A new, voluntary approach to preserving Idaho farmland could be available for counties and cities to offer at the start of 2025.

“That is our goal, to have an additional tool in Idaho’s ag-land preservation toolbox ready to go by Jan. 1, 2025,” said Braden Jensen, Idaho Farm Bureau Federation governmental affairs director.

Agricultural protection areas are the centerpiece of House Bill 377, proposed at the end of the 2023 legislative session as a “marker” for lawmakers to preview ahead of next year.

The bill can be modified based on stakeholder feedback, Jensen said. For example, changes could be made to incorporate suggestions from municipalities, developers and building associations or to accommodate smaller parcels such as urban commercial gardens. He continues to gather input following presentations he made to House and Senate agriculture committees late in the legislative session, which ended April 6.

Sources of that input include Farm Bureau chapter members and other agriculture organizations, and county soil and water conservation district directors — whom the bill taps for boards that would review protection area applications.

“And we are exploring other states and what they have done” in protecting agricultural land, Jensen said.

Idaho law already provides for conservation easements in perpetuity, and for the transfer of development rights. State law also protects the right to farm.

HB 377 does not call for a legislative appropriation, but it would create a fund to receive money from various sources, including the federal government and donations.

State money could be added to the fund later based on legislative consideration, speakers said at a May 16 forum hosted by American Farmland Trust Idaho program leaders. AFT provides information but does not advocate for legislation.

If the bill passes, Farm Bureau will track agricultural protection area applications and fund usage, Jensen said.

“We’ve gotten clear policy direction from members that this is a priority issue,” he said.

“It’s not our intention to stop development,” Jensen said. “We want to proactively plan for production agriculture.”

The idea is to provide protection to producers who want it and give municipalities an additional planning tool, he said. Agricultural protection areas would appear in land-use maps and planning documents.

The areas would also be protected from nuisance claims as long as generally recognized agricultural practices are followed. The areas could not be condemned via eminent domain absent a public health or safety need.

Local governments would receive applications — for agricultural protection over a renewable 20-year term, according to the bill — and approve or deny them after getting input from the review board.

Automatic approval would be granted if no action is taken within 120 days of the initial submission, a potential benefit to smaller counties with less staff.