Interviewed: January 23, 2023

Laura Hicklin, Director

Sharene Smith, Real Estate Coordinator

Laurie Lambert, Conservation Specialist

Management Policy: Dane County manages its land through two policies, the Parks and Open Space Plan (updated every five years) and the Land and Water Plan (updated every five to ten years). While these plans cover topics such as conservation and while the board did develop sustainable agricultural policy, staff would like to see  a more formal agricultural plan as well as consistency between the two plans. The two plans are shaped and approved by the board of supervisors. The Department generally attempts to be apolitical in how the plans treat agriculture methods as it avoids taking a stance on specific practices (e.g., organic versus conventional farming) and instead aims to foster positive relations with the whole agricultural community and achieve better overall conservation. 

New land acquisitions are informed by the Parks and Open Space Plan. The Department does not purchase farmland with the express purpose of keeping it in production, but instead prioritizes parcels where potential activities on that land would be consistent with the Department’s conservation goals. Once land is purchased, Department staff study the site and make decisions on whether the site should be fully restored, if any land in agriculture  should be kept in production, or whether some sort of hybrid approach between farming and restoration is best. When the Department does take farmland out of production, this is not an indication that the staff believe  agricultural uses of land are inherently negative, but rather that the staff believe that farming at the location is no longer tenable or sustainable for agricultural use.

“On 380 acres at Indian Lake County Park,” says Laura Hicklin, “we’re going through a master plan process. The staff plan had been to restore all of that land that’s in production, which is the majority of the property. However, through the master planning process, we heard from the community that they really valued the existing land use of agriculture, currently in a conventional corn soybean rotation. So we are working with the tenant now to implement prairie strips and do a kind of hybrid approach to show how we can maintain the agricultural history, but also put it in a more modern context. And so we’re really excited about that. It’s a compromise from both the county and the existing tenant, who was willing to work with us on that.”

The county policies tend to be informed by several sources, including federal and state publications, policies, and research, universities, think tanks, webinars, and various newsletters. This helps them stay up to date on best practices, trends, and innovative solutions happening in the space of conservation. 

Evolving Stance on Whether All Land Must Eventually Be Restored to Natural Area: Agricultural land uses on properties the Department acquired were initially seen as logical transition management between the land use present on the land at the time of acquisition and the eventual restoration of the land into some kind of natural habitat. In other words, agriculture was seen strictly as an “interim land use tool.” For most properties, that’s still the case, but an openness to long-term agricultural use is emerging. Local community input is a strong consideration.

“We’ve got land situations,” says Hicklin, “where we’ve stopped, stepped back, and said, “Local agriculture is so much more valuable to our community than we maybe we gave it credit for 15-20 years ago.” And so rather than saying all of this has to be restored, our new message is some of this could and should stay permanently in agriculture. And what does that look like?” 

Farmer Relationships: Generally, the staff believe that the Department’s relationships with their tenant farmers are good. Communication is very important, and it must be tailored to each farmer. Detailed maps are very useful in having clear understandings with farmers. 

“I think alot of it is tailoring your communication to the specific farmer,” says Sharene Smith. “We’ve got farmers that have been doing this forever, and they speak a different language than these new farmers in their 20s and 30s that are coming in. So just being open, honest, and communicating all the time with the farmers, because they don’t like to read the contracts. Be very specific.”

The Department has a policy that stipulates that if a tenant farmer is non-compliant with their lease agreement that the Department would no longer allow them to bid for future farm leases. 

Leasing System: Staff submit a resolution once or twice a year to the board laying out the key lease terms (in terms of length, rental rate, and other considerations) for specific leases the Department plans to enter into. Board must then approve the resolution. It usually does approve without any changes, although there can be exceptions. 

Department staff wrestle with how far to go in integrating conservation requirements into their lease bids and whether the county should pay for extra costs of conservation practices or even provide specialized equipment needed to carry out those practices. There is also concern that the more strict and demanding the conservation requirements are the fewer the number of producers who will bid. And the bids may be much lower than the Department would get if the land was bid out with only basic conservation standards. 

There remain internal concerns related to the way in which leases are made available and their requirements. A question the county is attempting to answer is if, how, and to what degree they should offer assistance. They could, for example, put leases up for bid at market rates and with conservation requirements that some may not be able to achieve, which would likely disadvantage smaller farms. Alternatively, they could provide reduced rent on leases that would allow cost-sensitive farmers, who may not otherwise be able to compete, the opportunity to bid. 

