Geoforum, Vol. 16, No. 3, pp.

287-300,1985 Ml16-7185185 $3 00 + 0 00
Printed in Great Britain. Pergamon Press Ltd.

Protecting Speciality Cropland from

Urban Development:
the Case of the Okanagan Valley, British
Columbia

RALPH R. KRUEGER,* Waterloo, Canada and N. GARTH MAGUIRE,t Vernon, Canada

Abstract: Mapping from air photos reveals coinsiderable urbanization of the

Okanagan fruitlands between 1966 and 1981. For a number of years reduced areas
of fruitland have been compensated for by increased productivity, but the limit of
increased productivity has nearly been reached and there are no significant
amounts of new land to be planted to fruit. The British Columbia Land
Commission Act, with its Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) programme was a bold
attempt at preventing the urbanization of prime agricultural land in British
Columbia. Undoubtedly the urban conversion of the Okanagan Valley fruitlands
has been slowed from what would have occurred without the ALR programme.
Nevertheless, sequential maps and records of appeal applications indicate that
considerable urban conversion of fruitland is still occurring. There is also evidence
that the current British Columbia government’s commitment to the ALR
programme is waning. If the future urban development patterns and political
climate continue along recent trends, it is difficult to be optimistic about preserving
the Okanagan fruitlands for future generations.

Introduction lands from urban expansion (KRUEGER, 1959,

In Canada, areas where tree-fruits and grapes can
be grown successfully are severely restricted by
climatic limitations. Within these limited fruit-
growing areas, only the Niagara Fruit Belt of
Ontario and the Okanagan Valley of British Col-
umbia produce significant volumes of grapes and
soft fruits, such as cherries, peaches, pears, prunes
and plums (KRUEGER, 1965). In recent decades
there has been much urban growth in these two
fruit-growing regions. The spread of urban develop-
ment in the Niagara Fruit Belt has been
documented in numerous studies since the late
1950s and several geographers have evaluated
government attempts to preserve the Niagara fruit-
1978, 1982; JACKSON, 1977, 1982; GAYLER,
1979, 1982;). A recent paper by KRUEGER and
MAGUIRE (1984) provides a series of detailed
maps showing the degree and pattern of urbaniz-
ation of the fruitlands in the Okanagan Valley
between 1966 and 1981.
The purpose of this paper is to explain some of the
reasons for urban expansion onto the Okanagan
fruitlands, assess the direct and indirect impacts of
urbanization on the agricultural land base and the
fruit-growing industry, and evaluate the effective-
ness of various land-use controls, including local
and regional planning, and the exclusive agricul-
tural zoning by the British Columbia Agricultural
Land Commission.

*Department of Geography, University of Waterloo,

Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, N2L 3Gl. Fruit-growing in the Okanagan Valley
tMaguire Associates, P.O. Box 1410, Vernon, British
Columbia, Canada, VlT 6N7. Tree-fruit orchards and grape vineyards are grown
287
288 GeoforumlVolume 16 Number 311985

extensively throughout the Okanagan Valley from

Osoyoos near the United States border to Vernon
at the northern end of the valley, and in the
Keremeos-Cawston district of the tributary Similka-
meen Valley, west of Oliver. Apples are the
dominant crop, accounting for approximately two-
thirds of the annual farmgate value of the valley
fruit production of about $5.5 million (1981). The
other fruit crops are generally considered to be
supplementary in order to distribute cash flows and
labour requirements and to reduce serious fluctua-
tions in farm incomes. Nevertheless, they are an
important part of the agricultural base of the region.

The approximately 30,000 acres of orchards and

vineyards are not continuously distributed through-
out the valley (Figure l).i Some parts of the valley
are enclosed by rocky walls that are too steep for
fruit production. In other areas the soils are to
drought-prone or too poorly drained. Most of the
orchards and vineyards are planted on water-
worked till, outwash fans or lacustrine deposits that
compose the broad terraces found above the valley
floor on both sides of the valley. These sloping
terraces, often called benches by the local inhabi-
tants, afford excellent air drainage (except for
occasional depressions known as frost pockets),
required to protect the fruit crops from spring frost
damage (KRUEGER, 1963, 1983).

