hearts and minds

August 6, 2006

Wisconsin Conservation Congress Advisory Question

(This Resolution regarding wetlands protection on farms appeared on the printed ballot at the 2006 statewide Wisconsin Conservation Congress meeting and was approved 3345 to 674. The article hyperlinked in the preceding sentence provides more information.)

Voluntary conservation practices on Wisconsin’s farms have greatly improved wildlife habitat, water quality, and soil conservation, at no cost to taxpayers. Taxes on agricultural land are controlled by use value assessment (Tax 18), but only lands restored through the Conservation Reserve Program or the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program, etc. retain agricultural classification. Lands restored voluntarily, without subsidies, or through other enrollment programs (e.g., WRP or USFWS programs) are subject to reclassification and, in many cases, consequent tax increases. What is worse, portions of existing farms that have already been restored cannot be subsequently enrolled in programs that qualify for agricultural tax treatment under Tax 18. Retention of these voluntary conservation practices is thus discouraged by the resulting higher tax. Per acre taxes on voluntarily established conservation practices has already risen on some farms to twenty five times the use-value tax.

The restoration and preservation of wetlands and riparian buffer strips on farms is consistent with goals of the WDNR, and numerous federal and state programs, and improves wildlife habitat, water quality, and soil conservation on Wisconsin farms. Farm owners who did the right thing before government established programs to encourage it, or who did the right thing without applying for government subsidies, should not be punished by unfair taxation for doing so. State property tax policies should treat voluntarily protected wetlands and buffer strips on farms the same as those that receive annual subsidies. Alternatively, already established farmland conservation practices on and adjacent to wetlands and streams should be permitted to enroll in a program that does qualify for farm use-value tax assessment.

Do you support that the Department of Natural Resources endorse, and request the Legislature and the Departments of Revenue and Agriculture undertake, a review of property taxes on farm conservation lands to identify and implement sensible and fair solutions to these concerns?

Spring, 2006 (See also the essay “Wetlands Conservation on Wisconsin Farms“, which further explains this problem.)

Advertisements

5 Comments »

  1. … (I) accompanied (Jayne) to last week’s (Conservation Congress) meeting in Steven’s Point in case clarification was needed on the problem to be addressed. Fortunately the issue received unanimous support with no discussion needed.

    Comment by Erin — February 16, 2007 @ 6:35 pm | Reply

  2. STATEWIDE VOTE BREAKDOWN

    Statewide, Advisory Question 68 passed 3345 to 674. That’s a five to one margin.

    It was approved in seventy counties, disapproved in two.

    Broken down by region, it passed as follows:

    Northern … 490 – 78 (4.1 to 1)
    Northeast … 872 – 222 (3.9 to 1)
    West Central … 798 – 144 (5.5 to 1)
    South Central … 617 – 92 (6.7 to 1)
    South East … 490 – 78 (6.3 to 1)

    Comment by clyde — February 16, 2007 @ 7:34 pm | Reply

  3. Particular county vote tallies on Question 68 (farm wetlands).

    The only two counties that voted No were:
    Jackson County (6-7), and Pepin County (5-6). Both are in the west central region.

    However, there were five counties, also in the west central region, that voted Yes by a 10 to 1 margin. They are:
    Vernon (29-0), Monroe (39-2), Eau Claire (57-4), Crawford (18-0), and Chippewa (68-7).

    Other Wisconsin counties that voted Yes by a ten to one margin were:
    Jefferson (44-4), Washington (90-10), and Dane (209-17).

    Besides the two counties that voted NO by one vote, there were five counties that voted Yes by a margin of LESS than two-to-one. They are:
    Rusk (14-12), Taylor (19-11) and Forest (11-8) in the northern region, and
    Adams (15-8) and Clark (20-13) in the west central region.

    Comment by clyde — February 16, 2007 @ 7:36 pm | Reply

  4. I would like information on progress of advisory question #68, farm wetland protection, including current or pending legislation. I reside in Marathon County. Please provide address and/or phone number of someone I can contact. Thank you.

    Comment by gary b — September 3, 2007 @ 8:04 am | Reply

  5. […] 18, 2006 (Refer to http://www.wiscwetlands.org/taxes.htm. See also “Wisconsin Conservation Congress Advisory Question“) Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)Farm group: We deserve your money more […]

    Pingback by Wetlands Protection on Wisconsin Farms « hearts and minds — May 13, 2008 @ 11:49 am | Reply


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: