three general-purpose governments: one county government and two municipal governments.⁵ Luna County also has three special-purpose governments: one independent school district and two special districts.⁵ The county has low population density: most (59%) of its 24,947 people live in the City of Deming, the county seat, and 6% live in the Village of Columbus. The remainder of the population makes its home across vast swaths of unincorporated lands and eight colonias.⁶

Luna County is fairly diverse and has a rich Hispanic tradition. U.S. Census Bureau data indicate that 63% of people (15,806) in the county self-identify as Hispanic or Latino, and 16% are foreign-born.³ The data also show that in terms of race, 90% of the population is reported to be white,³ and 10% comprise African Americans, American Indians, Asians, and other groups.³ Thus, the county’s single school district serves a diverse population of students. According to community stakeholders, the school district also serves children from the Mexican town of Palomas, who are bussed in daily from across the U.S.-Mexico border.⁷ The district has limited resources to provide services to students with limited English skills.^{8, 9} The district’s challenges and low ranking in comparison to other school districts in the state discourage families with children from relocating to Luna County.^{8, 9}

Like many rural communities in the U.S., Luna has experienced economic hardship.¹⁰ The median household income is $28,489,³ and the county has the eighth-highest household poverty rate (30.6%) among the 447 counties of the western census region.¹¹ The county has a high unemployment rate of 10.7%, which fluctuates with the agricultural production cycle.¹² Scarce economic resources are associated with high rates of food insecurity for some households.⁷

Given these challenges, economic development is a priority for the community.^7-9 One strategy to promote economic growth in the county has been to keep property tax rates low, which are among the lowest in the state.⁹ Community stakeholders acknowledge that it is difficult to facilitate economic development without changing the county’s rural character.⁹ Although vestiges of hardship persist, community members are working to implement additional strategies to improve the quality of life, such as exploring the potential for food systems to spur economic development. Community leaders note that Luna is an “incredibly giving community. [When] somebody stumbles and falls… [or] a little tragedy [happens]…, it’s amazing to see how the community pulls together.”¹³ Indeed, the community is pulling together to promote food security and agricultural viability in the county.

Agriculture: Challenges and Opportunities

Luna County’s rich agrarian traditions have stood the test of time. Even today, agriculture is a key element of the economy. In 2012, the county’s 190 farms generated $62.5 million in agricultural product sales, $13.5 million more than in 2007.^{8, 14} According to the 2012 U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) census, about 69% of farms are “low sales intermediate” farms with gross sales of less than $100,000, 11% are “high sales intermediate” farms, and the remaining 20% are commercial family farms with gross sales of more than $250,000.¹⁴ Farms in the county are predominantly operated by white men, and farmers in the county are, on average, 58 years old.¹⁴

The top agricultural products sold include chile peppers, onions, pecans, and commodity crops such as hay and grains. Chile producers have the opportunity to supply a vibrant chile-processing industry in the county and region. The raising of livestock and ranches is quite common in Luna County. Many ranches are cow-calf operations: community stakeholders report that calves raised in Luna are sent to Texas, Colorado, or Oklahoma for fattening and then to the finishing yard.¹⁵ Dairy operations supply milk for cheese production to two plants in New Mexico, one in the nearby city of Las Cruces and another in the city of Clovis.¹⁵

Agriculture depends on the availability and quality of land and water in the county’s arid climate. About one-third (29%), or 550,174 acres, of land in the county is used for agriculture. Of the land used for agriculture, only a small proportion is cultivated as cropland: 6.8%, or 37,210 acres.¹⁴ Farms vary in size, ranging from a few acres (one to nine acres) to very large farms encompassing over 1,000 acres.¹⁴ Approximately half of the farms (52%) in the county use irrigation.¹⁴ The county also reflects a growing interest in urban agriculture. In the Village of Columbus, a public-civic collaborative partnership established a community garden with 12 raised beds of four-by-eight feet each.⁷ The Village of Columbus provided the land and installed water lines to each raised bed; New Mexico’s Economic Development Department provided initial grant funding to build the raised beds;¹⁶ a local nonprofit, Friends of the Columbus Community Garden (FOCCG), runs the daily programming.¹⁶ Programs teach participants gardening techniques, including starting seeds, weeding, composting, and rainwater harvesting.^{7, 16} The partnership hopes to increase interest in gardening and access to healthy foods.

Challenges

Although agriculture is doing well in the county, not all farmers are reaping the bounty equally. Most farms have low sales. Community stakeholders highlight several issues that undermine agricultural viability, including natural resource constraints, lack of adequate infrastructure, limited access to markets, labor constraints, and burdensome zoning rules.^{8, 9, 15, 17-19}

Water in Luna County, as in much of the Southwest, is more valuable than gold. The only naturally occurring water source in the county is the Mimbres Basin, a closed water basin whose recharge depends on rainfall²⁰ and snowmelt.⁴ Residents obtain water for municipal (domestic) and industrial uses through groundwater pumping made available by municipal utilities.⁴ Municipal utilities operate well fields within the municipalities, 12 in Deming and three in Columbus.⁴ Projections suggest that well fields will have difficulty meeting demand for water between 2040 and 2060.⁴ Agricultural producers have individual wells that supply their operations. The combined effects of increased salinity due to mining of the aquifers and the effect of climate change on snowpack formation and spring runoff are likely to sap water resources in the county.⁴ Therefore, purposeful management of the limited water supply for multiple users is paramount to the viability of agriculture.

To overcome constraints on water resources, farmers and municipalities have developed coping strategies. Farmers are switching from flood to drip irrigation to practice higher efficiency and conservation of water.⁸ The shift to subsurface drip irrigation also lowers the cost of pumping groundwater.⁹ However, not all farmers are switching; operators of larger farms can more easily afford the new drip-irrigation technology, compared to smaller farms.⁹ Federal funding from the USDA is available to farmers to defray the cost of new technology. To be eligible, farmers must have irrigated their land for at least two of the last five years.²¹ However, when federal funding became available, operators of many small farms had coped with the drought by allowing their land to remain fallow for more than three years.^{9, 21} The fallowing of land for more than two of the five years makes smaller farm operators ineligible to apply.^{9, 21} Lack of access to affordable water remains a challenge for urban growers, too. One community stakeholder reported that participants in the FOCCG community garden find it difficult to pay for municipal water to grow their crops.⁷ To overcome this challenge, FOCCG teaches and promotes rainwater harvesting.

Municipalities have coped with the dwindling access to water by buying water rights from farmers. New Mexico’s water laws give priority to users based on the date on which they acquired their water rights, as stipulated in the law of prior appropriation.²² Agricultural users were first in the county to obtain rights to use the water and are, therefore, senior water-right holders. All other users have a later priority date and have water rights that are junior to agricultural water rights. Municipalities have few options for sourcing potable water for current and anticipated future residents. The City of Deming has coped by purchasing land and its attached water rights from farmers, putting farmland out of production. During interviews, stakeholders implied that the City of Deming may be purchasing farmland for surplus water rights, to allow future population growth and development.¹⁹ Driven in part by this pressure, Luna County lost 8% of its farms, or over 103,000 acres of farmland between 2007 and 2012.¹⁴

A lack of local aggregation facilities also makes it difficult for farmers to bring their product to market. One critical piece of missing infrastructure is the lack of food processors for key crops such as pecans, onions, and jalapenos. The lack of local aggregators and wholesalers makes it more economical for farmers to send their agricultural products to a distributor in Texas rather than to supply the local market in Luna County.⁸ Similarly, retailers find it more convenient to purchase produce from a wholesaler than directly from local farmers, as one local interviewee explained: “Buying from local farmers is more work; and, farmers cannot guarantee safety of produce, while aggregators and wholesalers do.”¹³ Additional local infrastructural constraints include the absence of a slaughterhouse, commercial kitchen, and cold storage facilities.^{15, 17} The lack of wholesale and aggregation facilities in the county is a missed opportunity for creating direct connections between farmers and retailers.

Finally, the lack of an adequately trained workforce poses challenges to long-term agricultural viability. Farmers are aging, as in the rest of the country. Many interviewees perceive that local residents do not want to work on farms.^{8, 15} The labor shortage is affecting both conventional agriculture and urban agriculture efforts.^{8, 15} The county operates a community garden but has been unable to entice community members to work in the garden.⁸ The county leadership is exploring the possibility of having youth from the juvenile detention facility work in the community garden. Community stakeholders view the development of an effective solution to the labor shortage as critical to sustain agriculture.

Opportunities

Luna can draw on its strong heritage in farming and ranching to enhance agricultural viability. While its changing climate presents new challenges, it also provides a long growing season and favorable conditions for specialty crops. As mentioned above, local government agencies and non-governmental organizations are exploring solutions to some of the challenges that confront farmers in Luna, especially around access to water. A key challenge is that many existing policies and programs benefit operators of larger farms rather than small farms. A commitment to reducing barriers for small farmers, as well as urban farmers, offers opportunities to strengthen agricultural viability in Luna through local government policy. Beyond programs and policies, there is also a need for and opportunities to invest in physical infrastructure development such as food processing and storage facilities.

Food Security: Challenges and Opportunities

Hunger and limited access to healthy foods remain a concern in Luna County. Recent data suggest that 5,390 people, or 21.6% of the population, are food insecure in the county.²³ According to interviewees, a large proportion of food-insecure people are undocumented workers who have difficulty securing employment.⁹ Additionally, at least 26% of households in the county rely on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) to meet their food needs.³ Luna County also has the second-highest rate of child hunger in New Mexico, which is a concern given that New Mexico ranks worst for child hunger nationally.²³ Food insecurity is associated with deep levels of poverty in Luna County.^{8, 19} One interviewee noted, “to have the healthy food, you actually need to have more of a disposable income…”⁸

Challenges

Along with hunger, poor health outcomes are also a concern in Luna County. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports that in Luna County, 10.6% of adults over 18 are diagnosed with diabetes and 24.3% are considered to be obese.²⁴ Interviews in the community affirm concerns about diabetes.⁷ Data also suggest that only a small proportion of adults (18%) and youth (18.5%) in Luna County consume the recommended amount of fruits and vegetables.²⁵ Poor diet, food insecurity, and poor health outcomes reflect the county’s socioeconomic challenges.

Spatial disparities in food access also persist in the county. As in many rural communities, the availability of food retail operations is limited: 0.16 grocery stores, 0.04 supercenters, and 0.68 convenience stores are available for every 1,000 people in the county.²⁶ Most food retail operations are located in Deming. For those who live elsewhere in the county, limited access to full-service food retail severely affects access to affordable fresh produce.^{7, 17} People without access to cars are the most affected by these spatial disparities.¹⁹ Moreover, little home/backyard gardening occurs to supplement produce needs.⁷

Opportunities

Fortunately, several local initiatives provide relief from the food deficit faced by the 21.6% of households in Luna County that receive assistance from SNAP. One initiative provides free breakfast and lunch to children in the school district.¹⁷ The Deming School District also runs a backpack program that provides food for children to take home over the weekends.¹⁷ Community stakeholders report that for some children, “…the only meals that they [get] are at the school. And that’s why [the program provides] free meals at … school for breakfast and lunch.”¹⁷ Additionally, the Helping Hand food pantry, with support from other organizations, provides a safety net for households in the county. A local grocery store (Peppers) provides a discount of up to $1,500 for food products and produce to the regional food bank, Road Runner, which delivers food to Helping Hand once each month.¹³ Helping Hand then makes this food available to hungry people. Although these initiatives alleviate hunger, systemic changes are needed to ensure long-term food security.

Local Government Public-Policy Environment

A strong policy environment can positively transform a food system by simultaneously improving agricultural viability and reducing food insecurity. In Luna County, the government has played a leadership role to improve conditions, as detailed below.

Planning for Agriculture

The county’s comprehensive plan supports preservation of agricultural land uses as a strategy for maintaining its agrarian identity and addressing food insecurity.⁴ The plan notes, “retaining local agriculture rises to a level of protecting public health, safety and welfare.”⁴ Among its numerous goals and associated strategies, the plan advocates the adoption of a “Right-to-Farm Ordinance,” development of critical management areas (that include agriculture), and encouragement and incentives for compact development patterns (cluster development) near municipalities, to minimize sprawl and maximize efficient use of existing infrastructure.⁴ Luna County’s comprehensive plan is an important tool that can support both local farmers and food-insecure residents.

Joint Powers Agreements

Joint powers agreements are a means of sharing administrative power and costs for initiatives among local governments and other public agencies in the state.^{8, 27} This regional power and cost sharing is made possible through the state’s Joint Powers Agreements Act. The New Mexico legislature introduced the Joint Powers Agreements Act in 1978, which allows “public agencies” to enter into contractual agreements with other public agencies and public corporations, to share resources and support local economic and infrastructure development, among other things.²⁸ In addition to allowing public agencies to collaborate, the act enables public agencies to issue revenue bonds to cover the costs of pursuing the agreements.²⁸

In at least one instance, a joint powers agreement has been used to support food initiatives in the county. For example, a joint powers agreement with the Village of Columbus and FOCCG facilitates support for community gardens in the village.⁷ The agreement allows the Village to provide land, utilities, and liability insurance for the project, while FOCCG runs the programming: education, daily management, instruction, and fundraising.^{7, 16} The agreement allows a cooperative structure between the Village and FOCCG, which the state recognizes. This local government tool has become central to how the county supports local food initiatives.⁷ The joint powers agreement is a broad, flexible tool that could be applied to support other food system initiatives in the county.

Economic Development Tools for Food Systems Transformation

Another innovative tool that municipalities can use is the Local Economic Development Act (LEDA). LEDA, introduced in 1993 by the New Mexico legislature, provides a framework for local governments to use public dollars to spur economic development.²⁹ The public dollars for LEDA are allocated in the state budget each year, and funding varies from year to year.³⁰ LEDA allows the formation of public-private partnerships, to promote economic development projects.²⁹ In 2013, the state amended LEDA to extend funding to retail businesses in rural areas, and subsequently, in 2014, Luna County adopted a local economic development plan ordinance that facilitates use of LEDA funding.²⁹ Luna County has since provided both technical and financial assistance to small businesses, including those in the food sector, to access LEDA funds. For example, in 2015, Luna County provided multipronged economic development assistance to Preferred Produce, a local greenhouse producer. The county assisted Preferred Produce with its LEDA funding application to the state, access to funding, and improving road infrastructure in the vicinity of the business.⁸ In addition, Luna County in 2015 passed a local ordinance to recommend that Preferred Produce be awarded $135,000 in LEDA funds to expand their current facilities by 45,000 square feet.^{8, 31} In early 2015, the New Mexico Economic Development Department approved the expansion, which is expected to generate at least ten high-paying jobs, with a starting salary of $30,000, by 2018.^{8, 31} Facilitating this transformation would not be possible without the support of Luna County staff.

Financial, Technical, and Staffing Support for Food Projects

The Luna County government provides extensive financial, technical, and human-resource support to county food initiatives. Financial support for food initiatives are funded directly either through the county budget or LEDA funds. For example, the county provides the senior center $100,000 annually, part of which is dedicated to providing meals to seniors (seniors can donate toward the cost of meals).⁸ The planning office also provides technical and human-resource support to aid small food businesses. County planning staff provides support (similar to that provided to Preferred Produce) to other small businesses, including farmers and restaurants, by procuring loans and funding either through LEDA or by guaranteeing loans through the USDA or the New Mexico Finance Administration.⁸ County planning staff also provides training regarding grant applications, for small businesses. Most recently, Mizkan, a chile processor in the county, received training for their staff.⁸ In addition, county staff also prepared and submitted an application for the USDA’s Rural Business Development Grant to provide a permanent cover for the farmers’ market.⁸

Ideas for the Future

Commitment to agriculture and food security is evident in the efforts of the county government and community groups in Luna County. Greater support by local governments can amplify these initiatives to support food and agriculture. Community stakeholders identified multiple levers of change to improve agricultural viability and reduce food insecurity. Community stakeholders recommended simultaneously increasing local production of fruits and vegetables and expanding the farmers’ market, to alleviate spatial disparities in food access.⁸ Interviewees recommended increasing nutritional education and awareness programming in the community.^{8, 9, 19} Interviewees expressed concerns that even though some schools operate gardening programs, current regulations prohibit school staff from using (cooking) garden produce as part of the school meals on site.⁸ Changing regulations so that they support local healthy food initiatives could positively shift the food landscape in Luna County. Below are several suggestions to help move food policy forward systematically and strategically in Luna County.

Reduce the Regulatory Burden on Agricultural Activities

The City of Deming can carefully modify plans and ordinances to allow more agricultural activities. Currently, community gardens and urban agriculture are not explicitly permitted land uses in the city, and neither is the raising of livestock in the residential, commercial, and industrial zones.³² In addition, landscaping ordinances severely limit residents’ ability to (legally) maintain backyard gardens.³² Currently, very little land is agriculturally zoned within the city, further limiting access to land for subsistence and community agriculture. Zoning ordinances can be modified to permit agricultural activities in the city. For example, landscaping ordinances can be modified to allow backyard gardens that help recharge the aquifer through xeriscaping. Xeriscaping minimizes water use by prioritizing plants with low water usage (edible varieties include prickly pear and rosemary) and by allowing small plots of plants such as fruit trees and vegetable gardens.^{33, 34} Similarly, allowing certain livestock, such as chickens, within the city limits can be advantageous for addressing food security in the county. A number of local governments from across the country have taken a whole host of actions to support urban (and other forms of) community food production including by creating and implementing agricultural plans (Marquette County, Michigan); adopting supportive land use and zoning regulations (Minneapolis, Minnesota); using public lands for food production (Lawrence, Kansas); and supporting new farmer training and development (Cabarrus County, North Carolina).³⁵ The city and county governments of Deming and Luna can leverage their communities’ assets and knowledge to create a supportive policy environment for community food producers.

Develop a Food System Plan

Another way to strengthen the food-policy environment is to implement the agrarian goals in the county’s comprehensive plan through the development of a county food system plan. The development of a food system plan would include a countywide assessment of assets, needs, strengths, and opportunities guided by a set of visions and goals to help the county identify short-, medium-, and long-term policy actions to support the local food system. Similarly, the City of Deming might consider strengthening food system considerations in its policies by either jointly working with the county on the food system plan or by conducting a citywide food assessment. An informed food system plan will provide a tangible framework that both supports agrarian viability and improves food security for the county and city. Examples of food system plans are available through the Growing Food Connections Local Government Policy Database.³⁶

Invest in Food Infrastructure Development

A key agricultural challenge mentioned by community stakeholders was the absence of food infrastructure. In particular, stakeholders indicated that having a local pecan processor would benefit the area’s farmers. Additionally, the lack of cold storage and commercial kitchen facilities have hindered the agricultural economy. Such facilities would, first, allow farmers to extend the shelf life of produce, and second, develop value-added products from unsold produce.¹⁵ Another critical element of food infrastructure that community stakeholders highlighted is the need for aggregation facilities in closer proximity to farmers and retailers. The development of such a facility in Luna County would make it easier for farmers to serve the local community. The introduction of local aggregation would also help retailers purchase more locally grown produce. Given Luna County’s history of using local government tools to attract processors to the area, the county can use tools such as LEDA to add much-needed processing plants and other critical food infrastructure. The policy brief Food Aggregation, Processing, and Distribution, which draws on innovative experiences from across the country, outlines the many ways in which such infrastructure for fresh fruits and vegetables has been supported by local government.³⁷

Establish a Good Food Purchasing Program

A good food purchasing program can create additional connections between farmers and consumers. A good food purchasing program creates pathways to encourage public institutions to purchase local food, which creates an equitable food system. Through a joint powers agreement between public institutions in Luna, both the city and county can support local (small- and medium-sized) farmers by purchasing directly from farmers and by encouraging more farmers to produce fruits and vegetables for the local market. City and county procurement policies can be amended to include preferential language on sourcing a certain percentage of agricultural products from the local markets. Given the obstacles that farmers face in working with public institutions, payment methods and requirements may need to be amended to increase the feasibility of institutional purchasing agreements. The policy brief Incentivizing the Sale of Healthy and Local Food details the experience of urban communities such as Baltimore, Maryland, Minneapolis, Minnesota, and Washington D.C. as well as rural Marquette County, Michigan that may be helpful as Luna takes next steps.³⁸

Use Regionalism to Strengthen Food Systems

Luna County’s proximity to communities with similar agrarian conditions and challenges creates an opportunity to use regional food system approaches to strengthen rural economies. Tools such as the Joint Powers Agreements Act and LEDA can help to establish regional connections in the food system. Examples of regional approaches have been tried in rural communities elsewhere.³⁶ Consider the case of Region 5, Minnesota, which includes Cass, Crow Wing, Morrison, Todd, and Wadena counties in rural Minnesota. Region 5 has implemented multiple actions to generate local wealth and provide access to healthy, affordable foods.³⁹ One action has been the creation of the Sprout Growers and Makers Marketplace.³⁹ The marketplace is a regional food distribution and processing facility serving and connecting farmers and institutions.³⁹ As an aggregation and distribution facility, the marketplace aggregates thousands of pounds of commodities from community supported agriculture operations across the five-county region. Luna County’s proximity to other counties allows it to undertake a regional approach. Luna County can play a leadership role in establishing a regional framework, given its history of strengthening food systems by using LEDA and joint powers agreements.

Research Methods and Data Sources

Information in this brief is drawn from multiple sources. Quantitative data sources include the 2014 American Community Survey (ACS) five-year estimates and the 2012 U.S. Census of Agriculture. Qualitative data include eight in-depth interviews with representatives of various sectors of the food system as well as Luna County, City of Deming, and Village of Columbus policymakers and staff. Interviewees are not identified by name but are, instead, shown by the sector that they represent, and are interchangeably labeled as interviewees or stakeholders in the brief. Interviews were conducted from April to August 2015. Qualitative analysis also included the policy and planning documents of the local and regional governments, which were reviewed for key policies and laws pertaining to the food system, and a review of the minutes of the Growing Food Connections steering-committee meetings.

Acknowledgments

The GFC team is grateful to the Luna County GFC steering committee, Luna County government officials and staff, and interview respondents for generously giving their time and energy to this project.

Notes

¹ Growing Food Connections, “Eight ‘Communities of Opportunity’ Will Strengthen Links Between Farmers and Consumers: Growing Food Connections Announces Communities from New Mexico to Maine,” http://growingfoodconnections.org/news-item/eight-communities-of-opportunity-will-strengthen-links-between-farmers-and-consumers-growing-food-connections-announces-communities-from-new-mexico-to-maine/.

² C. Marquis and J. Freedgood, “Luna County, New Mexico: Community Profile,” Growing Food Connections Project (Buffalo, NY: University at Buffalo, 2016).

³ U.S. Census Bureau, 2014 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, 2010-2014 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Census Bureau, 2015).

⁴ Luna County, Comprehensive Plan Update (Luna County, NM: Luna County, 2012).

⁵ U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 Census of Governments: Organization Component Estimates (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Census Bureau, 2012).

⁶ Colonias are communities in Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Texas, within 150 miles of the U.S.-Mexico border. Luna is home to several federally recognized colonias in New Mexico. Colonia is a federal definition used to identify communities that can be targeted for federal aid for infrastructure development. Colonias are characterized by lack of adequate water, sewage, gas systems, and decent, safe, and sanitary housing.

⁷ Interview with Consumer Advocate Representative in Luna County (ID 67), June 3, 2015.

⁸ Interview with Local Government Representative in Luna County (ID 68), June 1, 2015.

⁹ Interview with Local Government Representative in Luna County (ID 72), April 13, 2015.

¹⁰ U.S. Department of Agriculture, Rural America at a Glance: 2016 edition (Washington, D.C.: Economic Research Service, 2016).

¹¹ U.S. Census Bureau, Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates Program (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Census Bureau, 2015).

¹² U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Unemployment Rate – Not Seasonally Adjusted (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Labor, 2015).

¹³ Interview with Food Retail Representative in Luna County (ID 74), June 1, 2015.

¹⁴ U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2012 Census of Agriculture (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Census Bureau, 2014).

¹⁵ Interview with Cooperative Extension Representative in Luna County (ID 103), September 22, 2015.

¹⁶ K. Naber, “Garden Grows in Village,” Deming Headlight 2016.

¹⁷ Interview with Consumer Advocate Representative in Luna County (ID 69), June 1, 2015.

¹⁸ Interview with Farming and Agriculture Representative in Luna County (ID 73), June 1, 2015.

¹⁹ Interview with Local Government Representative in Luna County (ID 70), June 2, 2015.

²⁰ On average, Luna County receives 10 inches of rainfall annually.

²¹ U.S. Department of Agriculture, Environmental Quality Incentives Program, https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/nm/programs/financial/eqip/.

²² New Mexico Statutes Annotated. §72-14-3.2; 2003.

²³ C. Gundersen, A. Dewey, A. Crumbaugh, M. Kato, and E. Engelhard, Map the Meal Gap 2016: Overall Food Insecurity in New Mexico by County in 2014 (Chicago, IL: Feeding America, 2016).

²⁴ Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, County Data (Washington, D.C.: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2016).

²⁵ New Mexico Department of Health Public Health Division, New Mexico’s Indicator-Based Information System (NM-IBIS) 2016, https://ibis.health.state.nm.us/community/highlight/profile/NurtiAdultFruitVeg.Cnty/GeoCnty/29.html.

²⁶ U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food Environment Atlas (Washington, D.C.: Economic Research Service, 2015).

²⁷ White, Samaniego, and Campbell LLP, State of New Mexico, Village of Columbus: Basic Financial Statements and Supplementary Information for the Year Ended June 30, 2014 and Independent Auditors’ Report (Columbus, NM: Columbus Village Council, 2014).

²⁸ New Mexico Statutes Annotated 1978, Joint Powers Agreements Act Vol Chapter 11 (Santa Fe, NM: New Mexico Legislature, 2016).

²⁹ New Mexico Statutes Annotated 1978, Local Economic Development Act (Santa Fe, NM: New Mexico Legislature, 1993).

³⁰ Representative L. “Lucky” Varela and Senator J.A. Smith, Report of the Legislative Finance Committee to the Fifty-Second Legislature First Session, Volume 1 Legislating for Results: Policy and Performance Analysis, January 2015 for Fiscal Year 2016 (Santa Fe, NM: New Mexico Legislature, 2015).

³¹ A. Heisel, “New Mexico Economic Development Department and Luna County to Announce Preferred Produce Expanding, Nearly Doubling Workforce,” (Santa Fe, NM: New Mexico Economic Development Department, 2015).

³² City of Deming, Zoning Regulations 12 (Deming, NM: Deming City Council, 2001).

³³ C. Vogel, “Teaching Water Awareness Through Xeriscaping,” Green Teacher: Education for Planet Earth (2003): 23–29.

³⁴ Albuquerque Bernalillo County Water Utility Authority, Xeriscaping: The Complete How-To Guide (Albuquerque, NM: Albuquerque Bernalillo County Water Utility Authority, 2010).

³⁵ A. Dillemuth, “Community Food Production: The Role of Local Governments in Increasing Community Food Production for Local Markets,” (Buffalo, NY: Growing Food Connections, 2017), http://growingfoodconnections.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2015/11/GFCFoodProductionPlanningPolicyBrief_2017August29.pdf.

³⁶ S. Raja, J. Clark, J. Freedgood, and K. Hodgson, Growing Food Connections: Local Government Food Policy Database (Buffalo, NY: University at Buffalo, 2016), http://growingfoodconnections.org/tools-resources/policy-database/.

³⁷ A. Dillemuth and K. Hodgson, “Food Aggregation, Processing, and Distribution,” (Buffalo, NY: Growing Food Connections, 2016), http://growingfoodconnections.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2015/11/GFCFoodInfrastructurePlanningPolicyBrief_2016Sep22-3.pdf.

³⁸ A. Dillemuth and K. Hodgson, “Incentivizing the Sale of Healthy and Local Food,” (Buffalo, NY: Growing Food Connections, 2016), http://growingfoodconnections.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2015/11/GFCHealthyFoodIncentivesPlanningPolicyBrief_2016Feb-1.pdf.

³⁹ K. Hodgson and K. Martin, “Building from the Inside Out in Region 5, Minnesota: A Rural Region’s Effort to Build a Resilient Food System,” in Exploring Stories of Innovation, edited by K. Hodgson and S. Raja, 4 (Buffalo, NY: Growing Food Connections Project, 2016), http://growingfoodconnections.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2016/08/GFCStoryOfInnovation_Region5Minnesota_2016Sep22.pdf.

Community of Opportunity Feature

AUTHORS

Subhashni Raj, University at Buffalo

Joseph E. Quinn, University at Buffalo

Samina Raja, University at Buffalo

CONTRIBUTORS

Jill Clark, Ohio State University

Julia Freedgood, American Farmland Trust

Kimberley Hodgson, Cultivating Healthy Places

Samina Raja, University at Buffalo

SERIES EDITOR

Samina Raja, University at Buffalo

PROJECT COORDINATOR

Enjoli Hall, University at Buffalo

LAYOUT AND DESIGN

Brenda Stynes, University at Buffalo

Daniela Leon, University at Buffalo

Samantha Bulkilvish, University at Buffalo

Clancy Grace O’Connor, University at Buffalo

Recommended citation: Raj, Subhashni, Joseph E. Quinn, and Samina Raja. “Supporting the Chile Capital of the Southwest: The Role of Local Government in Sustaining Farming Traditions in Luna County, New Mexico.” In Exploring Stories of Opportunity. Edited by Samina Raja, 13 pages. Buffalo: Growing Food Connections Project, 2018.

Print Version (PDF)

Towards Health Equity in the Heartland: Advancing Community-Led Food Planning in Douglas County, Nebraska

In March 2015, Douglas County, Nebraska was selected as one of eight Communities of Opportunity (COOs) in the country that have significant potential to strengthen ties between small- and medium-sized farmers and residents with limited food access.¹ Working with the Growing Food Connections (GFC) project team, county stakeholders have since established a steering committee that has charted a vision for the future of Douglas’s food system.²

This brief, which draws on interviews with Douglas County stakeholders and secondary data sources, provides information about local government policy opportunities and challenges in the food system to inform the work of the GFC steering committee and stakeholders in Douglas County.

Background

Douglas County is located along the Missouri River on the eastern edge of the state of Nebraska. With just over 543,000 residents, Douglas is Nebraska’s most populous county and home to over one-fourth of the state’s residents.³ The county seat is the City of Omaha, which is home to 82% of the county’s residents.³ The county also contains several smaller incorporated municipalities and unincorporated areas.⁴ Although characterized as urban, the county benefits from its proximity to productive and valuable farmland, clean air and high quality water sources, and good access to green space and parks. Perhaps most characteristic of the county is its reputation as a great place to raise a family. Omaha’s location at the heart of the country has earned the city a reputation as a flyover city, but residents know there is more to this metro area than most outsiders realize. It is a region that celebrates and treasures the past, while also warmly embracing change and growth. The metro area renowned for TV dinners from major food manufacturers such as Kellogg’s and Tyson Foods now houses a budding upscale restaurant scene. While ranchers continue to raise cattle on the sprawling prairies surrounding the region, Omaha has begun to attract new types of businesses and interest in urban agriculture.