The soils used for orchards and vineyards range in

texture from coarse gravel to fine clay. Because of
the small amount of precipitation, ranging from 10
to 15” (25.4 to 38.1 mm) annually, and the
consequent reliance on irrigation which makes it
possible to control the amount of moisture, drain-
age is not so important for orchards in the Okana-
gan as it is for those in more humid climates
(KRUEGER, 1963). In the Okanagan Valley both
orchards and vineyards do well on Canada Land
Inventory (CLI) soil classes l-3 (cf. Figure 2).’

Urban Development on the Fruitlands

The total population of the Okanagan Valley is

relatively small; the 1981 Census registered under
200,000 people. However, the rate of growth has
been very high: 55% between 1971 and 1981.

The largest city (Kelowna, population 59, 196 in

1981), the largest population and the most rapid
growth of the population is in the Central Okanagan
Regional District, which also has the largest concen- Figure 1. Orchard and vineyard density, Okanagan
Valley, B.C., 1981.
tration of fruit-growing (Table 1, Figure 1). The
GeoforumNolume 16 Number 30985 289

distribution of population centres shows that vir-

tually all of the cities and towns are located in areas
of prime agricultural lands and major fruit-growing
areas (cf. Figures 1 and 2). This is not surprising
since these settlements were established as market
and distribution places in the centres of the areas of
productive farmland. The exception is the site
chosen for the town of Penticton, which is flat, low
and poorly drained land no good for fruit-growing.
Unfortunately, since the 1960s Penticton too has
been spreading out onto the good fruitland of the
adjacent terraces.

As in the Niagara Fruit Belt, not only are most of

the town centres located on the best agricultural
land, but low-density development in a typical
North American sprawl pattern is also occurring on
the prime agricultural land (Figure 2).3 And as in
Niagara, a major highway through the heart of the
fruit-growing area has facilitated the sprawl. How-
ever, unlike the Niagara situation, in the Okanagan
there are no convenient alternative route locations
for the highway because of the terrain. In fact, the
constrictions of mountainous roughlands and the
many lakes have meant that urban and agricultural
land uses are likely to compete for the same narrow
strips of land.

After World War I, under the Veteran’s Land Act,

war veterans were provided with an opportunity to
obtain small farms with fruit-growing capability.
The veterans built houses on these holdings, which
ranged from two to ten acres, and planted the
balance of the land to orchards. When they dis-
covered that they could not generate enough
income from farming the holdings, many began
subdividing them into small parcels for residential
purposes. As a result, a random selection of

Table 1. Okanagan population by Regional District,

1971-1981

Regional 1971 1981 % change

District

North Okanagan 34,000 54,400 +60

Central Okanagan 50,200 85,000 +70
Okanagan
Similkameen 42,800 57,200 +34

Total Okanagan 127,000 196,000 +55

Source: Census of Canada, 1981.

Note: These three districts cover more than the Okana-
gan Similkameen Valley, but most of the sur- Figure 2. Urban sprawl and prime agricultural land,
rounding plateau land has little or no settlement. Okanagan Valley, B.C., 1981.
290 GeoforumVolume 16 Number 311985

properties became residential subdivisions sur-

rounded by small orchards, or in some cases, small
orchards were completely surrounded by housing.
Later, land controls arrested the process so that the
checkerboard pattern can still be seen, particularly
on the terraces outside of Penticton and Kelowna.4

During the late 1960s the Okanagan Valley was

designated for grants and loans through the federal
government Area Development Incentives Act
(ADIA). It is estimated that the ADIA program
directly created more than 2500 industrial jobs
between 1966 and 1971. Additional subsidies
assisted in the growth of the travel industry.
Economic multiplier effects resulted in many more
jobs and thus an even larger population increase.
Also, in the 1960s and up to the mid 1970s the
federal and provincial governments financed the
reconstruction and modernization of irrigation and
water works through the Agriculture and Rural
Development Act (ARDA). The engineering
standards of the ARDA irrigation works were to a
level suitable for domestic water supply. Conse-
quently, the fruit-growing areas became serviced
areas suitable for urban development. Thus it can
be seen that senior government programmes not
only encouraged urban growth in the Okanagan
Valley, but also helped to make it possible for this
growth to occur on prime agricultural land (BOND
et al., 1981).

