Thirty years ago this spring, Lancaster County began a program to preserve its prime farmland from development. That program has grown into the nation's model.

The county has saved nearly 1,100 farms and about 85,300 acres — more than any other county in the country.

But that's only 20 percent of the county's total agricultural acreage, not sufficient, preservationists say, to ensure that the farming community will remain viable.

And now there are signs that the preservation program is changing in ways that may imperil its future.

• County government has significantly reduced the amount of money it borrows to preserve farms because of declining revenue during the recession.

• The county commissioners are promoting a pay-as-you-go approach to preservation that may limit future funding.

• And the private Lancaster Farmland Trust is reducing the acreage it preserves annually so that it can concentrate on monitoring farms already saved.

The county preservation program has reached a turning point, a Lancaster Newspapers investigation has found.

Public dollars available for preservation from all sources — county, state and federal — which peaked in 2001, fell significantly in 2009.

And the annual allocation — which this year is likely to total considerably less than $8 million from all sources when reported — may be the lowest since 1998.

The Farmland Trust, while it exceeded last year's goal for individual contributions, saw corporate and foundation support slip in a dismal economic climate.

Last year it spent considerably less to acquire new easements than in any year since 2004.

With less acreage being saved, Lancaster County for the first time in years faces uncertain preservation prospects.

"My board is concerned about the loss of momentum," says Matt Knepper, who directs the county's preservation program. "We don't want to leave farms that have been preserved isolated because we can't preserve farms around them."

Gene Garber, a West Donegal farmer who chairs the Preserve Board, shares Knepper's concern.

"We've got to continue the momentum or we could lose a lot of what we've gained," he observes. "We can't stop and pat ourselves on the back and say we've saved agriculture."

Preservationists are concerned by the funding cutback, but not alarmed, in part because the recession that has cut into preservation funds also has suppressed pressure to develop remaining farmland.

The number of development applications for agricultural land reviewed by the Lancaster County Planning Commission dropped from 176 in 2006 to 149 in 2007. Applications totaled 135 in 2008 and 137 in 2009.

But preservationists wonder what will happen when the economy revives and developers begin building again.

"If land values begin going up and there's less interest in the preservation program," says Karen Martynick, who directs the Farmland Trust, "that's a sure-fire formula for losing farmland."

• In April 1980, the county accepted the recommendation of a task force led by the late Millersville-area farmer Amos Funk and established an Agricultural Preserve Board.

The original plan called for limited purchase of easements, also known as deed restrictions, on farmland endangered by imminent development. In fact, all easements until 1984 were donated.

But as farmers became familiar with the program and more applied to join it, the county began purchasing easements.

After Pennsylvania voters approved borrowing $100 million for preservation in 1987 and Lancaster County voters approved $25 million bond issues in 1999 and 2006, the program moved more aggressively to preserve farms.

From 2000 to 2008, the Preserve Board saved an average of nearly 50 farms a year, peaking at 74 farms in 2001.

But in 2009, with reduced preservation funds from all sources, it saved only 30 farms.

In 2010, unless farmers accept rock-bottom payouts for easements, the county will preserve even fewer farms.

From 2000-2008, the Farmland Trust saved an average of nearly 24 farms a year.

But last year, by design, the organization preserved 17 farms.

In 2010, by design again, it plans to save relatively few farms.

The Preserve Board maintains a waiting list of farmers who would like to sell easements. There are about 220 names on the list.

More than 40 farmers are waiting to sell easements to the Farmland Trust.

But if fewer of these farmers can be accommodated over the next several years, preservationists fear, they may grow tired of waiting and sell their land to developers.

"To keep agriculture viable, we can't lose that momentum," says Ed Goodhart, a former Manor Township supervisor and an early Preserve Board chairman and current board member.

"If it's a one-year cutback, we'll be all right," he adds. "But if we cut back to this level and stay there, I don't think it's going to be enough to sustain the program and get the acreage we need to maintain agriculture and its support system."

James Adams, president and CEO of Wenger Feeds, one of the county's larger agri-businesses dependent on farmers for its existence, agrees.

"I don't think we're at critical mass yet," he says. "If we don't preserve enough farms and if we bow to the pressure to develop, the green space will not be here. We're going to be known for growing retirement villages rather than crops."

• Through the end of last year, the county had spent more than $174 million in county, state and federal funds to preserve farmland. More than half of that total — $91.8 million — came from the county itself.

Those figures do not include the $9.1 million the Farmland Trust has spent purchasing deed restrictions since 1988.

This year the county will spend $4.6 million to preserve farmland. The state recently announced that, based on county funding, it will add nearly $2 million more. Federal funding has not yet been announced, but may rise slightly to $1 million this year.

So the county commissioners, for the most part, determine the ultimate bottom line for preservation spending.

Why have the current commissioners reversed a recent trend toward increased funding?

"Needless to say, the reduced allocation is connected to the sour economy," says Commissioners Chairman Scott Martin. County revenues are down, so spending has been cut.

But the problem goes deeper than that, Martin notes. "Besides the sour economy, we also inherited a lot of capital needs that also have put a tremendous strain on our debt service."

The commissioner says servicing the debt, including borrowed agricultural preservation funds, puts added financial pressure on all county programs.

As for preservationists' concerns about possibly losing momentum, Martin again puts farmland preservation in perspective.

"In this environment, we have to worry about not losing momentum in everything we do," he says. "One positive of these tough times is that more individuals are taking bargain sales in order to get their farm preserved."

• "Bargain sales" may be the best bet for maintaining the number of farms preserved at something similar to recent levels.

"Unless the prices per acre go down significantly," says Knepper, "lower funding is going to mean that we're going to preserve some fewer farms."

Knepper hopes farmers who have been on the waiting list for years and are eager to preserve their land will sell their easements for considerably less than the average $3,000 or maximum $4,000 per acre.

If they do, the difference between the amount they're paid and the amount at which their easement is appraised may qualify as a charitable contribution and a tax deduction, Knepper notes.

Luke Brubaker, a leading farmer in East Donegal Township and one of its pioneer farm preservers, also hopes farmers will be willing to accept less for easements in a time of tight county finances.

"Even if they don't get the same dollars for preservation," he says, "they should still see the value because it's the right thing to do here in a county where we have top-notch soils."

Knepper cites other strategies to stretch preservation dollars.

He hopes to join with individual townships and the Farmland Trust in cooperative efforts to save farms, thereby extending the county's money to cover several extra farms.

"But that only goes so far," Knepper admits.

The state's hefty allocation will go farther.

And there's potentially more federal money for preservation this year, Knepper adds, because the current farm bill increased the pool and some counties don't care to get tied up in the red tape of federal loans.

Still, prospects for 2010 are limited.

And looking ahead?

"This year was a bigger reduction than the county planned last year, so I don't know about next year," Knepper says. "If things turn around in two or three years, I'm sure we'll be talking about additional money then."

But with the current cutbacks in funding, Farmland Trust's Martynick says, "We may lose the energy in the program. Just because farmland preservation is a priority now doesn't mean it will always be a priority."

jbrubaker@lnpnews.com