“Buy land. They ain’t making any more of the stuff.” – Will Rogers

As Will Rogers pointed out, there is only so much land. That’s why the way land is used can sometimes become a matter of community debate. It’s also why community interests sometimes must be balanced against an owner’s right to do what he or she wants with a piece of property.

That’s the scenario Lawrence city commissioners face this week as they consider revisions to the Horizon 2020 long-range plan that would add the quality of the agricultural land involved to the list of criteria officials should consider when deciding whether to approve an industrial development. It doesn’t prohibit development on high-quality agricultural land, but it does spell out the need to consider how great an area of Class I and II soils would be taken out of production if the development occurred. To some observers, considering the impact of developments on agricultural land may be seen as simply another way to try to strangle Lawrence’s growth.

Of several industrial sites that have been identified in and near Lawrence, the soils issue is best illustrated by a potential development site near the Lawrence Municipal Airport. The site encompasses about 230 acres of which 90 percent is covered by Class I soils, the most fertile, productive – and rare – agricultural land. According to Kansas State University researchers, only 2.8 percent of the land in Douglas County falls into the Class I category.

Local residents who want to protect Class I and II soils foresee a time when we will need to use the fertile soil to produce food for local consumption. Higher fuel prices and other economic factors may make it more difficult to transport food over long distances.

A strong case can be made that preserving this vital natural resource is in the community’s interest, but what if you were the property owner? It’s not that the owners don’t treasure this land. If they thought they could make as much money farming the land as they could by selling it for development, they or someone else probably would be happy to keep farming it. At least right now, that isn’t the case.

The Horizon 2020 revisions the City Commission will consider Tuesday don’t dictate decisions on agricultural land, but they put the issue on the table. Balancing the rights of the property owner against the community interest isn’t easy. Having enough land to attract new business and industry to provide jobs and tax revenue to support city services is important, but preserving high-quality agricultural land is a valid development consideration. All things being equal, development on land with little agricultural potential probably would be a better choice for the community’s future.