The best orchard lands are also excellent locations

PENTICTON
for housing. The terraces provide highly desirable
sites with magnificent views for luxury homes. f

People also like good soils for their gardens so that

they can produce fruit and vegetables for home
consumption. Many also like to produce fruit for
sale, partly as a hobby and partly to supplement
their incomes. Retired farmers from the Prairie
Provinces prefer the openness of a home in the
country, where they can continue some farming
activities, to a house in a city subdivision. Thus,
with few land-use controls, it is not surprising that
the predominance of scattered residential develop-
ment has occurred on good farmland.

Another cartographic method of showing urban

sprawl is presented in Figures 3 and 4. They are
drawn from more detailed degree of urbanization
maps using the Russwurm technique, which is based
upon the principle that an area passes from rural to
urban status when the urban population becomes
greater than the rural population (RUSSWURM, Figure 3. Urban impact area, Okanagan Valley, B.C.,
1970; YEATES, 1975). These maps tend to over- 1966.
GeoforundVolume 16 Number 31198.5 291

state the amount of land actually urbanized (cf.

Figures 2 and 4). Since the urban and semi-urban
areas indicate only that there are more urban than
rural residences, these areas are not necessarily
totally built-up, and considerable fruit-growing still
occurs in some of them. However, areas designated
as urban and semi-urban do give a good idea of the
amount of land in the urban shadow. Within these
areas, the land is either totally built-up or there is
sufficient urban intrusion to require urban services;
land prices reflect urban more than agricultural
values; the incompatabilities between urban living
and farm practices occur; and there is a general
expectancy that the area is ultimately going to be
completely developed.

More detailed maps done sequentially for both

Niagara (1934,1954,1965,1975) and the Okanagan
(1966, 1976, 1981) show that the areas under urban
impact do later become more urbanized and ulti-
mately completely built-up (KRUEGER, 1978;
KRUEGER and MAGUIRE, 1984). Note the
progression from semi-rural to urban and semi-
urban between 1966 and 1981 (Figures 3 and 4). If
past trends were to continue, it is reasonable to
predict that the areas outlined in Figure 4 would be
so urbanized by the turn of the century that
commercial fruit-growing would be untenable.

