EXCLUSIVE AGRICULTURAL ZONING: A VIABLE PLANNING TOOL FOR RHODE ISLAND?

This project assesses the suitability of state mandated exclusive agricultural zoning for Rhode Island. First, the state's previous attempts at agricultural preservation are discussed. The limitations of the acquisition and use value assessment approaches are emphasized . The problems of critical areas as an agricultural preservation tool are raised . The project then develops criteria that an agricultural preservation policy in Rhode Island must meet . The policy chosen must preserve all the state's prime and unique agricultural land. Preservation action must come soon, or large portions of the state's remaining farmland will be lost. It is stressed that an agricultural preservation policy must conflict minimally with the state's housing needs and political tradition of local control of land use. Various land management techniques are measured against these critieria. It is found that state controlled zoning , agricultural districts and Transfer of Development Rights are unsuitable for Rhode Island. Purchase of Development Rights have potential , but it appears that they will be inadequately funded. State mandated exclusive agricultural zoning does appear an alternative for Rhode Island. Based on the British Columbian experience and a bill in California, the process by which state mandated exclusive agricultural zoning

assessment approaches are emphasized . The problems of critical areas as an agricultural preservation tool are raised .
The project then develops criteria that an agricultural preservation policy in Rhode Island must meet . The policy chosen must preserve all the state's prime and unique agricultural land.
Preservation action must come soon, or large portions of the state's remaining farmland will be lost. It is stressed that an agricultural preservation policy must conflict minimally with the state's housing needs and political tradition of local control of land use.
Various land management techniques are measured against these critieria.
It is found that state controlled zoning , agricultural districts and Transfer of Development Rights are unsuitable for Rhode Island. Purchase of Development Rights have potential , but it appears that they will be inadequately funded. State mandated exclusive agricultural zoning does appear an alternative for Rhode Island. iii

Introduction
In this chapter, existing and proposed agricultural preservation legislation in Rhode Island will be reviewed. The limitations of these policies in meeting the goal of agricultural preservation will be discussed. In addition to dealing with the problems of the specific acts, some general issues of the conceptual approach behind these acts will be raised. Thus, problems inherent in a particular law will be distinguished from those related to the philosophy behind that law.
First however, the issue of agricultural preservation will be set in its historical context. This will be done through a brief summary of agricultural land use trends in the state. In addition, the importance of agriculture to Rhode Island will be stressed. show that it is in the state's interest to preserve these lands.

II
The Importance of Agriculture to Rhode Island Since, as will be seen, agriculture plays such a minor role in the state's economy, its importance may be questioned. Agriculture however is valuable to the state both as an economically productive form of open space and for its intrinsic values.
Agriculture can fulfill many of the functions of open space.
Since some of the state's farmland coincides with acquifer recharge areas, preserving it can help protect the state's groundwater supplies.
Agricultural preservation can also be a form of flood control since it provides land for storm water runoff and protects some floodplains from development. It can also be used to help shape urban growth. Farmland adds variety to state's landscape and can be aesthetically pleasing.
Some of the values of agricultural land are economically significant. For example, costly damage may occur to structures built on floodplains. If the state's groundwater supplies aren't effectively protected, expensive forms of water supply such as surface reservoirs may have to be developed. Since tourism is an important part of Rhode Island's economy, it is essential that the state remain aesthetically attractive.
Agriculture is also intrinsically important to Rhode Island.
Local farms can readily supply the state with fresh produce. Goods such as dairy products are expensive to safely ship long distances.
The real value of Rhode Island agriculture may be in the future.
According to a recent report by the Deans of Agriculture of the New England Land Grant Universities, higher transportation costs may result in exhorbitant food prices or even food shortages for the Northeast. 6 Rhode Island alone can do little to combat this trend. The state however contains some of the more productive farmlands in New England.
If the country does eventually face food shortages, all productive land will be. treasured. Were the other New England States to take similar measures to protect their better farmland, the region would be assured of producing at least a portion of its food needs.