With 443,000 residents living in a land area of 127 square miles, Omaha is the state’s largest city, but has a distinctive small-town feel, with a common refrain being that you can travel anywhere within the city in 20 minutes.^{3, 5} The city is also highly regarded for its overall low unemployment (5%) and relative economic stability.³ With a median household income of nearly $51,000, many residents view the city as offering an affordable, high quality of life.³ According to a 2013 analysis, Omaha has the most Fortune 500 companies, per capita, of any major metro area in the country (although in 2015, Con-Agra announced that it was relocating its headquarters to Chicago).⁶ However, the level of overall wealth in the city masks deep inequality and poverty, as nearly 1 in 5 residents (16%) live in poverty.³

While the county has a strong, diverse regional economy that affords many residents a high quality of life, significant disparities exist and threaten future vitality. The county has relatively high levels of racial segregation and concentrated poverty. The neighborhoods with the highest Black and Latino populations generally have lower access to opportunity for jobs, lower labor market engagement, and increased potential for exposure to health hazards. Demographic shifts offer challenges and opportunities for creating a more equitable and inclusive region. While the population of Omaha, like Douglas County overall, is majority White (67%), its Black (13%) and Latino (14%) communities are increasing.³ Stakeholders described how the city’s 72^nd Street serves as a dividing line between the affluent and predominantly White neighborhoods of West Omaha, and the low-income, minority neighborhoods of East Omaha.⁷ Northeast Omaha is home to a predominantly Black and poor population, but is beginning to experience some redevelopment after decades of disinvestment. However, entrenched challenges of poverty, unemployment, low educational attainment, and crime continue to persist. Southeast Omaha also faces many economic challenges and is home to the city’s growing immigrant population. The area is predominantly Latino, but has welcomed refugees from Myanmar (formerly Burma), Sudan and other countries in recent years.⁸

Despite deep-rooted challenges of inequality and poverty, many individuals and organizations in Omaha and Douglas County envision opportunities to create an equitable region in which all residents can thrive. Over the last fifteen years, the local community has begun making connections between poverty, food insecurity, and health, prompting conversations and initiatives to combat hunger, increase local food production, and educate residents about healthy eating.

Agriculture: Challenges and Opportunities

Douglas County is a rich agricultural community increasingly filled with a variety of farming options and food systems stakeholders, from large factory farms and agricultural corporations to community gardens, small organic farms, aquaponics and local food movements. A county government official described the city of Omaha and several smaller incorporated municipalities as comprising a large metropolitan area that is surrounded by farmland, some of which has been lost to development over the last several decades.⁷ There are nearly 400 farms in Douglas County comprising over 86,000 acres.⁹ The average farm size is 217 acres, but more than half of the county’s farms (about 230 farms) are less than 50 acres in size.⁹ Most farmland (88.5%) is crop farmland for corn, soybeans, and cattle characteristic of industrial agriculture, but a small portion is food-producing farmland.⁹ While the average market value of products sold per farm is $146,513, the majority of farms (285 farms) earn less than $50,000 in sales and a quarter of the county’s farms (99 farms) earn less than $1,000 in sales.⁹ In other words, many of the county’s farms are small and struggle to earn a profit.

Challenges

There are significant challenges to enhancing agricultural viability in Douglas County. An inadequate labor supply and insufficient aggregation and distribution infrastructure pose challenges for small farmers looking to scale up production and connect to underserved consumers. Stakeholders that work closely with farmers through Extension or in the aggregation sector repeatedly emphasized labor as the greatest challenge facing farmers in the county, explaining that attracting labor to farms is difficult given the region’s short growing season and very low unemployment rates.^10-11 Chronic labor shortages limit production and contribute to the predominance of row crop production over much more labor-intensive fruit and vegetable production in the county.¹¹ While the region has a lot of processing infrastructure, infrastructure for small-scale and local producers is lacking.² In addition to infrastructure, training and certification is required for growers in order to meet the supply needs of large institutional buyers and retailers.

Key challenges for urban agriculture are access to lots, access to water, and long-term leases. While there are many vacant lots in the city that could potentially be utilized for small-scale food production, and there are also underserved areas that could benefit from access to fresh food, some areas of eastern Omaha are designated a superfund site due to lead contamination and require cleanup in order to be viable for agriculture.¹² Additionally, a local government representative expressed constraints as a result of state legislation that does not allow land bank lots to be used for agricultural purposes.¹² Furthermore, stakeholders across various sectors asserted that it is very expensive to put water on a vacant lot, and growers share concerns that once equipped with water, these lots will increase in property value and become vulnerable to development pressure.¹³ These concerns are heightened by the short-team leasing options for use of many of these lots (usually one year) which threaten sustainability.¹³

Opportunities

Opportunities for direct sales and marketing of local agricultural products in the county exist and are gaining popularity in recent years, with many farmers selling directly to consumers through farmers’ markets, farm stands, community-supported agriculture (CSA), and online through Nebraska Food Co-Op, and these opportunities appear to be expanding. According to a food aggregation representative, in 2008, the concept of a CSA was largely unheard of in Douglas County.¹¹ Today, Tomato Tomato operates a 1,000-member CSA and coordinates delivery of shares with local grocery store Hy-Vee and is working with store produce managers to sell local produce within the stores.¹¹ There are also many farmers’ markets within Omaha, from the large non-profit Omaha Farmers Market to Benson Farmers Market, a small non-profit market that has hosted vendors who have gone on to have their products sold in local chain stores.¹⁴

Some stakeholders noted that many small-scale farmers, ranchers, and gardeners are interested in moving away from direct sales and would like to serve local markets via food retailers and other food distributors.¹⁵ New business models and partnerships geared towards helping local farmers sell their produce to local retailers and other distributors could support rural-urban partnerships for improving farm viability and food security. There are many promising examples in the county. There is a thriving restaurant scene in Omaha and a number of restaurants that source locally.² The city is also home to a handful of major corporations with cafeterias that purchase large quantities of food, some of which are sourcing locally.² Innovative partnerships between farmers and other institutions such as schools, neighborhood stores, and food banks can play a role in connecting low-income residents to local fresh foods. There is also growing consumer demand for organic, free-range, and non-GMO (genetically modified organisms) products. Currently, these imported products represent a multi-million dollar annual loss to the local food economy. There is opportunity to build a more sustainable community food system by capturing and satisfying some of this demand through local food retailers. This would require the development of local food infrastructure at a sufficient scale so that local food producers could compete with imported, high-value foods. As previously mentioned, Tomato Tomato demonstrates the increasing interest in the development of local food infrastructure for small-scale local producers. Furthermore, partnerships will be most effective in the context of planning and policy interventions that create a strong regulatory environment and incentive structure for producing and purchasing locally.

There is also growing interest in food production within the metro area. There are several urban farms in Omaha and residents have expressed interest in using vacant lots for community gardening. The non-profit organization Whispering Roots operates aquaponics, hydroponics, and urban farming programs in socially and economically disadvantaged communities in the city.⁵ Whispering Roots is also working towards increasing farmer ownership and job creation in local processing and distribution sectors.¹⁵ Some stakeholders point to the work of Whispering Roots as a strong example of how community food systems offer important economic development and environmental sustainability opportunities for communities.¹⁵

Food Security: Challenges and Opportunities

Food security is a serious issue throughout the City of Omaha and Douglas County, but some areas and populations are more vulnerable than others. Despite relatively higher rates of food production, access to healthy foods is an issue in rural areas of Douglas County. While some stakeholders stated that there are pockets of poverty and food insecurity throughout all parts of Omaha, nearly all respondents asserted that food insecurity is heavily concentrated in areas with greater proportions of low-income residents and people of color, including North Omaha and South Omaha.¹⁶ Some stakeholders suggested that the cost of food, especially healthy food, is relatively high for most of the city’s residents.¹⁷ Nearly 13% of households in the city receive Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits.³

Challenges

Challenges to food security in Douglas County go beyond poverty and economic access and include lack of physical access to both traditional and newer forms of food retail outlets due to location and transportation constraints. The Douglas County Health Department has mapped grocery stores in the county, and while stores carrying food are well distributed throughout the county, these stores often take form of the gas stations and convenience stores lower-income neighborhoods throughout the county, which tend to have less variety and less healthy food options. For example, North Omaha contains many more convenience stores than fully stocked grocery stores. While there is also a relative lack of grocery stores in South Omaha, the sizable Latino community operates some independently owned markets.¹⁸ There are a number of farmers’ markets throughout the city, most of which accept EBT, yet the locations of these markets are not necessarily in high-need areas.¹⁸ Transportation is a key barrier to food access for individuals who do not have access to a vehicles.⁵ There is no light rail system, and bus service is limited and routes do not align well with the locations of food retail outlets.¹⁷

Opportunities

There are institutions and programs in place that help provide some relief from hunger and food insecurity in Douglas County. The county has an emergency food system comprised of the Food Bank of the Heartland and numerous food pantries.¹⁶ During the 2015-2016 school year, nearly three-quarters of students (74.3%) in Omaha Public Schools were eligible for free and reduced-price lunch.¹⁹ This percentage represents a 20.1 percentage point increase over the last 14 years.¹⁹ As the largest school district in the city (and county) which serves most of its low-income neighborhoods, Omaha Public Schools offers free breakfast to all students, and there have been efforts in recent years by local non-profits to promote school breakfast and ensure that after school programs serve snacks and dinner.¹² However, there is a need to increase healthy food access in schools and  childcare centers.¹² While there is some small-scale repurposing of food waste and a handful of efforts to redistribute food to those in need (including one major food bank), the vast majority of food waste in the county goes to landfills.⁷

There is a growing body of stakeholders in Douglas County committed to improving food security and efforts so far have yielded key partnerships, programs, and possibilities. North Omaha has been the geographic focus of many initiatives to improve food security. The 2007 North Omaha Development Project plan identified attraction of a large grocery store as a key goal of the plan and conducted an analysis of existing store locations, sales volume, and consumer demand for food retail.²⁰ As a result of the plan, the neighborhood gained a grocery store and local government leaders gained understanding of the food security challenges of low-income residents, which has prompted local government support of other food access initiatives.²¹ The plan also provided information for the Douglas County Health Department in designing its Healthy Neighborhood Store project.²¹ The project operates in 13 existing corner stores in the city’s lowest income and most food insecure neighborhoods and has worked with store owners to increase the stock of healthy foods in their stores.²¹ The project has also worked to ensure that these stores accept public assistance benefits.²¹ Currently, the project is working to connect store owners with local farmers to support the viability of small producers while improving healthy food access.²¹ Underserved consumers are also being connected to local farmers through Tomato Tomato, a local 1,000-member community-supported agriculture (CSA), which partners with No More Empty Pots, Cooking Matters, and other local non-profits to set aside shares for low-income residents and offer educational programming on preparing healthy meals.¹¹

Several programs have also promoted local food production within city limits to address food insecurity. City Sprouts operates a community garden and urban farm in North Omaha and allows individuals and organizations to rent raised beds to grow food for personal consumption.¹³ About 40 families rent gardens, half of which are from the immediate neighborhood.¹³ Additionally, several organizations that work with individuals with disabilities rent gardens.¹³ City Sprouts also operates a paid internship program exclusively for low-income youth in the neighborhood to learn how to grow and harvest produce and to sell their produce on site in a weekly farm stand.¹³ These programs are some of the examples of urban agriculture activities in the city of Omaha that are connecting food access challenges related to poverty with the city’s food production potential.

Local Government Public-Policy Environment

The key food security challenges in Douglas County are to increase food access for the county’s low-income residents and communities of color in both urban and rural areas. African American and Latino communities in East Omaha are especially vulnerable to hunger and food insecurity and face many barriers to food access because of segregation and disinvestment. The key food production challenges in Douglas County are to provide support for small and mid-sized farmers in the county to remain economically viable and scale up production. While a stable supply of labor appears to be the primary concern for growers in areas outside municipalities, access to water appears to be the main concern for growers in urban areas. The work of food systems stakeholders over the last few years has fostered many partnerships and demonstrated the community interest in understanding the various food systems challenges and opportunities in Douglas County.

Community-Led Food Planning

In a state dominated by big agriculture, some food systems stakeholders worry that the policy environment is not responsive to the interests of small and mid-sized farmers.¹¹ Moreover, many respondents stressed that agriculture and food tend to be overshadowed by other pressing public concerns, particularly violence and crime.¹² Furthermore, according to stakeholders, the political and cultural climate of the state emphasizes bottom-up approaches to addressing issues rather than top-down approaches and strongly values collaboration.¹² This emphasis on community-led solutions has resulted in a tremendous amount of conversation and activity around food systems challenges in Douglas County in a short period of time, mostly led by grassroots community-based organizations and non-profits. While there are several strong, small networks of food systems stakeholders in the county, a larger, more coordinated network where stakeholders can more fully share resources does not exist, and local government has largely been absent from conversation and activity. Furthermore, the overlap of the work of different food systems stakeholders, largely grant-funded community-based organizations and non-profits, sometimes leads to competition rather than collaboration among stakeholders. The Metro Omaha Food Policy Council was established in 2011 to encourage cooperation among stakeholders, but has undergone several structural changes.¹⁷ In order to realize the potential of emerging partnerships and programs, greater local government resources need to be invested in the work.

Municipal Support for Urban Agriculture

In recent years, municipal government has increasingly been responsive to community food production initiatives. The process has been slow but there has been demonstrable progress over time, particularly with the previous mayoral administration of Jim Suttle (2009-2013). The City of Omaha is increasingly concerned with healthy environments and, in 2015, Mayor Jean Stothert established a new Active Living Advisory Committee.²² The city has also incorporated health promotion into the plans and initiatives of several departments. The Environment Element of the Omaha Master Plan created in 2008 has a “Community Health” section that discusses the possibilities of green spaces and open spaces for urban agricultural uses.²³ The planning process involved several food systems stakeholders who helped the city establish a working definition of community gardens.²¹ The Transportation Element of the Omaha Master Plan also promotes planning for healthier communities.²⁴ A recent update to the city park plan also identified park land that could be used for agriculture. The Adams Park Health Impact Assessment (HIA), the first HIA undertaken in Nebraska and the Great Plains region of the country, called for urban farming and community gardening activities at the heart of the North Omaha Park.²⁵ Groups have also been working with the city around their policies around gardening and open space. In 2013, the city planning department identified select parcels and put out a request for proposal (RFP) for those parcels and allowed organizations to come in and on identified lots start gardens on short-term leases as part of rehabilitation programs for neighborhoods.²¹ In 2015, the City of Omaha released a vacant lot toolkit to provide examples of uses for vacant lots (including urban agriculture) and steps to improve vacant lots.²⁶ But overall, urban agriculture is relatively new to the area and local government lacks technical expertise in this area to develop and implement policy. Extension could potentially serve in an advisory capacity on developing policy around urban agriculture, but needs to develop a stronger presence in the local community.

At the county level, Douglas County is in the process of updating its comprehensive land use plan and zoning regulations. The existing documents, last updated in 2006, do not address topics of urban agriculture and community food production. In the update process, the county through its contracted planning consultant, has interviewed a variety of local stakeholders including some directly connected with the local food movement and the Growing Food Connections steering committee.²⁷ It is anticipated that Douglas County’s updated comprehensive plan and zoning regulations will contain policy sections on how urban agriculture and community food production can fit within the county, including definitions, use types, and other guidelines that will facilitate these land uses in Douglas County.²⁷

Local and Regional Planning for Public Health

Municipal plans and programs have also addressed food access issues and planning work at the regional level has identified key policies and infrastructure for sustainable food production. As previously mentioned, the 2007 North Omaha Development Project included incentives for grocery store attraction and prompted discussion of the importance of food retail outlets and food access in underserved areas of the city.²⁰ The plan also helped to demonstrate the relevance of food systems issues to city officials, and increased municipal support for several food systems initiatives of the Douglas County Health Department in the city. The Health Department is increasingly focused on health promotion and the prevention of obesity and chronic diseases through a food and nutrition lens as well as a concomitant focus on health equity, and has received several major grants to work with local communities around food access and affordability.²¹ The Health Department’s Healthy Neighborhood Store program has brought attention to the lack of healthy food access in underserved areas of the city.²¹ At the regional level, the eight-county regional planning organization Metropolitan Area Planning Agency (MAPA)’s 2014 Heartland 2050 Vision plan touches on urban agriculture and food hubs, as well as growth management and preservation of farmland in the rural areas outside of incorporated municipalities in Douglas and surrounding counties.²⁸ MAPA, in partnership with local organizations, is also exploring opportunities to redistribute or compost food waste in the context of its solid waste management plan.²⁹

Local government is increasingly concerned with healthy environments and this concern has translated into a number of planning and programming initiatives. Over the last 10 years, there has also been increasing commitment from local government to distributing resources and investments across all parts of the city of Omaha. City leadership, including planning leadership, recognizes the economic and social challenges facing the eastern areas of the city, including food insecurity. The 75 North redevelopment project in North Omaha, founded in 2011, has plans to include gardening and indoor food growing components and represents collaboration between various organizations.⁸ Although the city will likely not contribute direct funding to the project, it is completing a number of public improvements to support the project.⁸ These broad trends in health and equity offer opportunities for local government to engage in food systems planning to support and extend the ongoing efforts of community organizations.

State Enabling Legislation

Although planning occurs at the local and regional levels, many stakeholders identified state government as a key policy arena for local food systems issues, perhaps due to state legislation in recent years that has had important impacts on connecting farmers to underserved consumers. In 2010, the state legislature passed Legislative Bill 986, which authorizes grants to be used to purchase EBT machines at farmers’ markets, and for marketing, promotion and outreach activities related to federally subsidized food and nutrition programs at farmers’ markets.³⁰ There is also a bill in the state legislature that would allow for the preparation of value-added products in non-commercial kitchens, which would reduce a significant barrier to entry for food businesses.²¹ State legislators have also met with community groups to discuss urban agriculture and community gardening issues.⁵ While the state level may not be the most effective level to enact a robust set of plans and policies for the community food system in Douglas County, the efforts made by state government officials to become engaged in food systems issues provide good models for local government officials looking to become more involved in the food system and underscore the role of policy in bringing about sustainable change.

Corporate Power in the Food System

Finally, it is important to impart historical background on the larger context of corporate consolidation and control in the United States and globally that shapes inequities within the local food system and may constrain local government public policy. In particular, the control of political and economic systems by corporations in order to influence trade regulations, tax rates, and wealth distribution, among other measures, shapes inequities within the local food system experienced by struggling farmers and vulnerable consumers. These structural forces are particularly evident in a region dominated by large-scale industrial agriculture. A farming and agriculture representative emphasized the role of corporate influence in how food is produced, processed, distributed, and consumed in the region, describing long-term trends: “to abandon diversified agriculture in favor of continuous grain production and large-scale confinement feeding of livestock and poultry; the resulting and inevitable elimination of farm profits and free cash among local and regional diversified (sustainable) producers; and poverty-level wages at all levels of food production, processing and distribution.”¹⁵ Within this larger context, while segregation and disinvestment are part of the foundation underpinning long-term food insecurity and limited access for Black and Latino communities in Omaha and Douglas County, less visible and slow-moving structural changes in the agricultural industry have also eliminated the meat, milk and food grain products once produced for local and regional consumption in the Missouri Valley.¹⁵ This food production and related processing operations have moved to the Southwest United States where the costs of land, water, and labor are lower.¹⁵ Given this larger context of corporate influence, some stakeholders observed that local government may not be the right scale for policies that address the structural causes of agricultural viability and food insecurity in the county.

Ideas for the Future

Over the last several years, residents and organizations in Douglas County have been working in partnership to diversify and sustain the county’s strong tradition of agriculture, with growing interests in urban agriculture, farmers’ markets, and community-supported agriculture. Many stakeholders also recognize the potential to connect local food production to combat local hunger and food insecurity and have developed initiatives towards these aims. At the same time, local government has demonstrated increasing interest in health promotion and redevelopment of distressed areas through plans and programs. Through strengthened partnerships and coordination between local government and food systems stakeholders, Douglas County is well positioned to increase community food production and food security for a healthier and equitable future. Below are several suggestions to help move food policy forward systematically and strategically in Douglas County.

Make Food Access a Priority in Redevelopment Projects

There are many opportunities for local government to further support the efforts of local organizations working to alleviate food insecurity. Local government should continue to spearhead and support redevelopment projects in the most underserved areas of the city given that many food access challenges residents in these areas face are tied to poverty and disinvestment. Local government should also incorporate a variety of specific strategies aimed at increasing access to fresh, nutritious foods in redevelopment projects. Some strategies such as attracting grocery stores in underserved neighborhoods and increasing the stock of fruits, vegetables, and other healthy foods at neighborhood corner stores are already underway. Additional strategies might include supporting or developing other retail outlets such as farmers’ markets, community-supported agriculture programs, and mobile vendors and improving public transportation to grocery stores and farmers’ markets. Additionally, incentivizing the use of SNAP dollars at these local markets can support local agriculture while also addressing inadequate food access in the county. Local governments can use public financing tools to incentivize similar initiatives. Examples already exist in places like Douglas County, Kansas that may prove useful to Douglas County in their efforts to strengthen the community food system.³¹ The policy brief Incentivizing the Sale of Healthy and Local Food details the experience of other communities across the country such as Baltimore, Maryland, Minneapolis, Minnesota, and Washington D.C. that may be helpful as Douglas considers next steps.³²   

Scale Up Support for Urban Agriculture

There are also significant opportunities for local government planning and policy to promote local food production, particularly within urban areas. Some urban areas that could benefit from agricultural activities are under-utilized due to soil contamination. Local government has data on superfund sites that could help guide and inform soil cleanup efforts.⁸ In addition to soil cleanup efforts on contaminated vacant lots, the city should also develop water access policies for vacant lots and other properties for urban agricultural uses, and ensure the sustainability of community gardening and other urban agriculture activities through long-term leases and other legal protections from development pressure. A number of local governments from across the country have taken a whole host of actions to support urban (and other forms of) community food production including by creating and implementing agricultural plans (Marquette County, Michigan); using public lands for food production (Lawrence, Kansas); and supporting new farmer training and development (Cabarrus County, North Carolina).³³ The city and county governments of Omaha and Douglas can leverage their communities’ assets and knowledge to create a supportive policy environment for community food producers.

Reduce Regulatory Barriers to Direct Sales of Agricultural Products  

In order to promote the economic viability of agricultural activities, local government should enact policies to reduce barriers to commercial sale of locally produced and value-added products, for example, by revising limitations on the commercial sale of produce in residentially zoned areas, and amending requirements for value-added products to be prepared in commercial kitchens. Local government can also take steps to make the development process for urban agriculture more transparent and convenient for residents. Currently, zoning, licensing and permits are spread across multiple city departments.¹⁴ There is a lack of public information about the steps of the development process, required applications and fees, and appropriate departments to contact for inquiries.¹⁴ Local government could make this process more transparent and efficient by designating a department or creating a centralized office to be responsible for urban agriculture activities. By centralizing and streamlining these requirements under the responsibilities of one staff position or department, it could also help identify and revise requirements and costs that create unnecessary barriers for growers and vendors.

Leverage Institutional Purchasing Power to Expand Markets for Farmers

While Douglas County has a number of farmers’ markets and other venues for small farmers to sell directly to consumers, many farmers are interested in the power of institutional purchasing. A variety of public and private institutions throughout the county prepare, cook, and serve meals every day, including schools, universities, hospitals, prisons, corporate cafeterias, and senior care facilities. There are many ways that local governments can facilitate connections between small farmers and local institutions (as well as local food retailers). Leveraging institutional purchasing power can also expand access to healthy food for vulnerable consumers—consumers who are also clients, employees, and students in institutions throughout the county. The policy brief Local, Healthy Food Procurement Policies focuses on the ways that local government agencies such as public school districts, correctional facilities, and public hospitals can purchase, provide, or make available produced by local farmers.³⁴

Invest in Food Infrastructure Development and Enhancement

Several stakeholders emphasized infrastructure development and enhancement as essential to helping small farmers achieve sufficient scale to tap into larger and more diverse markets. Related to food infrastructure development are the related steps of food aggregation, processing, and distribution. These steps are vital in diversifying and growing the ways that small and mid-sized farmers and food businesses can reach consumers, filling gaps in the current food distribution system to meet demand for local, sustainably produced products and allowing local producers to meet the rapidly changing demands of local food markets. Food aggregation, processing, and distribution infrastructure can take a variety of forms, all of which have policy, regulatory, programmatic and funding implications. An important first step for Douglas County may be assessing the current state of its complete food system, including the presence (or absence) of local and regional supply chain infrastructure. For example, local governments across the country, including the City of San Francisco, California and Lawrence-Douglas County, Kansas, have developed food infrastructure assessments and feasibility studies.³⁵

Provide Support for Capacity Building of Food Policy Council

The Douglas County Growing Food Connections Steering Committee has worked with the GFC team of researchers and technical assistance providers to identify local policy opportunities and barriers to achieve food systems goals. There is interest among steering committee members and other stakeholders to continue this capacity-building process beyond the Growing Food Connections project and create a long-term vehicle for initiating and maintaining this process over time. One opportunity to leverage and build the capacity of the Metro Omaha Food Policy Council to serve as a vehicle for engaging local government officials, economic development specialists, and local food leaders alongside local farmers, ranchers, food system workers, and vulnerable consumers to understand and implement public policies that advance a shared vision for food system sustainability. There is a particular interest among respondents in tying discussions of the community food system more closely to issues of economic development and environmental sustainability. The Growing Food Connections Local Government Policy Database provides examples of food system plans and policies developed by local governments across the country. Policies span different geographic regions, sizes of government, rural and urban contexts, and public issues—illustrating the wide range of priorities and approaches Douglas can take to advance food systems work.³⁶

Research Methods and Data Sources

Information in this brief comes from multiple sources. Quantitative data sources include the 2012- 2016 American Community Survey (ACS) five-year estimates and the 2012 Census of Agriculture, as well as datasets from state education and public health departments. Qualitative data include 15 in-depth interviews with representatives of various sectors of the food system as well as City of Omaha and Douglas County policymakers and staff. Interviewees are not identified by name but are, instead, shown by the sector that they represent, and are interchangeably referred to as respondents, interviewees or stakeholders in this brief. Interviews were conducted from April to September 2015. Qualitative analysis also includes a review of policy and planning documents of Douglas County, which were reviewed for key policies and laws pertaining to the food system, and a review of the minutes of the Growing Food Connections steering committee meetings. A draft of this brief was reviewed by interview respondents and community stakeholders prior to publication.

Acknowledgments

The GFC team is grateful to the Douglas County GFC steering committee, Douglas County government officials and staff, and the interview respondents, for generously giving their time and energy to this project. The authors thank colleagues at the Food Systems Planning and Healthy Communities Lab and the School of Architecture and Planning at the University at Buffalo, The Ohio State University, Cultivating Healthy Places, American Farmland Trust, and the American Planning Association for their support. This work was funded by a grant from the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA Award #2012-68004- 19894), and the 3E grant for Built Environment, Health Behaviors, and Health Outcomes from the University at Buffalo.

Notes

¹ Growing Food Connections, “Eight ‘Communities of Opportunity’ Will Strengthen Links between Farmers and Consumers: Growing Food Connections Announces Communities from New Mexico to Maine,” March 2, 2015, http://growingfoodconnections.org/news-item/eight-communities-of-opportunity-will-strengthen-links-between-farmers-and-consumers-growing-food-connections-announces-communities-from-new-mexico-to-maine/.

² Growing Food Connections, “Douglas County, Nebraska: Community Profile,” May 12, 2016, growingfoodconnections.org/research/communities-of-opportunity.

³ U.S. Census Bureau, 2016 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, 2012-2016 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Census Bureau, 2016).

⁴ U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 Census of Governments: Organization Component Estimates (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Census Bureau, 2012).

⁵ Interview with Consumer Advocate Representative in Douglas County (ID 66), July 28, 2015.

⁶ H.J. Cordes, “Omaha’s ‘Fab Five’ of Fortune 500 Firms Stand Tall,” Omaha World-Herald, February 3, 2013, https://www.omaha.com/money/omaha-s-fab-five-of-fortune-firms-stand-tall/article_610299a5-f03a-5ebc-b7ce-74688dd35ecc.html#omaha-s-fab-five-of-fortune-500-firms-stand-tall.

⁷ Interview with Local Government Representative in Douglas County (ID 56), June 10, 2015.

⁸ Interview with Local Government Representative in Douglas County (ID 64), July 30, 2015.

⁹ U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2012 Census of Agriculture (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Census Bureau, 2014).

¹⁰ Interview with Cooperative Extension Representative in Douglas County (ID 57), August 4, 2015.

¹¹ Interview with Food Aggregation Representative in Douglas County (ID 58), June 9, 2015.

¹² Interview with Local Government Representative in Douglas County (ID 54a), April 14, 2015.

¹³ Interview with Farming and Agriculture Representative in Douglas County (ID 65), June 8, 2015.

¹⁴ Interview with Food Retail Representative in Douglas County (ID 55), June 8, 2015.

¹⁵ Farming and Agriculture Representative, email to author, June 26, 2017.

¹⁶ Interview with Consumer Advocate Representative in Douglas County (ID 60), June 8, 2015.

¹⁷ Interview with Local Government Representative in Douglas County (ID 61), July 3, 2015.

¹⁸ Interview with Consumer Advocate Representative in Douglas County (ID 63), June 8, 2015.

¹⁹ Omaha Public Schools, 2015-16 District Free and Reduced-Price Lunch Program, December 22, 2015, https://district.ops.org/DesktopModules/Evotiva-UserFiles/API/FileActionsServices/DownloadFile?ItemId=288612&ModuleId=8790&TabId=2338.

²⁰ North Omaha Development Project Steering Committee, The North Omaha Development Project: A Strategy for Community Investment (Omaha, NE: City of Omaha Planning Department, 2007).

²¹ Interview with Local Government Representative in Douglas County (ID 54b), June 8, 2015.

²² J. Stothert, Executive Order No. S-27-14: Establishment of Mayor’s Active Living Advisory Committee (Omaha, NE: Mayor’s Office of the City of Omaha, 2014).

²³ City of Omaha Planning Department, Omaha Master Plan – Environment Element (Omaha, NE: City of Omaha Planning Department, 2008.

²⁴ City of Omaha Planning Department, Omaha Master Plan – Transportation Element (Omaha, NE: City of Omaha Planning Department, 2008.

²⁵ Douglas County Health Department, Adams Park Health Impact Assessment (Omaha, NE: Douglas County Health Department, 2012).

²⁶ City of Omaha Planning Department, Omaha’s Vacant Lot Toolkit (Omaha, NE: City of Omaha Planning Department, 2015).

²⁷ Local Government Representative, email to author, June 26, 2017.

²⁸ Metropolitan Area Planning Agency, Heartland 2050 Vision (Omaha, NE: Metropolitan Area Planning Agency, 2014).

²⁹ Metropolitan Area Planning Agency, Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan Update (Omaha, NE: Metropolitan Area Planning Agency, 2012).

³⁰ Nebraska Legislature, Legislative Bill 986 (Omaha, NE: Nebraska Legislature, 2010).

³² A. Dillemuth and K. Hodgson, “Incentivizing the Sale of Healthy and Local Food,” (Buffalo, NY: Growing Food Connections, 2016), http://growingfoodconnections.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2015/11/GFCHealthyFoodIncentivesPlanningPolicyBrief_2016Feb-1.pdf.

³³ A. Dillemuth, “Community Food Production: The Role of Local Governments in Increasing Community Food Production for Local Markets,” (Buffalo, NY: Growing Food Connections, 2017), http://growingfoodconnections.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2015/11/GFCFoodProductionPlanningPolicyBrief_2017August29.pdf.

³⁴ A. Dillemuth and K. Hodgson, “Local, Healthy Food Procurement Policies,” (Buffalo, NY: Growing Food Connections, 2015), http://growingfoodconnections.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2015/11/FINAL_GFCFoodProcurementPoliciesBrief-1.pdf.

³⁵ A. Dillemuth and K. Hodgson, “Food Aggregation, Processing, and Distribution,” (Buffalo, NY: Growing Food Connections, 2016), http://growingfoodconnections.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2015/11/GFCFoodInfrastructurePlanningPolicyBrief_2016Sep22-3.pdf.

³⁶ S. Raja, J. Clark, J. Freedgood, and K. Hodgson, Growing Food Connections: Local Government Food Policy Database (Buffalo, NY: University at Buffalo, 2016), http://growingfoodconnections.org/tools-resources/policy-database/.