Most of the land in the Okanagan Valley with

fruit-growing potential has already been planted to
trees and vines. The exceptions are areas north of
PENTICTON
Kelowna, where fruit-growing has been substan-
tially reduced because of low-temperature injury
and where the Indian Reserves occupy large areas
of good land. It has been estimated that there is
approximately 12,000 acres of land on the Indian
Reserves that is capable of fruit production if
irrigated. However, Indian Reserves are outside of
the jurisdiction of planning control of the local
municipalities, the Regional Districts and the B.C.
Agricultural Land Commission. There has been
considerable urban development on the Indian
Reserve lands; for example, on Tsitsunkeptum
Indian Reserve No.10 at Westbank approximately
6900 acres were put to industrial, commercial and
recreational uses between 1961 and 1981. The
reserve has plans for further urban development, in
contrast to the agricultural zoning of surrounding
land. Only one Indian reserve (Inkameep, near
Osoyoos) has significant amounts of land in fruit
production. In 1981 it had nearly 3000 acres in
Figure 4. Urban impact area, Okanagan Valley, B.C., vineyards. In general, it would seem that not much
1981. of the land on the Indian reserves can be counted
292
upon as a new source of fruitland to replace that
being urbanized in the rest of the valley.5
As land supply dwindles, another alternative is
increased production from the remaining land
resources. Because of high land prices and con-
stantly increasing costs of production, growers have
already significantly increased fruit production per
acre. This has been done by: changing from
standard-sized trees to semi-standard, semi-dwarf
and dwarf, and greatly increasing the density; a
general shift from areas with repeated low-
temperature damage; planting different fruit crops
and varieties on sites best suited to their require-
ments; and increasing yields through improved
management. Most progressive fruit-growers
believe that they are near the limit of increased
productivity resulting from the above measures.
Moreover, the increased productivity has come
from large-scale orchard operations. The part-time
growers, who usually have small holdings, have not
been able to keep abreast of new technology and
management practices. Since a majority of growers
have sub-economic sized holdings (60% have
7 acres or less), the potential for increased pro-
ductivity is greatly reduced. Continued subdivision
of farm holdings resulting from urban development
will reduce that potential even further.
Visible urban expansion can be mapped; the
indirect impacts on the agricultural industry are
more difficult to assess and often are generalized
from the conventional wisdom contained in the
literature. As is indicated in recent literature
reviews, many of the conclusions drawn in the
literature are not sufficiently founded on empirical
evidence (BRYANT and RUSSWURM, 1979;
MCRAE, 1980). In addition, it is difficult to
determine the extent to which the agricultural
problems in the urban fringe are attributable to
urbanization forces rather than other totally exoge-
nous factors (BRYANT et al., 1982; BRYANT,
1984).
In the Okanagan Valley we attempted to assess the
opinions of fruit-growers about the indirect impacts
of urbanization on their operations. One hundred
fruit-growers (about 7% of allo commercial grow-
ers), representing all districts of the Okanagan,
were asked in personal interviews whether their
operation had been affected by increased levels of
urbanization and, if so, in what ways urbanization
posed a problem. Seventy-one per cent of the
growers interviewed responded that their operation
Geoforum/Volume 16 Number 3/1985
had been affected by increasing levels of urbaniz-
ation. The problems most often cited were vandal-
ism and theft, crop pilfering, trespass and increased
traffic congestion making it difficult to use farm
vehicles on the road. The growers did not directly
associate increased urbanization with higher costs of
production, but viewed it as a nuisance. On the
positive side, a number of growers cited improved
road and sewer services, and increased local
demand for fruit and availability of low-cost rental
land as benefits of increased urban development.
Some also cited higher land prices as a benefit of
urbanization.
High land prices are a benefit to farmers only when
they wish to sell or when they need collateral for
loans; for the young person who wishes to establish
a farm operation, or for the farmer who wishes to
increase the size of his holding, high land prices are
a problem. Over the years, high land prices in the
Okanagan have led to continued subdivision of
holdings into smaller and smaller units until 60% of
the fruit-growing farms are considered to be sub-
economic in size. A British Columbia Legislative
Assembly report states that the small size of
holdings in British Columbia contributes signifi-
cantly to higher costs of production than in
neighbouring states in the United States. When
higher labour, energy and chemical costs are added,
Okanagan growers are at a distinct disadvantage
when competing with their counterparts in
Washington State.
Some measure of escalating land prices was
obtained from records of sales provided by real
estate firms and the Farm Credit Corporation.
Orchard land with buildings in the general Pentic-
ton to Kelowna area sold at an average of $3000 an
acre in 1971. By 1981 that average price had risen to
approximately $20,000 an acre. Prices declined
slightly in 1982 and 1983 because of high interest
rates, poor financial returns to growers and gener-
ally depressed real estate prices resulting from the