III
The Green Acres Land Acquisition Act The Green Acres Land Acquisition Act~ 1964 (G.L.R.I. 32 -4-1-15) was the first major piece of legislation in Rhode Island that dealt with agricultural preservation, although it did so tangentally. The main purpose of the Green Acres act was to acquire land for public recreation and conservational purposes. Agriculture is considered as a land use suited for such purposes. (G.L.R.I. 32-4-3c) This act has been ineffective in preserving agriculture. Most 7 of the 13,000 acres purchased under the act has been woodland. The main problem in using this act to preserve agriculture is that farmland is rarely suited for recreational purposes. Crops usually suffer as a result of public access.
An approach similar to Green Acres could be developed emphasizing the public acquisition of agricultural land for agricultural purposes only. This approach has been proposed in various states. Its main advantage would be to guarantee that the land would not be converted to urban uses. Such an approach would have several limitations. One is that public acquisition is expensive. Rhode Islanders appear reluctant 4 at this point to spend large amounts of money on agricultural preservation. 8 Even if a public acquisition scheme were to be funded, this does not mean that the acquired land would continue to be farmed. This problem could be overcome by a leaseback arrangement to those farming the land prior to acquisition. Leasing land for agricultural purposes may require complex stipulations regarding the use of fertilizers, cultivation methods and other activities that may discourage farmers.
Assuming that a satisfactory leaseback scheme were developed that ensured that the land would continue to be farmed, public acquisition would still raise other issues. The publically acquired land would be removed from the tax rolls. While this fiscal impact may be mitigated by revenues earned by leasebacks, 9 it is unclear how much farmers would be willing to pay to lease land that was, in many cases, formerly theirs. The revenue loss will have to, in some cases, be made up by higher taxes for the rest of the municipality.
Since property taxes are generally regressive, this may be an inequitable way to preserve agriculture.
A more fundamental problem with a public acquisition scheme is that it runs against the American tradition of private ownership of 10 land.
This means that even if the instrinsic limitations of the approach could be overcome, it may not be politically acceptable to Rhode Island voters. 5 To summarize, the Green Acres act with its emphasis on recreational land was not an effective agricultural preservation technique. Although a public acquisition approach to preserving agriculture would have the advantage of permanently protecting the land from urban encroachment, such a scheme has several limitations. One is that it would probably not be adequately funded. In addition, it would entail a complex leaseback arrangement to the farmers and remove land from the tax rolls.
Finally, an acquisition approach is probably incongruent with American political values concerning private land ownership.

IV
The Farm, Forest and Open Space Act The next major piece of agricultural preservation legislation passed in Rhode Island was the Farm Forest and Open Space Act of 1968, (G.L.R.I. 44-27-1-6.) This act is an example of the use value assessment appraoch to agricultural preservation. Use value assess-· ment is a response to the high property taxes that are of ten assessed on farmland.
To understand use value value assessment, some background on property taxation techniques is helpful. Land in the United States is normally taxes at its market value, a practice known as ad valorem assessment. This means that a parcel of farmland that might be worth 1,000 dollars an acre if its use were restricted to agriculture, while it would be worth 10,000 dollars an acre if developed into residential or commercial uses, would be assessed as if it were worth 10,000 dollars. Thus, under ad valorem assessment the farmer may incur a very heavy tax burden. Such taxes may at times render profitable farm operation impossible.
Under use value assessment, land is taxed at its actual not potential use. This may make farming more profitable and thus make it less likely that the land would be converted to a higher use.

6
Under the Rhode Island Farm Forest and Open Space Act, the municipalities may at their discretion give the owners of open land 1 including farmland, the option of use value assessment . The act includes a tax deferral or roll back clause which specifies that if the land is converted to a higher use while under use value assessment, the owner is subject to taxes that would have been paid under ad valorem assessment for the year of the change in use and the two previous years. This clause was meant as a further deterrent to converting the land to a higher use.
The act has been minimally used by the towns and thus has generally been ineffective in preserving agricultural land. 11 One reason the towns have been reluctant to give landowners the option of use value assessment is that would mean lower tax revenues. This is particularly true in the few towns that have significant amounts of farmland. Here, then=would either be a large loss of revenue or a heavy tax shift onto the town's more developed properties. This could increase taxes for those owning urbanized land. The critical area approach may appear reasonable on its face.
Local government control of land use may, at times, mean that valuable land use features won't be preserved. As discussed above in the case of agriculture, there are economic, ecological and aesthetic costs of allowing these features to be destroyed. The state has asserted its interest in areas such as wetlands and the coastal zone.
Critical areas could be considered the logical extension of this assertion.
Critical areas, as proposed in Rhode Island, encourage state regulation of considerable amounts of land now under local control.
It is uncertain exactly how much land would be subject to state control.
since designation of critical areas is an on-going process and areas may be designated as the need arises. Equally uncertain, are the land use standards that the state will mandate for the different areas. Thus, the state has a rather vague discretion over local land use.
This discretion makes an accurate assessment of the ramifications of critical areas difficult. As Robert H. Nelson points out: Based on historical experience, it seems almost a rule that new land use controls will eventually be used for purposes never intended by their designers. Court interpretations, popular pressures and other factors tend to be just as important, perhaps more important than designer intent in determining the fate of land use controls.16 Critical areas should be reviewed with this caveat in mind. In their current form, they appear subject to abuse.
Assuming that critical areas are desirable for Rhode Island, questions remain about their efficacy for agricultural preservation, As will be seen, the state's prime agricultural land is dispersed meaning that several designations would be required before all of it would be preserved. Given the state's broad discretion, there is no guarantee that all or even any of the state's prime agricultural lands would be designated.
Critical areas contain no provision for use value assessment.
As stated above, this is an essential part of any land regulatory technique aimed at agricultural preservation. High taxes may drive the farmer out of business. Idle farmland will, within a few years, be covered with secondary growth making it expensive and often economically impractical to return to agricultural uses. Also, as will be mentioned in Chapter V, legal challenges of taking could be raised.
To summarize, although critical areas as a concept may have merit, they also have several problems. Their scope is uncertain and their ramifications are unknown. Even if the critical areas section of the Land Management Bill were passed, there is no guarantee that prime agricultural land would be preserved.

