CALGARY (Staff) – Posh housing developments setting up acreages on good farmland have some producers worried.
Groups like the Western Stock Growers and Alberta Cattle Commission are watching with dismay as they see farmland lost to Calgary and Edmonton, and other cities, which regularly approve sprawling suburbs and acreages.
Communities in the Alberta foothills are being hit the most, said Harvey Buckley of Cochrane at the stock growers annual meeting in Medicine Hat Dec. 1.
He said agriculture is not strongly represented on many municipal or county councils where these development decisions are approved.
Read Also
Interest in biological crop inputs continues to grow
It was only a few years ago that interest in alternative methods such as biologicals to boost a crop’s nutrient…
During sessions at the stock growers and ACC annual meetings, ranchers questioned how much advance planning goes into these communities and whether agriculture will become isolated around luxurious country homes and hobby farms.
Potential for conflict
Competition for land, water and conflicts over normal farm practices are possible.
These organizations say land is now viewed by cities and developers as a commodity rather than a resource, where little thought is going into planning new developments.
The concern arises from a review of the Alberta Planning Act which could give more authority to municipalities anxious to expand their tax bases.
Both livestock groups passed resolutions asking that the land planning act review committees manage land as a resource rather than a commodity.
Strong direction requested
Keith Everts of Pincher Creek is concerned about disappearing agriculture land along the eastern slopes near the Rocky Mountains. He presented a resolution to the ACC that asks government to provide strong direction to regional planning commissions to protect the province’s agriculture base.
He said tourism, recreation and acreage communities using agriculture land could usurp a way of life for the next generation. He suggested conservation easements on farmland, which would enforce limited use of designated property.
The resolution calling for conservation easements was defeated but delegates were sympathetic.
Kim Hanson of Cardston said he agreed with land management and planning, but said easements cause fragmentation of farmland rather than planned use.
Others said a restrictive covenant is better because an easement is absolutely binding and affects future needs of private property holders.