Community of Opportunity Feature

AUTHORS

Enjoli Hall, University at Buffalo

Samina Raja, University at Buffalo

CONTRIBUTORS

Jill Clark, The Ohio State University

Julia Freedgood, American Farmland Trust

Kimberley Hodgson, Cultivating Healthy Places

Samina Raja, University at Buffalo

SERIES EDITOR

Samina Raja, University at Buffalo

PROJECT COORDINATOR

Enjoli Hall, University at Buffalo

LAYOUT AND DESIGN

Brenda Stynes, University at Buffalo

Daniela Leon, University at Buffalo

Samantha Bulkilvish, University at Buffalo

Clancy Grace O’Connor, University at Buffalo

Recommended citation: Hall, Enjoli and Samina Raja. “Towards Health Equity in the Heartland: Advancing Community-Led Food Planning in Douglas County, Nebraska.” In Exploring Stories of Opportunity. Edited by Samina Raja, 10 pages. Buffalo: Growing Food Connections Project, 2018.

Print Version (PDF)

Seeding Food Justice: Community-Led Practices for Local Government Policy in Dougherty County, Georgia

In March 2015, Dougherty County, Georgia was selected as one of eight Communities of Opportunity (COOs) in the country that have significant potential to strengthen ties between small- and medium-sized farmers and residents with limited food access.¹ Working with the Growing Food Connections (GFC) project team, county stakeholders have since established a steering committee that has charted a vision for the future of Dougherty’s food system.²

This brief, which draws on interviews with Dougherty County stakeholders and secondary data sources, provides information about local government policy opportunities and challenges in the food system to inform the work of the GFC steering committee and stakeholders in Dougherty County.

Background

In the City of Albany and Dougherty County, Georgia, community efforts to establish farmers’ markets, farm-to-school programs, and a regional food hub are drawing attention to the realities that: small farmers and low-income residents are marginalized by the current food system; African Americans are agents of change in the community food system; and regional approaches to food systems planning that foster connections between urban and rural areas are essential. Stronger public-policy support, especially from local governments, can amplify community efforts to promote agricultural viability and food security and address racial and economic disparities.

Dougherty County is the physical and economic center of the 14-county Southwest Georgia region (see figure 1).³ Although the least populated and poorest region in the state, Southwest Georgia has an abundance of natural resources including prime farmland, forested areas, and wetlands. The area sits on top of one of the most productive water recharge areas in the world, the Floridian aquifer. There are also many important surface water resources in the county, including Lake Seminole and the Flint and Chattahoochee Rivers. Dougherty County is the largest county in the Southwest Georgia region, with a total population of nearly 94,000 residents and a land area of about 329 square miles.⁴ The county’s character is a blend of urban and rural, with a city surrounded by large plantations, cypress swamps and quail reserves. The majority of the county’s residents live in the City of Albany (82 percent).⁴ The remaining county residents live in unincorporated areas outside the city that are less densely populated but are home to the majority of the county’s agriculture and forestry activities.⁵ The majority of county residents are Black or African American (68 percent), with the remaining residents largely identifying as White (27 percent).⁴

Historically, Albany and Dougherty County gained prominence as an agricultural trade center for commodity crops like cotton and pecan. The county, much like the surrounding region, was dominated by cotton plantation agriculture in the nineteenth century. Albany’s strategic location on the Flint River led to its prominence as a market center for shipment of goods. This economic prosperity also relied on the unpaid labor of African Americans as enslaved persons, sharecroppers, and tenant farmers. Pecan farming was introduced in the region in the late 1800s, and by 1905, several thousand trees were in cultivation in the county. Georgia quickly became the leading producer of pecans in the country, with much of the business centered around the Albany area. By the 1920s, with the decline of cotton production caused by the boll weevil, pecans became the area’s leading cash crop. In 1922, the Albany District Pecan Growers’ Exchange opened its factory building and warehouse, and pecans became a major Albany product, leading to the city’s informal claim as the pecan capital of the world.⁶ Over the course of the twentieth century, as technological advancements changed the nature of agriculture, the county sought to diversify its industrial base. Albany and the surrounding area garnered national attention during the civil rights era of the 1960s, as the city was the focus of a major campaign to challenge racial segregation and discrimination in the South.⁷

Today, Albany and Dougherty County is the commercial, educational, and cultural hub of Southwest Georgia. Major industries in the county include manufacturing, logistics and distribution, health care, professional services, defense, and retail.⁸ Three institutions of higher education, Albany State University, Albany Technical College, and Troy University, are located in the county. The county attracts visitors through its numerous recreational and historic sites, including the Albany Civil Rights Institute, Albany Museum of Art, and Flint RiverQuarium. With a strong cluster of advanced industries, anchor institutions, and regional assets, Dougherty County is poised to become a regional leader. Not surprisingly, local government officials have identified economic development, downtown revitalization, and tourism as top public-policy priorities. The county’s rich legacies of agriculture and community organizing for social justice extend to the present and intersect in ways that offer promising opportunities to strengthen the county through its food system.⁹

Agriculture: Challenges and Opportunities

Agriculture represents a significant portion of Dougherty County’s economy and contributes to residents’ sense of place. Agriculture drives both the rural economy, as well as much of the city’s commercial and industrial activities. The City of Albany is the regional economic hub for agri-businesses and some of its major employers are food processors. Food products made in Albany include: Kroger brand products by Tara Foods; Combos and goodness knows by Mars Chocolate North America; pecans by Sunnyland Farms; and beer, malt beverages and ciders by MillerCoors.¹⁰ Agriculture also represents the largest land use in Dougherty County, comprising about 60 percent of the county’s total land area.⁵ Land used for farming, livestock production, commercial timber or pulpwood harvesting is included in this category. Most agricultural land is located in the unincorporated areas of the county, and much of this land is categorized by large land holdings.⁵ Some agricultural land is located within or adjacent to the city limits and consists of actively managed and productive pecan orchards. The county also has over ten privately owned plantations exclusive to hunting and event services that attract visitors from all over the world.⁵

The top crop items in the county are commodities, including pecans, corns, peanuts, and cotton.¹¹ The county ranked number two in the state and number five in the country for acreage dedicated to pecans.¹¹ However, there is relatively little production of fruits and vegetables. For example, the county ranked number 140 (out of 159) in the state for value of sales in the crop group vegetables, melons, potatoes, and sweet potatoes.¹¹ Local stakeholders noted that the county’s small farms produce a wide range of agricultural products, including watermelons, satsumas, honey, and vegetables.² The county also has several poultry houses and a handful of goat and sheep operations.⁵

While the county’s agricultural sector is dominated by large plantations and commodity crops, the local picture of agriculture is much more complex. The average farm size in the county is 541 acres, but 71 percent of farms are less than 180 acres in size, while 13 percent of county farms are greater than 1,000 acres in size.¹¹ While on average each farm in the county earned $277,561 in 2012, 106 farms earned less than $50,000—with 68 of these farms earning less than $1,000.¹¹ Yet 15 farms earned $500,000 or more in the same year.¹¹ The massive profits generated by large farms conceals the reality that the majority of farms in the county are struggling to remain viable. Additionally, with nearly 50 percent of principal farm operators in the county having a primary occupation other than farming, it is unclear if farming is a hobby for some people or if they would like to scale up their farm business, but face challenges to doing so.¹¹

Challenges

Respondents identified making a profit as the biggest challenge facing farmers in Dougherty County, particularly small farmers and vegetable farmers. According to community advocates, there are few incentives for local farmers to grow food crops, as financial assistance is more readily available for growing commodities.¹² A farming and agriculture representative also cited the intensive labor required for vegetable farming as a deterrent for scaling up food production in particular, and for attracting younger people to the profession overall.¹³ This labor market challenge is important to address given that the average age of farmers in the county is 62 years old, which is higher than the national average of 58 years.¹¹

Farmers and farming advocates see connections to local markets as key to preserving the small-scale farming activity that exists in Dougherty County.¹⁴ However, there are limited food processing businesses, vegetable packing warehouses, aggregation facilities, and distribution channels in the county. Farmers also struggle to find local markets where they can sell their produce.¹⁵ There are relatively few farmers’ markets in the county and efforts to establish farm-to-school programs are constrained by inadequate food infrastructure.¹⁵ Even with more sufficient infrastructure, farmers need to obtain certification to ensure good agricultural practices and food safety to supply to institutional markets.¹⁶

Land use patterns may also impede efforts to scale up the county’s food production. Across the county, farmland is under threat from development pressures, challenging the ability of both established and beginning farmers to access available, suitable, and affordable land.⁵ While the county has high quality soils, scattered development is breaking up farmland into smaller and smaller parcels, reducing its commercial viability.⁵ Farmland loss has a distinct meaning and history for Black farmers, who make up about one-fifth of farmers in the county—a relatively significant share given that Black farmers make up only four percent of farmers in the state overall.¹¹ Black farmers experienced racial discrimination in accessing land and other resources, resulting in decades of

sustained land loss.^{17, 18}

In recent years, Southwest Georgia has experienced severe droughts, causing farmers to rely more heavily on irrigation.¹⁹ However, there are increasing restrictions on the water supply. In 2012, the Georgia Environmental Protection Division announced a suspension of new applications for agricultural water withdrawal permits in a 24-county area of South Georgia, including Dougherty County.²⁰ The suspension also applies to requests to modify existing permits to increase withdrawals or increase the number of irrigated acres.²⁰ These restrictions pose potential barriers to the expansion of large-scale agriculture in Dougherty County. This is not as much of an issue for small farms, as residents are allowed to use up to 70 gallons per minute without a permit.² Several respondents also expressed concerns regarding the ongoing tri-state water dispute between Alabama, Florida, and Georgia over rights to the Floridan Aquifer.¹²

Opportunities

A recent development project in Albany has generated excitement around agri-business as a strategy for economic development and urban revitalization. Pretoria Fields is a new farmhouse microbrewery in downtown Albany, representing one of only a few farm breweries in the county and the first handcrafted beer brewery in the city.²¹ The $6 million project is a spin-off business of a local farm and features a brewery and beer garden in an area of downtown that has been targeted for revitalization efforts.²² The city contributed $1.25 million from a revolving loan fund designed to attract private development downtown to make the project happen.²³ The money will be repaid to the loan fund over the next 15 years through the brewery’s property taxes.²³

Community advocates see missed opportunities to connect small farmers to underserved areas, a connection that would provide farmers with a consumer base and underserved areas with healthy food and local jobs.²⁴ A major focus of Southwest Georgia Project, a community organization, has been connecting small farmers to local market opportunities. Founded in 1961, Southwest Georgia aims to educate, engage, and empower residents in the region through advocacy and community organizing around human rights and social justice issues, including agriculture and food.²⁵ Southwest Georgia Project has established several direct to consumer farmers’ markets that accept Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits in three counties and facilitated farm-to-school initiatives in several school districts in the region.¹⁴ The organization is currently planning a regional food hub with aggregation, processing, and distribution facilities in Albany.¹⁶ With the presence of large, anchor institutions in Dougherty County including the school district, regional hospital, and several universities, there is great potential for farm-to-institution programs and local procurement policies to connect local farmers to local markets.

There are strong community organizations in the region that advocate for small farmers and provide training and business development assistance, including the Southwest Georgia Project, Federation of Southern Cooperatives, and Southern Rural Black Women’s Initiative. Many of these organizations focus on outreach and assistance to Black and other “socially disadvantaged” farmers to increase participation in federal programs, as well as connect farmers with opportunities to sell their produce. USDA “2501 program” grants help support this work.²⁴ The Southwest Georgia Project hosts workshops for small farmers across the region on topics of estate and succession planning, whole farm insurance, and other crop insurance, and emerging market opportunities. In 2017, the organization hosted their second annual “Food, Ag and Equity Conference” in Albany to connect consumers with local growers and to empower local producers.²⁶

Food Security: Challenges and Opportunities

Many residents in Dougherty County are struggling to gain access to healthful, affordable and culturally acceptable foods. Dougherty County has the highest rate of food insecurity of all 159 counties in Georgia and one of the highest rates of food insecurity in the nation.²⁷ Nearly 27 percent of county residents—25,500 residents—are food insecure and lack adequate access to healthful, affordable and culturally acceptable foods.²⁷ Respondents reported that low-income, African American residents in both urban and rural areas of the county are particularly vulnerable to food insecurity.¹⁶ Children are also vulnerable to food insecurity—it is estimated that 28 percent of children under age 18 in the county are food insecure.²⁸

Safety net programs provide support to food-insecure households in Dougherty County. About 27 percent of households in the county receive Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits.⁴ Unlike many safety net programs, SNAP eligibility is not limited to families with children or to the elderly, making it an important source of support. About 2,400 children (ages birth through 4) in the county are enrolled in the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC) that provides nutrition education and supplemental foods to low-income pregnant and postpartum women and infants and children up to age five who are found to be at nutritional risk.²⁹

Challenges

Poverty and unemployment are major drivers of food insecurity in Dougherty County. Half of households in the county earn less than $33,600 a year, compared to the median household income of $51,000 for the state and $55,300 for the nation.⁴ Nearly a third of county residents live below the poverty line.⁴ In 2016, the annual average unemployment rate for the county was 6.9 percent, higher than the unemployment rate for the state (5.4 percent) and the nation (4.9 percent) during the same year.³⁰ These challenges disproportionately impact the county’s African Americans residents. The poverty rate for Black residents (37 percent) is more than double the poverty rate for White residents (16 percent).⁴ The median household income for White households in the county ($52,000) is nearly double the median household income for Black households in the county ($28,000).⁴

Several grocery stores in the county have closed in recent years, reducing the availability and accessibility of healthy foods for the county’s most vulnerable residents.³¹ Respondents identified a concentration of grocery stores on the west side of Albany, and an absence of grocery stores on the city’s east and south sides, where there is a predominance of convenience stores with processed foods.³² Local government has made efforts to attract grocery stores to underserved neighborhoods, but negative perceptions of high crime and low spending power discourage private sector investment.³² Additionally, there are limited alternative sources of fresh foods such as farmers’ markets and community-supported agriculture in Dougherty County.¹³

Limited public transit service and poor walking conditions in various areas of the county create additional barriers to healthy food accessibility for residents. Nearly 13 percent of households in the county do not have access to a car; nearly all these households live in the City of Albany.⁴ While Albany Transit System operates a fixed-route bus system and paratransit services, respondents report that transit service is often infrequent and inconvenient.³¹ Sidewalk infrastructure is minimal or non-existent in many residential areas of the county, with sidewalks primarily located in downtown Albany.

Some respondents noted that even with increased access to healthier food options, low incomes might limit purchase and consumption of fresh foods, which are often more expensive than processed and packaged foods.¹³ Similarly, some respondents emphasized the need for nutrition education or food preparation classes to increase knowledge of healthy food practices.³³

Opportunities

Dougherty County has a strong charitable food assistance system. At the center of this network is Second Harvest of South Georgia, a regional food bank that links people in need to food and nutrition resources in the community through their own services and those of their partner agencies. The food bank operates a warehouse in Albany where it distributes food to partner agencies who directly serve people that are otherwise unable to provide adequate food for themselves or their families.³⁴ Some churches and pantries also distribute food and there is an active Meals on Wheels program in the county.²

Dougherty County School System is a key advocate for reducing child hunger and food insecurity in the county. Since 2013, all students in the county school district receive a free breakfast and lunch, regardless of household income, through the district’s participation in the federal Community Eligibility Provision (CEP).³⁵ The school district has also incorporated a “third meal” in several schools to provide an after-school supper to students.²⁴ In recent years, farm-to-school initiatives have introduced new vegetables and planted school gardens at several schools in the county.²⁴ School district representatives have also expressed interest in local procurement policies that would enable the district to purchase more locally grown food.²⁴

Grassroots efforts to establish farmers’ markets offer community-based models for increasing connections between farmers and underserved consumers, for increased knowledge of and access to healthy foods. In 2011, Southwest Georgia Project reached out to local government officials for assistance with establishing a farmers’ market in downtown Albany.¹⁶ The organization identified a vacant parking deck that would provide ample space and shade to vendors and visitors. However, county officials placed a number of restrictions on the kinds of products that could be sold at the market.¹⁶ For instance, vendors could not sell bread or value-added products, which made it challenging to get the buy-in of vendors.¹⁶ The market only lasted for a couple of years, given the limitations on what products could be sold and limited ongoing financial support.¹⁶ Community members cite the recently created Tift Park Community Market as offering a popular, accessible venue to purchase produce from local farmers.¹⁴ The Tift Market is held in a public park and features a variety of products, many of which are not food related, but help draw a large number of visitors to the market. Some respondents observed that the market tends to attract a wealthier segment of the community, and not so much the individuals who could really benefit from being able to buy fresh produce.¹⁶

Local Government Public-Policy Environment

There is strong community support for food systems issues, but several factors hinder local government engagement in food systems planning. Respondents identified a limited awareness of and interest in food systems issues within the local government. When local governments do address food, they tend to focus on agricultural zoning and land use regulations. While economic development is a primary public policy concern, there is little recognition of the role that food systems could play in promoting economic development as documented nationally.³⁶ Deep-rooted racial divisions may also hinder communication and collaboration between a predominantly White public sector and Black-led community organizations that are leading solutions to strengthen community food systems. However, there are a number of existing governance structures and local government priorities that could facilitate greater local government engagement in food systems planning in Dougherty County.

Intergovernmental Coordination

Dougherty County has two general purpose governments: the county government and the municipal government in the City of Albany.³⁷ Through a cooperative agreement, the city and county governments operate joint departments, including a joint planning department.³⁸ This collaborative structure offers opportunities for tying together the priorities and investments of the urban core to the outlying rural areas. The county also has six special purpose governments: five special districts and one independent school district, the Dougherty County School System.³⁷ Intergovernmental coordination between city and county governments, and with civic organizations, could lay the stage for innovative and equitable food policy in Dougherty County.

Community-Led Food Projects

Community organizations have led or played a significant role in developing programs and projects to strengthen small- and medium-sized agriculture and improve food access for underserved residents in Dougherty County. Listed below are a few recent actions of potential interest to local planners and policymakers:

East Baker Commercial Kitchen (2005): Established in 2005, East Baker Kitchen is a commercial kitchen located in a former elementary school in Baker County (adjacent to Dougherty County). The commercial kitchen features a state-of-the-art cooking facility and serves as a hub for food entrepreneurs and community members to sell locally grown fruit, vegetables, and value-added products. The enterprise provides micro-loans and access to equipment that is often out of reach for small food businesses.

Dougherty County Farm-to-School Program (2013-Present): With funding from a 2013 USDA Farm to School Program implementation grant, Southwest Georgia Project launched a farm-to-school program in Dougherty County to increase the supply of fresh, locally grown food in schools.  Southwest Georgia Project worked closely with the Dougherty County School System (DCSS)’s School Nutrition Services department to implement the program. The program has enabled several schools in the county to serve local foods, plant school gardens, and invite farmers to talk to students. DCSS’s farm-to-school goal is to purchase 20 percent of the produce served from farms within 100 miles of the county. A major barrier to program expansion is the absence of processing infrastructure for small and mid-sized farmers in the region. Despite this challenge, the school district and community partners continue to pursue opportunities to support local farmers and the local food economy while simultaneously promoting healthy eating among students. Community advocates envision the farm-to-school program as a key component of a regional food system anchored by small farmers and food entrepreneurs.

Albany Regional Food Hub Project (2015-Present): Southwest Georgia Project is currently planning a regional food hub in the City of Albany for the development of local food infrastructure. The food hub will provide aggregation, processing, and distribution facilities for small farmers in Dougherty County and surrounding counties to clean, process, package, and ship their crops for consumption. The venue will allow residents to buy fresh produce directly from local farmers, increasing healthy food options in Albany and fostering connections between farmers and consumers. The food hub will also create jobs, within the facility but also on farms, as the provision of a large market and processing equipment will offer incentives to increasing farming activity. A food hub would support and scale up other local efforts to connect farmers and consumers, including the DCSS farm-to-school program, farmers’ markets in downtown Albany, and outreach and technical assistance to minority farmers. The project could also employ out of work persons for processing labor, create value-added businesses, serve as a training site for ongoing certification and business management courses, and provide fresh produce in underserved areas. The organization’s efforts received a major boost in 2015, with the donation of a former Winn-Dixie grocery store building in Albany. The 47,000-square-foot building, valued at $2.35 million, sits on 3.9 acres of land. Southwest Georgia Project anticipates the food hub could serve at least 100 farmers from Dougherty County and surrounding counties for use as a processing facility and market to sell their produce. The food hub will also include retail vending and community meeting spaces.

Farmland Protection

Farmland protection represents the primary way in which local government’s work intersects with the food system in Dougherty County. The Albany-Dougherty County Comprehensive Plan, last updated in 2016, identifies farmland as important to the economy and culture of the county.⁵ The comprehensive plan highlights the significant amount of prime farmland and rural character of the county as distinctive assets for future prosperity, especially agritourism opportunities.⁵ The plan recommends an “urban area boundary” to prevent conversion of agricultural land to other uses.⁵ Despite provisions calling for farmland protection, the city and county governments have not created legally enforceable policies to protect farmland from development pressures. Outside of farmland protection, there is little mention of food production, distribution, and acquisition challenges and opportunities in the document.

Agritourism Promotion

Local governments recognize that agritourism can be an important strategy for bolstering farm profitability and expanding economic activity within the agricultural sector, particularly in boosting income and enhancing viability of small farms.⁵ Agritourism also provides venues for educating residents and tourists about local agricultural heritage and food production, enhances quality of life by expanding recreational opportunities, promotes the retention of agricultural lands, and increases opportunities for purchasing and consuming fresh, local, healthy foods.³⁹ Local government is currently evaluating proposals to amend the county zoning ordinance to allow agritourism uses in agricultural districts.³²

Regional Planning Commission

Dougherty County actively participates in regional planning processes as part of the Southwest Georgia Regional Commission. As one of Georgia’s twelve regional commissions, the Southwest Georgia Regional Commission works with local governments and state and federal agencies to coordinate regional planning activities and funding programs for the 14-county region.⁴⁰ Although there is no food policy council or other local governance body in Dougherty County for food system stakeholders to convene and engage in agenda setting or policymaking activities, the regional commission structure offers opportunities for thinking about regional food systems issues.

Ideas for the Future

There are many opportunities for using planning and policy to strengthen food systems in Dougherty County. Local governments can create plans, operate programs, build physical infrastructure, and make public expenditures to create equitable and economically resilient food systems. Precedents for such tools are available from across the country (see the Growing Food Connection policy database for examples). In Dougherty County, plans and policies should prioritize the concerns of the most vulnerable groups in the county, including low-income, African American, urban and rural communities that face barriers to accessing healthy food, as well as jobs and transit. The work of community organizations suggests several starting points for local government action to strengthen the community’s food system including:

Establish a Food Equity Policy Council

The city and county governments could collaborate on establishing a food equity policy council in partnership with local community organizations such as Southwest Georgia Project, as well as Extension, local farmers and residents. Much like food policy councils in the country, the food equity policy council could serve as a formal structure to continue and build on the work of the Growing Food Connections steering committee in the county – but with an explicit goal to serve the most marginalized farmers and consumers. The food equity policy council could make a deliberate effort to engage local government officials from various departments, especially economic development, who are less familiar with and “bought in” to the importance of food systems planning. The council can target its outreach and engagement to smaller farmers in the county and members of groups in the community that are most vulnerable to food security, including African American residents in both urban and rural areas, as well as young people. A goal of the council could be to re-frame discussions around farming and farmland protection in the county to center the experiences and needs of small farmers, vegetable farmers, and Black farmers.

Provide Public Financial Assistance for Food Infrastructure Development

Southwest Georgia Project’s regional food hub project is a critical opportunity for local government to simultaneously strengthen agricultural viability and food security in Dougherty County. The non-profit organization has approached local government officials on several occasions to request a property tax exemption on the building in order to divert limited funds away from paying property taxes and towards covering many of the capital improvements that are required to transform the former grocery store building into a space for the aggregation, processing, and distribution of crops for up to 100 farmers from surrounding counties. The local government has denied these repeated requests, even though it provides financial assistance to recruit and retain outside companies.

Local government can support the development of the regional food hub and other local food infrastructure through direct investment, public loans, and tax incentives that help finance these significant improvements. While these projects entail physical infrastructure development such as the construction or rehabilitation of large abandoned or underutilized buildings, they also require specialized equipment such as refrigerated trucks. There are other ways that local government can support the regional food hub project and food infrastructure development in the county, such as interventions to educate stakeholders, offer business development and technical assistance, and connect local producers. Southwest Georgia Project has identified the need for business development assistance and offered opportunities for local government to purchase or co-own the building with the organization. The building is over 47,000-square-feet, but the organization only needs about a third of the space for the food hub—the remaining space could be used to house grocery stores or other food retail outlets, creating an opportunity for local government to increase food security. Such infrastructure development is often supported by local governments across the country. The policy brief Food Aggregation, Processing, and Distribution, which draws on innovative experiences from across the country, outlines the many ways in which such infrastructure for fresh fruits and vegetables has been supported by local government.⁴¹

Incentivize the Sale of Healthy Food

Local government should consider a variety of strategies to increase access to healthy foods, including: attracting or developing grocery stores and supermarkets in underserved neighborhoods; supporting or developing other food retail outlets such as farmers’ markets, community-supported agriculture programs, and mobile vendors (and ensuring public benefits can be used at these venues); increasing the stock of fruits, vegetables, and other healthy foods at neighborhood corner stores or dollar stores; and promoting urban agriculture such as backyard and community gardens and permitting chicken coops and similar uses. Given the various challenges local government officials have encountered in attracting grocery stores and supermarkets, local government should consider innovative financial, programmatic, and regulatory incentives to allow for production and distribution of food within city limits through farmers’ markets, community gardens, mobile food vendors, and healthy corner stores.  Furthermore, programs and policies to increase healthy food options in underserved neighborhoods should align with efforts to support agricultural viability. The policy brief Incentivizing the Sale of Healthy and Local Food details the experience of other urban communities such as Baltimore, Maryland, Minneapolis, Minnesota, and Washington D.C. as well as rural Marquette County, Michigan that may be helpful as Albany and Dougherty County take next steps.⁴²

Support the Establishment of Farmers’ Markets

Local government officials should support the establishment of farmers’ markets, particularly in downtown Albany and other areas of the city that are currently underserved by healthy food retail. In addition to property tax abatements, public financing, and technical assistance to support physical infrastructure, local government can also streamline permitting processes and develop policies to further support food infrastructure and business development projects. For example, the adoption of local food procurement policies such as farm-to-school policies, in combination with the development of aggregation and distribution infrastructure, can increase the viability of these projects. Major employers in the county including Phoebe Putney Memorial Hospital, Albany State University, and the city and county governments are good places to start with exploring farm-to-institution programs. Dougherty County can draw on examples of promising practices to promote local, healthy procurement from across the country as documented in the policy brief Local, Healthy Food Procurement Policies.⁴³

Provide Incentives for Urban Agriculture

Urban agriculture could help put vacant lots in the city to productive use, contributing to community recreation and neighborhood stabilization, as well as reducing maintenance responsibilities of the local government. Urban agriculture could also provide access to fresh food for residents that face barriers to obtaining adequate, affordable, and culturally acceptable foods in the county. Additionally, urban agriculture could help urban residents who may be disconnected from farming activities that happen in rural areas of the county better connect with this important activity that plays a large role in the county’s history, economy, and identity. A number of local governments from across the country have taken a whole host of actions to support urban (and other forms of) community food production including by creating and implementing agricultural plans (Marquette County, Michigan); adopting supportive land use and zoning regulations (Minneapolis, Minnesota); using public lands for food production (Lawrence, Kansas); and supporting new farmer training and development (Cabarrus County, North Carolina).⁴⁴ The city and county governments of Albany and Dougherty can leverage their communities’ assets and knowledge to create a supportive policy environment for community food producers.

Research Methods and Data Sources

Information in this brief comes from multiple sources. Quantitative data sources include the 2012- 2016 American Community Survey (ACS) five-year estimates and the 2012 Census of Agriculture, as well as datasets from state education and public health departments. Qualitative data include 12 in-depth interviews with representatives of various sectors of the food system as well as City of Albany and Dougherty County policymakers and staff. Interviewees are not identified by name but are, instead, shown by the sector that they represent, and are interchangeably referred to as respondents, interviewees or stakeholders in this brief. Interviews were conducted from March to July 2015. Qualitative analysis also includes a review of policy and planning documents of Dougherty County, which were reviewed for key policies and laws pertaining to the food system, and a review of the minutes of the Growing Food Connections steering committee meetings. A draft of this brief was reviewed by interview respondents and community stakeholders prior to publication.

Acknowledgments

The GFC team is grateful to the Dougherty County GFC steering committee, Dougherty County government officials and staff, and the interview respondents, for generously giving their time and energy to this project. The authors thank colleagues at the Food Systems Planning and Healthy Communities Lab and the School of Architecture and Planning at the University at Buffalo, The Ohio State University, Cultivating Healthy Places, American Farmland Trust, and the American Planning Association for their support. This work was funded by a grant from the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA Award #2012-68004- 19894), and the 3E grant for Built Environment, Health Behaviors, and Health Outcomes from the University at Buffalo.

Notes

¹ Growing Food Connections, “Eight ‘Communities of Opportunity’ Will Strengthen Links between Farmers and Consumers: Growing Food Connections Announces Communities from New Mexico to Maine,” March 2, 2015, http://growingfoodconnections.org/news-item/eight-communities-of-opportunity-will-strengthen-links-between-farmers-and-consumers-growing-food-connections-announces-communities-from-new-mexico-to-maine/.

² Growing Food Connections, “Dougherty County, Georgia: Community Profile,” May 12, 2016, growingfoodconnections.org/research/communities-of-opportunity.

³ Southwest Georgia Regional Commission, “About the Regional Commission,” accessed May 12, 2018, http://www.swgrc.org/.

⁴ U.S. Census Bureau, 2016 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, 2012-2016 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Census Bureau, 2017).

⁵ City of Albany and Dougherty County, Albany-Dougherty County Comprehensive Plan 2026 (Albany, GA: City of Albany Board of Commissioners and Dougherty County Board of Commissioners, 2016), http://www.swgrcplanning.org/uploads/6/1/8/4/61849693/[adopted]_albany-dougherty_comprehensive_plan_dca_6-30-16.pdf.

⁶ C. Brooks, “Albany District Pecan Growers’ Exchange, National Register of Historic Places Inventory—Nomination Form,” March 1984, https://npgallery.nps.gov/GetAsset/176a4f07-f840-4aac-9331-e79a08468fad.

⁷ For more information on the Albany Movement, see C. Carson, “SNCC and The Albany Movement,” The Journal of South Georgia History 2 (1984): 15-25; S.B. Oates, “The Albany Movement: A Chapter in the Life of Martin Luther King, Jr.,” The Journal of South Georgia History 16 (2004): 51-65; S.G.N. Tuck, Beyond Atlanta: The Struggle for Racial Equality in Georgia, 1940-1980 (Athens, GA: The University of Georgia Press, 2001).

⁸ Albany-Dougherty Economic Development Commission, “Area Industries,” accessed May 12, 2018, http://choosealbany.com/area-industries/.

⁹ A food system is the interconnected, soil-to-soil network of activities and resources that facilitates the movement of food from farm to plate and back.

¹⁰ Albany-Dougherty Economic Development Commission, “Major Employers,” accessed May 12, 2018, http://choosealbany.com/business-climate/major-employers/.

¹¹ U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2012 Census of Agriculture (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Census Bureau, 2014).

¹² Interview with Farming and Agriculture Representative in Dougherty County (ID 44), March 25, 2015.

¹³ Interview with Farming and Agriculture Representative in Dougherty County (ID 50), July 1, 2015.

¹⁴ Interview with Consumer Advocate Representative in Dougherty County (ID 48), March 26, 2015.

¹⁵ Interview with Cooperative Extension Representative in Dougherty County (ID 46), May 18, 2015.

¹⁶ Interview with Consumer Advocate Representative in Dougherty County (ID 51), March 25, 2015.