Conclusions
Rhode Island does not at this point have an effective agricultural preservation policy. Green Acres was not primarily intended to preserve agriculture and it appears that an acquisition approach is not viable, at least in Rhode Island. Although use value assessment, as authorized in the Farm, Forest and Open Space Act, is an essential part of a regulatory (as opposed to acquisition) preservation technique, it alone will not preserve agriculture in Rhode Island. Based on the experience of other states, it appears unlikely that use value assessment can deter someone who wants to from developing his/her land. Critical areas, in their proposed Rhode Island form, have limitations both as a general planning technique and as an agricultural preservation tool.
One of the major limitations of the techniques reviewed here may be that they do not reflect Rhode Island's needs. In areas with a different political culture and socio-economic conditions, an acquisition approach to agricultural preservation might be feasible. In more rural areas, use value assessment might be viable with only minor modifications, In areas where there is a tradition of strong state land use control, critical areas could have merit.
The first step to developing an agricultural preservation policy for Rhode Island is to determine what needs this policy must meet.
The following chapter will suggest some criteria that can be used to evaluate an agricultural preservation policy. Then, techniques use, and proposed elsewhere in the United States and Canada will be measured against these criteria, An effective agricultural preservation policy must be congruent with the state's needs. It must reflect specific socio--economic and land use conditions. This chapter will indicate economic, demographic, housing, political and land use conditions relevant to agricultural 15 preservation. Specific criteria which a state agricultural preservation policy must meet will be drawn from these conditions.

Economic Conditions
The section will review economic conditions relevant to agricultural preservation in Rhode Island. These will include the urban orientation of the state's economy, employment trends and the economic significance of agriculture. The implications of these factors will be discussed. Rhode Island is a highly urbanized state. Its population is 91.3 percent urban and only eight towns, (Glocester, Foster, West Greenwich, Middletown, Exeter, Charlestown, New Shoreham and Newport) are not within a SMSA. 1 Most of the state's employment opportunities are in urban areas. The major employment sectors are manufacturing and government respectively. 2 Agriculture is a very minor employer, less than one percent of the state's labor force is primarily engaged .

in arming.
Unemployment is a major concern of many in the state. Although the unemployment rate has been dropping since its peak in 1973, it is still above the national average. 4 It is understandable then that the creation of sufficient, suitable, employment opportunities for the labor force and a "reversal of the existing unemployment trend will continue to dominate the activities of the state's government. 115 The highly urbanized population, the relatively low economic significance of agriculture and the high unemployment rate implies that agricultural preservation may have a low priority in Rhode Island. This does not mean that there is a lack of interest in preserving farmland, rather that it is not a major focus of state policy as it is in Hawaii, New York and California. Thus, a successful agricultural preservation policy in Rhode Island must recognize that the state has other priorities. This recognition can be achieved by minimizing conflicts with these priorities. For example, a conflict could arise over the allocation of major sums of money for agricultural 16 preservation that could be used for other programs. Thus, one criterion for agricultural preservation in Rhode Island is that the technique chosen not require extensive expenditures.
To summarize, Rhode Island is a highly urbanized state. It has a higher than average unemployment rate and agriculture plays a very minor role in the state's economy. Agricultural preservation has a relatively low priority in the state. This implies that an effective agricultural preservation policy must conflict minimally with other state policies. Specifically, an important criterion for an agricultural preservation policy is that the technique be as inexpensive as possible so that it will not divert funds from other needed state programs.

Demographic Conditions
This section will discuss demographic trends relevant to agricultural preservation in Rhode Island. Specifically, population movements will be examined. These trends may serve an an indicator of the state's general economic conditions and explain in part why the demand for rural land is increasing. The implications of these trends for agricultural preservation will be emphasized. Rhode Island as a whole has lost population since 1970. The population of the state as of July 1, 1976   This section will review agricultural land use characteristics relevant to developing a preservation policy. First, the amounts of farmland in the state will be given. Tentative definitions of prime and unique land will be developed and the acreages of each will be indicated. The reasons why only these lands will be protected by the state will be explained. The locations of the state's prime land will be listed. The section will then discuss why all the state's prime and unique land must be protected.