economic recession. Current research findings do
not make it possible to determine how much of the
high prices for agricultural land is due to urban
demand for land. However, land prices are higher
nearer to the larger urban centres, and other
researchers have noted that high land prices near a
city ripple out to have an effect far beyond the
direct urban influence (RODD, 1976). In the
Okanagan, proximity to the lake also increases land
prices because of the desirability of recreational
lakeside and residential view properties. In the
GeoforumNolume 16 Number 3/1985
confined space of the Okanagan Valley there are
few locations that have not been affected by
increased land prices due to urban and related
land-use demands,
There is no agreement in the literature on the
amount of negative impacts which non-farm owner-
ship, hobby farming and part-time farming have had
on the agricultural industry (BRYANT and RUSS-
WURM, 1979; MCRAE, 1980). The fact that many
of such holdings are operated by people for whom
farming is not the most important income activity is
often cited as a reason why they are less productive.
Hobby farmers and part-time farmers were not
mentioned as a problem by any of the growers
interviewed despite, or possibly because of, the fact
that more than half the growers in the Okanagan
earn more than 50% of their income from off the
farm.
High real estate taxes for farmers, partially caused
by the costs of services required for urbanites who
have moved into the countryside, are often con-
sidered a major problem for farmers in the rural-
urban fringe (KRIJEGER, 1959: MORGAN, 1978;
VAN VUUREN et al., 1978). None of the growers
mentioned this issue.
The British Columbia property tax system is
designed to reduce the tax burden for farmers. Fifty
per cent of the land assessment of a farm is exempt
from school, hospital and regional district taxation.
In a rural area the tax rate for general purposes is
set by statute at five mills for farms and 12 mills for
other properties. All farm buildings up to a value of
$50,000, exclusive of the farmer’s residence, are
exempt from school, hospital and regional district
taxation. There is a provision for emerging and
developing farms to be taxed as farms for up to
5 years. This would enable an orchardist to pay the
lower farm taxes on a newly planted orchard even
though he received no orchard income for 5 years.
All rural holdings of over two acres that yield $1600
or more gross revenue a year are assessed at the
farm rate. This makes it easy for urban people who
build a home in the country to qualify for farm tax
exemption. The farm tax exemptions are, in gen-
eral, more beneficial to the small holdings than to
the large commercial operations. Nevertheless, it is
fair to say that fruitgrowers in the Okanagan Valley
are not suffering from a heavy real estate tax burden
(FOISY, 1983).
293
Land-use Control in the Okanagan Valley
Municipal planning
All available evidence indicates a lack of commit-
ment to agricutural land preservation through
land-use planning on the part of local municipalities
in the Okanagan Valley. Strip development, incom-
patible mixed-land uses, leap-frog development and
lack of control of access to highways and major
arterial roads provide visual evidence of lack of
rural planning and consideration for preserving
agricultural land. Further evidence is provided by
the tardiness in making use of available planning
legislation and tools. For example, the largest urban
centre, Kelowna, did not have a zoning by-law until
1973. Most municipalities did not adopt official
plans until the mid- to late 1970s or early 1980s and
some municipalities still had no official plans by
1983. Although some municipalities do have
‘unofficial plans’ (not filed with the provincial
Department of Municipal Affairs), which permit
local councils great flexibility and discretion, there
is no legal obligation to follow the plan and it may
be changed by majority vote of council without
public hearings.
Regional planning
Much of the Okanagan Valley is unorganized
territory outside the control of local municipal
governments. Urban development has sprawled out
into much of the unorganized territory in a dis-
orderly fashion (Figure 2). In 1965 the British
Columbia Government divided the province into
Regional Districts, with regional land-use planning
as one of their responsibilities. The North Okana-
gan Regional District was established in 1955, the
Central Okanagan Regional District in 1966 and the
Okanagan Similkameen Regional District in 1967.
The Council of each member municipality appoints
a specific number of its elected councillors to be
directors of the Regional Board. Unorganized areas
directly elect directors to the Regional Board. One
of the responsibilities of the Regional Board was to
prepare a regional plan that would be legally
binding on all member municipalities. The Board
could also institute zoning, subdivision control and
building regulations in unorganized areas (RASH-
LEIGH, 1971).
Theoretically, the Regional Districts should have
provided adequate planning controls over urban
development in the Okanagan. However, in prac-
294
tice the Regional Boards have not been effective in
preventing the haphazard low-density sprawl which
is threatening the fruitlands. In many instances it
appears as though the directors of the Regional
Boards reflected the lack of commitment to plan-
ning that was exhibited by the local councils that
appointed them. Regional plans were slow to
materialize; the plans did little to prohibit develop-
ment on good farmland or to direct it to land
incapable of supporting crops; and they failed to
restrict single-lot severances for home sites, thus
permitting non-farm residences to scatter through-