¹⁷ Interview with Cooperative Extension Representative in Dougherty County (ID 49), March 25, 2015.

¹⁸ For more information on how farmland loss in the U.S. is tied to racial and equity concerns, see J. Gilbert, G. Sharp, and M.S. Felin, “The Loss and Persistence of Black-Owned Farms and Farmland: A Review of the Research Literature and Its Implications,” Southern Rural Sociology 18, no. 2 (2002): 1-30; The Center for Social Inclusion, “Regaining Ground: Cultivating Community Assets and Preserving Black Land,” 2011, http://www.centerforsocialinclusion.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Regaining-Ground-Cultivating-Community-Assets-and-Preserving-Black-Land.pdf; A. Dillemuth, “Farmland Protection: The Role of Local Governments in Protecting Farmland as a Vital Local Resource,” (Buffalo, NY: Growing Food Connections, 2017), http://growingfoodconnections.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2015/11/GFCPlanningPolicyBrief_FarmlandProtection_2017Sept1.pdf.

¹⁹ For examples of local and national press coverage of droughts in Southwest Georgia, see Atlanta Journal-Constitution, “Exceptional Drought Wreaks Havoc in Southwest Georgia,” August 27, 2012, https://www.ajc.com/news/local/exceptional-drought-wreaks-havoc-southwest-georgia/Zzx9n7Kh3Td42zq7JAQeeO/ and National Public Radio, “Georgia Digs Deep to Counter Drought,” August 14, 2012, https://www.npr.org/2012/08/14/158745435/georgia-digs-deep-to-counter-drought.

²⁰ Georgia Department of Natural Resources, “Press Release: Georgia EPD to Suspend Consideration of Some New Farm Water Permit Applications,” July 30, 2012, http://www.georgiawaterplanning.com/documents/GeorgiaEPD_Newsrelease_AgPermittingSuspension_073012.pdf.

²¹ Pretoria Fields Collective, “Pretoria Fields Collective,” accessed May 12, 2018, http://www.pretoriafields.com/.

²² J. Wallace, “Microbrewery Project Underway in Downtown Albany,” WALB News, November 7, 2016, http://www.walb.com/story/33650454/microbrewery-project-underway-in-downtown-albany.

²³ WALB News, “Special Report: Destination Downtown,” February 11, 2016, http://www.walb.com/story/31189530/special-report-destination-downtown.

²⁴ Interview with Local Government Representative in Dougherty County (ID 42), March 25, 2015.

²⁵ Southwest Georgia Project, “Organization History,” accessed May 12, 2018, http://www.swgaproject.com/.

²⁶ C. Cox, “Food, Ag, Equity Conference Links Local Farmers, Consumers,” Albany Herald, October 23, 2017,

http://www.albanyherald.com/news/local/food-ag-equity-conference-links-local-farmers-consumers/article_17bca9d2-f3a7-570d-a0df-5671091e0861.html.

²⁷ Feeding America, “Map the Meal Gap 2017: Overall Food Insecurity in Georgia by County in 2015,” 2017, http://www.feedingamerica.org/research/map-the-meal-gap/2015/MMG_AllCounties_CDs_MMG_2015_1/GA_AllCounties_CDs_MMG_2015.pdf.

²⁸ Feeding America, “Map the Meal Gap 2017: Child Food Insecurity in Georgia by County in 2015,” 2017, http://map.feedingamerica.org/county/2015/child/georgia/county/dougherty.

²⁹ Georgia Department of Public Health, “Number of Children Receiving WIC, Birth through Age 4,” 2015, accessed from https://datacenter.kidscount.org/.

³⁰ U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2016 Local Area Unemployment Statistics: Annual Averages (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Labor, 2016).

³¹ Interview with Local Government Representative in Dougherty County (ID 43), March 27, 2015.

³² Interview with Local Government Representative in Dougherty County (ID 45), March 26, 2015.

³³ Interview with Food Retail Representative in Dougherty County (ID 52), March 25, 2015.

³⁴ Second Harvest of South Georgia, “How Our Food Bank Works,” accessed May 12, 2018, http://feedingsga.org/food-bank-works/.

³⁵ Dougherty County School System, “What Does it Cost to Eat at School?” accessed May 12, 2018, https://www.docoschools.org/apps/pages/index.jsp?uREC_ID=445534&type=d&pREC_ID=960897. For more information about the Community Eligibility Provision, see “School Meals: Community Eligibility Provision,” U.S. Department of Agriculture Food and Nutrition Service, August 8, 2017, https://www.fns.usda.gov/school-meals/community-eligibility-provision.

³⁶ A. Dillemuth, “Community Food Systems and Economic Development: The Role of Local Governments in Supporting Local Food Economies,” (Buffalo, NY: Growing Food Connections, 2017), http://growingfoodconnections.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2015/11/GFCPlanningPolicyBrief_EconomicDevelopment_2017Sept.pdf.

³⁷ U.S. Census Bureau, 2016 Census of Governments: Local Governments in Individual County-Type Areas (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Census Bureau, 2016).

³⁸ The formal name of the planning department is Planning and Development Services Department. The City and County have a long history of working cooperatively to provide services, a relationship formalized in 1999 when the City and County developed a Service Delivery Strategy. While the City and County governments are not formally consolidated, the Service Delivery Strategy essentially leaves the city and county with only four departments in which cooperative agreements are not in place: Personnel, Police, Finances, and Public Works. The City and County submitted a Service Delivery Strategy to the Georgia State Department of Community Affairs in compliance with Georgia’s General Assembly 1997 directive (House Bill 489).

³⁹ A. Dillemuth, “Farmland Protection: The Role of Local Governments in Protecting Farmland as a Vital Local Resource,” (Buffalo, NY: Growing Food Connections, 2017), http://growingfoodconnections.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2015/11/GFCPlanningPolicyBrief_FarmlandProtection_2017Sept1.pdf.

⁴⁰ The Regional Commission has served as a designated Economic Development District since 1967 and administers the Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS) required by the U.S. Department of Commerce. In 2011, the commission published Moving Forward: A Regional Plan.

⁴¹ A. Dillemuth and K. Hodgson, “Food Aggregation, Processing, and Distribution,” (Buffalo, NY: Growing Food Connections, 2016), http://growingfoodconnections.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2015/11/GFCFoodInfrastructurePlanningPolicyBrief_2016Sep22-3.pdf.

⁴² A. Dillemuth and K. Hodgson, “Incentivizing the Sale of Healthy and Local Food,” (Buffalo, NY: Growing Food Connections, 2016), http://growingfoodconnections.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2015/11/GFCHealthyFoodIncentivesPlanningPolicyBrief_2016Feb-1.pdf.

⁴³ A. Dillemuth and K. Hodgson, “Local, Healthy Food Procurement Policies,” (Buffalo, NY: Growing Food Connections, 2015), http://growingfoodconnections.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2015/11/FINAL_GFCFoodProcurementPoliciesBrief-1.pdf.

⁴⁴ A. Dillemuth, “Community Food Production: The Role of Local Governments in Increasing Community Food Production for Local Markets,” (Buffalo, NY: Growing Food Connections, 2017), http://growingfoodconnections.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2015/11/GFCFoodProductionPlanningPolicyBrief_2017August29.pdf.

Community of Opportunity Feature

AUTHORS

Enjoli Hall, University at Buffalo

Samina Raja, University at Buffalo

CONTRIBUTORS

Jill Clark, The Ohio State University

Julia Freedgood, American Farmland Trust

Kimberley Hodgson, Cultivating Healthy Places

Samina Raja, University at Buffalo

SERIES EDITOR

Samina Raja, University at Buffalo

PROJECT COORDINATOR

Enjoli Hall, University at Buffalo

LAYOUT AND DESIGN

Brenda Stynes, University at Buffalo

Samantha Bulkilvish, University at Buffalo

Recommended citation: Hall, Enjoli and Samina Raja. “Seeding Food Justice: Community-Led Practices for Local Government Policy in Dougherty County, Georgia.” In Exploring Stories of Opportunity. Edited by Samina Raja, 20 pages. Buffalo: Growing Food Connections Project, 2018.

Print Version (PDF)

Agrarian Values and Urban Futures: Challenges and Opportunities for Agriculture and Food Security in Doña Ana County, New Mexico

In March 2015, Doña Ana County, New Mexico was selected as one of eight Communities of Opportunity (COOs) in the country with significant potential to strengthen ties between small- and medium-sized farmers and residents with limited food access.¹ Working with the Growing Food Connections (GFC) project team, county stakeholders have since established a steering committee that has charted a vision for the future of Doña Ana County’s food system.²

This brief, which draws on interviews with Doña Ana County stakeholders and secondary data sources, provides information about local government-policy opportunities and challenges in the food system to inform the work of the GFC steering committee and stakeholders in Doña Ana County.

Background

Doña Ana County is situated just north of the international metropolitan complex of El Paso, Texas and Ciudad Juárez—the largest city in the Mexican state of Chihuahua. The county is noteworthy for its spectacular desert landscape and cultural diversity. Agriculture and community development tend to concentrate along the historic Rio Grande corridor that runs north-south through the center of the county. Although the area has a strong rural-agricultural tradition and presence, trends since the 1950s have moved toward urbanization and economic diversification. Balancing the needs of its agricultural sector with other competing interests is a key issue for the region.

Doña Ana is one of the fastest growing—and the second largest—counties in New Mexico.³ Situated in south-central New Mexico, adjacent to the U.S.-Mexico border, Doña Ana County encompasses 3,807 square miles.⁴ The majority of the county’s lands are federally owned (75 percent of the land)—only 500 square miles (13 percent) of land in Doña Ana is privately owned.⁵ The privately-owned lands lie predominantly in the agricultural valley along the lower Rio Grande.⁵ In addition to county government and five incorporated municipalities, local public authorities are administered through 22 special districts and three independent school districts.⁶ Each of the six governmental entities is responsible for planning within their respective jurisdictions, while special districts are accorded narrowly defined powers through the New Mexico state constitution.⁷

Located in the northern reaches of the Chihuahuan Desert, Doña Ana County must contend with limited water. Even though the county is in a valley, surrounded by mountain ranges, the area receives on average eight to nine inches of rainfall annually.⁵ Luckily, the county has multiple groundwater aquifers to draw on, as well as surface water flows from the Rio Grande.⁵ Access to surface and groundwater in the county is governed by a complex and disjointed governance structure.⁸ The administration of all waters in New Mexico rests with the Office of the State Engineer (OSE).⁸ The allocation of surface and groundwater rights is based on prior appropriation enshrined in New Mexico’s water code.⁹ Under prior appropriation, senior water rights holders have priority (based on the date water rights were issued) over new (junior) water rights holders.¹⁰ In both cases—surface and groundwater—farmers tend to be senior water rights holders in the county. Even though the OSE has administrative purview over all waters in New Mexico, multiple federal and state agencies are involved in water management in the county, along with over 69 water providers. Limited water availability and the fragmented nature of water management tend to force agricultural and non-agricultural interests into competition with one another.

Doña Ana County is home to culturally diverse populations. There is a rich influence of Hispanic culture on the county. Of the 212,942 people who live in Doña Ana County, 66 percent (141,087 people) self-identify as Hispanic or Latino.¹¹ The vast majority (89 percent) of the population identifies as white (190,021 people), and approximately two percent as African American.¹¹ Additionally, 17 percent (36,703 people) of the county’s residents are foreign born.¹¹ The City of Las Cruces, the county seat, is the largest urban center in the county where almost half (47 percent) of the county’s population lives.¹¹ The remaining population (another 50 percent) is spread across small towns and rural villages throughout the county.⁵ Since the 1980s, Doña Ana County has seen a steady increase in population and concurrent housing development.⁵ Population projections indicate growth will continue over the next two decades.⁵ New development is especially likely in southern Doña Ana County, along the international border and within the El Paso, Texas metropolitan area.⁵

Despite this overall growth pattern, many of the county’s residents are economically and socially disadvantaged. Community stakeholders report a lack of living wages, limited infrastructure and transportation as key challenges affecting people’s lives.^12-14 Poverty and unemployment remain a pressing concern. Thirty percent of the county’s residents live in poverty, while the median household income of $38,426 remains below the state average of $44,803.¹¹ The county’s unemployment rate, at 10.3 percent, is higher than the state’s unemployment rate (8.7 percent) for the same period.¹¹ Economic hardship in the county exacerbates food insecurity, with 15,708 households (21 percent) participating in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).¹¹ Poverty and unemployment are concentrated in unincorporated areas of Doña Ana County, especially in its 37 colonias.^{5, 15} According to census estimates, 55,568 people reside in the 37 colonias, with multiple reports indicating that the total population in the colonias is increasing.^{5, 16} Interviews with community leaders suggest that a significant proportion of the colonia population is comprised of recent immigrants—some of whom may be undocumented. Community leaders and stakeholders in Doña Ana County are committed to addressing economic challenges to build a healthy, equitable, and livable community.

Agriculture: Challenges and Opportunities

Agriculture is integral to Doña Ana County’s cultural identity and economic vitality. Doña Ana ranks third among New Mexico counties for number of farms.⁴ Bucking national trends of farm decline, Doña Ana County saw a 24 percent increase in the number of farms from 1,762 in 2007 to 2,184 in 2012.⁴ Almost a third of the land in Doña Ana County (659,970 acres) is dedicated to agriculture.⁴ Most of the agricultural land is in pastures or grazing leases (84 percent) and only 14 percent is dedicated to cropland.⁴ The average farm size in the county is 302 acres, but most farms—approximately 1,400 farms—are between one and nine acres in size.⁴ Direct marketing by farmers to consumers is small, but growing: nine percent (203 farms) of farmers sell directly to consumers, among which four farm operations are reported to offer community-supported agriculture (CSA).⁴ The majority of farm operators in the county are men (89 percent) and Hispanic (84 percent).⁴ On average, farm operators in the county are 60 years old, suggesting the need for succession planning in agriculture.⁴

Agriculture contributes significantly to the local economy. Statewide, Doña Ana County ranked third in 2014 in cash receipts for all farm commodities—valued at $468 million—and topped the state in cash receipts for all crops in 2014 with $190 million in sales.¹⁷ Doña Ana County is number one in the state for the market value (sales) of vegetables, melons, potatoes, and sweet potatoes (categorized as one commodity group) and fruits, tree nuts, and berries (categorized as one commodity group).⁴ Doña Ana County is especially well known for its pecan and chile production. New Mexico leads the nation in acreage dedicated to pecan production, and is second only to Georgia in pounds of pecans produced.⁴ In 2015, 54 million pounds of pecans were harvested in the county, valued at approximately $135 million.¹⁷ Doña Ana County is also the second largest producer of chile peppers in New Mexico, and home to 14 chile processors.¹⁸ In 2015, the county produced 44 million pounds of chile peppers from 2,100 planted acres—a third of total chile production in New Mexico.¹⁷ New Mexico chile production was valued at $41 million in 2015, and processed and value added chile products had a higher impact value than fresh chile sales.¹⁷ However, over the years the planted acreage of chile has been declining: between 2012 and 2014 chile acreage dropped by 17 percent in Doña Ana County, and consequently so did chile production.¹⁸

Challenges

Despite its importance to Doña Ana County’s history and present economy, agriculture faces a number of challenges to remaining viable into the future. Two challenges highlighted by interviewees appear to be common among farms: increased competition to access agricultural markets and limited availability of water.^{12-14, 19-21} Chile farmers in the county face increased competition from chile producers in Mexico and other foreign chile producing regions such as India, China, and Peru.²² The cost and availability of labor for chile picking affects the local farmer’s ability to be competitive against chile producers who can produce chile at lower costs and have access to larger labor pools.²² Agricultural labor costs outside of the United States (U.S.) tend to be a fraction of the labor costs associated with chile production in the U.S.²² The U.S. chile industry remains low tech, although the use of chile harvesters is catching on. Availability of labor for chile picking has also become unpredictable over the years due to other industries (namely, construction) demand for local labor as well as more stringent immigration laws hindering Mexican farm labor to work across the border in Doña Ana County.²² Mechanization in the chile industry offers a solution to the labor problems, but mechanization comes at a cost of changing community dynamics and potentially disrupting the social fabric of communities. In a similar vein, local dairy farmers face competition from Californian farmers within the regional dairy market.¹³ Vertical integration and consolidation of markets within the food system has created long supply chains.²³ As a result of such transformations in the food system, dairy producers in New Mexico sell to (dairy) aggregation chains based in California.¹³ Dependency on an expanded Western market—than, say, a local/regional market—affects the fortunes of farmers and farming communities.

Farmers also operate within challenging environmental conditions, made worse by a prolonged drought. Doña Ana County has an arid climate, but agriculture was made viable through the construction of the Rio Grande Reclamation Project with Elephant Butte dam completed in 1916. The Project brought reliable irrigation water to the region.^{24, 25} One interviewee described water as the “lifeblood” of farming.²⁰ In 1918, farmers formed the Elephant Butte Irrigation District (EBID) that eventually took ownership, maintenance and operations of the irrigation distribution and drainage systems from the Bureau of Reclamation.¹⁰ At its peak, EBID supplies water to 90,640 acres of land in Doña Ana County for irrigated agriculture (about 7,900 water users).^{10, 26, 27} Overall, 8,300 parcels of land within the county have rights to irrigation water from EBID. ²⁸ In a full supply year, farmers with water rights receive on average three acre-feet of water for each acre with water rights.²⁷ In 2013, farmers received only 3.5 inches per acre and in 2014, 11 inches per acre, well below the norm.²⁰ To compensate for reduced surface water supply, farmers turn to groundwater.²⁰ Pumping of groundwater affects the quality and quantity of water remaining in the aquifer systems. Reduced surface water supply in Doña Ana County not only makes farming more challenging but also increases the cost of farming. The irrigation district requires farmers to pay a flat rate fee of $70 for two acre-feet of water (in 2015) regardless of the amount of water in the reservoir and the actual allocation the farmer receives.²⁰ In the event of a shortfall, farmers pump groundwater. Although farmers do not pay for groundwater, they do pay for electricity to pump the groundwater.²⁰ Cumulatively, these costs affect farmers’ economic viability.

Compliance with regulations is another factor that must be included in planning for agricultural viability. Some farmers and ranchers view these requirements as burdensome and unnecessary. According to one interviewee, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations, in particular, are forcing farmers out of business: “[…] you can’t manage a watershed anymore, going into the forest and clearing it and cutting it so that you can prevent some of these forest fires…You can’t do any of that anymore because you are affecting some bird or some species.”²⁰ Federal food safety laws, intended to protect public health, also factor in agricultural operations.²⁰ Food safety laws require all food handled by human hands to be inspected and graded for quality to ensure zero contamination.²⁰ An interviewee noted that “…the farmer has to work at trying to figure out how to produce this crop without hands touching that crop. This regulation alone makes it expensive for a farmer to produce a crop.”²⁰ From this perspective, food regulations place a disproportionate burden on farmers in the U.S. compared with foods imported from other parts of the world that are produced with less oversight.²⁰ These comments suggest that while food safety and environmental protection may be generally recognized as legitimate public interests, policy makers and regulators should work with agricultural interests to keep compliance costs within competitive margins.

Farmers in Doña Ana County must also deal with the potential impact of urbanization and residential development. These types of conflict occur most commonly when non-agricultural land uses and agricultural uses are in close proximity.¹⁹ Noise from irrigation pumps, damage caused by loose animals, flies, odors, smoke and dust, and contamination of water supplies are typical complaints by property owners near agricultural operations. On the other hand, trespassing, damage to farming equipment and crops, and theft are typical problems that farmers and ranchers may have with their neighbors. Although farming operations often pre-date nearby residential development, some development is generated by farmers themselves when they sell off agricultural parcels knowing that the land will be subdivided for homes.¹² To help address this issue, the State of New Mexico enacted a “Right to Farm Act” in 1981 that seeks to: “…conserve, protect, encourage, develop and improve agricultural land for the production of agricultural products and to reduce the loss to the state of its agricultural resources by limiting the circumstances under which agricultural operations may be deemed a nuisance.”²⁹ Partly in response to increasing tensions between farmers and residents, the State of New Mexico further strengthened the Right to Farm Act in 2016 to protect farmers against nuisance claims.²⁹ The amended language treats nuisance claims against previously established agricultural operations as frivolous unless complainants can demonstrate substantial change in the nature and scope of the agricultural operations.²⁹ Although the amendment leaves room for recourse for (non-farming) residents, the law favors established agricultural land uses over newer residential developments.

Urbanization and residential development have also increased competition over water resources. Water for public use—municipal and industrial use—is supplied by pumping groundwater. There are over 69 municipal and industrial providers in the county, ranging from single jurisdictional utilities to multi-jurisdictional community-based authorities.⁸ Both the City of Las Cruces and Doña Ana County have seen population increases and an uptick in industrial development.⁸ As a result, public water providers are looking for improved methods of water supply and delivery.³⁰ One alternative favored among public water providers is to secure rights to surface water.³⁰ Rights to surface water can be bought through the purchase of (farm) land within the 90,060 acres in EBID’s boundary.³¹ For example, Las Cruces Utilities owns approximately 1,400 acres of agricultural land with EBID surface water rights within the city’s boundaries.²⁰ However, federal law restricts the use of surface irrigation water from the Rio Grande Project to agricultural purposes unless new contracts are entered into with the Bureau of Reclamation and EBID.²⁰ These legal limitations and drought-shortened growing season currently prevent public water providers from putting their surface water rights to use.²⁰ One additional option is to acquire water rights to subsurface sources directly from other users. In either case, if the urban and suburban population continues to grow, some portion of existing water rights—which are already over allocated in Doña Ana County—must be shifted away from agricultural uses.⁸

Tensions between agricultural and residential stakeholders in the county have been exacerbated in recent years by drought-induced water scarcity. Reduced surface water availability forced farmers to use groundwater to make up the shortfall in water supply. Because they are senior water rights holders, farmers have priority for both surface water and groundwater. Public water users perceive farmers’ growing reliance on groundwater as negatively affecting the aquifers upon which they rely.^{10, 20} While agriculture still makes up the bulk of water use in the county, municipal water use has also increased over the last five decades.⁸ Stable water supply is critical for development and growth that is threatened by the depletion of groundwater. In drought conditions, the water needs of the farming community are pitted against the development aspirations of an urbanizing community. To ensure agrarian viability and stable community development, institutions involved in water management have to devise rules of use in times of shortage.

Opportunities

With over 1,000 square miles of farm and ranch land, agriculture remains strong in Doña Ana County despite a rapidly urbanizing population and prolonged drought. Despite many assets, limited access to land, labor, water rights, and lack of local infrastructure for aggregation and processing create barriers for the county’s small farmers. There are many opportunities for local governments to provide support to small farmers and enhance agricultural viability in the county. Local governments can identify the importance of farmland protection and take action to protect farmland from non-farm development. Planners and local governments must also work to boost the economic viability of existing farm and food production businesses within the county. Local governments can also support workforce development programs to ensure a skilled, reliable labor force for local farms. There is also a wide range of actions that local governments can take to support food infrastructure development and fill gaps in the current food distribution system. Strengthening local food distribution networks can also help local and regional food systems meet important economic, health, and community goals.

Food Security: Challenges and Opportunities

Although Doña Ana County has a strong agricultural sector, many residents experience considerable food insecurity. Reports suggest that 18.4 percent of adults and 31.8 percent of children in the county are food insecure.³² One local government representative interviewed for this report estimates that about 30,000 children in the county go to bed hungry at least once a week.¹³ Among children who are food insecure, children living in single parent households or children living with elderly relatives are most vulnerable to hunger.¹³ The degree of food insecurity among children is reified when one considers that a majority of (66 percent) students in Doña Ana County qualify for free school meals and 36 percent of children are reported to live in poverty in the county.³³ Other interviewees noted the high levels of hunger prevalent among seniors in Doña Ana County (the State of New Mexico ranks second for prevalence of hunger among seniors nationally).³⁴ Interviewees point to persistent poverty as the driver of food insecurity in the county, an observation supported by research literature.³⁵

Challenges

Overall, limited financial resources, communication barriers for non-English speakers, limited transportation options, spatial disparities and contested immigration status make it difficult for the rural poor in Doña Ana County to earn a living wage and achieve food security. Food insecurity is spatially concentrated among residents of colonias.^{12, 34} Most residents of colonias speak Spanish as their primary language, and are unable to readily access government and civic services due to communication barriers. One study finds as much as 68 percent of the colonia population in Chaparral (a colonia in southeast Doña Ana County) speak only Spanish.³⁵ Among the participants of the study, 53 percent reported using the food bank distribution to supplement food needs and reported varying levels of food insecurity.³⁵ A majority of the participants (59 percent) who used the food bank reported very high levels of food insecurity.³⁵ Similar levels of food insecurity was also reported in other studies of colonia communities along the U.S.-Mexico border.^{33, 34} Research indicates levels of food insecurity among colonia population exceeds average national food insecurity levels.^{36, 37}

Food insecurity is exacerbated by spatial disparities in food retail in the county. Spatial disparities in food retail disproportionately impact the food insecure population in the county. Physical access to retail stores that sell healthful, nutritious, and affordable food is limited throughout the county.³⁸ Approximately 21 percent of residents have “low access” to grocery stores.^{33, 39} Among those with low access to grocery stores, food access is further impeded by limited public transportation options.¹² This challenge is being addressed by the City of Las Cruces, South Central Regional Transit District, and City of El Paso that are all operating bus systems within the region. The lack of food retail infrastructure is noticeable in the unincorporated areas of the county, as well as in parts of urban centers.³⁸ The U.S. Department of Agriculture reports 22 grocery stores, three supercenters, 56 convenience stores and six specialty stores are located within the county.³³ To add perspective, these statistics indicate the availability of 0.1 grocery store per 1,000 persons in the county, with convenience stores being the most prevalent food retail outlet. Stores with the most healthful, nutritious, and affordable foods tend to be located within the more densely populated areas—in other words, not in close proximity to residents of colonias or rural areas.

Opportunities

Civic groups and local governments are aware of the challenges faced by the poor in Doña Ana County, and are taking steps to strengthen the county’s food system. Several programs are available to meet emergency food needs of residents. Emergency food services are provided by non-governmental organizations (and governmental agencies) in municipalities and unincorporated areas of the county.¹² Additionally, a number of nonprofit organizations, including Roadrunner Food Bank, Casa De Peregrinos Food Program, and local churches and community centers, provide anti-hunger services in Doña Ana County, often in partnership with the public sector.⁴⁰ These nonprofits operate a number of food pantries, food distribution centers, and mobile food services. However, the extent of available emergency food services does not match the need in the county, and organizations are resource strapped. One interviewee noted, “We need to be able to do more. But we can’t afford to do more.”¹²

Some civic organizations are also working to prevent hunger through community empowerment and capacity building. Notably, La Semilla Food Center (La Semilla), a local nonprofit organization, is focused on education, farming, advocacy, and policy change to promote long-term food security.⁴¹ La Semilla operates an education and demonstration community farm in the City of Anthony to provide training on gardening, nutrition and cooking through hands-on lessons for students and parents.⁴² The organization also engages in local government policy advocacy to ensure food is recognized in public policies such as comprehensive planning processes.⁴² La Semilla is integral to the formation and sustenance of the Mesilla Valley Food Policy Council.⁴² Currently, La Semilla is working on a healthy food financing initiative to improve food access in the county.⁴¹ The initiative is designed to “reduce health disparities, improve community health, and create jobs in communities traditionally left out of traditional economic development activities.”⁴³ La Semilla also works to connect farmers to local farmers’ markets, restaurants, stores, and institutions through their “Farm Fresh” program.⁴² The broad range of food programing undertaken by La Semilla helps push food policy forward in Doña Ana County.

Local entrepreneurs also contribute to alleviating hunger and supporting agriculture in Doña Ana County. Mountain View Market, a local cooperative (co-op), works with over eighty local vendors to stock their shelves.⁴⁴ The co-op has invested in the provisioning of a 400-square-foot cold storage unit for local producers and a refrigerated van that allows for pickups from some of the producers.⁴⁴ By accepting SNAP benefits the co-op connects low resource individuals with locally sourced and grown products. In addition, four farmers’ markets operate in the county.⁴⁵ The oldest—started in 1971—and largest is located in downtown Las Cruces: Farmers and Crafts Market of Las Cruces.⁴¹ The other three are spread around the county: Sunland Park, Chaparral, and Anthony.⁴⁵ All of the farmers’ markets accept vouchers from the Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) supplemental nutrition program. The downtown market also accepts SNAP vouchers, and has a double up food bucks program, promoting both food security and agricultural viability.⁴⁵

The New Mexico State University (NMSU)-Doña Ana Cooperative Extension Service provides nutrition education to limited resource families to assist people in effectively utilizing components of food systems such as farmers’ markets and emergency food distribution.⁴⁶ The nutrition education program called Ideas for Cooking and Nutrition (ICAN) receives funding from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)’s Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program and from the USDA SNAP Education Program (SNAP-Ed).⁴⁶ Education is provided in English and Spanish and encourages healthy eating using easy and economical recipes.⁴⁶ This education occurs at farmers’ markets, emergency food distribution sites, senior meal sites, youth summer feeding sites and at other community locations such as schools and community centers.⁴⁶ ICAN partners with non-profit and governmental organizations to provide education throughout Doña Ana County.⁴⁶ The work and commitment of community stakeholders positions the county to make significant progress in improving food security and agricultural viability through public policy.

Local Government Public-Policy Environment

Recognizing the challenges, opportunities, and successes within its food system, local governments in Doña Ana County are embarking on a number of initiatives to promote food security and agricultural viability.

Public Programs to Reduce Hunger and Food Insecurity

Given the extent of hunger in the region, both Doña Ana County and the City of Las Cruces have created a number of public initiatives to combat food insecurity. One response undertaken by local governments is food provisioning for vulnerable populations. For example, the county government operates a food distribution program that serves thirteen distribution centers and provides senior meal services.¹² Doña Ana County has contracted food distribution services out to Casa De Peregrinos, a local not-for-profit.¹² Casa De Peregrinos buys most of the food from Roadrunner Food Bank and some of the food is donated by local grocery chains Albertson’s and Wal-Mart.¹² The City of Las Cruces also operates a senior meal service that serves 850 clients daily.⁴⁷ City of Las Cruces Nutrition and Meal Services have three production kitchens and one catered meal site where paid staff prepare meals from scratch for seniors.³⁴ The program provides congregate meals at five senior centers within the city and delivers hot meals to homebound seniors who cannot make it out to the food distributions.³⁴

The City of Las Cruces Senior Programs agency is also working with Casa De Peregrinos and Roadrunner Food Bank to bring food distributions to all five senior centers.⁴⁷ Since August of 2016, more than 89,000 pounds of food have been distributed.⁴⁷ This municipal senior meal service programming is funded primarily through the city’s budget supplemented by state (30 percent) and federal (10 percent) funding.³⁴ Food provisioning for seniors, who were identified as a vulnerable group in the county, provides the region’s aging population with a safety net critical to their well-being. However, the county’s participation in senior food provisioning is technically a violation of the anti-donation clause in the State Constitution, since public dollars are being used to directly benefit individuals.²¹ The anti-donation clause creates a number of challenges for the county in providing critical community services.

Another strategy for improving food security among seniors and other vulnerable populations is the development of community gardens for food production. The Las Cruces Parks and Recreation Department operates four community gardens in high need areas.⁴⁸ One of the community gardens is dedicated for use by seniors. There is no charge for plots in this garden and the food that is grown is distributed at senior centers.⁴⁸ A plot costs $15 in the other three gardens operated by Parks and Recreation.⁴⁸ The Parks and Recreation department works with the Master Gardener Program, and has plots dedicated to teaching youth to garden as part of the “Weed and Seed” program.⁴⁸ The Master Gardener Program is a group of volunteers trained and supervised by the NMSU-Doña Ana Cooperative Extension Service in Doña Ana County.⁴⁶ The Parks and Recreation Department is also experimenting with setting up an experimental closed loop hydroponics farm on city-owned property which will be available to the community.⁴⁸ There is a high demand for these community gardens and strong support from the municipal government.⁴⁸ The NMSU-Doña Ana Cooperative Extension Service provides technical assistance to many community and school gardens throughout the county.⁴⁶ This assistance is provided by an agronomy and horticulture agent and trained Master Gardener volunteers.