25
It must be emphasized that Rhode Island does not have large amounts of productive farmland. Under a very broad definition that included uses such as heath and the powerline rights of way, William MacConnel estimated that 13 percent of the state was in agriculture. 11 There were only 45,801 acres of agricultural land in intensive uses, (tilled, cranberry bogs, orchards and nurseries,) or 6.5 percent of the land area of the state. 12 Only a portion of this intensive land is capable of sustaining significantly profitable farm operations.
The most socially and economically valuable farmlands in the state are the prime a nd unique lands . It is difficult to define prime a gr:i'cultural land since there are many factors that may make a given parcel of land productive . The d e finitional problem will be dealt with in greater detail later in this thesis-project. A working definition 26 of prime farmland could be the land currently being farmed or which could readily be put into agricultural uses that has soils and operating characteristics that make it the most suited land for agriculture in the state.
Unique agricultural land is relatively easy to define. It is the land whose soils may not be the best, but still produces a rare or 13 needed crop.
The only land that would be considered unique in Rhode This implies that all the state's prime and unique land must be permanently preserved. It also re-iterates the criterion mentioned above that action on an agricultural preservation policy for Rhode Island must come soon.
This section will now discuss the location of the state's prime agricultural land and the implications this may have for a preservation policy. Rhode Island's prime land is in three major clusters, one in western Cranston, Johnston and S:ituate, another in North Kingstown, S'.luth Kingstown and Exeter and one in Tiverton and Little Compton.
There are also smaller tracts in Westerly, lbpkinton, Cumberland and Coventry.
Agricultural land in Rhode Island is thus dispersed and in relatively small clusters. This implies that if the state is committed to preserving its farmlands, it must take a statewide approach. The towns have not been preserving the prime and unique lands on their own. Although state guided preservation may interfere with the tradition of local control, it is necessary in this case.
As indicated earlier, ways must be found to minimize and mitigate the impact of this state control.
To summarize, Rhode Island does not have large amounts of farmland and only about 13,000 acres of prime and unique land. Due to its scarcity, all prime and unique agricultural land in the state must 28 be permanently limited to agricultural uses. This land must be controlled by the state since the towns have been unable or unwilling to preserve it on their own.
One criterion drawn from this discussion of the state's farmland is that all prime and unique land must be permanently preserved from non-farm development. Another criterion is that effective preservation action will only come from the state level. The scarcity of prime and unique land further emphasizesthat action to pre serve the state's farmland must come soon.

16
Ibid. After this review , the first phase of the agricultural preservation policy proposed here for Rhode Island will be presented. The state's prime and unique agricultural lands must be identified. The problems entailed in this phase will be discussed and some guidelines for identification will be suggested. Then, the process by which the lands would be restricted from development will be explained . There will then be a short discussion of how and when development would be permitted on the restricted lands . land best suited for producing food, feed, forage ornamental plants , sod fiber, and oilseed crops and also available for these uses: (the land could be cropland, pastureland, forest land, or other land but not urban built-up land or water). It has the soil quality, growing season, and moisture supply needed to produce sustained high yields of crops economically when treated and managed, including water management, according to modern farming methods. 13 A major problem with the SCS definition is that it does not indicate the actual use of the land. The ambiguous term "or available for these uses" needs clarification. What constitutes availability? As discussed in Chapter I, fallow agricultural land will within a few years become covered with secondary growth. A more precise definition might specify that the land either be in agriculture or be available for agricultural uses with a minimum of site preparation. This would reduce the likelihood of land requiring extensive clearing being considered as 9rime.
The SCS term "high yields" needs clarification. One approach that has been recommended is to develop an index of relative productivity. 14 Only the most productive lands in the state should be considered prime. The index should measure the productivity of all plant and animal products produced for commercial purposes.
This would allow for uses not always considered agricultural such as turf to be included in the definition. Land in turf is valuable since it could be converted back to the production of food.
Although some reasonably clear guidelines for the definition of prime agricultural land have been advocated here, the definition must be flexible at the same time. Agricultural technology is subject to change, this means that at some future date different lands may be considered prime . 15 Thus, the legislative mandate to the agency responsible for definition might stipulate that revisions will be necessary if there are significant changes in agricultural techniques.
To summarize, the prime agricultural land definition used for exclusive agricultural zoning must reflect Rhode Island's needs.
Although the legislature itself could not classify the prime and unique lands in the state, it can designate an agency to carry out this task and give this agency some general guidelines on how these lands might be defined. The SCS definition would be inadequate since it encompasses much land currently in agriculture and includes land that is relatively unproductive.

