|
Farm and Ranch Land
and economic activity in Nevada. Agriculture only makes up a small portion of the gross state product, but it is important to rural counties. Almost 90 percent, or approximately $315 million of the total annual market value of agricultural products sold is generated within 14 rural counties, (excluding Carson City, Clark, and Washoe counties) (Table 4-3). The economic activity generated from agricultural production represents a substantial revenue source for rural economies in Nevada. Nearly all the agricultural products in Nevada are sold for export, so the agricultural sales provide an important source of income to rural communities.
Compared to national average of about 450 acres per farm, agriculture in Nevada is characterized by a small number of large acreage, family-owned operations (Table 4-4). Of the total private farmland, 81 percent is classified as rangeland and 13 percent as cropland. Of the cropland area, 62 percent is harvested and 31 percent is pastureland. The average farm size in 1997 is about half of that in 1978. During that period, the annual output from the farming sector doubled, growing from 70 to 142 million dollars (Nevada Agricultural Statistics Service, 2000).
About 40 percent of the state's total agricultural output is from animal production (Figure 4-5) (Nevada Agricultural Statistics Service, 2000). It is the largest sector in Nevada agriculture. A recently released study commissioned by the state Department of Agriculture documents a loss of over 475,000 animal unit months (i.e., the amount of forage consumed by a cow/calf pair or 5 ewe/lamb pairs in a 30 day period) of permitted public land grazing from 1980 through 1999.
Over the 19-year period, the level of permitted grazing decreased 16 percent (Resource Concepts Inc., 2001). The reasons for reducing permitted grazing are related to resource issues and grazing permit violations. Between 1982 and 1987, the inventory of Nevada cattle decreased from about 600,000 to 500,000, but has held close to that number since.
The inventory of Nevada sheep has fluctuated between 80,000 and 100,000 between 1987 and 1999. In 1999 the number of sheep was about 82,000, close to the 1987 number. Nearly 100 percent of the beef cows, sheep, and lamb raised in Nevada were produced on ranches with some dependency on federal public rangeland. Accordingly, federal policies and management have a direct economic effect on the animal production sector and rural county economies.
Of the land classified as cropland, 62 percent is cultivated for production of field and specialty crops (e.g., winter and spring wheat, barley, onions, garlic, and potatoes) and nearly 31 percent is pastureland. Approximately 75 percent of the farms in Nevada have access to irrigation, but in any given year only about 10 percent of the total farmland is irrigated (Table 4-5). Due to the arid climate and droughty soils, only a small portion of the land that is currently farmed in Nevada is considered prime crop or pastureland (Table 4-6) (Nevada Agricultural Statistics Service, 1999).
On-going trends in Nevada agriculture include increased output in horticultural products, high value row crops, and other less traditional enterprises. Traditional family farms and ranches have been facing increasing economic challenges and non-farm demand for their land and water resources. Nearly half (45 percent) of the farm operators in the state do not list farming or ranching as their principal occupation.
The number of small, specialty, and equine operations is increasing. Many small part-time operators are in agriculture to preserve their way of life. They may not sell any agricultural products, or provide product solely for local or niche type markets. Almost half (48 percent) of the Nevada farms had annual sales of less than $10,000 according to the 1997 Census of Agriculture.
While certain components of the state's agricultural industry are expanding, other traditional sectors such as livestock production have stagnated or receded over the past decade. Agricultural water rights and arable land are being purchased and converted to non-farm uses to meet the demands of a growing, diversifying urban and rural population. The demand for agricultural water rights to meet additional municipal and industrial uses in urban areas will probably grow, since water resources are approaching full commitment, and approximately 77 percent of the water consumed in Nevada is for agricultural purposes. Once water rights are transferred from irrigated cropland or pastures, implementation of a site-specific revegetation plan is crucial to avoiding environmental problems, such as soil erosion, air pollution from wind-blown particulates, and nonnative plant invasions.
The NRCS estimates that 2,136 acres of cropland were converted to residential, commercial, industrial, or transportation uses from 1992 and 1997, an eight percent share of the total amount of land developed. From 1987 to 1997, about 16 percent of the prime crop and pasture land in Nevada was taken out of production (Table 4-6) (U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2000). Available data is not sufficiently detailed to determine in which areas of the state and for what uses prime farmland is being converted.  From general observations, farmland is being converted in urban and rural areas for residential and commercial development and for wildlife habitat. In western Nevada, the loss of green space and cultural heritage associated with agriculture has heightened interest in the preservation of open space associated with farming and ranching. The purchase of development rights and conservation agreements through private and/or government sponsored agricultural trusts is a market-based approach to preserving the rural, agricultural character of Nevada that is generally viewed more favorably than regulatory alternatives, such as local zoning ordinances. Two conservation easements have been executed on ranches in Nevada for protection of sensitive species occupying wetland habitats in Ruby and Oasis valleys (eastern and southern Nevada, respectively). Availability of water has always been a controlling factor in agricultural developments, so farms lie adjacent to many of the state's limited number of rivers and streams.
The quality of surface water improved in past years with the removal and placement of more stringent standards on discharges of pollutants from municipal and industrial point sources. Today the focus is on nonpoint sources. Agriculture in general has the largest impact on water quality. Primary sources are runoff from irrigation, intensively grazed ranchland, and large livestock feeding operations. Nutrients, sediment, temperature, and pH are pollutants of concern (Nevada Division of Environmental Protection, 1998). Increased Clean Water Act regulations have increased agricultural production costs, and in some cases, reduced agricultural production or output. State and federal environmental protection agencies emphasize the voluntary control of nonpoint source pollution loads as a primary means for improving impaired water. All of Nevada's major rivers contain reaches that exceed water quality standards.
To help private property owners reduce pollution from agricultural practices, the Environmental Quality Incentive Program (EQIP) administered by the NRCS and the Clean Water Act Section 319 Grant Program provide matching funds for best management practices for water quality improvement. Nevadans continued to show interest in EQIP during 2000. Fifty-five landowners or operators applied for funding, which totaled $1,005,400, resulting in 43 contracts.
The majority of the practices focus on improving grazing land production and water quality and quantity. Practices include irrigation system improvements for conservation, fencing, stream bank protection, windbreaks, spring developments, prescribed grazing, wildlife habitat, and pest management. Eleven contracts were awarded to Native Americans or tribes amounting to $197,000, including $90,000 in Native American EQIP funds. In general, though, profitability of agricultural enterprises also is under pressure from increased production costs (e.g., energy, transportation, labor factors) without offsetting increases in product value (U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2001).
 Next Page -- Mineral Resource Land
Back to Table of Contents
|
|