Public Programs to Promote Public Health

Efforts are also underway to encourage more healthful consumption of foods, especially among children. The work of Healthy Kids Las Cruces (HKLC), a collective of organizations involved in food work, spearheaded by the New Mexico Department of Health, has been important in promoting dialogue about healthy lifestyles. HKLC has been successful in introducing salad bars in all Las Cruces public schools,⁴⁹ as well as the addition of school gardens in all schools in Las Cruces District 3.¹⁴ Another example of promoting healthy lifestyle is the County Department of Health and Human Services program called Nuestra Vida (Our Life).¹² Nuestra Vida focuses on teaching residents with diabetes how to manage the disease through better diet and nutrition.¹² The program relies on “promotoras” (bilingual community health workers) to provide health and nutrition education and other preventative services directly to community residents.¹² Local government programming around health and nutrition education also plays an important role in affecting change in food values in the community.

The NMSU-Doña Ana Cooperative Extension Service provides a variety of nutrition, food safety and wellness education programs. The Ideas for Cooking and Nutrition (ICAN) program specifically targets limited resource families with young children.⁴⁶ In addition to the ICAN program, a family and consumer sciences agent delivers presentations and workshops on general nutrition, food safety, diabetes and chronic disease self-management.⁴⁶ These non-ICAN programs are provided in English or Spanish, do not have income guidelines for participation and are provided in partnership with schools, non-profit organizations and government entities.⁴⁶

Support for Agriculture through Policy

The state government recognizes the value of local agriculture and protects it through its policies. For example, the state enacted the New Mexico Chile Advertising Act in 2013 to prohibit vendors from any actions that “knowingly advertise, describe, label or offer for sale chile peppers as New Mexico chile, or to advertise, describe, label or offer for sale a product as containing New Mexico chile, unless the chile peppers or chile peppers in the product were grown in New Mexico.”⁵⁰ The act was implemented to create brand recognition for the New Mexico chile, a substantial portion of which are grown in Doña Ana County.⁵⁰ The act also provides brand protection for Doña Ana County’s chile in export markets.²² Additionally, as noted earlier, the state has stringent Right-to-Farm laws to protect agriculture against nuisance claims.

Additionally, federal and state funding opportunities are available to make agriculture economically viable and environmentally sustainable. One such program, the Value-Added Producer Grant, provides a $100,000 grant to help expand the range of products that can be derived from local agricultural produce—like making cheese from milk or jam from fruit.¹⁹ Producers are also eligible to apply for an additional $300,000 as operating capital for the value-added project.¹⁹  Public funding for renewable energy projects is also available. The Renewable Energy for America program works directly with agricultural producers (and small businesses) to facilitate their transition to use of renewable energy.¹⁹ An applicant can receive a grant of up to $500,000, and a guaranteed loan up to $5 million but the loan and grant cannot exceed 75 percent of the total cost of the project.¹⁹ According to an interviewee, producers are using this funding to install photovoltaics, start a methane digester, and invest in energy efficient farm infrastructure.¹⁹

Recognition of Food and Agriculture in Public Plans

Recently, local governments have begun to integrate food and agriculture into the comprehensive planning process. In 2015, the county government adopted Plan 2040 as its comprehensive plan.⁵ Two of the plan’s six livability principles (LP) pertain to food and agriculture.⁵ LP 1 seeks to protect agricultural land from encroachment, while LP 2 focuses on preserving the heritage of the county and its people.⁵ One of the goals of LP 2 is to support local farmers’ markets; incorporate urban agriculture approaches into programming; and value and protect natural resources and agricultural lands.⁵ Food and agriculture actions are found throughout the plan. In particular, the “Economic Opportunity” section of the plan calls on the county government to support value-added agriculture via the establishment and expansion of food processing facilities in the county.⁵ The “Health” chapter of the plan encourages provisioning of lower cost healthy food and beverage options in community centers, county buildings, hospitals, and schools.⁵

Additionally, a number of other local government planning efforts aim to strengthen food systems. The City of Las Cruces’ Sustainability Action Plan, adopted in 2011, calls for supporting local food networks.⁵¹ The plan includes goals that seek to double the area of city land used for local food production (from the 2013 levels) and increase the amount of local food purchased by city agencies by 5 percent (from its 2014 baseline).⁵¹ To this end, the plan proposes that the City of Las Cruces identify and remove land use zoning that restricts urban agriculture, provide support for the expansion of community gardens and explore the fiscal impacts of supporting local food purchasing.⁵¹ A second iteration of the Sustainability Action Plan was adopted in 2014 by the Las Cruces City Council.⁵² Unfortunately, in the 2014-2017 update, sustainability outcomes and food priorities are not strongly linked—the plan no longer has a standalone food section and food-related goals are integrated into other objectives.⁵²

Ordinances to Support Agriculture

In a move to align future development with the county’s newly adopted comprehensive plan, Doña Ana County recently adopted a new Unified Development Code (UDC) in 2017.⁵³ The UDC applies to all unincorporated areas in the county as well as any property inside the extraterritorial zone jointly administered by the City of Las Cruces and Doña Ana County.⁵³ As with the comprehensive plan, the UDC underwent an extensive period of public review and comment.⁵³ As a result, a number of farming issues were brought to the attention of decision-makers. One issue in particular concerned minimum lot size requirements for subdivision of agricultural land.⁵⁴ Farmers felt setting a minimum lot size requirement impacted the value of their property.⁵⁴ After extensive discussion and community protest, a 10-acre minimum lot size was reduced to 2 acres.^{53, 54} Additional changes were made to address grazing issues and allowed uses within specific zones.

The county maintains a pro-agriculture environment by maintaining zoning districts in the UDC that permit agricultural activities.⁵⁵ The UDC categorizes zoning districts as either transect or use zones. Transect zones include five historical development patterns that are predominantly mixed use.⁵⁶ Use zones encompass 15 types of use-specific districts that are regulated based on similar or adjacent development.⁵⁷ Regardless of zoning type, farming and ranching remains a permitted use throughout much of the county, with the exception of natural zones.^{53, 58} Agricultural activities such as agricultural processing and warehousing, dairies, feedlots, slaughterhouses, commercial poultry raising or processing swine products are permitted only in commercial or industrial zones.⁵⁵ The UDC permits livestock in residential districts as long as requirements are met: “A minimum lot size of 0.75 acre or 32,670 square feet shall be required for the keeping of livestock, other than mature stallions, bulls, buffalo and beefalo, which shall be prohibited from lots containing less than two acres.”⁵⁹ The new development code supports agricultural activities in the county while striving for compact and mixed used development.

The City of Las Cruces’ land use code permits agricultural uses in one of its six zoning districts.⁶⁰ Livestock is permitted on parcels within the single family rural residential zoning district (EE and REM sub-districts).⁶¹ In particular, EE district property owners can raise large livestock (e.g. horses, Buffalo) and smaller animals (e.g. chickens and ducks).⁶¹ However, livestock, both large and small, has to be kept 35 feet from adjacent dwellings and properties.⁶¹ In other zoning districts, property owners can raise small livestock animals provided they apply and receive a special use permit.⁶¹ According to one interviewee, keeping of a backyard garden is permissible on all properties throughout the city.²¹ In Las Cruces, one interviewee reported that people are allowed to sell produce they grow in community gardens on city land—a policy that improves both food and economic security.⁴⁸ The City of Las Cruces’ zoning code reflects awareness on part of the local government of the importance of agriculture to the local community.

Resolutions in Support of Food Systems Work

The Las Cruces City Council has passed resolutions supportive of a growing local food culture and a local food economy. In 2012, the Council adopted a resolution to support a “Farm to School Program.”⁴² This program connects local farmers and public school food service providers by integrating local produce into cafeteria menus and offering classroom tastings.⁴² In 2013, the Council passed another resolution supporting establishment of the Mesilla Valley Food Policy Council.⁶² Adoption of these resolutions indicates local government is aware of the importance of food-related programs to the community.

Another major food policy development in Las Cruces has been the adoption of an urban agriculture and food policy plan. La Semilla, in concert with the local planning department, developed an urban agriculture plan that was adopted by the Las Cruces City Council in June 2016.⁶² Purposefully crafted with meaningful community engagement, the plan includes vision, goals, strategies and recommendations for the city to consider in their development practices.⁶² More than that, the plan advocates for use of a triple bottom line (social, economic and environmental values) approach in the development of strategies and recommendations for local food policy.⁶² For example, the social element of the triple bottom line is captured in Goal One: “All residents should have enough to eat and access to affordable, local, healthy, sustainable, and culturally appropriate food.”⁶² The economy is captured in Goal Two: “A stronger, more vibrant local economy with more food growing and processing opportunities.”⁶² The environmental goal calls for: “Healthier ecosystems and smart environmental resources stewardship.”⁶² The adoption of the urban agriculture plan is significant as it signals elevation and prioritization of food policy within local government.

Action on Food through Public Finance Initiatives

Given that public transit provides a critical option for food-insecure residents who have low vehicular access, expansion of bus service within the county has been generally well received. Funding for the system has been provided by federal grants administered through the State of New Mexico, membership dues from participating governmental entities, and annual apportionments of tax revenue controlled by the County Commission.^{12, 63} Arguments supporting continued funding of the system have included the importance of improved access to healthy food.

Physical Infrastructure and Complementary Programs to Address Water Shortages

Water is a critical need for residents and farmers alike in Doña Ana County. To reduce the deficit in surface water supplies EBID is seeking alternative sources of water. One particular strategy has been to capture and manage stormwater to help recharge the aquifer. As described by one interviewee, “storm water… is limited but it is the new supply that seems to be occurring more often than we can count on snow pack.”²⁰ Pursuing this option will require a high degree of innovation as well as negotiations with other claimants to use of this water—especially environmentalists. Las Cruces has also developed water conservation and water reuse programs to deal with the drought. Water is treated for reuse and supplied via a “purple pipe” for non-potable purposes within the City of Las Cruces limits.²¹ Following prior appropriation laws, all of the reused water has been appropriated, mostly for irrigating the local golf course and parks and recreation facilities.²¹ Clearly local governments are acting to prevent severe shortages and meet quality of life needs but water conservation and innovation would benefit from greater coordination among water provisioning institutions in Doña Ana County.

Ideas for the Future

While the City of Las Cruces and Doña Ana County have started undertaking more food conscious planning, more work remains in strengthening local food systems. A strong agricultural sector and a dedicated network of governmental and community stakeholders provide the ingredients for transformation within the local food system. Even as some of this work is underway, Doña Ana County would benefit from a more coordinated and stronger public policy engagement in the food system. Some ideas are outlined below.

Conduct a Community Food Systems Assessment  

Although food and agriculture now features in the new county comprehensive plan and the city’s sustainability plan, a comprehensive approach to the community food system is lacking. The language in the county’s guiding documents is geared towards supporting an increase in the regional and international presence of local farmers—a local focus is absent from the current strategies identified in the plans. For a more connected local market to develop, local farmers need policy and fiscal support from local governments in setting up food infrastructure such as cold storage, refrigeration, aggregation space and marketing to name a few. Interviewees suggested local farmers would bring more produce into Las Cruces and other cities in Doña Ana County if there were better avenues for them to sell their goods, such as more farmers’ markets venues, farm stands and local contracts with supermarkets. A standalone food systems assessment could provide a thorough review of where opportunities exist to create connections between farmers and consumers. The community food systems assessment can be an addendum to the current comprehensive plan that outlines a detailed agenda for local government engagement in the food system. Examples of food systems assessments are available through the Growing Food Connections Local Government Policy Database.⁶⁴

Develop Incentive Programs for Farmers’ Markets  

Some efforts are already underway to grow a fledging local market for area producers. The work of the local co-op to aggregate produce and local farmers’ markets are examples of creating connections between farmers and consumers. However, not all consumers have the resources to shop at the farmers’ markets or the co-op. Incentivizing the use of SNAP dollars at these local markets—co-op and farmers’ markets—can support local agriculture while also addressing inadequate food access in the county. Local governments can use public financing tools to incentivize similar initiatives. Examples already exist in places like Douglas County, Kansas that may prove useful to Doña Ana County in their efforts to strengthen the food system.⁶⁵ The policy brief Incentivizing the Sale of Healthy and Local Food details the experience of other communities across the country such as Baltimore, Maryland, Minneapolis, Minnesota, and Washington D.C. that may be helpful as Doña Ana considers next steps.⁶⁶

Advocate for Reform of State Anti-Donation Policy

Doña Ana County and its municipalities are generally supportive of initiatives that promote local agriculture and the local food system but still numerous policy barriers exist. One significant barrier is the State of New Mexico’s anti-donation clause that, with a few exceptions, prohibits local governments from providing services to individuals or groups for anything other than fair market value. Given these stipulations, one interviewee noted the food distribution program is a technical violation of the state-imposed mandate.²¹ The same stipulation has been used to preclude county governments from turning county-owned land into community gardens.²¹ It should be noted that the anti-donation clause applies equally to municipal governments in New Mexico but is interpreted more broadly. Although the interpretation currently favored by county government specifically discourages “safety net” programs, the stipulation applies broadly to all aspects of county government service provision and is not limited to food system programs. Another state-level policy affects meal provisioning to seniors. The policy restricts perishable foods leaving the dining rooms of facilities where meals are served to seniors to protect seniors against food borne illness.³⁴ While the policy has good intentions, it hinders local agencies from providing food insecure seniors with boxed meals. The nutrition and meal services program in Las Cruces has started a pilot program where frozen weekday congregate meals are provided to seniors, which can leave the dining rooms.³⁴

Cultivate New Approaches to Farmland Protection

On the agricultural end, strategies to protect farmland from development pressure come into conflict with farm viability. Farmland protection laws limit the amount of capital farmers can leverage against their land—essentially such laws lower the value of their land.¹³ Development pressure from Las Cruces and other urbanizing areas is propping up land values and farmers are using higher land values to inject capital into their farming operations.¹³ Farmers in Doña Ana County do not necessarily intend to convert farmland into subdivisions but want the flexibility of leveraging maximum capital from banks based on their land value and hence their aversion to farmland regulations.¹³ However, there remains a need for some form of farmland protection. As one of the interviewees reported, there are very few parcels of agricultural land left within Las Cruces city limits and owners of these parcels of land are cashing out.⁴⁴ In one recent example, the interviewee reported witnessing a meeting of the local City Council, which denied the landowner’s request to sell an agriculturally zoned parcel to a large retailer.⁴⁴ If these agricultural parcels fall within the irrigation district, surface water rights will also be conveyed with the sale of land. It may be of benefit for the city government to retain as many parcels of agricultural land with surface water rights as possible, but it should find ways to do so without impeding farmers’ economic interests. Local governments may want to investigate the feasibility of using incentives to protect farmland instead of regulations. The policy brief Farmland Protection: The Role of Local Governments in Protecting Farmland as a Vital Local Resource, which draws on innovative experiences from across the country, outlines the many ways in which local governments are preserving farmland under threat from development pressure.⁶⁷

Hire Local Food Coordinators

Doña Ana County has a number of engaged non-profits advocating for better food services and access for disadvantaged communities. Unfortunately, many of their activities are tied to grants. The sustainability and success of these initiatives requires a more stable funding stream and local government support. While the city and county governments are not opposed to improvements in local food systems, both need to dedicate staff time and funding to this issue if positive changes are to occur. Specifically, community food systems would benefit from having a dedicated person in each governmental entity who would be responsible for coordination, initiation, and securing funds for food-related initiatives. Dedicated lines for food-related initiatives in both the city and county budgets would also reduce the challenges of fundraising and grant writing that non-profits go through to keep services operational. While there is a substantial amount of “food work” underway in Doña Ana County, adding coordination support and financial assistance would go a long way toward ensuring the longevity and success of this effort. Communities around the country such as Wayne County, Ohio and Orange County, North Carolina have created food coordinator positions within existing local government departments such as economic development and planning. These positions can help secure grant funding for, develop, and coordinate local government initiatives to support sustainable food systems work.⁶⁸

Improve Health and Nutrition Standards in Food Banks

While the food banks and pantries work hard to meet the needs of the residents, some concerns about food quality exist. Concerns related to quality and health in accepting food donations were raised by some interviewees.³⁸ The food pantries and food bank tend to accept all foods donated irrespective of nutritional value or quality. Moreover, even if food cannot be turned down, some health and nutritional standards need to be in place to ensure that the emergency food system is not feeding hunger with empty calories. Local governments and the Mesilla Valley Food Policy Council can create standards that enable better food donation policies there by creating a culture of “food with dignity.”³⁸

Create Multilingual Promotional Materials for Programs

Interviewees noted that information dissemination is most challenging in communities with the greatest need for food programs.^{12, 34} While multiple avenues exist to access food from the emergency food systems, this information does not always reach at-risk populations. One interviewee suggested that all outreach literature should be translated into Spanish in order to improve communication.³⁴ The Nuestra Vida program offers a good example of the efficacy of bilingualism, but in a county where two thirds of the population is Hispanic or Latino, more needs to be done to make information accessible.

Research Methods and Data Sources

Information in this brief is drawn from multiple sources. Quantitative data sources include the 2014 American Community Survey (ACS) five-year estimates and 2012 U.S. Census of Agriculture. Qualitative data include 14 in-depth interviews with representatives of various sectors of the food system as well as Doña Ana County and City of Las Cruces policy makers and staff. Interviewees are not identified by name but are, instead, shown by the sector that they represent, and are interchangeably labeled as interviewees or stakeholders within the brief. Interviews were conducted from April to August 2015. Qualitative analysis also included the policy and plan documents of the local and regional governments, which were reviewed for key policies and laws pertaining to the food system, and a review of minutes of the Growing Food Connections steering-committee meetings.

Acknowledgements

The GFC team is grateful to the Doña Ana County GFC steering committee, Doña Ana County government officials and staff, and interview respondents for giving generously of their time and energy for this project.

Notes

¹ Growing Food Connections, “Eight ‘Communities of Opportunity’ Will Strengthen Links Between Farmers and Consumers: Growing Food Connections Announces Communities from New Mexico to Maine,” http://growingfoodconnections.org/news-item/eight-communities-of-opportunity-will-strengthen-links-between-farmers-and-consumers-growing-food-connections-announces-communities-from-new-mexico-to-maine/.

² C. Marquis and J. Freedgood, “Doña Ana County, New Mexico: Community Profile,” Growing Food Connections Project (Buffalo, NY: University at Buffalo, 2016).

³ U.S. Census Bureau, 2014 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, 2010-2014 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Census Bureau, 2015).

⁴ U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2012 Census of Agriculture (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Census Bureau, 2014).

⁵ Doña Ana County, Plan 2040: Doña Ana County, New Mexico Comprehensive Plan (Las Cruces, NM: Doña Ana Board of County Commissioners, 2015).

⁶ U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 Census of Governments: Organization Component Estimates (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Census Bureau, 2012).

⁷ New Mexico Constitution, Article 10: County and Municipal Corporations, Section 6: Municipal Home Rule (Santa Fe, NM: New Mexico Legislature, 1970).

⁸ S. Raj, “Disjunctive Planning: Lessons for Adaptive Water Governance from Doña Ana, New Mexico,” Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning. Forthcoming.

⁹ C.A. Klein, F. Cheever, and B.C. Birdsong, Natural Resources Law: A Place-Based Book of Cases and Problems, 3rd ed. (Waltham, MA: Wolters Kluwer Legal Education, 2013).

¹⁰ Utton Transboundary Resources Center, “Water Litigation in the Lower Rio Grande,” Water Matters! 24 (2013): 1-22, http://uttoncenter.unm.edu/pdfs/water-matters-2015/24_Water_Litigation_in_the_Lower_Rio_Grande.pdf.

¹¹ U.S. Census Bureau, 2015 State and County QuickFacts –  Doña Ana County, New Mexico (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Census Bureau, 2015).

¹² Interview with Local Government Representative in Doña Ana County (ID 30), June 5, 2015.

¹³ Interview with Local Government Representative in Doña Ana County (ID 35), June 3, 2015.

¹⁴ Interview with Local Government Representative in Doña Ana County (ID 39), July 16, 2015.

¹⁵ Colonias are communities in Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Texas within 150 miles of the U.S.-Mexico border. Colonia is a federal definition used to identify communities that can be targeted for federal aid for infrastructure development. Colonias are characterized by a lack of adequate water, sewage, gas systems and decent, safe, and sanitary housing. Doña Ana County is home to 37 of over 140 federally recognized colonias in New Mexico.

¹⁶ N.L. Simmons, “Memories and Miracles – Housing the Rural Poor along the United States-Mexico Border: A Comparative Discussion of Colonia Formation and Remediation in El Paso County, Texas, and Doña Ana County, New Mexico,” New Mexico Law Review 27, no. 1 (Winter 1997): 33-75.

¹⁷ L. Bustillos and S. Hoel, New Mexico Agricultural Statistics: 2015 Annual Bulletin (Las Cruces, NM: U.S. Department of Agriculture National Agricultural Statistics Service, 2015).

¹⁸ T.Y. Hall and R.K. Skaggs, New Mexico’s Chile Pepper Industry: Chile Types and Product Sourcing (Las Cruces, NM: New Mexico Chile Task Force, 2003).

¹⁹ Interview with Local Government Representative in Doña Ana County (ID 31), June 5, 2015.

²⁰ Interview with Local Government Representative in Doña Ana County (ID 34), July 29, 2015.

²¹ Interview with Local Government Representative in Doña Ana County (ID 40), June 4, 2015.

²² J. Hawkes, J.D. Libbin, and B. Jones, “Chile Production in New Mexico and Northern Mexico,” Journal of the ASFMRA (American Society of Farm Managers and Rural Appraisers) (2008): 83-92.

²³ M. Pullman and Z. Wu, Food Supply Chain Management: Economic, Social and Environmental Perspectives (New York, NY: Routledge, 2012).

²⁴ R.E. McBride, Doña Ana County in New Mexico: Containing the Fertile Mesilla Valley, Cradle of Irrigation in America (Las Cruces, NM: New Mexico Bureau of Immigration, 1908).

²⁵ The dam at Elephant Butte is part of the Rio Grande Project – the project is comprised of two storage dams, six diversion dams, 141 miles of canals, 462 miles of lateral ditches, another 457 miles of drains and a power plant built by the Bureau of Reclamation over the course of three decades. The reservoir has a capacity of 2 million acre-feet.

²⁶ L. DeMouche, Interpreting the Elephant Butte Irrigation District for Water Users (Las Cruces, NM: New Mexico State University Cooperation Extension Service, 2004).

²⁷ R. Skaggs and Z. Samani, Irrigation Practices vs. Farm Size: Data from the Elephant Butte Irrigation District (Las Cruces, NM: New Mexico State University Water Task Force, 2004).

²⁸ Irrigation surveys by the Bureau of Reclamation conducted after the Project was authorized in 1905 determined which parcels of land in Doña Ana County could be fed by gravity irrigation and only the identified parcels can be supplied with surface water.

²⁹ New Mexico Statutes Annotated 1978, New Mexico Agricultural Protection Act Vol Chapter 47 (Santa Fe, NM: New Mexico Legislature, 1981).

³⁰ J. Garcia, “New Mexico Municipal Representatives on the Use of Surface Water for Their Cities,” Panel presentation at the 53^rd Annual New Mexico Water Conference of the New Mexico Water Resources Research Institute, Albuquerque, NM, October 21, 2008.

³¹ Unlike property rights, water rights are usufructuary. A water right provides legal protection for the use, not ownership, of water. In Doña Ana County, water rights may be transferred when land is sold, hence making land with surface water rights valuable.

³² J. Page-Reeves, ed., Women Redefining the Experience of Food Insecurity: Life Off the Edge of the Table (London: Lexington Books, 2014).

³³ U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food Environment Atlas (Washington, D.C.: Economic Research Service, 2015).

³⁴ Interview with Local Government Representative in Doña Ana County (ID 29), June 5, 2015.

³⁵ I. Gonzales, W.A. Eastman, L. Stanford, D. VanLeeuwen, and C. Turner, “Food Security in a Southwest Border Colonia Community,” Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics 114, no. 9 (September 2014): A86.

³⁶ J.R. Sharkey, W.R. Dean, and C.M. Johnson, “Association of Household and Community Characteristics with Adult and Child Food Insecurity among Mexican-Origin Households in Colonias along the Texas-Mexico Border,” International Journal for Equity in Health 10, no. 19 (May 2011): 1-14.

³⁷ C.C. Nalty, J.R. Sharkey, and W.R. Dean, “Children’s Reporting of Food Insecurity in Predominately Food Insecure Households in Texas Border Colonias,” Nutrition Journal 12, no. 15 (January 2013): 1-9.

³⁸ Interview with Local Government Representative in Doña Ana County (ID 38), June 3, 2015.

³⁹ Low access is defined by the U.S. Department of Agriculture as urban populations living more than one mile from a supermarket, and for rural areas as more than 10 miles from a supermarket.

⁴⁰ Interview with Consumer Advocate Representative in Doña Ana County (ID 33), June 25, 2015.

⁴¹ Interview with Consumer Advocate Representative in Doña Ana County (ID 28), April 13, 2015.

⁴² La Semilla Food Center, “Mesilla Valley Food Policy Council,” accessed April 20, 2016, http://www.lasemillafoodcenter.org/index.php/what-we-do/food-planning-policy/mesilla-valley-food-policy-council.

⁴³ New Mexico Department of Health, “Healthy Kids Las Cruces Newsletter – 2015,” accessed April 20, 2016, https://nmhealth.org/about/phd/region/sw/hklc/.

⁴⁴ Interview with Food Retail Representative in Doña Ana County (ID 41), June 4, 2015.

⁴⁵ New Mexico Farmers’ Marketing Association, “New Mexico Farmers’ Markets,” accessed April 20, 2016, http://farmersmarketsnm.org/find-a-market/.

⁴⁶ Cooperative Extension Representative, email to author, June 26, 2017.

⁴⁷ Local Government Representative, email to author, June 26, 2017.

⁴⁸ Interview with Local Government Representative in Doña Ana County (ID 36), June 5, 2015.

⁴⁹ New Mexico Department of Health, “Healthy Kids Las Cruces Newsletter – 2016,” accessed April 20, 2016, https://nmhealth.org/about/phd/region/sw/hklc/.

⁵⁰ New Mexico Statutes Annotated 1978, New Mexico Chile Advertising Act Vol Chapter 25 (Santa Fe, NM: New Mexico Legislature, 2013).

⁵¹ City of Las Cruces, City of Las Cruces Sustainability Action Plan 2011-2014 (Las Cruces, NM: City of Las Cruces City Council, 2011).

⁵² City of Las Cruces, City of Las Cruces Sustainability Action Plan 2014-2017 (Las Cruces, NM: City of Las Cruces City Council, 2014).

⁵³ Doña Ana County, Unified Development Code, Ordinance No. 287-2016 (Las Cruces, NM: Doña Ana Board of County Commissioners, 2017).

⁵⁴ D.A. Soular, “Land-Use Commission Changes Farm Subdivision Plan After Protest,” Las Cruces Sun News, September 1, 2016, https://www.lcsun-news.com/story/news/local/county/2016/09/01/land-use-commission-changes-farm-subdivision-plan-after-protest/89737650/.

⁵⁵ Doña Ana County, Doña Ana County Code, Chapter 250: Land Use and Zoning (Las Cruces, NM: Doña Ana Board of County Commissioners, 2011).

⁵⁶ Transect zones include natural (N), Rural (T2), Neighborhood edge (T3), General Neighborhood (T4), and Town Center (T5).

⁵⁷ Use zones include: Rural density residential (R5), Rural Density Residential – Limited (RL5), Low Density Residential (D1), Low Density Residential – Limited (D1L), Medium Density Residential (D2), Medium Density Residential – Limited (D2L), High Density Residential (D3), Mobile Home Park (DM), Mixed use (MU), Neighborhood Commercial (C1), Community Commercial (C2), Regional Commercial (C3), Light Industrial (I1), Medium Industrial (I2) and Heavy Industrial (I3).

⁵⁸ Natural zones encompasses lands that are in or reverting to a natural condition, including lands unsuitable for settlement or development due to topography, hydrology or vegetation.

⁵⁹ Doña Ana County, Doña Ana County Code, Chapter 250: Land Use and Zoning Vol Article XII: Keeping of Livestock (Las Cruces, NM: Doña Ana Board of County Commissioners, 2011).

⁶⁰ Agriculture is permitted in the single family rural residential zoning district that encompasses three sub-categories of  zoning: Single-family equestrian estate and agriculture (EE); Single-family residential estate (RE); Single-family residential estate mobile (REM).

⁶¹ City of Las Cruces, Las Cruces Municipal Code, Chapter 7: Animals Vol Article III (Las Cruces, NM: City of Las Cruces City Council, 2014).

⁶² K. Aguilar, Las Cruces Urban Agriculture and Food Policy Plan: Growing Good in Las Cruces (Las Cruces, NM: City of Las Cruces City Council, 2016).

⁶³ New Mexico state statute allows municipalities and counties to increase sales tax up to 3/8 of a percent without having to put it on the ballot, which is what Doña Ana County did in this case.

⁶⁴ S. Raja, J. Clark, J. Freedgood, and K. Hodgson, Growing Food Connections: Local Government Food Policy Database (Buffalo, NY: University at Buffalo, 2016), http://growingfoodconnections.org/tools-resources/policy-database/.

⁶⁵ Z. Fodor and K. Hodgson, “Healthy Food System in the Heartland: Intergovernmental Cooperation in the City of Lawrence and Douglas County, Kansas Advances Food Policy,” (Buffalo, NY: Growing Food Connections, 2015), http://growingfoodconnections.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2015/07/Lawrence-COI-Web-Feature_20150715.pdf.

⁶⁶ A. Dillemuth and K. Hodgson, “Incentivizing the Sale of Healthy and Local Food,” (Buffalo, NY: Growing Food Connections, 2016), http://growingfoodconnections.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2015/11/GFCHealthyFoodIncentivesPlanningPolicyBrief_2016Feb-1.pdf.

⁶⁷ A. Dillemuth, “Farmland Protection: The Role of Local Governments in Protecting Farmland as a Vital Local Resource,” (Buffalo: Growing Food Connections, 2017), http://growingfoodconnections.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2015/11/GFCPlanningPolicyBrief_FarmlandProtection_2017Sept1.pdf.

⁶⁸ A. Dillemuth, “Community Food Systems and Economic Development: The Role of Local Governments in Supporting Local Food Economies,” (Buffalo: Growing Food Connections, 2017), http://growingfoodconnections.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2015/11/GFCPlanningPolicyBrief_EconomicDevelopment_2017Sept.pdf.

Community of Opportunity Feature

AUTHORS

Subhashni Raj, University at Buffalo

Samina Raja, University at Buffalo

CONTRIBUTORS

Jill Clark, Ohio State University

Julia Freedgood, American Farmland Trust

Kimberley Hodgson, Cultivating Healthy Places

Samina Raja, University at Buffalo

SERIES EDITOR

Samina Raja, University at Buffalo

PROJECT COORDINATOR

Enjoli Hall, University at Buffalo

LAYOUT AND DESIGN

Brenda Stynes, University at Buffalo

Daniela Leon, University at Buffalo

Samantha Bulkilvish, University at Buffalo

Clancy Grace O’Connor, University at Buffalo

Recommended citation: Raj, Subhashni and Samina Raja. “Agrarian Values and Urban Futures: Challenges and Opportunities for Agriculture and Food Security in Doña Ana County, New Mexico.” In Exploring Stories of Opportunity. Edited by Samina Raja, 14 pages. Buffalo: Growing Food Connections Project, 2018.

 

Print Version (PDF)

Building on History and Tradition: Community Efforts Strengthen Food Systems in Polk County, North Carolina

In March 2015, Polk County, North Carolina was selected as one of eight Communities of Opportunities (COOs) in the country with significant potential to strengthen ties between small- and medium-sized farmers and residents with limited food access. Working with the Growing Food Connections (GFC) project team, county stakeholders have since established a steering committee that has charted a vision for the future of Polk’s food system.

This brief, which draws on interviews with Polk County residents and community leaders and secondary data sources, provides information about local government policy opportunities and challenges in the food system to inform the work of the GFC steering committee in Polk County.

 

Polk County, located in southwestern North Carolina, is nestled between the foothills of the Blue Ridge Mountains and the edge of the Piedmont Plateau. Rugged landscapes of mountains and gorges are interspersed with rolling pastures, cultivated fields, orchards, and vineyards. Polk County residents have a deep commitment to honoring and retaining their rural legacy. Like many rural communities, the county is experiencing a time of transition, population shift, and unique emerging opportunities. Local government and civic society have, through strong joint efforts, reinforced their commitment to well-planned growth that preserves the county’s rural character while simultaneously providing opportunity for all its residents. In Polk County, small- town charm is coupled with immense economic opportunity that stems from its low population density and location in the greater Piedmont Atlantic Megaregion. A world-class equestrian facility attracting tourists from across the globe now augments a long history of raising horses for fox hunting and trail riding. Partnerships in a larger regional network support focused, strategic investment in the immediate local economy. Local government support for agriculture and food as a form of economic development has provided a similar outlet for protecting tradition while creatively expanding opportunity for long-time and new Polk County residents.

BACKGROUND

Affectionately referred to as “a place with 20,000 people and only six stoplights,”1 Polk County is a quintessential rural community. The population of 20,411 people is spread across 237 square miles, creating a low population density of approximately 83 people per square mile.2 The county comprises six townships,3 with three primary population centers of Tyron, Columbus, and Saluda, all with fewer than 1,700 people. A large majority (80%) of the population lives outside the population centers in a rural landscape enriched by forested land, agricultural land, and the mountains. Many residents come from families with intergenerational ties with the region. Polk is one of the few counties that can trace the majority of its current residents back to the original settlers of the land, including several prominent families who were active in the American Revolution. The majority of Polk County residents (93%) are white, although there are small African American (4.5%) and Hispanic (5.8%) populations. The median household income in Polk County ($44,745) is slightly below the statewide average of $46,334, but the percentage of persons living below the poverty level in Polk County (16.7%) is also slightly below the state average of 17.5%.2 Community leaders caution that although average household incomes and employment statistics appear competitive, the data mask economic disparities within the county; the presence of a small number of high-income families may skew the data.1

Unemployment in the county is low (5.1%), which may be attributed to many people working part-time or low-wage jobs, particularly in the service industry.4 More than half of the county’s working-age adults travel outside of the county or the state for employment opportunities.4 Although Polk County and several neighboring counties lost many jobs withthe decline of the textile industry, their location in the Piedmont Atlantic Megaregion provides new opportunities in automobile manufacturing and industry. Private transportation is a near necessity for residents, and people who do not have their own vehicles face challenges in securing employment.5

 

FOOD SECURITY: CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES

Food insecurity is a concern for some Polk County residents, particularly senior citizens, families with children, and people with low incomes. Food security is defined as the state in which all members of a community have sufficient and adequate access to healthy, affordable, and culturally acceptable foods.6 In comparison to neighboring counties, Polk County has fewer food-insecure people and fewer people with diet-related diseases such as obesity and diabetes. Although Polk County’s population is comparably healthier and less at risk of food insecurity than those in adjoining counties, the broader region is experiencing health setbacks relative to the rest of the country, and particular subgroups are at greater risk. For example, although Polk is ranked as having the second lowest food-insecurity rate in the WNC region (14.2% for Polk County), the Western North Carolina region as a whole has a greater rate of food insecurity than is found in the US.7

Challenges

In rural areas, residents who are food insecure are often not visible to policymakers and planners due to both the low- density population and individuals’ reluctance to appear to need assistance. Poverty in rural Polk County is often tucked away in remote corners, where local government officials and even social-service organizations are not aware of the challenges residents may face, and residents may not be willing to share their concerns.8 Addressing persistent poverty in communities with tight-knit connections requires sensitivity to communities’ perceptions and realities.

In 2010, 44.49% of Polk County students were eligible for free school meals, and 8.8% were eligible for reduced-price school lunches, a significant increase from 2006, when 29.6% of students were eligible for free school lunch and 12.3% were eligible for reduced-price school lunch.9 In part due to the large increase and generous local donors, Polk County now offers free school lunch for all elementary and middle-school children.10 In addition, the school district and the only local food pantry, Thermal Belt Outreach, run a food-assistance program that sends food home with students over the weekend.10

Losing or not having access to personal transportation is a barrier to food security. Polk County is a rural community, and the majority of residents must drive to reach food retail stores. Although the county does have a call-on-demand transportation system, not all residents are aware of how to access the system to plan trips. Lack of access to personal transportation also severely limits employment opportunities, contributing to food insecurity indirectly.10

During interviews, community leaders expressed concern that the limited knowledge of healthier cooking practices worsens nutrition for many Polk County residents.5 Some interviewees noted that even if low-income residents were interested in cooking healthier foods, they might stick to familiar cooking practices for which ingredients are readily available and inexpensive. Families may have little extra money to experiment with other cooking styles that may require more expensive and harder-to-locate ingredients.5

Opportunities

Polk County continues to make strides in increasing access to healthy and local foods for residents. The number of farmers’ markets and farms with direct sales to consumers has increased in the past five years. Currently, Polk has three farmers’ markets spread across the county, all of which allow customers to use Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)/Electronic Benefits Transfer (EBT) funds.11 The number of farmers’ markets, farm stands, and produce stands in the county is higher than the average number of farmers’ markets, farm stands, and produce stands per 1,000 people for Western NC.7 The Polk County Community Foundation provides funding for Double Up Buck programs to expand access to local foods for residents using food-assistance programs.11 All three towns in the county provide space for farmers’ markets to operate.11 Although opportunities to purchase fresh food from local farmers are abundant, there is a widespread belief (both real and perceived) that produce options at these direct-to-consumer locations are overpriced and too expensive for many Polk County residents.12

 

Residents of Polk County have a long history of taking care of their food-insecure residents. Farmers have been known to drop off produce to the food pantry before the sun rises, preferring to keep their donation (and identity) unacknowledged. An active gleaning group provides fresh produce during harvest season to diversify the food options available through emergency food programs. Churches, the public school, and the Boy and Girl Scouts programs also provide food through food drives for pantries.12 Expanded cold-storage facilities in the county have improved emergency food providers’ ability to stock and distribute perishable food items such as meat, produce, milk, and eggs.

Thermal Belt Outreach, an organization that serves all of Polk County, provides emergency food access to families in need. The organization operates the only food pantry in the county and has seen a steady increase in need for food-assistance services in recent years.12 In addition to operating the food pantry and other services, the organization partners with the Polk County School District on a program to provide food for students and families over the weekend. Students at risk of not having a nutritionally adequate diet receive a bag of food for the weekend. The bag of food is placed in students’ lockers when class is in session, to reduce stigma.13 Although the reach of Thermal Belt Outreach and other organizations is large, the need for emergency food assistance exceeds available assistance. Emergency food-service providers are also unable to serve those food-insecure residents who are reluctant to seek assistance.

AGRICULTURE: OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES

While the now-gone textile industry was once a large employer in the area, agriculture has been the cornerstone of Polk County’s economy for many generations. Prime weather conditions created by the isothermal belt in the county allow for expanded production of certain crops. The isothermal belt is a unique weather condition formed by the belt’s location in the foothills of the Blue Ridge Mountains. This thermal belt creates milder winters and cooler summers than those found in geographies both lower and higher in elevation than Polk County. As a result, the growing season in Polk County, particularly near the Tryon- Columbus area, begins earlier and lasts longer.13

Agriculture in Polk County is primarily practiced on small farms scattered throughout the county, accounting for 15.8 percent of the county’s land area.14 Today, the county’s 290 farms are an average size of 83 acres, less than half the statewide average size of 168 acres.15 Nearly all (99%) of the farms are small family farms, many being very small; about one-third of farms (109) report gross sales of less than $1,000.15 Thirty-nine farms in the county report gross sales of over $25,000. The high number of very small farms indicates that farm income is of secondary importance to many farm owners. Half (145) of Polk’s principal farm operators do not consider farming their primary income.16

Principal farm operators in Polk County have some unique characteristics. Farmers in the county are an average of 60.4 years old, two years older than the average age of principal farm operators in the state. Almost half (47.2%) of principle farm operators in Polk County are women, compared to 14.7% of principal farm operators statewide.17

Much of Polk’s agricultural land consists of woodland (35.4%) and pastureland (25.2%), with only slightly under one-third of the land being cropland (29.5%) and about 9.9% dedicated to other uses.15 Pastureland is dedicated to 58 beef cattle farms, two dairy cattle farms, and eight sheep and goat farms, in addition to a large equine industry.18 Polk County farmers are currently expanding their diversified fruit and vegetable production,thanks in part to the efforts of the Agriculture and Economic Development department.

It is curious that although Polk County lost 19 farms between 2007 and 2012, approximately 3,100 more acres of land were put under production during the same years.15 Similarly, the average size of Polk County farms jumped from 68 to 83 acres. In other places such as the Midwest, this could point to farm consolidation, often with corporate ownership over commodity crops. Given the small size of Polk County farms, however (even with the acreage increase), this could point to expansion of farms due to increased market opportunities generated from the growth in farmer’s markets, creation of a food hub, and other direct-to-consumer markets.

The isothermal belt creates favorable conditions for apples and grapes. Fruit and tree-nut farms account for 21 of Polk’s farms, and an ever-expanding viticulture movement is present in the county’s additional 11 commercial vineyards and five wineries that are open to the public.19 For vineyard operators who don’t process grapes on site, many sell their grapes to Biltmore Estate Winery in Asheville, NC. The prime growing conditions paired with the equine and outdoor-enthusiast tourism create opportunities for expanding a grape and wine agritourism sector.19

The equine industry in Polk County is large and quickly expanding. In 2009, Polk County was home to 3,850 equine animals worth a combined value of $23,395,000.20 Known as Tryon Horse Country, the beautiful scenery attracts trail riders, fox hunters, and horse competitors, which bring tourists who contribute significantly to the county’s economy. The equine industry also supports related equine businesses such as veterinarians, barn builders, farm-equipment sales, truck and trailer sales, and many more. In 2010, the equine industry was believed to have a $15 million direct impact on the Polk economy.21 The equine industry quickly expanded when the Tryon International Equestrian Center, a $100 million equestrian center and resort, opened in 2014. Estimates suggest that the center has contributed an estimated $9.2 million directly to the county’s economy in 2015 and created an estimated 115 jobs locally, with rapid expansion expected.22 The equine industry, and particularly trail riding, while not directly tied to food production, relies on farmland and open-space preservation to retain and attract the equine industry. Opportunities abound for connecting food production with the equine industry.

Challenges

Although many opportunities abound, Polk County farmers still face challenges. The price of farmland in Polk County is particularly cost prohibitive for people who do not inherit a farm from their family, creating a barrier for young people to enter the profession.23 Ties among family and to the land are strong, making the sale of land outside families rare. The average age of principal farm operators in Polk County is older than the average age of farm operators in the state and the country, raising an additional concern.17 For those wishing to retire from farming, very few have viable succession plans for their farmland. Few farmers have an heir who is interested in keeping the farm under production; although they may wish to keep the land, it frequently becomes fallow. The turnover of farmland without adequate succession planning is a large concern for both farmers who rely on the sale of land for retirement and land preservationists who are concerned about large swathes of land becoming available on the market with no protections or easements. New farm operators, both those who inherit and purchase land, are also stymied by the high price of upgrades and improvements to buildings and equipment. Often, old farms in transition were not very profitable and not upgraded with necessary improvements for many years. New farmers are saddled with upgrade expenses in addition to the price of the land.11

Community leaders also report that agriculture-based training can be a barrier for Polk farmers who have few opportunities to learn about new techniques, methods, trends, and market-expansion opportunities.1 Particularly, Polk County farmers lack knowledge of how to diversify their crops to meet high-end niche markets.11 Other community stakeholders are concerned that the farming culture and skills, especially non-traditional agriculture education, are not being passed down because farmers themselves don’t realize the value of their knowledge. Long-time traditional farmers can feel defeated and that their work isn’t valuable, and local knowledge will be easily lost.5 Farmer-to-farmer mentoring, focused on individual relationships, could provide vital informal education on local, regional, and state resources.5

Opportunities

Although Polk County farmers experience barriers, public and private agencies have banded together to uniquely address some of farmers’ key challenges. Polk County was the first county in the state of North Carolina to create, through public funds, an Agriculture Economic Development (AED) office staffed with a full-time coordinator. The Agricultural Advisory Board, an advisory board to the County Commissioners, supports the office.24 This innovative local government action is a signal that agriculture is a valuable part of Polk’s economy and community. By building on the county’s many successes and uniting the agriculture economic-development activities with basic human-needs services, Polk County is well poised to serve as a nationwide example of how low-density rural areas can band together to prime their own economy in a way that provides opportunity for all residents.

Mill Spring Agricultural Center

The Mill Spring Agricultural Center (MSAC) is the heart of the Polk County agriculture community. Private owners donated an unused school building to the Polk County Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) in 2009 to serve as an agricultural center, and it has since served as the locus for SWCD, AED, farmland preservation efforts, agriculture education, and the local farming community. Funding for operational costs of the center is obtained by refurbishing and renting out the classrooms as offices and through fundraisers, donations, and grants. The location of the center in the heart of the community, and incidentally removed from county government offices, has made the center accessible and welcoming for farmers across the county. Contained in the building is the Office of Agriculture Economic Development, the Soil and Water Conservation District offices, the county forestry agent, Growing Rural Opportunities (GRO), a farm store, the Equipment and Tool Share Cooperative, demonstration gardens, classroom space, and a community- gathering space. AED uses the space to fulfill their mission of creating marketing opportunities for farmers, farm business-plan advising, consumer education, access to local food, and farmland preservation efforts.24

Agriculture Economic Development (AED) hosts numerous programs and opportunities that support small- and mid-sized farmers. Friends of Agriculture Breakfasts, a monthly community education and outreach event for Polk County farmers and producers, features agricultural research findings and local and regional marketing trends for 60–100 producers every month.25 Active for seven years, the breakfast gatherings are credited with creating cohesion among producers, consumers, citizens, and stakeholders. AED’s Equipment and Tool Share Cooperative, funded by annual farm tours, provides tool and equipment rental such as honey-processing equipment, seed drills, tillers, and more for collective use.11

Growing Rural Opportunities and Growing Food Where People Live

Growing Rural Opportunities was formed in 2015 to build on the work of the Mill Spring Agricultural Center and the Office of Agriculture Economic Development. While these two entities had done much to advance farming in the county, the need for a nonprofit that could work to advance the full food system and serve as a flexible partner to local government agencies was clear. GRO partners include the Cooperative Extension, Mill Spring Agriculture Center, the Office of Agriculture Economic Development, and other agencies.26 This nonprofit addresses farmer and consumer relationships, facilitates creation and strengthening of farmers’ markets, coordinates Grow Food Where People Live (described below), and has established an incubator farm and Land Link Program.27

Growing Rural Opportunities united with Polk County Agriculture Economic Development and Groundswell International to form a new initiative, Grow Food Where People Live. Formed in 2015, the initiative is “designed to improve the health, food security, and economic wellbeing of people in Polk County by supporting them as they grow their own food, learn valuable skills, and organize food-buying clubs to improve their household economies and start market gardens and food-related enterprises to earn more income.”28 The initiative assists in the creation of micro-farms that include gardens, fruit trees, shrubs, and handicap-accessible garden beds located next to low-income housing units. These micro-farms supply large quantities of fresh produce to families with limited food access, while serving as places of learning and community building. In addition to the educational component, Grow Food Where People Live also focuses on economic development through food-based small businesses, partnering with participants to develop small businesses that increase economic independence.29 Both Growing Rural Opportunities and Grow Food Where People Live will serve as entities to unite the agriculture economic-development work with broader activity to address rural poverty and opportunity.

Supportive Private Funding

Private funding has played a key role in food-systems work in Polk County. The Polk County Community Foundation (PCCF) has awarded significant funds to food-systems work in Polk County, both for low-income consumers and producers. They provide funding for a student intern program for high-school students to intern with the Polk County High School farm, and assist with food and client services at Thermal Belt Outreach Ministry.30 The foundation also administers funding for the Culberson Agricultural Development Fund and the Culberson Quality Local Food Initiative Fund, both of which have provided funding for community gardens, farmers’ markets, the high- school farm, sustainable cover crop management systems, and more.31 Recently, they awarded a $3,800 unrestricted grant fund to support local beekeeping efforts.32

LOCAL GOVERNMENT PUBLIC POLICY ENVIRONMENT

Polk County is fortunate to have a local government committed not just to protecting farmland but to actively supporting farming as a viable economic enterprise. Their county commissioner’s office is dedicated to decreasing persistent poverty (thus indirectly increasing food security) for Polk’s low-income residents.12 Polk County has five local government entities: one county government, three municipal governments (Tryon, Columbus, and Saluda), and one special-purpose government (Polk County School District).33 These local governments rely heavily on the Office of Agriculture Economic Development to directly interact with agriculture, but local government public policy also indirectly affects agriculture and food access in numerous ways.

Plans

Polk County’s award-winning 20/20 Vision Comprehensive Plan, adopted in 2010 and undergoing updates in 2016, clearly references the importance of Polk’s rural heritage, wild open lands, and agricultural working lands. Sections of the plan reference the importance of agriculture, viticulture, and the equine industry to the county’s economy and sense of place. The plan serves as a blueprint for future government action, a bequest taken seriously by local government and residents: plans for economic development, agriculture economic development, transportation, and even requests for outside grant money all clearly align with the 20/20 Vision plan. The community- engagement part of the plan was executed with respect and importance, which has clearly translated to how enthusiastically Polk County residents and food-systems stakeholders uphold and reference numerous aspects of the plan.

Polk County also has an economic development policy resulting in an Economic Development Strategic Plan that addresses multiple parts of the food system, including agriculture and food access. The plan aligns with the 20/20 Vision Plan and seeks to create a competitive environment for agriculture and farming. Additionally, the plan addresses barriers to gainful employment through the lens of poverty, food insecurity, and transportation shortcomings.34 The plan’s suggestions for partnering with the Department of Social Services and regional health forums to address employment signal a desire to work broadly across the food system.

The Polk County Transportation Authority’s progressive five- year Community Transportation Service Plan, developed through a community-engagement process, outlines the Authority’s plans for providing enhanced services to better meet residents’ needs. Currently, they provide on-demand transit trips for Polk residents for a modest fee. This service fulfills a vital need for transportation, particularly for Polk’s senior-citizen population, and completed 40,420 trips in 2014. This local and regional transportation service seeks to increase transportation to employment opportunities and is partnering with regional transportation providers to provide greater connectivity to other modes of transportation as well. More frequent access to grocery stores, farmers’ markets, and food banks emerged as a major service need throughout the community-engagement portion of the plan, a key service in helping decrease food insecurity in Polk County.35

Policies

Polk County has a strong agriculture and farmland protection program, including both Voluntary Agriculture Districts (VAD) and Enhanced Voluntary Agriculture Districts (EVAD), which protect over 7,000 acres of farmland. Polk’s VAD is a present- use value taxation program that protects land for a period of ten years and allows the landowner to revoke the conservation easement. Currently, 65 farms, representing 5,640 acres, participate in the VAD program, which has been active for 11 years.25 The EVAD is a newer program that mirrors the VAD program but is irrevocable for ten years. EVADs have protected about 2,041 acres of land on 27 farms.25

In addition to the agriculture districts, Polk County has several other policies that directly and indirectly affect farmland. As part of the county comprehensive plan, no land-use regulations are enforced for active farms, enabling farmers to have full control over buildings and land use on their farms.21 The County’s Subdivision Ordinance, adopted in 2011, requires an environmental-impact statement for development if the environmental-assessment rating totals a specified number of points. Land that increases the number of points includes land adjacent to a farmland preservation area, land adjacent to land trust or conservation properties, and if 33% or more of the project includes prime farmland soils.36 This policy guarantees that Polk County will retain its rural landscapes.

Polk County, and the towns of Tryon and Columbus, has an occupancy-tax policy with potential to indirectly affect agriculture and farming. The 3% tax on overnight stays is used to promote travel, tourism, and tourism-related expenses and, in the case of Columbus, can be used for their general fund. County funding from this tax primarily supports the Polk County Tourism Office. In 2013, this tax resulted in $76,156 generated at the county level, with Tryon and Columbus receiving $16,293 and $19,882, respectively.37 The development of the Tryon International Equestrian Center caused the occupancy-tax fund to spike significantly, resulting in $117,868 in county funding alone in 2015 and continued projected growth with the addition of a resort complex under development.38 In 2013–14, the Polk County tourism budget was $55,520, and by the 2015–16 year, the budget was $160,599. This growth allowed Polk County to modify their part-time tourism position to a full- time director’s position and to add two part-time positions, all funded by the occupancy tax.39 Agritourism efforts of all kinds in Polk County, but particularly wineries and microbreweries, could benefit significantly from funding generated from an increasing occupancy-tax fund.

Initiatives and Projects

In addition to the AED office, other Polk County government departments sponsor initiatives and projects that impact the food system. The Polk County School District, a special-purpose arm of government, operates an extensive agriculture and aquaculture vocational program as an extension of agriscience coursework. Students are able to take coursework in animal science and horticulture while practicing their skills at the high school’s on-campus farm. Featuring a state-of-the-art greenhouse, animal science barn, a dwarf apple orchard, historical garden, a shade house, fish tanks, and agriculture field, the farm provides hands-on education for all students as well as workforce development for students interested in entering the agriculture field.40 Additionally, the school has mobile poultry-processing equipment that they are able to use on local farms.11

Funding

The Polk County Board of Commissioners has provided both steady and one-time strategic funding for food-systems projects. The ongoing funding of a full-time staff person in the Office of Agriculture Economic Development has provided steady leadership in the Mill Spring Agriculture Center and generated grant funds that continue to support food-systems work.

The County Board of Commissioners also allocated three years of funding to Polk Fresh Foods, Polk’s Food Hub. This funding, totaling $122,000 over three years, served as seed money to start the initiative in 2011. Polk Fresh Foods provides a market for local produce, value-added products, and proteins from Polk County farmers. In addition to the seed money they received, Polk Fresh Foods has shown progressive growth in sales. In the initiative’s first year (2012), they had $53,000 in sales. By 2014, the sales increased to $307,000, bringing it to a point of viability that allowed it to be merged with Sunny Creek Farms and run as a private entity in 2015.41 Polk Fresh Foods creates a market for numerous small growers, making the county’s investment in the hub a direct investment in the agriculture economy.

Polk County food-systems work has also been the recipient of outside grant monies that were awarded from the work of the Office of Agriculture Economic Development, the Office of Economic Development, Cooperative Extension, and other county-supported departments. In 2009, the preliminary work behind Polk Fresh Foods was funded by a $10,000 Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Grant that contributed to the development of the Office of Agriculture Economic Development.42 In collaboration with neighboring Rutherford, McDowell, and Cleveland Counties, Polk County was the 2015 recipient of a Stronger Economies Together grant, one of only 21 grants awarded in the country. Dedicated to the development of a regional economic development plan, the team includes key agriculture stakeholders, including the Agriculture Economic Development Director and the Cooperative Extension Service Director.25

IDEAS FOR THE FUTURE

Gifted with a resilient entrepreneurial spirit, thriving rural communities, and a dedication to embracing opportunity, Polk County is uniquely positioned to become a leader among rural communities seeking to embrace agriculture as a way to build their economy and create healthy communities. Key ideas for future policy and implementation efforts to strengthen food systems are outlined below.

Embrace and Amplify Locally Rooted Ideas and Solutions

With a population of about 20,000 across the whole county, Polk County is a very rural community. Rather than allowing the low population to hold the community back from enacting healthy community-planning methods seen in other communities, Polk has embraced its rural heritage and given momentum to an existing creative and entrepreneurial spirit. The county has created a loose regulatory environment in which residents are able to experiment and build businesses. Nowhere is this more apparent than in Polk County’s support of the Mill Spring Agriculture Center and the Office of Agriculture Economic Development. Polk County has the opportunity to expand this “can-do” attitude of governing and policymaking to encompass food-security efforts, focusing on locally rooted solutions, the informal economy, and community connections. The proven track record of using this approach to strengthen agriculture can be similarly invested in ensuring all Polk County residents are food secure by connecting the food economy to workforce development, educational opportunities, and civic society.

Support and Build a Network of Traditionally Underrepresented Farmers

Female farmers are traditionally underrepresented in the farming field, yet almost half of all principal farm operators in Polk are women. Nationally, traditionally underrepresented farmers operate smaller farms, with a focus on fruit and vegetable production, specialty crops, diverse herds, alternative marketing strategies, and sustainable practices, similar to those in Polk County.43 Polk County offers the supportive community that many women farmers desire. Building on educational networks and communal activities such as tool-share programs and group workdays has proven effective in other states for supporting women and traditionally underrepresented farmers. Supporting and building on Polk’s networks and educational programs will continue to empower underrepresented and underserved farmers in Polk County. There is also opportunity for Polk’s small farms to be ideal locations for incubator farms, apprenticeships, and other programs that boost underrepresented farmers who are starting agriculture careers. In addition, the USDA Farm Service Agency offers special micro-loan and credit programs for women and minority farmers, particularly women and minority farmers engaged in organic, sustainable, specialty, or direct-to-consumer production as is practiced in Polk County.44 Technical support to help Polk’s women and minority farmers take advantage of these programs may bring new credit opportunities to many Polk farmers.

Direct Tourism Revenue to Support Local Food Systems

Polk County has an opportunity to strategically direct new revenue from their growing tourism sector in a way that ensures that all Polk County residents benefit. For example, occupancy- tax money, designed to go specifically to tourism, can be used to bolster Polk’s growing agritourism industry. Investing in processing and infrastructure for wineries, breweries, farm stores with value-added goods, and artisanal butcheries adds to the agrarian charm of Polk County, keeps visitors in the county longer, highlights entrepreneurial activities, and directly impacts farm viability. Additionally, both Polk residents and visitors value the scenic agricultural and natural landscapes of Polk County. A percentage of tax revenue from increased tourism could also be diverted to a fund for preserving farmland and investing in food- system infrastructure.

One of Polk’s growing tourism engines is the Tryon International Equestrian Center (TIEC). The TIEC has the potential to increase revenues for Polk County across the board. The preliminary economic impact statement projected that approximately $9.2 million was added to the local economy in the first year of operation.22 Small businesses, especially service and retail businesses, can benefit greatly from this injection of tourist money. The TIEC could also have a direct impact on Polk County employment by requiring a percentage of hires to be Polk County residents or by investing in job-training programs to prepare Polk County residents with the right skills for TIEC jobs.

Coordination to Facilitate Institutional Purchasing

Currently, few if any farmers grow enough to sell directly to Polk’s hospitals, schools, and local government entities. The Agriculture Economic Development office has facilitated aggregation to allow farmers to be able to sell to restaurants both locally and in the broader region. Continuing to grow the number of farmers selling to Polk Fresh Foods, coordinating key crops among multiple farmers, and coordinating with Polk’s institutions to adopt supportive local purchasing policies could expand a local market.

Celebrate Food-Based Traditions

Community stakeholders speak with fondness of the rich history of food-based traditions in Polk, including community canning days, making molasses, and beekeeping. Continuing to celebrate, preserve, and share these traditions is just as vital as preserving farmland and rural landscapes. Activities that foster community cohesiveness, build relationships, and actively incorporate all residents contribute to decreasing food insecurity, especially in rural communities.45 Such events can also help build cohesiveness among long-time residents and newcomers in communities that are experiencing influx of new residents, as Polk expects in the future.

Continue to Engage in Active Farm-Succession Planning

Polk County has many of the characteristics that new landless farmers seek, and many senior farmers are ready to rent or sell land. The county has also attracted retirees who are interested in farming post-retirement. Continuing to engage in farmer-to-farmer conversations about farm transfer is critical for the future of Polk County farming, particularly as potential land speculation from the Tryon International Equestrian Center could beckon senior farmers to sell to those planning non- farm uses. Fortunately, Polk has a strong Office of Agriculture Economic Development that is tightly intertwined with the farming community, to facilitate these discussions. Because of the tight-knit farming community, Polk is well situated to experiment with innovative land-tenure techniques, and attract out-of-town young farmers who could strengthen land-preservation movements and contribute to Polk’s overall economy (informational resources are available from American Farmland Trust at www.farmland.org).

RESEARCH METHODS AND DATA SOURCES

Information in this brief is drawn from multiple sources. Quantitative data sources include the 2014 American Community Survey (ACS) five-year estimates and the 2012 US Census of Agriculture. Qualitative data include 15 in- depth interviews with representatives of various sectors of the food system as well as Polk County policymakers and staff.

Interviewees are not identified by name but are, instead, shown by the sector that they represent, and are interchangeably referred to as interviewees, community leaders, or stakeholders in the brief. Interviews were conducted from April 2015 to March 2016. Qualitative analysis also includes a review of the policy and planning documents of Polk County, which were reviewed for key policies and laws pertaining to the food system, and a review of the minutes of the Growing Food Connections steering-committee meetings.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The GFC team is grateful to the Polk County GFC steering committee, Polk County government officials and staff, and the interview respondents, for generously giving their time and energy to this project. The authors thank colleagues at the Food Systems Planning and Healthy Communities Lab and the School of Architecture and Planning at the University at Buffalo, Ohio State University, Cultivating Healthy Places, the American Farmland Trust, and the American Planning

Association, for their support. This work was funded by a grant from the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA Aware #2012-68004-19894).

NOTES

1 Interview with local government representative in Polk County (ID 84), 2015.

2 United States Census Bureau, Quick Facts, Polk County, North

Carolina (Washington DC: United States Census Bureau, 2015).

3 The townships are Cooper Gap, White Oak, Columbus, Green Creek, Tryon, and Saluda.

4 Polk County Office of Economic Development, Economic Development Annual Report (Columbus, NC: Polk County

Office of Economic Development, 2016).

5 Interview with consumer advocate representative in Polk County (ID 81), 2015.

6 K. Hodgson, S. Raja, J. Clark, and J. Freedgood, “Essential Food Systems Reader,” In Growing Food Connections (Buffalo: University at Buffalo, 2013).

7 J. T. Eshleman, M. Schroeder-Moreno, and A. Cruz. The Western North Carolina Appalachian Foodshed Project Community Food Security Assessment (Raleigh, NC: Appalachian Foodshed Project and North Carolina State University, 2015).

8 Interview with local government representative in Polk County (ID 83), 2015.

9 Economic Research Service, “Students Eligible for Free Lunch, Polk County,” (Washington DC: US Department of Agriculture, 2010).

10 Interview with local government representative in Polk County (ID 80), 2015.

11 Interview with local government representative in Polk County (ID 77), 2015.

12 Interview with consumer advocate representative in Polk County (79), 2015.

13 Thermal Belt Outreach Ministry, “Feed-a-Kid Program,”http://www.tboutreach.org/feed-a-kid-program.html.

14 United States Department of Agriculture, Census of Agriculture: Farms, Land in Farms, Value of Land and Buildings, and Land Use: 2012 and 2007 (Washington DC: National Agricultural Statistics, 2012).

15 United States Department of Agriculture, Census of Agriculture County Summary Highlights (Washington DC: National Agricultural Statistics, 2012).