The Restriction of Development from the Classified Lands
Once the agricultural land inventory had been completed, the towns with prime and unique land would be required to enact ordinances prohibiting development on these lands . Similar to the Maine Shorelands Law, the state would enact ordinances for prime and unique lands not protected by the municipalities. Other types of development would be allowed in unusual circumstances. For example, non-agricultural uses should be permitted during a national or state emergency "for a facility or activity which is necessary for public health, safety or welfare. 1116 Public utilities should also be permitted if the consequences of using alternative sites were found more disruptive than using farmaland.
For example, prime agricultural land should not take precedence over a residential area or a critical natural resource. Since much of Rhode Island's farmland is surrounded by woodland or wasteland, it would usually be easy to find alternative sites for public utilities.
Since not all circumstances in which farmland might be needed 53 for other uses can be anticipated, it appears than an agricultural land appeals process is necessary. This could be done through the Agricultural Preservation Advisory Commission. The Commission would hear requests for exclusion from the prime and unique land classification. Exclusions would be granted only when a town could prove that a classification caused a major hardship to the community as a whole.
This would give exclusive agricultural zoning the flexibility needed to permit non-agricultural uses of prime and unique land should some unexpected event occur.
To summarize, only farm related development would be normally permitted on prime and unique agricultural lands. Emergency facilities would be allowed as well as public utilities if alternative sites were unfeasible.
Since unforeseen events in the future may make a prime or unique classification unreasonable, an appeals process to request exclusion from such a classification would be necessary. to local communities with prime and/or unique land will be discussed.

IV
The subventions are proposed to remove the burden placed on the towns by use value assessment.
As has been discussed, use value assessment would be an essential part of any agricultural preservation policy under the police power.
In 1975 One implication of this high tax rate is that farm value assessment will mean a considerable reduction in tax revenues for communities with prime and/or unique land . Since it is the state that has required the towns to preserve these lands, it seems reasonable that the state mitigate the local tax losses. Only a few towns have significant amounts of prime and unique land and yet the whole state benefits from these lands. Therefore, the state as a whole could share the costs of preservation.

56
The subvention program as proposed here will probably generate several criticisms. One is that the program may be abused by the towns . Knowing that subventions will be part of upcoming legislation, they may increase assessments on their prime and unique lands, there -by en~oying extra revenue when the subsidies begin. This problem could be overcome with a subsidy formula that p aid the towns on the basis of the assessment two years previous to enactment of the bill.

Introduction
In this chapter, the legality of exclusive agricultural zoning will be discussed. The case law reviewed indicates that exclusive agricultural zoning would probably be upheld as a valid exercise of the police power by the Rhode Island court.
Since the main challenge to the legislation proposed in this thesis-project would be the taking of private property without just compensation, most of the cases cited concern taking. The factors a court may consider in determining if a taking has occurred will be reviewed.
First, it will be shown that courts are reluctant to intervene in leqislative matters and are more prone to uphold regulations with an explicitly stated public purpose. Then, through a survey of cases, the importance of diminished property values in assessing a taking 61 will be emphasized.
Since there are currently no exclusive agricultural zoning ordinances in Rhode Island, cases from other states will be reviewed. It will be shown that exclusive agricultural zoning has been upheld as a valid exercise of the police power.
Agriculture will be considered here as a natural resource. This will allow parallels to be drawn between national natural resources preservation cases and those in Rhode Island. From these parallels and the review of factors considered in determining taking, the reactions of the Rhode Island court to exclusive agricultural zoning will be predicted.
It should be cautioned that this chapter cannot reach a final conclusion on the legality of exclusive agricultural zoning. This is because it is difficult to predict a court's reaction to a given land use regulation. Precedents in land use law do not offer as much guidance as they do in other fields. As one commentator has said,"each case has seemingly resulted in a new rule which is abandoned in the succeeding case."l A regulation is more likely to be upheld however if it meets some of the general guidelines discussed in this chapter.

II Court Attitudes Towards Intervention in Legislative Matters
The This court has had occasion in the past to point out that by its very nature zoning interferes with and restricts the right of the property owner to devote his property to uses that would be proper at common law .... Nevertheless such ... restrictions will be countenanced if the regulation out of which they arise constitute a valid exercise of the police power in that they tend to promote the public health, safety, morals and the general welfare.  Another factor that courts look at in determining taking is whether the property is left a reasonable economic use. In Dooley ~· Town Planning and Zoning Commission for example, the court ruled that a floodplain ordinance reduced the land to a practically unusable state and thus constituted a taking. 11 Courts however are beginning to look more at other factors.
This can be seen in Brecciaroli v. Connecticut Commissioner of Environmental Protection. Here, it was emphasized that the police power may properly regulate the use of property where the uncontrolled use would be harmful to the public interest. The case stated that taking must be determined on the facts "of each case with consideration being given not only to the degree of diminution in the value of the land, but also to the nature and degree of public harm to be prevented and the alternatives avail-12 able to landowner." To summarize, although diminution of value is a factor considered by the courts in determining a taking, many other factors are involved.
If the public interest is a stake and the property is left a reasonable economic use, courts are less orone to claim a taking.
If the regulation includes mitigating measures such as lower taxes, courts are more likely to U?hold it.