out the valley. The result has been an urban sprawl
pattern that is contrary to the goal statements
relating to the preservation of prime agricultural
land contained in the regional and municipal plans.
As WILSON and PIERCE (1982) have com-
mented, “the Regional Districts generally did little
to grapple with the (to them) low-priority task of
land control”. However, although the regional
Districts did little to address directly the issue of
farmland preservation, they did provide a valuable
administrative framework for implementing provin-
cial land preservation legislation.
Provincial intervention
After its election in 1972, the New Democratic
Party (NDP) government expressed concern about
the continuing urbanization of the province’s small
agricultural land base. Because of the failure of
local and regional planning to halt the urbanization
of prime agricultural land, the new governent
announced its intentions to preserve farmland by
preventing its conversion to urban uses. The
immediate rush of applications for rezoning from
‘agricultural’ to ‘urban’ led the government to
impose a freeze on the subdivision of all land
already designated as agricultural for property tax
purposes, as well as on all land deemed suitable for
the cultivation of agricultural crops. This was
followed by the Land Commission Act in 1973 and
the subsequent establishment of Agricultural Land
Reserves (ALRs). The ALRs were based on the
Canada Land Inventory (CLI) agricultural land
capability maps and were completed for the Okana-
gan Valley by 1974. Upon the establishment of the
original farmland freeze, certain appeal mechan-
isms were instituted to provide for correction of
delineation errors, hardship cases or situations with
extenuating circumstances, such as permitting the
completion of an urban development project well
underway. Also, soon after the Land Commission
Act came the Farm Income Assurance Act, which
GeoforumNolume 16 Number 311985
provided for payments to farmers when market
returns fall below basic costs of production. This
was to ensure that farmers whose land was frozen
for agricultural use would at least be able to make a
living from their land.
Besides protecting agricultural land, the original
Land Commission Act had several other objectives,
including the preservation of parkland, the estab-
lishment of green belts and land banking for urban
purposes. In 1977 the Act was revised and re-named
the Agricultural Land Commission Act and its
responsibilities were restricted to the preservation
of farmland. By deleting all sections of the Act
having any reference to non-agricultural use, it
became difficult to integrate land preservation
planning with comprehensive economic develop-
ment and land use planning. The single sector
planning approach was reinforced by appointing to
the Commission only people with a primary associ-
ation with agriculture. By narrowing the focus of its
mandate, the task of protecting agricultural land
became more difficult for the Commission, because
it could no longer view preservation in the context
of other land use needs.
The Commission was also stripped of its power to
establish land banks for green belt, parks and urban
development. Thus it could not actively provide
land for legitimate non-agricultural land use
requirements. The Commission was further
weakened at this time by giving the Environmental
Land Use Committee of Cabinet the final decision
on certain applications for exclusion from ALRS.
The possibility of direct appeal to the Cabinet
Committee reduced the Commission’s authority
(and perhaps credibility) and increased its workload
through submissions for exclusion and re-
submission of past applications that had been
denied (BAXTER, 1974; RAWSON, 1979; LAV-
KULICH, 1979-1980; PIERCE, 1981; LASH,
1981; CORKE, 1983). In fairness to the B.C.
Government, we wish to point out that the power of
the Cabinet to overide the Commission has not been
used excessively. Between 1974 and 1983 the
Cabinet excluded only 38 acres in excess of the
amount recommended by the Commission for
exclusion in the Okanagan Valley (PROVINCIAL
AGRICULTURAL LAND COMMISSION,
1984).
An evaluative study of the effectiveness of the ALR
programme between 1972 and 1977 was conducted
by the Lands Directorate of Environment Canada
GeoforumNolume 16 Number 30985
(MANNING and EDDY, 1978). This study con-
cluded that the stated goal of preserving agricultural
land had been achieved; that the farmers’ confi-
dence in the future of farming had improved and
investment and farm consolidation was increasing;
and that a large majority of the 800 landholders
surveyed indicated general support for the preserv-
ation programme.
Of the 12 sample areas in the Lands Directorate
study, two were from the Okanagan Valley:
Kelowna and the Coldstream area east of Vernon.
Seventy landholders expressed general support for
the ALR programme, which was slightly lower than
the 76% for all the sample areas; but unqualified
support was given by only 34% in the Kelowna
sample and 23% in Coldstream, which was below
the 43% for all the sample areas. Dissatisfaction
with the ALR was higher in the Okanagan samples:
23 and 24%) compared to 20% for the total sample.
However, much of the dissatisfaction was not
directed at the intent and general approach but
revolved around the implementation of the ALR
programme.
Interviews of 100 growers from all parts of the
Okanagan Valley in 1982 confirmed the findings of
the Lands Directorate study that there is general
support for the ALR programme. Many of the
growers admitted that they had strongly opposed
the legislation when it was first introduced, but had
since changed their minds because they had come to
believe that the ALR programme was necessary to
preserve the best agricultural land in the valley.
However, all of the growers made it very clear that
they were more concerned about the cost-price
squeeze than they were about the loss of land to
urban expansion.
Pierce has commented critically on the Lands
Directorate evaluation of the success of the Agri-
cultural Land Commission in protecting agricultural
land. He states that the study showed that the ALR
programme and the complementary Farm Income
Assurance Act have been successful in providing
the requisite environment for farm production.
However, he questions the validity of the conclu-
sion that the ALR has successfully protected
agricultural land from non-agricultural uses. He
then proceeds to assess the effect of the ALR
programme in the loss of agricultural land by
evaluating the results of appeals for exclusion from
the ALR. He notes that many of the exclusions
resulted from the need for ‘fine tuning’ of ALR
295
boundaries, but nevertheless expresses concern that
the average yearly rate of exclusions between 1974
and 1981 exceeded the loss of agricultural land in
the year preceding the establishing of the Land
Commission. He also notes that the Okanagan
Valley had a disproportionately large share of the
successful exclusions (PIERCE, 1981).
Applications for exclusion of a parcel of land from
ALR, or for subdivision for sale or development, or
for permission of a non-farm use within the ALR,
are all referred by local municipalities (with com-
ments) to the Regional District before consider-
ation and decision by the Agricultural Land Com-
mission. An adverse decision by the Commission on
exclusion applications may be appealed to the
Cabinet Minister responsible, who in turn may
grant leave to appeal to the Environment and Land
Use Committee of Cabinet. In the case of subdivi-
sion and non-farm-use applications, decisions by the
Commission are final. Applications for exclusion by
a Regional District, a municipality or the Commis-
sion require a public hearing before going to the
Cabinet Committee for a final decision.
In the Okanagan Valley in a 52-month period from
1978 to 1981 there was a total of 237 applications for
exclusion from the ALR, 760 applications for
subdivision of land within the ALR and 114
applications for permission for non-farm use within
the ALR. For exclusion and subdivision appeals,
74% were supported at the Regional District level;
for permitted non-farm uses 93% were supported.
Because each region has a unique set of urban
growth pressures and agricultural land resources,
and each Regional District Board may differ in its
sympathy for the principle of agricultural land
preservation, the degree of support for ALR appeal
applications differs from region to region. For
applications for exclusion, the range of support was
63-83 % , for subdivision, 69-82%, and for
permitted use, 77-100%. The Okanagan Similka-
meen Regional District appears to provide less
support than the other two Regional Districts for
bids to have land excluded from the ALR. This
could reflect a difference in attitude, but it more
probably reflects a more than adequate supply of
land allocated for development at the time that the
ALR was designated in the Okanagan Similaka-
meen. This was made possible because, in the early
1970s the Okanagan Similkameen Regional Dis-
trict was developing an agricultural land-use plan as
part of its regional plan. Much of the work that in
296
other regions was done by the Land Commission
had already been done by the Okanagan Similka-
meen Regional District, including designations of
land for future urban development. It turned out
that the Okanagan Similkameen allocation of land
for future development was much more liberal than
was provided by the Land Commission staff in other
regions. Thus there has not been as much need for
exclusions from the ALRs.
As a result of successful exclusion applications, a
total of approximately 4500 acres was removed from
the ALR in the Okanagan between 1974 and 1982
(Table 2). The largest decrease (almost 1800 acres)
was in the Central Okanagan Regional District,
reflecting the larger population and the widespread
urban sprawl in that region. The smallest decrease
was in the Okanagan Similkameen Regional Dis-
trict , undoubtedly reflecting the more liberal supply
of development land allocated in 1974, and perhaps
a greater sensitivity for the principle of agricultural
land preservation. Local newspaper accounts and
interviews with politicians, planners and orchardists
indicate that the Okanagan Similkameen Regional
District has been more committed to preserving
agricultural land and to reducing conflict between
urban and rural land users than has the Central
Okanagan Regional District.
The total decline in the Okanagan ALR amounts to
more than 600 acres a year - not a large amount
when compared to the original ALR of about
469,000 acres. However, the data raise important
questions: Do these exclusions represent ‘fine
tuning’, i.e. correcting classification errors, refining
boundaries and making adjustments to reflect
Table 2. Decrease in acreage of Agricultural Land
Reserves, 1974-1982.
Regional District Decrease in acres
North 1494
Central 1792
Okanagan Similkameen 1245
Total Okanagan 4529
Source: B.C. Agricultural Land Commission, Agricultu-
ral Land Reserve Statistics, April, 1982.
Note: The measurement unit of acres has been used in
this paper to facilitate comparisons with acreages given in
past papers on the orchard and vineyard regions of
Canada. The fruit-growers themselves measure land in
acres. One acre = 0.405 hectares. The data in this table
are from the time that ALRs were designated -
