I. INTRODUCTION The conversion of agricultural land into other uses has become a topic of major interest for American agriculturalists, economists, lawyers, and government. The possibility that the nation might be using up its farmland reserves too quickly has spawned a considerable literature.' In response, nearly every state and many local jurisdictions have passed legislation designed to slow conversion through tax incentives, public acquisition of development rights, protection of farm activities, and sometimes by restrictive regulation. Concern for the future turned into alarm in the early 1980's with a great increase in foreign demand for American food and the publication of the federal government's landmark National Agricultural Lands Study (NALS) Report.2 The NALS Report indicated that as many as three million acres of American farmland were being converted annually into other permanent uses.3 Many observers believed that the damage to agricultural productivity was about to become fatal. Then, just as an increasing strain on American agricultural land resources seemed to become an inevitable fact of life, worldwide food production rose, United States exports fell, and the nation faced a crisis of a very different sort-a crisis of overproduction, with bulging storage bins, declining prices and farm income, massive set-aside and support programs, food give-aways, falling farmland values, rising farm debt, and a terrible surge of farm bankruptcies.4 Gone were fears of imminent price increases caused by agricultural land shortages; instead, attention focused on ways to bolster the sagging farm sector. This article re-assesses the agricultural land conversion issue in light of the current excess of production. Surely some of the premises behind the original rush to farmland preservation laws now deserve review. On the other hand, many of these premises may remain valid, despite the lessons of the last few years. A fresh look at the whole issue is due. The article concludes that concern about agricultural land conversion does remain legitimate, but only for a more distant future than earlier thought. A threat to agricultural productivity more remote than was feared has many implications for the goals and structures of agricultural land preservation programs. With this point in mind, the article reviews existing and proposed conversion laws to determine whether they continue adequately to address the problem. Finally, the article suggests ways to maximize the effectiveness of farmland preservation programs for that time in the future when the conversion problem may manifest itself in earnest.