IV Exclusive Agricultural Zoning Cases in Other States
This section will review court reaction to agricultural zones in other states. It will be shown that such zones have been upheld by courts as a valid exercise of the police power. According to Norman Williams, recent cases have recoqnized agriculture as a "normal use which (if feasible) is quite sufficient to satisfy the requirement that the regulations must permit some reasonable use of the land. " 13 Agricultural zoning has been upheld even in cases where more intensive uses c ould earn significantly higher rent. In Chevron Oil Co. ~· Beaver County for examp le, land zoned for grazing was upheld over highway service land although the former was worth twPnty to thirty dollars an acre while the later was worth $10,000 an acre.
The court was aware that the plainfliffs had purchased the land for .
The court said: "we see nothing arbitrary or discriminatory in the refusal to rezone the plaintiff 's land. They bought grazing 15 land and they still own grazing land." This see~s part of a national trend of courts judging land less on its speculative value.
This is important to agricultural preservation in Rhode Island since it appears that many owners of farmland are interested in its potential value for other uses.
It is important however to be aware of the facts behind Chevron.
The ordinance was not upheld to preserve scarce natural resources, but to prevent development from occurring around a highway interchange that would compete with an established Central Business District.
In Oregon , an agricultural zone was upheld in an area that the plaintiff testified was not well suited for agriculture. The court responded: "Hence, the plaintiffs tacitly admit that their property can be beneficially used for agricultural purposes, albeit not as suitably or economically as before the change. 1116 Exclusive agricultural zoning would probably not be upheld for a parcel of land unsuited for farming. This can be seen in the Wisconsin case, Kmiec ~· Town of Spider Lake where the court ruled against an agricultural zone on land that had not been farmed for eleven years. They said the most frequent judicial interference with land use regulations occurs when the court concludes "the property in question is unfit for the use to which the ordinance restrl . cts i' t.,, l 7 Th· · h th d f · · t · d 1 d is is one reason w y e e ini ions eve ope for prime and unique agricultural land, as discussed in Chapter IV, are so important. If the definitions encompassed lands unfit for agriculture, the regulation might not be upbeld.
Exclusive agricultural zoning ordinances on the municipal and county level have been upheld in California.
In Gisler ~· County of Madera , such an ordinance was deemed reasonable in object, not arbitrary in operation and a valid exercise of the police power.
The court commented that the State legislative policies strongly favor agricultural zones. Although the property had been platted for 2 1/2 acre lots in 1913, it had continued to remain in 18 agriculture. To summarize, agriculture has been considered by the courts as a reasonable economic use . This means that if land zoned for agriculture is suitable for that purpose, an exclusive agricultural zoning ordinance would probably not be considered a taking. Courts have also upheld the down zoning of land to agriculture from higher uses .

v Natural Resource Preservation Cases
This section will draw parallels between some major natural resource preservation cases across the country and those in Rhode Island. The attitude of the Rhode Island court toward land use regulation will be discussed. A tentative prediction on the court's reaction to exclusive agricultural zoning will be postulated.
As mentioned above, the courts are paying less attention to the diminution of value in determining taking.
In fact, a new theory of taking has evolved, the natural use theory. Courts have recognized that certain lands have limited natural uses and thus uphold regulations restricting more intensive uses from these lands.
An example of this reasoning can be seen in Just v. Marinette.
In this case, a strict shorelands ordinance was upheld. Stopping the despoilation of natural resources was seen in the public interest and was a valid exercise of the police power since it prevented a public harm rather than encouraging a public good which would have fallen under eminent domain. 21 The changing philosophy of the courts is reflected in the statement: An owner of land has no absolute and unlimited right to change the essential natural character of his land so as to use it for a purpose for which it was unsuited in its natural state and which injures the rights of others.22 Similar reasoning was used in Potomac Sand and Gravel Co. v.
Governor of Maryland. This case upheld strict regulations protecting wetlands. Emphasizing the ecological and economic importance of wetlands, the court said: "The current trend is for the courts to consider the preservation of natural resources as a valid 23 exercise of the police power." There are relatively few environmental cases in Rhode Island.