“Is it better to have a minimum conservation standard,” says Hicklin, “and then rent the land to whoever’s willing to pay the most like a traditional bid process Or do we have really set conservation criteria for what we want, and we’re willing to accept an annual rental payment that’s a fraction of what we could get on the open market because we’ve layered on so many criteria that aren’t going to be attractive to most producers. And that’s where we have a lot of questions, and no right answers on who gets to make that decision?” 

Currently the county does not offer grazing leases, though there is some interest from segments of the public, the board, and staff in having grazing on Department land. As it stands, it is more effective for the county to support grazing on private lands. They do this through their Continuous Cover program, which provides subsidies for transitioning land to grazing and sometimes includes cost-sharing. 

Complexities of Local Vegetable Production and Community Gardens: The Department has three examples of Department land being managed for local vegetable production by local nonprofits. The decision to initiate these arrangements was driven by local community members asking for their communities to have access to the Department’s land to grow vegetables, whether that be through a community garden, a market garden, or some other arrangement. The intended model was for the Department to provide land and basic infrastructure and for the nonprofit to then take care of the day-to-day management, including relations with farmers and gardeners using the land. In reality, the Department has faced a number of challenges. For example, some vegetable growers on nearby private land have been concerned that the growers having access to “subsidized” land arrangements on Department land have an unfair competitive advantage. 

In one case, a vegetable grower at Silverwood County Park is accusing the nonprofit managing the land of discrimination. So the grower has gone to the county asking them to address the issue or at least look into the situation. “So we suddenly find ourselves in the middle of these controversies,” says Laura Hicklin. At another park, the Department pays a nonprofit to manage the gardens, but there have been ongoing issues around the management of the contract, what would be fair compensation levels, frequent staff turnover, and community criticism of the nonprofit. On the positive side, when Hmong farmers were displaced from another farm in the county, they were able to gain farmland access at the Department’s Anderson Farm County Park.

On-Farm Conservation Practices: Tracking of conservation efforts is lacking. This is, in part, because the District does not have principles or clear objectives within the various strategic plans to measure progress against. And while the District may collect some data on some farms, this tends to not be aggregated, either temporally nor across different farms. Nonetheless, there is recognition within the Department that better data collection and management practices need to be developed and implemented so it can then become possible to answer questions related to the conservation impacts of different farming practices and management. In addition to clear objectives, Department staff also want to develop Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) to measure success in a systematic manner. 

Transitioning to Organic Production: Dane County has struggled with transitioning conventional agricultural land to organic farming. It is, for example, often difficult to locate organic farmers who are willing to take on leases if the properties in question are not located next to or in close proximity to the other land they farm. When available land is instead located on the opposite side of the county, the difficulties of transportation (especially if travel would need to be done through and near the  greater Madison area) discourage most organic farmers from even bidding on the leases. In an effort to attract farmers to take on organic leases, the Department typically reserves the land for long-term organic farming. This helps alleviate concerns by potential farmers that they might go to the trouble of completing the 36-month organic transition process and building soil health only to have the county decide to restore that land to grassland habit a few years later. 

Farm Chemical Management: Over the next five years, the Department intends to develop a comprehensive policy on pesticides and herbicides. In the short term, the Department is limiting itself to implementing its new prohibition of neonicotinoids in all new leases starting in 2024 and thereafter. Tenants with existing leases are being notified that in the next few years their leases will be transitioning. “We don’t feel ready to make a drastic change in the middle of a lease,” says Hicklin. “So if we can start with a new lease from day one, the producer knows what they’re getting into. But anyone in the middle of a lease, we’ll have a transition period.” The Department’s discussions that led to the prohibition decisions began after staff learned of the Wisconsin DNR’s policy prohibiting neonicotinoids.

Rotational Grazing On and Off County Land: Despite a great deal of interest by county board members and the public, the Department currently does not have any grazing leases on its properties. While Department staff see grazing as a natural fit with its conservation principles and would like farming on the county’s lands to represent all types of agriculture, they have not yet been able to work out all of the logistical, infrastructure, and safe public access issues to their satisfaction. 

But the county does support grazing in a significant way on private lands through its Continuous Cover Program (provide link). Through the program, the county will pay a landowner with land that meets program criteria to transition from conventional row farming to grazing pasture and will also provide cost share contracts for the fencing, watering stations, shade structures, and whatever other infrastructure is needed. “We call it the Dane County CRP,” says Laura Hicklin. “It’s a 15-year contract, and it’s incredibly lucrative.”  Landowners must choose between the county’s Continuous Cover Program and the NRCS’ Conservation Reserve Program. Approximately 2,500 acres are already under contract in this relatively new program. The county is budgeting for the program to continue to expand.