Taxpayers for two decades have paid millions of dollars to preserve farms — nowhere more than in Lancaster County, the nation's leader in farmland saved from development.

The rich farmland is preserved forever. In perpetuity.

Or is it?

Most don't know that farmers — or developers buying their land — could possibly buy back development rights after 25 years if the farm is proven to no longer be viable.

The clause is in every contract for farms preserved through the county's Agricultural Preserve Board since 1989.

In addition, some of the farms preserved earlier in the 1980s by the preserve board and the Lancaster Farmland Trust were done so not in perpetuity, but for a 25-year term that is now ending for some of them.

But preservationists insist that they don't expect to lose any preserved farms.

They have changed most of the 25-year-term farm agreements to perpetual easements, and are working to change the handful remaining.

On the buy-back clause, it can be used only if a farm is proven to not be "land suitable" and "economically feasible" for agricultural production, according to state law.

"It would be a high bar to cross to prove a farm is no longer viable land," said Matt Knepper, executive director of the Ag Preserve Board.

"It's a far-out scenario," said Doug Wolfgang, director of the state's Bureau of Farmland Preservation, which gives counties money to preserve farms. "If ever a case comes up, it would be nearly impossible a standard to meet. All farms will have some value in the future."

Knepper said farming today can mean growing produce, supplying various niche markets with specialty farm products, or boarding horses — a lot more than just milking cows or raising chickens.

"Just because a particular farm can't make a living, it doesn't mean anyone couldn't on the farm," Knepper said.

Even if a farmer would be able to prove that the farmland is no longer viable agricultural land, buying back the development rights for the farm would be very costly, he said.

Preservation easements are equal to the value of the land if it was developed minus the value of the land as a farm.

If a farm is deemed to not be viable as a farm, it would theoretically have no value as a farm, Knepper said. The value of the easement, therefore, would be equal to the market value of the land.

So, if a developer bought the farm for $20,000 an acre, he would then have to pay the county or state, depending on which provided the original preservation funds, another $20,000 per acre for its development rights, he said.

Don Ranck, a Paradise farmer and longtime critic of the state's farmland preservation program, said that is not good news for landowners.

"The buy-back is supposed to be a corrective measure for future generations, but at what cost?" he said today.

Ranck still contends the county and state should employ shorter terms in preserving farms, not ones "in perpetuity."

Five-, or eight-year terms that roll over every year would save farmland without tying up land rights for future generations, he said.

Knepper and Wolfgang said that with a backlog of farmers willing to preserve their farms forever, they have no interest in putting time limits on future easements.

Pennsylvania's not the only state that has had a farmland preservation buy-back clause.

Deb Bowers recently wrote in the Farmland Preservation Report magazine that Maryland had a 25-year buy-back clause until a few years ago when the legislature rescinded it.

That state's investment in permanent easements was at the heart of the change, Bowers wrote.

Wolfgang said there is no movement by lawmakers to rescind Pennsylvania's buy-back clause.

The county's ag preserve board preserved 21 farms under 25-year terms in the 1980s, at a total cost of $521,479. The county is the only one in the state that preserved farms using such terms, Knepper said.

The preserve board has since converted 16 of those farm agreements to perpetual easements, at a total cost of $4.5 million.

Of the remaining five, one has applied for permanent preservation and one has been transferred to the trust, Knepper said.

The preserve board is working on trying to convert the other three farms preserved on non-perpetual terms — one in Warwick Township and two in Mount Joy Township — into "perpetual" farms, though one of them is now owned by Amish, who typically spurn government preservation funds.

For one of the farms, the easement may be terminated by written request from the farmer, if it is received by August 2009, Knepper said. If no termination is requested, the easement becomes perpetual. No repayment is required since the easement was donated.

On three other farms, the easement may be terminated at any time after 25 years by notification and repurchase for the amount paid plus 6 percent simple interest, Knepper said.

If the easement is not repurchased, it changes to perpetuity, he said.

Only three of the 35 easements secured by the Farmland Trust in its first five years were term easements.

Karen Martynick, the trust's executive director, said the trust does not pay landowners to update their term easements to perpetual ones.

One of the farm agreements is being changed to a perpetual easement.

The other two farms are in Penn and East Hempfield townships.

"Our goal is to update the 25-year easements and we think we will be able to do that," Martynick said today.

There are additionally two easements jointly held by the trust and preserve board, which fall under the restrictions outlined in the preserve board program.

Those landowners would have to file a notarized document with the recorder of deeds stating the term limit has passed and the property is no longer encumbered by the easement, according to the trust.

The preserve board has preserved 715 farms in the county. The trust has preserved 290 farms.

CONTACT US: rrobinson@LNPnews.com or 481-6032