24
The taking question is comparatively unsettled in this state.
According to Norman Williams however, the Rhode Island court is usually very solicitous to developers rights. 25 In spite of this, there have been cases in the state upholding the preservation of natural resources. One is J.M. Mills~ Murphy.
The plaintiffs wanted to rechannel part of the Blackstone River. They allude to the natural use concept, but it is not clear that they fully accept it.
The natural use argument is also alluded to in the Superior Court case John Lyons et al ~· Nancy Filmore. Here, a regulation that prevented a landowner from building on beachfront property was u~held.
Citing Turnpike Realty Co. v . ~~Dedham, the court said that substantial diminution of value may not render a regulation an unconstitutional deprivation of property. 28 The court also quoted the Just reasoning cited above about the defendants having no right to alter the natural character of the land.
In the John Lyons case, property values were greatly diminished but a reasonable use, that of recreation remained. If the Rhode Island courts continue to apply such reasoning, it would seem likely that exclusive agricultural zoning would be upheld.
Agriculture would appear to be a reasonable use on the prime and unique agricultural lands. The courts' tendency to uphold statutes if reasonably possible, as seen in the Mills case, indicates that they would probably uphold exclusive agricultural zoning.
To summarize, there are several factors that lead to the conclusion that exclusive agricultural zoning would be a valid exercise of the police power in Rhode Island. Agriculture would appear a reasonable economic use . The legislative findings of the bill could state that prime and unique lands are naturally best suited for farming so that the natural use argument could be used. Courts will uphold statutes when reasonably possible .

Conclusions
From this review of national and Rhode Island case law, it appears as though an exclusive agricultural zoning ordinance would not be construed a taking by the Rhode Island court. This would seem particularly likely if only prime and unique lands were restricted to agriculture . Precise definitions of prime and unique are necessary not only to assure that the land zoned for agriculture is guaranteed a reasonable economic use, but also to reduce the chances of the ordinance being construed as arbitrary.
An exclusive agricultural zoning bill should stress the values and functions of prime and unique land. The public interest in agricultural preservation must be clearly emphasized in the bill's legislative findings.
Courts are reluctant to overturn regulations related to a valid public purpose.
It will be cautioned again that a court's reaction to a given regulation cannot be predicted. This means that any conclusion reached here that exclusive agricultural zoning would be upheld by the Rhode Island court is tentative. A final conclusion cannot be reached until the regulation is challenged in court. The general political acceptability of the technique to the state's voters will also be discussed. In addition, the normative implications of requiring farm owners to sacraf ice the right to develop will also be raised. Some on the non-land related factors that may discourage farming will be mentioned.

II
The Housing Impacts of Exclusive Agricultural Zoning This section will discuss the housing impacts of exclusive agricultural zoning.
Reserving land for non-urban uses such as agricultural reduces the amount of land available for urban uses.
However, less than two percent of the state's land area would be zoned for agriculture exclusively, and there are other sources of undeveloped land in the state.
In some cases, more site preparation may be required for the non-agricultural lands than for farmland, but this is a minor portion of total building costs. would also be administrative costs.
As will be seen later in this chapter, other policies will have to be developed to complement exclusive agricultural zoning if agriculture is to be effectively preserved. The costs of these policies cannot be estimated here. It appears however that they would be less than those associated with development rights.

IV Exclusive Agricultural Zoning and Local Political Control
This section will assess the impact of exclusive agricultural zoning on the local government control of land use. Such a bill may be unpopular among some home rule advocates on account of its mandate to the localities to restrict prime and unique land to agricultural uses. It will be shown however that it is a comparatively minor assertion of state authority.
Exclusive agricultural zoning is a clear intrusion into an area traditionally the concern of muncipalities in Rhode Island.  There are dangers involved however in evaluating the merits of a policy solely on the basis of its political acceptability.
Responsible policy making demands that other factors be taken into account. An important factor may be the equity issue of requiring a minority to suffer for the majority's benefit. This issue will be discussed in the next section.

