Land trust warns state’s new scrutiny of farmland-protection grants is deterring Washington County owners

Chris Krailing, conservation programs manager at Agricultural Stewardship Association, told the Washington County Government Operations Committee that ASA submitted seven state farmland-protection grant applications this round, four of them in Washington County, and is still waiting to hear which projects will be funded.

Krailing said all of ASA’s recent applications were returned with “significant changes” required by the state agency that administers the grants, including tightened site-planning criteria, requests to carve out wooded parcels from easements, and demands for additional deeds or purchase‑contract records. “Every application that we submitted has been returned with significant changes in site planning,” he said. He added these new requirements appear to be statewide rather than unique to ASA’s submissions.

Committee members pressed Krailing on causes. He described a rise in complaints from nonfarm neighbors — about manure spreading, equipment on public roads and other routine farm activities — that AG & Markets may be trying to mitigate by insisting on larger buffers or stricter deed language. He said the result is that some landowners have withdrawn their applications or are reconsidering participation because the new constraints reduce flexibility and future options.

Krailing also discussed apparent inconsistencies in how the state treats forested land: in some cases the state is directing conservation groups to exclude woodlands from easements because they are not considered agricultural; elsewhere the state asks that wooded buffers remain to protect farm operations. “It’s gotten to the point where, in our opinion, it’s really detrimental to actually conserving the farmland,” he said.

He noted a recent state comptroller audit examined funding eligibility for AG & Markets and said the timing of that audit may be related to the heightened review of applications, though the audit did not, he said, directly address program implementation. Krailing said ASA is continuing to work with landowners but that the increased scrutiny is consuming staff time and may reduce the number of projects conserved: “We have had a couple of parcels that have withdrawn from the applications,” he said.

Why it matters: farmland-protection easements are a one-time real‑estate transaction that permanently restricts development on enrolled parcels; new, restrictive terms or inconsistent guidance can reduce landowner participation and change the conservation outcomes that the program is intended to secure.

Krailing offered committee members copies of ASA’s land-conservation plans and said ASA is applying for a state capacity grant to hire additional staff to expand outreach in northern parts of the county. He also fielded questions about agricultural eligibility — for example, whether a commercial maple operation qualifies — and said eligibility is judged on whether the activity is a commercial operation, not on a fixed numeric threshold.

The committee did not take formal action on the presentation. ASA will continue to work with applicants and the state as award notices are finalized.