16 United States Department of Agriculture, Census of Agriculture Net Cash Farm Income of the Operations and Operators (Washington DC: National Agricultural Statistics, 2012).

17 United States Department of Agriculture, Census of Agriculture Operator Characteristics (Washington DC: National Agricultural Statistics, 2012).

18 United States Department of Agriculture, Census of Agriculture: Farms by North American Industry Classification System (Washington DC: National Agricultural Statistics, 2012).

19 Holland Consulting Planners, Polk County 20/20 Vision Plan Update (Polk County, NC: Polk County Board of Commissioners, 2016).

20 Equine Study Executive Committee, Agricultural Advancement Consortium, North Carolina’s Equine Industry (Raleigh, NC: The Rural Center, 2009).

21 Holland Consulting Planners, Polk County 20/20 Vision Plan,

(Polk County, NC: Polk County Board of Commissioners, 2010).

22 I. Ha, A Preliminary Economic Impact Study of Visitors at Tryon International Equestrian Center (Mill Spring, NC: Western Carolina State University, 2016).

23 Interview with local government representative in Polk County (ID 82), 2015.

24 Polk County Farms, Polk County Agriculture Economic Development, http://polkcountyfarms.org/ag-economic- development/.

25 Polk County Office of Agriculture Economic Development, Agricultural Economic Development, Travel & Tourism, Economic Development Annual Report, Polk County, North Carolina: FY 2015-2016 (Columbus, NC: Polk County Office of Economic Development, 2016).

26 B. De Bona, “GRO to Nurture Farmers, Local Food Movement,” Times-News, Blue Ridge Now, April 1, 2016.

27 Growing Rural Opportunities, “About Us,” http://growrural.org/about-us/.

28 S. Klein, “Grow Food Where People Live Program Expanding,” Tryon Daily Bulletin, March 24, 2016.

29 B. Kerns, “Developing Small Businesses Based Around the Local Food System,” Tryon Daily Bulletin, September 13, 2016.

30 C. Barber, “PCCF Funds High School Farm Interns,” Tryon Daily Bulletin, January 12, 2012.

31 Polk County Community Foundation, “Competitive Grants,” http://www.polkccf.org/index.php/grants/for-organizations/ competitive-grants.

32 Polk County Board of Commissioners, “Public Hearing and Regular Meeting” (Columbus, NC: Polk County Board of Commissioners, 2015).

33 United States Census Bureau, Census of Governments: Local Governments in Individual County-Type Areas (Washington DC: United States Census Bureau, 2012).

34 D. Dodson, Economic Development Policy and Strategic Plan for Polk County, NC (Polk County, NC: Polk County Board of Commissioners, 2014).

35 Polk County Transportation Authority, Community Transportation Service Plan (Polk County, NC: Polk County Transportation Authority, 2015).

36 Polk County Board of Commissioners, Subdivision Ordinance of Polk County, NC. Article 5 (Polk County, NC: Polk County Board of Commissioners, 2011).

37 Magellan Strategy Group, Profile of North Carolina Occupancy Taxes and their Allocation, (Asheville, NC: Magellan Strategy Group, LLC., April 2016).

38 S.Q. Hughes, Comprehensive Annual Financial Report of Polk County, North Carolina, (Columbus, NC: Polk County Government, 2015).

39 Polk County Board of Commissioners, Polk County NC Annual Recommended Budget (Polk County, NC: Polk County Board of Commissioners, 2016).

40 D. Scherping, “Saluda-PCHS Farm,” http://inside.polkschools.org/announcements.

41 L. Justice, “Polk Fresh Foods Plans to be Self-Sufficient Next Fiscal Year,” Tryon Daily Bulletin, June 17, 2015.

42 Sustainable Community Innovation Project, PolkFresh TradePost Project: A Strategy to Implement Polk County’s 20/20 Vision Plan for Sustainable Community Development (Mill Spring, NC: Sustainable Agriculture Research & Education, 2011).

43 N.E. Kiernan, M. Barbercheck, K.J. Brasier, C. Sachs, A.R. Terman, “Women Farmers: Pulling Up Their Own Educational Boot Straps with Extension,” Journal of Extension 50.5 (2012).

44 United States Department of Agriculture, Minority and Women Farmers and Ranchers, http://www.fsa.usda.gov/programs-and-services/farm-loan-programs/minority-and-women- farmers-and-ranchers/index.

45 L.W. Morton, E.A. Bitto, M.J. Oakland, and M. Sand, “Solving the Problems of Iowa Food Deserts: Food Insecurity and Civic Structure,” Rural Sociology 70.1 (2005): 94–112.

Community of Opportunity Feature

AUTHORS

Jennifer Whittaker, University at Buffalo Samina Raja, University at Buffalo

CONTRIBUTORS

Jill Clark, Ohio State University

Julia Freedgood, American Farmland Trust Kimberley Hodgson, Cultivating Healthy Places Subhashni Raj, University at Buffalo

SERIES EDITOR

Samina Raja, University at Buffalo

DESIGN, PRODUCTION and MAPS

Samantha Bulkilvish, University at Buffalo Kelley Mosher, University at Buffalo

Clancy Grace O’Connor, University at Buffalo Brenda Stynes, University at Buffalo

COPY EDITOR

Ashleigh Imus, Ithaca, New York

Recommended citation: Whittaker, Jennifer, and Samina Raja. “Building on History and Tradition: Community Efforts to Strengthen Food Systems in Polk County, North Carolina.” In Exploring Stories of Opportunity. Edited by Samina Raja. 11 pages. Buffalo: Growing Food Connections Project, 2017.

Print version (PDF).

Building on the Strengths of Land and Sea: Policy Opportunities for Strengthening the Food System in Cumberland County, Maine

 In March 2015, Cumberland County, Maine was selected as one of eight Communities of Opportunities (COOs) in the country with significant potential to strengthen ties between small- and medium-sized farmers and residents with limited food access. Working with the Growing Food Connections (GFC) project team, county stakeholders have since established a steering committee that has charted a vision for the future of Cumberland’s food system. This brief, which draws on interviews with Cumberland County stakeholders and secondary data sources, provides information about local government policy opportunities and challenges in the food system to inform the work of the GFC steering committee and stakeholders in Cumberland County.

Background

Cumberland County, located along the southern coast of Maine, is home to a deep tradition of fishing, particularly shellfish, small working farms up and down the coast, and is distinguished as a prominent foodie region, attracting renowned chefs looking to share their culinary skills in a small-town atmosphere.

The county sits on the shore of the Atlantic Ocean. The most populous county in Maine, it includes the cities of Portland, South Portland, and Westbrook, along with 25 towns. Bon Appétit named the City of Portland “America’s foodiest small town,” and with that distinction, the city is sought out by tourists and locals alike to taste the latest local culinary fare.

Cumberland County has a population of 284,351, with 22.3% of the population residing in the City of Portland, the largest city in the state of Maine.¹ Over 90% of the Cumberland County population identifies as white (263,363 people).¹ There are 7,552 people that identify as black or African American, and 5,297 people identify as Hispanic or Latino.¹ A small number of the population is foreign born; 17,869 people reported being either a naturalized citizen or not a U.S. citizen.¹

The economy in Cumberland County is fairly stable, with a median household income of $59,560 and an unemployment rate of 5.8%.¹ About 8% of the population has an income that is below the poverty level. Affordable housing is a concern for residents of Cumberland County, especially for renters. Forty-two percent of renters spend over 35% of their income on housing, compared to those in owner-occupied housing units, who spend 24% of their income on housing.¹

Among public-health issues, drug-related deaths are reported to be a concern. Like many communities across the United States, deaths from drug overdose, in particular heroin, have been on the rise across the state of Maine since 2011. From 2012–2014, the rate of drug-overdose death in Portland/Cumberland County was 16.3 per 100,000, higher than the state rate of 13.73.¹

The education, health-care, and social-assistance industries are the largest sectors of employment in Cumberland County, with 28% of the population employed in these industries. Retail trade is the second largest industry, providing almost 13% of jobs. Small percentages of the population work in agriculture/forestry/fishing and hunting, wholesale trade and transportation, and warehousing (a combined 7%),¹ even though Portland is one of the chief trading ports on the Atlantic coast, with a total annual seafood tonnage of 12,898,861 in 2014.²⁹

The ethos of Cumberland County, a small coastal city surrounded by established rural communities, is based on a strong work ethic as well as a desire to support the local economy and maintain limited development.

Food Security: Conditions, Opportunities, and Challenges

Even with the abundance of local food, food-related disparities exist throughout Cumberland County. Several groups of people have limited access to food, in part caused by income disparities. Recent refugees and asylum seekers coming to Cumberland County face challenges securing reliable work opportunities. The social-support network particularly underserves asylum seekers because they are ineligible for the state-run Maine General Assistance Programs and are unable to work while their applications are pending. However, the City of Portland is using its own resources to provide assistance for basic needs for asylum seekers. The Maine General Assistance Office provides assistance to individuals unable to pay for basic monthly needs such as rent, food, non-food items, medication, fuel, utilities, and other essential services. Funding is provided through the state and administered by local municipalities.²

Rural poor in the county, also food insecure, include seniors and women with school-age children.³ Seniors living in the rural areas of Cumberland County find that lack of transportation hinders their access to affordable, healthy food on a regular basis. Limited transportation systems for seniors are a systemic concern with long-term implications, as young people migrate out and older people migrate into the rural areas of the county and, thus, emerge as a growing percentage of the population. For seniors, hunger partly results from resource constraints and limited physical access. Many seniors are on a limited or fixed income and are unable to leave their home to purchase food. Those individuals who are near retirement age may have lost their jobs in the nationwide Recession of 2008 and are having trouble getting reemployed. They are also part of the food-insecure population.⁴

Cumberland County residents are aware of the prevalence of food insecurity and, according to a University of Maine Cooperative Extension representative, of “a strong volunteer base that helps to work towards meeting the needs.”⁵ There is a strong desire to look out for and provide for one’s own people.³ Food pantries make up a significant portion of the volunteer base working to improve food security. There are 50 food pantries in Cumberland County.⁶ Most towns in the county have a food-distribution site. More recently, food pantries have been established in the suburban towns of the county. In some towns, only residents of the town are eligible to obtain food from the local pantry. A community stakeholder reports, “The poorer the town, the more restrictive they are. They want only their townspeople served . . . The richer the community, the better the food . . . So in Freeport and Falmouth, a lot of fresh fruits and vegetables…”³ Food pantries face logistical concerns when handling fresh produce. Workers at food pantries that are able to stock local produce have observed that it often gets passed over for more convenient foods.⁵

Three local agencies provide programming to improve food access throughout Cumberland County: Mid-Coast Hunger Prevention, the Good Shepherd Food Bank, and Wayside Food Programs. Mid-Coast Hunger Prevention has become a resource for food-security work in a 12-town region in southern mid-coast Maine. A local government representative reported that there has been a significant increase in people utilizing the soup kitchen through Mid-Coast Hunger Prevention.⁷ Mid-Coast Hunger Prevention is also the recipient of the Brunswick Topsham Land Trust (BTLT) Common Good plot, a donation plot that is part of a larger community garden owned and managed by BTLT.⁸ The Good Shepherd Food Bank is the state of Maine’s food bank.⁹ The food bank operates a mobile pantry with fresh fruits and vegetables for seniors.⁴ The bank has established an arrangement with local farmers to grow produce, which is then purchased by the Good Shepherd Food Bank.¹⁰ Wayside Food Programs has two primary programs: a community meals program and a food rescue program. The purpose of the community meals program is to provide supplementary meals to community members when they are unable to purchase food to create their own meals. Programs such as Wayside Food Programs provide food-gap services for those struggling to make ends meet. The food rescue program has been instrumental in redistributing 1,087,248 pounds of rescued food to more than 40 partner agencies feeding households throughout Cumberland County.¹¹ Even though there are strong partnerships to reduce food insecurity, there remain additional opportunities to provide connections between consumers and producers. As one community stakeholder reported, “[the county needs] to fix the food system at the food access level.”¹⁰

Food insecurity is linked to poor economic prospects for several segments of the population. Over the past 15 years, job loss and job uncertainty have increased in Cumberland County. Portland-South Portland Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) experienced a 7% peak unemployment rate in February 2010 during the nationwide economic recession and has slowly recovered to prerecession rates.³⁰ Community leaders cite the need for a livable wage as a priority for improving food security. An interviewee noted that the “biggest barrier is [that] people don’t have the money to purchase healthy, nutritious food consistently.”¹⁰ In the past, policymakers proposed a ballot measure to raise the minimum wage to $15/hour in the City of Portland, which could have alleviated food insecurity.¹⁰ Although the measure did not pass, the city council did approve to amend its city code (Chapter 33) to establish a new citywide minimum wage of $10.10/hour, an increase from the previous level of $7.50/hour. The newly established minimum wage applies to employers with businesses in the City of Portland.¹²

Local leaders recognize that those who are food insecure face the dual bind of monetary and time constraints. One local government representative noted, “Our food security issues come right down to poverty. Life isn’t stable enough for those in poverty to be able to garden. They may have the know-how and the desire but it comes down to time. Time is a resource. Giving a garden space to those in poverty will not solve the food security issues.”²

The high cost of food in Cumberland County is related to high commuting costs; high heat and utility bills because of the colder climate for the majority of the year; food transportation costs based on transportation networks and routes to Maine; and a less agile economy in which those hit hard by the recession are finding it difficult to rebound.¹⁰

Much of the effort to promote food security in Cumberland County is happening at the grassroots level and is organized by local not-for-profit agencies. Because of the high needs in the county, even agencies whose mandate is not food-related contribute to programming on food security.⁴ Farmers’ markets are an opportunity to provide local produce to Cumberland County residents. Although Maine is located in the colder northeastern region of the country, there are 92 farmers’ markets in the state, with 13 located in Cumberland County.¹³ One consumer advocate states, “We are lucky that there is a farmers’ market in every town that has more than 5,000 people in the state of Maine.”¹⁴ The price point of grocery stores and supermarkets is out of reach for 20% to 30% of the population: renters, new Mainers, individuals working minimum-wage jobs, and those with one income and children.¹⁵ Farmers’ markets can serve as the access point to local, affordable produce. A community stakeholder posed the question, “How do you create easy access to locally produced food, quality food at an affordable price? You need to make buying local food part of people’s routine, rather than making it an event.”¹⁶ Cumberland County farmers’ markets have the opportunity to shift the traditional farmers’ market format so that it better serves all residents and increases access to fresh, affordable local food.

Food and Agriculture Production: Conditions, Opportunities, and Challenges

Cumberland County has a rich heritage of small-scale agriculture and food production, including a sizable seafood industry. In 2014 it was reported that food producers generated about $65 million, including $45 million in lobster catch alone, in farm and fish products, annually.

Cumberland County has 718 farms, with an average size of 87 acres.¹⁷ The vast majority of the farms (630) are smaller than 180 acres.¹⁷ As in the state of Maine overall, small- and medium-sized farms are the foundation of agriculture in Cumberland County, and the practice of large-scale agriculture is limited.⁸ Almost 64% of farms in Cumberland County are small- to medium-sized farms. Small-scale producer-to-consumer relationships have a long history in the community.⁸ Over 20% of farms (23.7%) in Cumberland County sell some products directly to consumers, compared to the national percentage of 6.46%.¹⁸ In Cumberland County, 14 farms sell products directly to members through community-supported agriculture (CSA) operations.¹³

Cumberland County is a significant contributor to Maine’s well-known lobster fishing industry.¹⁹ In 2014, a record year for fishermen, Cumberland County reported 11,655,792 pounds of live lobster landings, or 9.4% of the statewide capture of 123.7 million pounds. The county’s catch generated $45.96 million in value, comprising 10% of the statewide sale of $456.9 million. Maine’s huge lobster industry, which provides 80% of all US lobster, supports a larger industry. Statewide, the lobster trade also supports three million lobster traps fielded by more than 5,000 licensed lobstermen and women.

As of 2014, Portland (in Cumberland County) was one of the top three Maine ports for value of seafood shipped on a commercial fishing vessel, according to the Department of Maine Resources. The Portland Fish Exchange began in the 1980s and was the nation’s first all-display fish market. The exchange is an enterprise supported by the City of Portland and was capitalized with three rounds of funds from the US Economic Development Administration (EDA).¹⁵ The International Marine Terminal, also located along the seaport in the City of Portland, supports refrigerated container service to Europe. Recently, a $30 million bid was initiated to expand the capacity of the cold-storage warehouse for Maine food exports.¹⁵

Challenges

Despite a rich food and agricultural heritage, starting and operating a farming business has its own set of challenges in Cumberland County. The economic prospects of farmers are limited. Sixty-six percent earn less than $10,000 a year and have a net loss of $8,000.¹⁵ Agriculture and rural infrastructure have survived in part because there are few development pressures in Maine.¹⁴ Increasingly, agriculture is beginning to feel pressure on farmland and land costs, making farming economically prohibitive, especially for beginner farmers.

Beginner farmers in the county have a tough time trying to start a business.⁵ It is challenging to find land suitable for farming that is close to consumer markets.⁵ Moreover, a large portion of the population is still unaware of the local foods available.⁵ The University of Maine Cooperative Extension helps overcome this disconnect by making connections between local producers and consumers and offers training courses to help beginner farmers.⁵

Farmers must navigate and manage state regulations, which is especially challenging for small-farm operators. The increase in the number of federal and state food-safety regulations increases the cost of business for farmers. Unemployment taxes are also a challenge for businesses, especially for seasonal businesses.¹⁶ As is common for many small-farm operators, at least one person working on the farm often has a primary occupation other than farming. In Cumberland County, 384 farmers report this dependence on off-farm employment.²⁰

Variability in market prices has also been a concern for many dairy farmers, much like in the northeast generally. Many dairy farmers have gone out of business because of the industry’s instability.⁵

Local food producers struggle to have reliable access to consumers, such as with local cheese.⁵ One Extension interview respondent stated, “This is the economics of business success: help farmers stay in business, and make wise business decisions and produce and market their products so that they can stay in business.”⁵

The fishing industry has its own unique challenges, including threats from coastal development and ecological concerns. Several coastal towns in Cumberland County use coastal protection zones to manage and regulate growth in the coastal areas and to add protections to support the shellfish industry. Prior to 2014, there were nine active aquaculture operations in New Meadows River, an embayment that experiences little fresh water flow. A declining environment faced with pollution, invasive species, and warming waters along the coastline is threatening aquaculture and has made New Meadows River a prime location for aquaculture and mussel farming, with 10 additional permits issued in 2014.⁷ The value of fisheries has declined over the past decade possibly because of acidity and overfishing.³ Climate change is also having an impact on the shellfish industry through rising sea levels.⁵

Community-led Initiatives to Strengthen Agriculture and Food Systems

Several community-led efforts have emerged to respond to challenges in the Cumberland County food system. For example, the Brunswick Topsham Land Trust (BTLT) is actively engaged in strengthening agricultural viability and promoting food access in the towns of Brunswick and Topsham. BTLT owns 320 acres of farmland, called Crystal Springs Farm, which is leased to a local farmer (the trust recently established a 50-year lease with the farmer, who runs the largest CSA in Maine). The land trust also organizes and manages one of the largest farmers’ markets in the state, the Crystal Springs Farmers’ Market, on its property.⁸ There is high demand for farmers’ markets among Cumberland County residents. Farmers can choose which markets are best for their products.⁵ Local government-representative respondents view farmers’ markets as somewhat self-organizing in nature. One interviewee describes “most farmers’ markets in Maine [as] a bunch of farmers who have agreed to show up on the same corner on the same day at the same time.”²

A strong movement of backyard do-it-yourselfers who grow produce for subsistence exists in the City of Portland. Portland has over 300 community garden plots, an increase from 130 garden plots. In 2015, the demand for garden plots continued to grow, with a reported waiting list of about 150 people. As additional garden plots are added, community interest grows as well, leading to a positive feedback loop.¹⁴ Lead contamination is a potential challenge and concern, particularly because community members are interested in community gardening.² All schools in the Portland Public School system, which includes 11 elementary schools, three middle schools, and three high schools, have a school garden.²

Residents’ interest in apiaries in the City of Portland is strong as well. There are over 100 privately held beehives in the City of Portland.²

As several respondents stated, supporting local farmers and farming is engrained in the culture of Mainers, and Cumberland County is no exception. “ . . . It is not just about setting land aside – we have to make sure it is actively managed for agriculture or that we are making sure we are getting access to people and providing education.”⁸ The need for additional consumer advocacy and programming continues. An Extension representative observes, “The agriculture community doesn’t place a high enough emphasis on the importance of consumer education and food literacy.”⁵ A successful local food movement in Cumberland County needs a stronger focus on educating consumers on the value of agriculture.

Local Government Public-Policy Environment

The local government public-policy environment is fertile for strengthening the county’s food system. A countywide government, three city governments, and 25 township governments serve Cumberland County. In addition, six school districts and 21 special district governments serve the county.²¹ Because of Maine’s home-rule mandate, governance in Cumberland County is largely the responsibility of local municipal governments, either towns or cities. County government has limited jurisdiction, and its responsibilities include providing county sheriff services, managing and operating the Cumberland County Jail, and providing a county court system.³ The Cumberland County government has five county commissioners representing the five districts of the county.⁵ Town Selectmen, who make up the budget advisory committee, provide municipality-specific information to the county commissioners. The county commissioners use the municipality-specific information to develop the county budget.⁵

In Cumberland County, the public conversation regarding food-systems work has shifted positively in the past 14 years, although there is a lack of funding from the state to support local programs.¹⁴ One consumer advocate respondent described the Cumberland County local government’s engagement in food policy as follows: “Local government has not sought out direct public input from residents but has instead worked through existing advisory groups such as Cumberland Food Security Council, Public Health Council and Healthy Maine Partnership Advisory Council.” ⁴

At the county government level, the Cumberland County Office of Community Development has used Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) money to fund many efforts that support the local food-system infrastructure, including “funded activities to distribute foods from food pantry warehouses.”³ The county has also leveraged federal funds from the Community Putting Prevention to Work (CPPW) program, which provides a long list of Cumberland County examples of public-dollar investments in food work.³ Over the past five years, the county government has become more engaged in food-systems work through the Cumberland County Food Security Council (CCFSC). The CCFSC was established following a food-systems assessment, Campaign to Promote Food Security, conducted in 2010 by the Muskie School of Public Service. The Campaign to Promote Food Security increased community awareness about food security and food access. The United Way of Greater Portland made a three-year commitment to support the CCFSC. The Good Shepherd Food Bank became the fiscal agent for CCFSC. The CCFSC supported a Child Nutrition Reauthorization Forum in 2015.¹⁰ Most recently, the CCFSC conducted a Cumberland County Food Systems Summit in May 2016 and was the lead organizer in Feeding the 5,000 in October 2016.

In addition to CDBG funds, the Cumberland County government also invests significant resources annually in the University of Maine Cumberland County Cooperative Extension. There is also a strong partnership between the Cumberland County government and the Town of Bridgton. The two local governments applied and received a USDA Local Food Promotion Program planning grant, which spearheaded the report “Building Support for Community-Based Foods in the Lakes Region of Maine” in September 2016.

At the subcounty level, several cities and towns are actively rebuilding community food systems. The City of Portland, for example, has taken several steps to strengthen the food system in recent years. Former Mayor Michael Brennan established the Mayor’s Initiative for a Healthy Sustainable Food System in April 2012, which morphed into the Shaping Portland’s Food System initiative.² As part of the Mayor’s Initiative, the City of Portland Department of Parks, Recreation, and Facilities manages and oversees the city community gardening program in partnership with Cultivating Community, a local not-for-profit organization. The Department of Parks, Recreation, and Facilities oversees and maintains nine community garden sites. Most recently, the Portland Food Council was launched in January 2017.

Efforts continue within the City of Portland to increase food production. In December 2015, zoning amendments were made in the City of Portland Code of Ordinances for Land Use (Chapter 21)²² to allow farmers’ markets to operate two days a week for up to six hours per day on community property, such as the local WIC office.² Community respondents view Portland as a lab of innovation for the state and for surrounding communities.² However, they remain concerned about lack of implementation and enforcement of policies.² A respondent also shared concerns that regulatory processes, such as permitting and licensing, are confusing and that different government branches work in silos, with little information being shared across agencies.²³

Food processing is also receiving support in the City of Portland. Supported through US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) funding, the East Bayside neighborhood is experiencing a renaissance spurred by local food manufacturers. East Bayside is home to eight small-scale food manufacturers that are reviving the seaport area. The area is currently zoned as a low-impact industrial zone. In an effort to keep the real estate affordable, the City of Portland zoning ordinance limits retail space in this area, which typically drives up rents, as an accessory use. In the past five years, food manufacturers throughout Cumberland County have increasingly committed to source locally produced foods.¹⁵

The school district in the City of Portland is also actively connecting local farmers to (young) consumers. According to the Portland Public Schools Food Service Department, 36% of food served in school meals is sourced locally.²⁴ In 2014, the Portland Public Schools Food Service Director set a goal of spending 50% of the district’s food-procurement dollars on locally sourced foods by the 2016–2017 school year.¹⁴

Outside the City of Portland, several town governments are actively supporting local agriculture and consumer food security as well. The town of Cape Elizabeth has an ordinance, passed 40 years ago, that allows farmland taxation at a differential rate compared to other land uses. In 2010, Cape Farm Alliance, a coalition of over 20 viable farms and growing operations based in Cape Elizabeth, brought together community members and farmers to review Cape Elizabeth’s local ordinances and ensure the ordinances support local agriculture. Ordinance revisions were brought to the town board, and many of the suggested revisions were adopted.¹⁶ Similarly, the Town of Brunswick established the first chicken ordinance in the state of Maine, which has since been used as a model for similar ordinances throughout the state.⁷

At the regional level, the Greater Portland Council of Governments (GPCOG) is proactive in developing businesses to support and enhance the local food economy. The council “refashioned [its] whole economic development strategy around food and energy and freight, which build on a number of assets that [are present].”¹⁵ In September 2016, the GPCOG was one of 12 US Department of Commerce-designated “Investing in Manufacturing Communities Partnership” regions. The designation will spearhead the proposed Greater Portland Sustainable Food Production Center.

Collectively, as described above, the county, towns, and regional Council of Governments have taken several policy actions to strengthen components of the food system. Yet, there is opportunity to take additional actions to strengthen the food system in a more comprehensive and cross-sectorial manner across the food-supply chain.

Ideas for the Future

Cumberland County has diverse and rich agricultural and fishing sectors as well as an engaged and diverse population.⁵ Through local government policy efforts, the county has the opportunity to expand and enrich the well-established local food economy and culture while simultaneously supporting the food-insecure and underserved populations. Local stakeholders report interest in such opportunities, including one who noted, “there is a strong desire to understand the sources and where and how food has been produced that people are eating . . . you can see it shaping our economy.”²

Two distinct needs were expressed in many of the stakeholder interviews, both by local government representatives and food-systems stakeholders: the need to build a more efficient local food infrastructure and the need to raise awareness of food insecurities that residents experience throughout the county.

Local food infrastructure is a vital component for connecting producers with consumers. There is significant growth across the country in intermediated markets, which includes food aggregators, processors, and distributors.²⁵ A food-systems stakeholder respondent stated the need for a big push in developing infrastructure that provides “more efficient distribution and delivery systems to strengthen that network.”²⁶ Through policy and public investment, local governments can play a leading role in supporting and bringing locally produced and processed foods into mainstream markets.

A consumer advocate believes that local governments at the county, city, and town levels also have the opportunity to spearhead an asset-mapping project through data collection and analysis to develop “a better understanding in data on the existing assets we have, in terms of the food supply and distribution and related to the mapping of the needs.”⁴ If capitalized, existing assets could provide further connections between the local food-system infrastructure and consumers by offering easy distribution points. As one food-systems stakeholder respondent stated, “ . . . at the end of the day, 98% of people’s food dollars are still spent in grocery stores . . . So if we really want people to be able to access that, we have to get it to them where they’re currently shopping.”¹⁴

The private business sector also has a critical role in building the local food infrastructure. A local government representative pointed to a food hub as a potential example of private-sector engagement.¹⁵ The representative noted that it is imperative to draw on the private sector’s business experience, to determine “how to build up the intermediate infrastructure that gets the food from the producers to the institutions and consumers”⁸ and make such ventures profitable. Partnerships among local governments, private businesses, and non-profit networks have the momentum to connect local producers and consumers and strengthen the Cumberland County food system.

A second important issue is the critical need to raise awareness that food insecurity remains a concern for many county residents.⁴ Despite having an ingrained “foodie” culture, parts of the county still experience food insecurity. A food-security awareness campaign that highlights the challenges residents face in accessing healthy, affordable, and culturally appropriate food has the opportunity to lessen the stigma attached to hunger.

On the basis of the broad themes reported in this case study, 11 ideas for simultaneously promoting food security and agricultural viability in Cumberland County are presented below:

1. Refocus the Cumberland Food Security Council’s efforts on food-policy advancement, including but not limited to exploring the policy ideas outlined below.
2. Ensure health-department regulations support farmers’ markets efforts to donate leftover produce to local food banks (such as Wayside Food Programs and the Good Shepherd Food Bank).
3. Explore opportunities for agricultural landowners to pursue purchase of development rights for farmland protection.
4. Continue to encourage a discussion of how local ordinances can support farm viability and success.
5. Continue to increase the use of local food in the school-district cafeterias through local food-procurement policies.
6. Develop educational programs and economic incentives to support small farmers who are interested in moving from direct market to institutional markets.
7. Work with Cumberland County farmers’ markets to provide universal acceptance of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)/Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) funds at all farmers markets.
8. Build relationships within all local governments to promote public support for comprehensive food policy and planning.
9. Invest in intermediate infrastructure of the food system to strengthen stronger connections between area producers/growers and institutions/consumers.
10. Facilitate collaborations between affordable housing programs and food-security programs as a way to reduce the double bind of housing and food costs experienced by low-resource families/individuals.
11. Encourage homeowners to turn a portion of their yards into a food-donation garden.

Through collaborations and partnerships that exist across the public, private, and civic sectors in Cumberland County and through policy and planning efforts, the community has a unique opportunity to foster a grounded connection between local farmers and consumers in a way that is respectful, equitable, and sustainable for all residents.

Research Methods and Data Sources

Information in this brief is drawn from multiple sources. Quantitative data sources include the 2014 American Community Survey (ACS) five-year estimates and the 2012 US Census of Agriculture. Qualitative data include 15 in-depth interviews with representatives of various sectors of the food system as well as Cumberland County policymakers and staff. Interviewees are not identified by name but are, instead, shown by the sector that they represent, and are interchangeably referred to as interviewees or stakeholders in the brief. Interviews were conducted from April 2015 to September 2015. Qualitative analysis also included a review of the policy and planning documents of Cumberland County, which were reviewed for key policies and laws pertaining to the food system, and a review of the minutes of the Growing Food Connections steering-committee meetings.

Acknowledgements 

The GFC team is grateful to the Cumberland County GFC steering committee, Cumberland County government officials and staff, and interview respondents for generously giving their time and energy to this project. The authors thank colleagues at the Food Systems Planning and Healthy Communities Lab and the School of Architecture and Planning at the University at Buffalo, Ohio State University, Cultivating Healthy Places, the American Farmland Trust, and the American Planning Association, for their support. This work was funded by a grant from the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA Award #2012-68004-19894).