VI Agricultural Preservation and Landowner Rights
This section will deal with the impact of exclusive agricultural zoning on the landowner and the farmer. First, there will be a general discussion of the issue of private sacrifice for the public good with particular reference to the public trust doctrine. The issue will then be set in the context of agricultural preservation. It will also be shown that land regulations alone will not assure the preservation of agriculture. Under the public trust doctrine, the state may retain certain rights over privately held land such as the right to develop.
The stress of the doctrine is one the public benefits of resource preservation not on the individual's right to maximize his/her personal profit.
In the words of Governor Richard Lamm of Colorado: We must consider our land as a precious natural resource, not a commodity to be sold or traded, and we must turn inward toward spiritual and education rewards and less to materialistic rewards.5 Difficulties arise when this doctrine is applied to agricultural Section one will first deal with criticisms that the legislation proposed here may be overly rigid to take local needs into account.
Then, arguments that the legislation does not go far enough to protect agricultural lands will be reviewed. The reasons for the technique's proposed scope will be reiterated. The issue of landowner rights discussed in Chapter VI will be summarized and set in perspective.
Section two will show the limitations of this thesis-project and indicate the prerequisites needed if an exclusive agricultural zoning bill is to be introduced into the General Assembly. The limitations will be focused on areas requiring further research as follows: developing a comprehensive agricultural policy for Rhode Island and a study of the political feasibility of exclusive agricultural zoning. One prerequisite to such a bill being introduced into the legislature is a catalyst to increase public interest and commitment to agricultural preservation. It will be recommended here that this be done through the creation of a Governor's Commission on Agriculture. Another prerequisite is extensive clarification of the procedure by which exclusive agricultural zoning would be implemented.
Section three will assess the viability of exclusive agricultural zoning. Its limitations and advantages will be restated.
It will be compared to its alternatives. A summary recommendation about the technique will be offered to state officials.

Some Criticisms of Exclusive Agricultural Zoning
Two possible criticisms of exclusive agricultural zoning will be discussed. One is that the technique is too rigid to respect local needs. The other is that it is insufficient to protect the agricultural land in the state. An attempt is also made to balance the impact of the legislation on the landowner against the needs of the state as a whole. uses on farmland, such as storm water run-off from a parking lot, been considered by the proposed legislation.
One reason that exclusive agricultural zoning has not been given a broader scope is for possible legal challenges of taking.
Another reason is out of respect for the tradition of local control.
Also, since the profit derived from the other farmlands is minimal, development restrictions without compensation would be inequitable. Island, these needs must be met . They include readily accessible information on the importance of agriculture to Rhode Island and the components of a comprehensive agricultural policy. The author believes that these issues would be most effectively addressed through a Governor's Commission on Rhode Island Agriculture. In addition, a detailed study on the political feasibility of exclusive agricultural zoning is needed. Also, before such a bill is drafted, considerable clarification of its mechanics is needed.
One of the major impediments that an agricultural preservation policy faces in Rhode Island is lack of interest. Although concern about agricultural preservation has been increasing, few in the 1 state are deeply committed to the idea.
Agricultural preservation thus needs a catalyst to action. The Coastal Resources Management Council Act was sparked, at least in part, by a 1969 report to the Governor on the importance of the coastal zone to Rhode Island. 2 The cause of agriculture in Rhode Island might be helpful by a similar report.
The Governor could, as was done before the CRMC Act was passed, appoint a special technical committee on Rhode Island agriculture.
This committee would have two goals. One would be to produce a report on the importance of agriculture to Rhode Island. The other would be to determine what needs a comprehensive agricultural policy should meet.
A report on the importance of agriculture would have to go far beyond what has been stressed in this project. It would have to include the importance of agricultural lands to future generations as well as its ecological, economic and aesthetic attributes. The costs and benefits of agricultural preservation should be clearly 94 delineated. The report should be in a readable form so that interested citizens as well as state officials and professionals will understand it. Although such a report will not ensure the preservation of agriculture by itself, it will at least give the issue increased publicity. To summarize, many tasks remain before an exclusive agricultural zoning bill can be introduced into the state legislature. The tasks of emphasizing the importance of agriculture to Rhode Island and developing a comprehensive agricultural policy would be most effectively performed by a Governor's Commission on Agriculture.
The political issues would be best explored by a consumer and university group working with legislators. The procedural problems could be explored by a technical team reporting to the legislative subcommittee responsible for the bill.

III
A Final Assessment on the Viability of Exclusive Agricultural Zoning for Rhode Island This section will make a final assessment on the suitability of exclusive agricultural zoning for Rhode Island. This will be done by first reviewing the technique in terms of the criteria developed in Chapter II. A more general discussion will follow with some caveats about the technique's application. Then, a concluding judgement on the technique will be made.
As seen in Chapter V, exclusive agricultural zoning generally does meet the criteria delineated in this project for an agricultural preservation tool in Rhode Island. It can permanently protect all the state's prime and unique agricultural lands from non-farm development.
It does not require an extensive reordering of state and local planning procedures, (as would Transfer of Development Such a report would have several parts. One would be a scientifically conducted opinion poll on exclusive agricultural zoning. Another could study the proposed Assembly Bill 15 in California and the Land Commission Act in British Columbia. The focus should be on who were the opponents and proponents of these bills. An attempt should be made to see if comparable interest group configurations exist in Rhode Island. Another section of the report could examine in detail the Rhode Island reaction to other restrictive land use legislation such as the Coastal Resources Management Act.