Notes

1. United States Census Bureau, American Community Survey Five-Year Estimates, (Washington
DC: United States Census Bureau, 2014).
2. D. Harry, “Portland Drug Addiction Overdose Rates Exceed the Rest of Maine,” Bangor Daily
News, July 28, 2015.
3. Interview with local government representative in Cumberland County (ID 15), 2015.
4. Interview with local government representative in Cumberland County ( ID 23), 2015.
5. Interview with consumer advocate representative in Cumberland County (ID 25), 2015.
6. Interview with extension representative in Cumberland County (ID 100), 2015.
7. University of Maine Cumberland County Cooperative Extension, “Maine Harvest for
Hunger––Cumberland County Food Pantries, Accessed May 10, 2016,
https://extension.umaine.edu/cumberland/programs/horticulture/maine-harvest- for-hunger/food-
pantries/.
8. Interview with local government representative in Cumberland County (ID 13), 2015.
9. Interview with farming and agriculture representative in Cumberland County (ID 26), 2015.
10. Good Shepherd Food Bank, “About Us,” Accessed May 9, 2016, http://www.gsfb.org/about/.
11. Interview with local government representative in Cumberland County (ID 18), 2015.
12. Interview with consumer advocate representative in Cumberland County (ID 27), 2015.
13. Wayside Food Programs, “Food Rescued by Wayside Fills Shelves of Local Pantries,”
Accessed May 10, 2016, http://www.waysidemaine.org/food-rescue.
14. City of Portland, Maine, “Portland, Maine 2016 Minimum Wage,” Accessed May 9, 2016,
http://www.govdocs.com/portland-maine- 2016-minimum- wage/.
15. National Center for Education Statistics, Food Environmental Atlas, (Washington, DC; US
Department of Education, 2012).
16. Interview with consumer advocate representative in Cumberland County (ID 20), 2015.
17. Interview with local government representative in Cumberland County (ID 22), 2015.
18. Interview with farming and agriculture representative in Cumberland County (ID 19), 2015.
19. National Agricultural Statistics Service, Census of Agriculture County Summary Highlights,
(Washington, DC: United States Department of Agriculture, 2012).
20. W. Becker, Growing Food Connections Community of Opportunity Background Check:
Cumberland, Maine, (Buffalo: University at Buffalo, 2015).
21. National Agricultural Statistics Service, Census of Agriculture Selected Operation and
Operator Characteristics: 2012 and 2007, (Washington, DC: United States Department of
Agriculture, 2012).
22. Tall Ships Portland, “Maine’s Lobster Industry: A Look at Maine’s Famous Seafood,” Tall
Ships Portland, vol 2016, (Portland, Maine, 2015).
23. United States Census Bureau, Census of Governments: Local Governments in Individual
County-Type Areas, (Washington, DC: United States Census Bureau, 2012).
24. Greater Portland Council of Governments, Greater Portland Council of Governments
Homepage, Accessed May 10, 2016, http://www.gpcog.org/.
25. City of Portland, Maine, Code of Ordinances, (Portland: City of Portland, 2014).
26. Interview with retail representative in Cumberland County (ID 21), 2015.
27. Portland Public Schools, “Our Most Frequently Asked Questions,” Accessed May 13, 2016,
http://www.portlandschools.org/departments/food_service/faq/.
28. A. Dillemuth and K. Hodgson, “Food Aggregation, Processing, and Distribution: Local
Governments’ Roles in Supporting Food System Infrastructure,” Planning and Policy Briefs,
(Buffalo: Growing Food Connections Project, forthcoming).
29. Port of Portland, Port of Portland Marine Terminal Statistics 1984-2014, Accessed
November 20, 2016,
https://www.portofportland.com/SelfPost/A_201511616535AnnualHistoryfrom1978web.pdf.
30. Maine Department of Labor, Center for Workforce Research and Information, Civilian Labor
Force Estimates, Monthly Seasonally Adjusted Metropolitan Area Estimates, Portland-South
Portland, Accessed November 20, 2016, http://www.maine.gov/labor/cwri/laus.html.

Print Version (PDF).

Bridging Divides: Opportunities for Connecting Farmers and Underserved Consumers in Chautauqua County, New York

In March 2015, Chautauqua County, New York was selected as one of eight Communities of Opportunities (COOs) in the country with significant potential to strengthen ties between small- and medium-sized farmers and residents with limited food access. Working with the Growing Food Connections (GFC) project team, county stakeholders have since established a steering committee that has charted a vision for the future of Chautauqua’s food system. This brief, which draws on interviews with Chautauqua County stakeholders and secondary data sources, provides information about local government policy opportunities and challenges in the food system to inform the work of the GFC steering committee and stakeholders in Chautauqua County.

Background

Image Source: Jason Toczydlowski, CHQ Local Food

Chautauqua County, the westernmost county in New York state, is home to a strong agricultural base, abundant natural resource amenities, and small-town rural charm. The county sits on the shore of Lake Erie. Two small cities, Jamestown and Dunkirk, and 27 towns comprising the county are dotted with lakes. Natural resources, shown in Figure 1 and 2, provide abundant space for recreational activities such as hiking, biking, boating, skiing, horseback riding, snowmobiling, fishing, and hunting. The county boasts the second highest number of farms in New York state, including half of New York’s grape acreage and more Concord grape acreage than in all counties in the United States. A sizeable dairy industry, valuable timber stands, small- and mid-sized vegetable producers, and a large food and agriculture manufacturing industry are integral to the economy.1 In addition, the history of the county is deeply rooted in the agricultural economy. Dr. Charles Welch built the first grape juice plant in Westfield in northern Chautauqua County.2 Nearby Fredonia is home to the nation’s first Grange Hall, established in 1868 and still operating today.3

Today, Chautauqua County faces a shrinking and aging population, declining industry and manufacturing, and stagnant low household incomes. Nearly 20,000 people have left the county over the last 40 years, reducing the population to 133,556.4 The unemployment rate for the county is approximately 6.1%, consistent with the New York state average, but is significantly higher (18%) for young people and minority populations.5 In line with the rest of the rustbelt region, the county experienced a loss of manufacturing jobs and a steady decline in the percentage of the labor force employed in the manufacturing industry.6 Unemployment also varies seasonally, being higher in winter months and lower in summer months.7 The education and health-care industries, similar to statewide averages, employ the largest percentage of the workforce (27.7%), and manufacturing jobs comprise 17.4% of employment, significantly higher than the statewide average of 6.6%.4 Employment in agriculture, forestry, and fishing in the county (2.5%) is also higher than the statewide average (0.6%), positioning the county to leverage food and agriculture as a form of economic development in response to the stagnant manufacturing and industrial economy.

The poverty rate in Chautauqua County has risen steadily over the last 15 years. Nearly 20% of the population lives below the poverty line, and the percentage of families in poverty is higher for families with children younger than five years old (37.1%) and for single mothers with children younger than five years old (67.4%).4 The median household income for the county ($42,429) is well below the state median ($58,003).8 Although home ownership is common (69.1%), the median value of housing units ($83,500) is also significantly below the state median ($288,200).8 The county is 94% white, but there has been a recent minor demographic shift. Hispanic and Latino people comprise 6.8% of the population, a proportion that has slightly increased in the past two decades.8 Black people comprise 2.7% of the population.8 Other minority groups include growing Amish communities and a small Native American population.

Food Security: Challenges and Opportunities

Food insecurity is a pressing concern for many residents in Chautauqua County. Estimates suggest that in 2014, 13% of the county’s population (17,300 residents) was food insecure.9 Food insecurity is highest among senior citizens, people living on bordering reservations, and minority populations.10 Over one-third (34.79%) of students in the county are also eligible for the National School Lunch program.11 Community stakeholders report that people with limited or fixed incomes struggle to afford nutritious food.

Challenges
Numerous challenges exacerbate food insecurity in Chautauqua County, and these challenges differ for residents living in the cities of Jamestown and Dunkirk, compared to those living in more rural areas. Lack of income and transportation contribute to food insecurity for both rural and urban populations in Chautauqua County. Physical access to healthy produce and full grocery stores is especially difficult in some areas of the county. Particularly in
the more remote rural areas, small grocery stores are less likely to have fresh produce options. Roadside farm stands in these areas provide access to fresh, affordable options in the summer months but are closed during the off season.12 Additionally, access to culturally acceptable foods for the Hispanic and Latino populations living in Jamestown and Dunkirk is limited.13

In addition to limited physical access to food, community leaders report lack of access to personal or public transportation, rather than the shortage of stores, as the largest barrier to food security in Chautauqua County. Community leaders report that rural senior citizens who are no longer able to drive and low-income families without dependable vehicles are especially at risk of food insecurity.14 USDA data from 2010 suggest that 2.54% of the population, or 1,379 residents, in the county does not have access to a car and lives too far from a grocery store.15 Within the urban communities, walking and biking to grocery stores are dangerous in areas with no sidewalks and unplowed streets during the winter.13

Although many people qualify for federal safety-net programs, community stakeholders report that residents lack knowledge of program availability, eligibility requirements, and application processes. Social stigma towards participation in federal programs such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) is also prevalent and especially strong among senior citizens, dissuading them from applying for programs designed to assist them.14 The full participation of eligible people in federal safety-net programs is essential for decreasing food insecurity.14

Opportunities
Despite these challenges, the county has the opportunity to leverage its local resources, networks, and traditions to promote food security. Through planning and implementation efforts, the Chautauqua County Health Network (CCHN) has led efforts to increase access to healthy food retail within the food-insecure parts of the city of Jamestown.16

Numerous civic organizations are currently combating hunger and food insecurity through a vast network of food pantries and other social safety-net programs. The St. Susan Center runs a soup kitchen in the city of Jamestown, and additional food pantries are supported by the Food Bank of Western New York. Chautauqua County Rural Ministry (CCRM) offers cooking and nutrition classes, community garden space, and emergency food support in addition to other human-needs services.

In addition, the county has a rich tradition of residents acquiring their own food through growing, hunting, and fishing as well as sharing food with neighbors and the community at large. Within the city of Jamestown, interest in community gardens is growing as well and is supported by the Jamestown Renaissance Corporation (JRC), a public private organization. CCRM partners with Cornell Cooperative Extension and numerous area farmers to organize the Chautauqua County Gleaning Project. The project has harvested over 650,000 pounds of food since 1999 in an effort to decrease both food insecurity and food waste. Three deer-meat processors in the county partner with the Venison Donation Coalition to process deer free of charge for hunters who are willing to donate the meat to the Food Bank of Western New York.

Agriculture: Opportunities and Challenges

Agriculture is a significant component of the county’s economy and contributes strongly to county residents’ sense of place. Protecting farmland, maintaining the rural landscape, and protecting the agricultural resources and economy are top priorities for the county’s government.17 The number of farms (1,515) is the second highest in New York state,17 but the average size of 156 acres is below the statewide average of 202 acres.18

The county’s farmers grow a diverse range of agricultural products. Fruit and tree-nut farming far outweighs other types of farming in the county, with 467 out of the 1,515 farms dedicated to the production of fruits, including peaches, cherries, and grapes.19 A warmer microclimate, created by the escarpment of the Allegheny Plateau colliding with Lake Erie, also forms ideal conditions for growing grapes.17 Chautauqua is the number-one producer of grapes in the state and the number-one producer of a specific variety, Concord grapes, in the entire nation.17 Dairy and beef cattle farms, not dependent on warmer temperatures, also comprise a large portion of the farms in the southern half of the county, where the microclimate is less present.19 About 13% of farms also sell their products directly to consumers through the county’s four farmers’ markets, produce auctions, and Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) shares.20 In addition to food production, the county’s economy includes some food processing for grapes and dairy products. The National Grape Cooperative, known more commonly as the Welch’s brand, has a processing plant in the county. Additionally, 21 wineries create value-added products on the 17,000 acres of land under grape production.17

Chautauqua County is known for extensive grape acreage in the northern part of the county and numerous dairy farms (below) in the southern part of the county.
Image Source: Jason Toczydlowski, CHQ Local Foods

Image Source: Tozcydlowski, CHQ Local Foods

Challenges
Although Chautauqua County has abundant natural resources that support the agricultural sector, farmers face several challenges. Barriers to markets, price fluctuations in commodity crops, and a shortage of labor significantly reduce profits and income for the multitude of small- and mid-sized farms. The average net cash farm income in the county is only $29,990, which implies that the average net income from the farm for farm families is only slightly higher than the federal poverty line for a family of four.22 Even though the majority of Chautauqua farms are not earning a significant income, slightly over half (54.3%) of principal farm operators consider farming their primary occupation. For principal farm operators earning sufficient incomes, finding affordable health care and health insurance is difficult. Too often, Chautauqua County’s farm families depend on jobs off of the farm. The low incomes of farm families in Chautauqua County warrant further attention. Yet, it is particularly difficult to assess how many farm families fall into this category given the wide range of gross farm sales. Farms making less than $1,000 in gross sales account for almost one quarter (23%) of all the farms, indicating the presence of hobby farms, subsistence farms, and land yielding little production. Although 58 farms in the county gross more than $500,000 in sales, nearly two-thirds of the farms report gross sales of $25,000 or less.23 The low sales volume prevents farmers from changing their farming model, diversifying crops, or making infrastructure investments because they do not have the startup money to begin the modernization process.10

The lack of regional infrastructure investments also negatively influences Chautauqua County farmers. Outside of the grape and milk-processing facilities, there are few places to process local produce and meats. The lack of grain mills and humane slaughtering facilities with modern artisanal butchers leaves farmers traveling five or more hours to have animals processed.10 The average estimated market value of agricultural land and buildings per farm in Chautauqua County ($322,390) is below the New York state average of $525,587, indicating the numerous small farms but also a lack of significant infrastructure investments on the farms themselves.18

Although over 3,000 people in the county work as hired farm laborers, supported by 277 migrant workers,24 labor shortages are a significant concern for many farmers. Farmers report too few people in the local labor supply willing to work in manual labor jobs for the wages that farmers are able to pay.13 The H-2A visa program that supplements the local labor pool with seasonal migrant workers can be useful for seasonal harvesting of produce and grapes but is of little use for dairy farmers in need of reliable year-round labor.13

Several of the challenges for farmers in Chautauqua County mirror national trends and originate outside the county. Fluctuating commodity crop prices in the dairy and grape industries create unstable investment opportunities for farmers hesitant to purchase new equipment if commodity prices are low the next year.13 The federal regulatory environment is prohibitive given the low sales volume.13 At the local regulatory level, high property taxes on agricultural land are particularly problematic.25 Furthermore, Chautauqua County farmers are aging, as the average principal farm operator in the county is 56 years old.26 Facilitated discussions between land owners whose land is no longer in production and young farmers looking for land, particularly young farmers coming from regions where land is significantly more expensive, could provide key connections for
continuing production on viable agricultural land and decreasing development pressures on strategically located farms.27

In addition to farm-business challenges, the loss of farmland is a significant concern for Chautauqua County. Development pressures on farmland, timber stands, and vineyards have resulted in an increased rate of farm decline compared to the state as a whole. In particular, disconnected land parcels far from the base farm operations decrease efficiency.13 Between 2007 and 2012, Chautauqua County experienced a 9% decrease in its number of farms, much higher than the 2% decrease statewide.18 Although the number of farms decreased, the number of acres of farmland (236,546) slightly increased, by 688 acres during the same time period.18

Opportunities
Farms in Chautauqua County are uniquely positioned to take advantage of numerous opportunities. A large percentage, nearly three-quarters of the land in the county, has rich, high quality soils. Only 34% of the total land in the county is under production, presenting an opportunity for increasing farming in high-quality soils.28 Chautauqua County farmers also have the opportunity to expand their markets. The market value of products sold from Chautauqua County has experienced a 28% increase in value between 2007 and 2012.18 Continued expansion is possible by tapping into both local and regional markets, particularly customer demand created by summer tourist destinations such as the Chautauqua Institution, which is a high end niche market.12

Already a summer tourist destination, Chautauqua County has leveraged its agricultural assets through a growing agritourism sector. The popular Lake Erie Wine Trail runs through the northern part of the county and into Pennsylvania, and is bolstered by educational displays at the new Grape Discovery Center, planned and built in part through public funding. In addition to state funding provided to the Grape Discovery Center, the local agritourism center has received funding through the county’s Occupancy Tax Grant program.29 Agritourism is also extending the summer tourist season, through the popularity of fall corn mazes, pumpkin picking, cut-your-own Christmas tree ventures, and events such as March for Maple, a celebration highlighting the 19 direct marketers of maple products.20 Further agritourism development, demonstrated through places like the Grape Discovery Center, along popular hiking and driving routes with grand views could draw a diversified tourist crowd.25

Infrastructure investments in community kitchens and processing facilities could increase the potential for institutional purchasing by schools and hospitals.12 The county is strategically situated between several larger markets, such as the cities of Buffalo, Pittsburgh, and Cleveland. Taking advantage of its location within these larger regional markets could diversify market options and provide an outlet for increased value-added products.14 Assistance with marketing, such as a branding campaign for products from the western New York region, would relieve farmers of the burden of marketing their products.10

Local Government Public Policy Environment

Chautauqua County is fortunate to have local governments engaged in protecting and supporting their valuable agricultural assets while providing opportunities for access to healthy and affordable food for low-income families. Chautauqua County is governed by a county-wide government that is home to 17 smaller municipal governments and 27 township governments. In addition, 18 school districts and 21 special district governments contribute to the 84 total governments operating within the county.30 The local government has responded to efforts by community-led civic organizations and private entrepreneurs to leverage its natural and agricultural resources to strengthen the food system.

Community-led efforts to improve the food system include the pilot implementation of a Healthy Corner Stores initiative, initiatives to accept EBT, SNAP, and Double Up Food Bucks at farmers’ markets, farm-to-institution programs, and the creation of community and school gardens. Funding secured by the Chautauqua County Health Network (CCHN), through a New York State Creating Healthy Places to Live, Work, and Play grant and, more recently, a Creating Healthy Schools and Communities grant, has supported staffing for healthy community initiatives. Additionally, private entrepreneurs such as CHQ Local, a small scale  aggregation business, have begun innovative efforts to procure healthy foods from local farmers for area restaurants and customers.

The local government has partnered on many of the community led efforts described above. The Jamestown Renaissance Corporation (JRC), for example, a public-private partnership established in 2006 focused on revitalizing Jamestown, runs several programs focused on food. JRC supports a downtown farmers’ market that features local produce and has made a significant effort to increase accessibility to the market for people of all income levels. For example, the JRC offers discounted public transit fares for residents who use public transportation to visit the farmers’ market. Expansion of payment options at the downtown farmers’ market has led to the market having one of the highest SNAP redemption rates in the tri-county area. Concerted effort to respond to the needs of customers has steadily increased the number of people purchasing healthy food directly from local farmers. JRC also supports community gardens, by leasing privately owned land for three community gardens and renting garden beds to residents for modest annual fees.

The Chautauqua County government also has numerous policy and planning initiatives that impact the food system. Two government-sanctioned, county-wide planning projects directly address food and agriculture. The Chautauqua 20/20 Comprehensive Plan, created by the Chautauqua County Department of Planning and Economic Development, the Chautauqua County Planning Board, and the Legislative Comprehensive Plan Task Force, provides dedicated guidance to food and agriculture as a part of the local economy. Direction for this section of the plan was informed by members of The Agriculture/Foods Focus Group, who outlined 11 policy actions, including strengthening agricultural districts, supporting local right-to-farm legislation, and implementing agricultural zoning. Although several of this comprehensive plan’s recommendations can promote agricultural viability, they offer limited strategies for alleviating food insecurity in the county.17 Chautauqua also has a county-wide, comprehensive Agriculture and Farmland Protection Plan, adopted in 2000, which outlines protection of farm and forest land, support for farming as a profitable industry, and retention and development for agribusinesses in the county.1 In addition, the county participates in the state’s first agriculturally inspired heritage management plan, the Concord Grape Belt: Heritage Area Management Plan (2010), funded by New York state, which outlines strategies for preserving the region’s grape heritage and industry along the shores of Lake Erie. Some of these initiatives, including the creation of the Grape Discovery Center, receive support through Chautauqua County’s 5% occupancy tax on hotels/motels, which helps to fund the county’s protection of lakes and streams and local tourism efforts.29 Shoring up and implementing existing plans are essential for strengthening food-systems planning efforts throughout the county.

Ideas for the Future

Gifted with natural resources, a culture of resilience, and committed to its agricultural heritage, Chautauqua County is uniquely positioned to cultivate a model rural community food system. With support from its community leaders, Chautauqua County can demonstrate how rural counties can create a policy environment where agriculture thrives and residents lead full, healthy lives. Key ideas for future policy and implementation efforts to strengthen food systems are outlined below.

Development of County-Wide Agriculture and Farmland Protection Plan to Adopt a Systemic View of the Food System
The county’s agriculture and farmland protection plan offers a tremendous opportunity for strengthening the county’s food system. The plan is expected to be updated in the near future. Traditionally, such plans focus largely on farmland protection, yet experience from across the country suggests that farmland can be best protected if it is part of a thriving local food system. The updates to the Chautauqua County plan could explicitly address innovative strategies for strengthening the local food system. Such a plan would address the county’s food system: A food system is the soil-to-soil system that enables the production, processing, distribution, acquisition, and consumption of food, and includes the management of excess food and food-related waste. A well functioning and well-integrated food system would enhance the environmental, economic, social, and nutritional health of Chautauqua County.

Numerous rural counties across the United States, including Douglas County, Kansas,31 Cabarrus County, North Carolina,32 Marquette County, Michigan, and Cass County, Iowa,33 are using innovative public-policy strategies and may offer potential ideas. Moreover, the future plan has the potential to guide public investments in the food system so that economic returns to the county are amplified.

Reform in Property-Tax Policy
Farmers in the region are hindered by high property taxes, which vary across the towns within the county and are even higher than in other parts of the region. Individual parcels of farmland that are in or outside a state-certified Agricultural District can be eligible for an agricultural value-assessment program that allows property taxes to be adjusted based on agricultural values.25 Leaders in the agricultural community point to the need for further policy support to help farmers navigate the land-assessment process and decrease expenses related to land taxation. Agricultural property taxes set at a fair rate in relation to what farms actually produce on the land could relieve undue financial burdens on farmers.25

Workforce Development Support
Curiously, a labor shortage (in agriculture) and unemployment both exist in Chautauqua County. The labor shortage for farmers must also be addressed in a way that provides decent jobs for people looking for good employment and that matches well-trained employees with farmers looking to hire. The local government can play a key role in reducing the labor shortage and unemployment gaps in the county. Although some suggest that potential employees no longer want to work hard (as required in farming), this perspective may simply illustrate a disconnection between potential employers and employees. Community leaders report that the labor shortage lies not in too few people seeking a job and willing to do hard work but in the scarcity of people experienced in running heavy equipment, milking animals, and doing farm labor.13 In addition, fewer youth have experience in these tasks, and few local schools offer technical training in these areas. Workforce-development programs facilitated by the local government in partnership with local organizations can identify the specialized skills required for agriculture and recruit, train, and match well-qualified employees with local farmers.13

Information Dissemination
Streamlining the provision of information and resources for food-systems businesses, including farmers, food processors, and food retailers, will create a more favorable environment for the food and agriculture sector to thrive. For example, the geographic separation of federal, state, and local agencies that address agriculture creates fragmented information and disconnected programming in rural areas. Organizations such as the USDA and Cooperative Extension previously shared centralized offices in the county but now are in different locations. For farmers seeking information regarding taxes and permitting, expanding markets, environmental issues relating to  farming, and business startup models, having to visit multiple offices creates disjointed and inefficient information sharing.13 Local government agencies could create one-stop shops (including virtual information centers) to ease the regulatory burden on the agriculture and food-system sector.

Infrastructure Development and Enhancement
The local government can also amplify the extraordinary work of its agriculture and food industry by investing in infrastructure. Infrastructure investments to ensure the long-term sustainability and success of farmers’ markets, such as an indoor winter market space, are a priority.25 The lack of processing and aggregation facilities is a reported challenge for farmers interested in scaling up to institutional sales and small-batch value-added production. Local government investment in a food hub that includes cold storage, flash freezing, meat and produce processing, a community kitchen, and retail space would catalyze entrepreneurial activity in the food system. Investments in public transportation to existing grocery stores, to improve food access, may alleviate food insecurity. Connecting current public transportation lines to urban retail hubs and creating more bike- and pedestrian-friendly environments surrounding those locations would provide opportunity for low mobility people to access healthy food.14 The local government could also combine its efforts to promote food access with efforts to support the local agricultural industry. For example, grocery stores (that are better connected through public transportation) could be encouraged and incentivized to stock and sell locally grown produce.

CHQ Local Food offers a non-traditional Community Supported Agriculture model of food delivery baskets sourced from regional farms and small processors.
Image Source: Jason Tozcydlowski, CHQ Local Food

Recognizing and Celebrating Local Food Businesses
Chautauqua County has an outstanding share of committed food business entrepreneurs, including farmers, food retailers, and food distributors that move food from field to table and contribute to the county’s economy. With organic farm operations such as Abers Acres, aggregators such as Chautauqua Local Foods, the Chautauqua Produce Auction, and Brigiotta’s Farmland Produce and Garden Center, family-operated grocers that serve urban (Farm Fresh Foods) and rural populations, Cassadaga Shurfine, and farmers’ markets, Chautauqua has the bones of a strong food system. One way to amplify the work of these businesses is to create an online local food-business directory that enables local residents and visitors (including to the Chautauqua Institution) to locate, frequent, and support local businesses.

Research Methods and Data Sources

Information in this brief is drawn from multiple sources. Quantitative data sources include the 2014 American Community Survey (ACS) five-year estimates and the 2012 US Census of Agriculture. Qualitative data include 15 in depth interviews with representatives of various sectors of the food system as well as Chautauqua County policymakers and staff. Interviewees are not identified by name but are, instead, shown by the sector that they represent, and are interchangeably referred to as interviewees or stakeholders in the brief. Interviews were conducted from April 2015 to March 2016. Qualitative analysis also includes a review of the policy and planning documents of Chautauqua County, which were reviewed for key policies and laws pertaining to the food system, and a review of the minutes of the Growing Food Connections steering-committee meetings.

Acknowledgements

The GFC team is grateful to the Chautauqua County GFC steering committee, Chautauqua County government officials and staff, and the interview respondents, for generously giving their time and energy to this project. The authors thank colleagues at the Food Systems Planning and Healthy Communities Lab and the School of Architecture and Planning at the University at Buffalo, Ohio State University, Cultivating Healthy Places, the American Farmland Trust, and the American Planning Association, for their support. This work was funded by a grant from the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA Aware #2012-68004- 19894), and the 3E grant for Built Environment, Health Behaviors, and Health Outcomes from the University at Buffalo.

Recommended Citation

Whittaker, Jennifer and Samina Raja. “Bridging Divides: Opportunities for Connecting Farmers and Underserved Consumers in Chautauqua County, New York.“ In Exploring Stories of Opportunity. Edited by Samina Raja, 8 pages. Buffalo: Growing Food Connections Project.

Notes

1 Chautauqua County Agricultural and Farmland Protection Board, Chautauqua County Farmland Protection Plan, Chautauqua County, NY, 2000.

2 W. R. Cutter, Genealogical and Family History of Western New York Vol 2 (New York: Lewis Historical Publishing Company, 1912).

3 A. Gaugnet, “Picturing the Grange: 130 Years,” The Journal of New York Folklore 28, no. Spring-Summer (2002).

4 United States Census Bureau, 2009-2013 5-Year American Community Survey, 2009-2013.

5 New York State Department of Labor. Local Area Unemployment Statistics Program. Chautauqua

County Unemployment Rate. Annual Average, 2015.

6 United States Census Bureau, Census 2000 Summary File of Selected Economic Characteristics, 2000.

7 United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, Unemployment Rate in Chautauqua County, NY.

8 United States Census Bureau, State and County Quickfacts – Chautauqua County, New York, 2014.

9 C. Gunderson, A. Dewey, A. Crumbaugh, M. Kato, E. Engelhard, Map the Meal Gap 2016: Food Insecurity and Child Food Insecurity Estimates at the County Level, Feeding America, 2016.

10 Interview with Local Government Representative in Chautauqua County (ID 06), April 10, 2015.

11 U.S. Department of Education, Food Environment Atlas, National Center for Education Statistics, 2012.

12 Interview with Aggregation Representative in Chautauqua County (ID 10), April 8, 2015.

13 Interview with Local Government Representative in Chautauqua County (ID 01), April 9, 2015.

14 Interview with Local Government Representative in Chautauqua County (ID 07), April 8, 2015.

15 Economic Research Service, Food Environment Atlas, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2015.

16 N. Attard, T. Gordon, D. Jiang, et al., Invest in Fresh, Chautauqua County Health Network and Department of Urban and Regional Planning, University at Buffalo, 2013.

17 Chautauqua County Department of Planning and Economic Development, Chautauqua 20/20 Comprehensive Plan, Chautauqua County Department of Planning and Economic Development, 2011.

18 United States Department of Agriculture, Census of Agriculture County Summary Highlights, National Agricultural Statistics Services, 2012.

19 United States Department of Agriculture, Census of Agriculture Farms by North American Industry Classification System, National Agricultural Statistics Services, 2012.

20 V. Carlberg, Chautauqua County Local Farm Products Guide, Chautauqua County, Cornell Cooperative Extension of Chautuaqua County.

21 United States Department of Agriculture, Census of Agriculture Net Cash Farm Income of the Operations and Operators, National Agricultural Statistics Services, 2012.

22 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Poverty Guidelines, Washington, D.C., 2014.

23 United States Department of Agriculture, Census of Agriculture Market Value of Agricultural Products Sold Including Direct Sales: 2012 and 2007, National Agricultural Statistics Services, 2012.

24 United States Department of Agriculture, Census of Agriculture Hired Farm Labor – Workers and Payroll: 2012, National Agricultural Statistics Services, 2012.

25 Interview with Local Government Representative from Chautauqua County (ID 05), April 8, 2015.

26 United States Department of Agriculture, Census of Agriculture Operator Characteristics, National Agricultural Statistics Services, 2012.

27 Interview with Farming and Agriculture Representative in Chautauqua County (ID 03), April 10, 2015.

28 County Bio Physical Dataset, Statsgo Soils Database TIGER Data, 1997.

29 The County Legislature of the County of Chautauqua New York, The County of Chautauqua Imposing a Tax on the
Occupancy of Hotel or Motel Rooms. Local Law Number 11-13, Chautauqua County, NY, 2013.

30 U. S. C. Bureau, Census of Governments: Local Governments in Individual County-Type Areas, In Finder AF, ed (Washington, D.C., 2012).

31 Z. Fodor, K. Hodgson, “Healthy Food System in the Heartland: Intergovernmental Cooperation in the City of Lawrence and Douglas County, Kansas Advances Food Policy,” In Exploring Stories of Innovation, edited by Hodgson K, Raja S, 3 (Buffalo: Growing Food Connections Project, 2015).

32 K. Hodgson, “Advancing Local Food Policy in a Changing Political Climate: Cabarrus County, NC,” In Exploring Stories of Innovation, edited by Hodgson K, Raja S, 3 (Buffalo: Growing Food Connections Project, 2015).

33 J. Whittaker, J. Clark, S. Raja, “Rethinking Rural Food Systems Governance: the Case of Cass County,” For
submission to Journal of Planning Education and Research (In
Progress).

Community of Opportunity Feature

AUTHORS

Jennifer WhittakerSamina RajaUniversity at Buffalo

CONTRIBUTORS

Jill Clark, Ohio State University
Julia Freedgood, American Farmland TrustKimberley Hodgson, Cultivating Healthy Places

SERIES EDITOR

Samina Raja, University at Buffalo

PROJECT COORDINATOR

Jeanne Leccese, University at Buffalo

DESIGN, PRODUCTION, & MAPS

Samantha Bulkilvish, University at Buffalo Brenda Stynes, University at Buffalo Jennifer Whittaker, University at Buffalo

COPY EDITOR

Ashleigh Imus, Ithaca, New York

Recommended citation: Whittaker, Jennifer and Samina Raja. “Bridging Divides: Opportunities for ConnectingFarmers and Underserved Consumers in ChautauquaCounty, New York.“ In Exploring Stories of Opportunity.Edited by Samina Raja, 8 pages. Buffalo: Growing Food Connections Project. Available on-line at: growingfood- connections.org/publications/briefs/coo-communi-ty-profiles.