1 January 1974 - until 1 April 1982.
GeoforumNolume 16 Number 3/1985
property boundaries or the reality of the economic
viability of a farming area already cut up into small
separated parcels by urban intrusions? Or do the
exclusions represent a continuing trend which will
ultimately undermine the intent of the ALR? The
data on appeal applications do not provide the
answer to those questions. However, detailed
mapping of degree of urbanization has shown that
there was more urban-related development per year
in the countryside between 1976 and 1981 than
there was between 1966 and 1976 (KRUEGGER
and MAGUIRE, 1984). This finding has been
corroborated by a Lands Directorate study which
revealed that the urbanization of prime agricultural
land occurred at twice the rate between 1976 and
1981 than in the 1966-1976 period.6
The number of appeals granted to subdivide land
and permit non-farm uses within the ALR may, in
the long run, have greater implications than exclu-
sions. These cannot be ascribed to ‘fine tuning’.
Even when subdivision is not for development, the
effect is usually to reduce the size of the agricultural
holding. The average small size of agricultural
holdings has been cited by several studies as a major
economic liability of the Okanagan fruit-growing
industry (MACPHEE, 1958; KRUEGER, 1965;
HUDSON, 1973; B.C. LEGISLATIVE ASSEM-
BLY, 1979). Costs cannot be minimized when
acreages are small. Subdivision of parcels of land
for home sites, of course, adds to urban sprawl. One
ex-urban home in an agricultural area may not pose
a problem, but it usually is the leading edge of an
urban wedge; it is not long until more homes are
permitted, and with them come the problems
associated with urban intrusion into the agricultural
community as discussed earlier in this paper.
Subdivision for home sites for a member of the farm
family is politically difficult to oppose, but fre-
quently these homes are sold to non-farm people
and so contribute to urban sprawl. When the direct
and indirect impacts become great enough, owners
of pockets of land surrounded by urban uses can
justifiably request exclusion from the ALR on the
basis that their holdings are no longer viable for
commercial agriculture.
One negative impact of the ALR on the agricultural
land base should be mentioned. Because of the
ALR, good agricultural land adjacent to the urban
boundary is prevented from being developed. This
encourages developers to look for some more
remote development land which leads to what is
called leapfrog development. This restriction on
GeoforumiVolume 16 Number 311985
continuous development results in the costly exten-
sion of services beyond the reserve land to the new
development. Ultimately, there is then political
pressure to infill the intervening space with more
urban development.
Concluding Comments
Sequential mapping has shown that there has been
considerable urbanization of the Okanagan Valley
fruitlands since 1966 and that the rate of conversion
of fruitlands to urban uses was more rapid between
1976 and 1981 than it was between 1966 and 1976.
When urban pressures are added to climatic prob-
lems and a serious cost-price squeeze there is little
wonder that the fruit-growers feel threatened and
are willing to sell their land for urban purposes.
Between 1961 and 1981 the areas in fruit-growing
declined by approximately 4500 acres. For some
years reduced acreages have been compensated for
by increased productivity, but it is the consensus of
the fruit-growing industry that the limit of increased
productivity has nearly been reached. Nor are there
significant amounts of new fruitland to be planted.
The only significant potential for fruit-growing
expansion is on the Indian Reserves, but they are
beyond the jurisdiction of municipal and provincial
land-use controls and there are indications that the
Reserve Bands favour urban development. If cur-
rent trends continue, it is conceivable that fruit-
growing could be an insignificant economic activity
in the early part of the next century.
The fruit-growing and related processing industries
constitute the most important economic base of the
Okanagan Valley. An official of B.C. Tree Fruits
Sun Rype has estimated that the tree-fruit industry
alone generates more than $370 million for the
British Columbia economy annually (BULLOCK,
1983).’ The grape and wine industry would add
considerably to this value. Directly and indirectly,
the fruit-growing industry also plays a major role in
attracting business for the very important tourist
industry of the Okanagan Valley. Locally,
regionally and nationally, the Okanagan fruit-
growing industry provides an important function by
providing specialized products that few other places
in Canada can duplicate.
If the fruit-growing industry were to collapse, there
would be serious economic dislocation in the
Okanagan Valley. From a conservation perspective,
more serious than losing the fruit-growing industry
297
would be the destruction of a scarce and irreplace-
able land resource.
We agree with the growers that if the Okanagan
fruitland is to be permanently preserved, there must
be more emphasis on improving the economic
climate for fruit-growing. If the growers are not
receiving a reasonable return on their investment of
capital, management and labour, they are likely to
be willing to sell their land for development and will
apply political pressure to have development re-
strictions relaxed. In interviews, fruit-growers re-
peatedly told us that a land preservation pro-
gramme is doomed to failure if financial returns to
growers do not improve. A front-page story in the
Vernon Daily News about the economic problems of
the fruit-growing industry was headlined ‘Fruit
Growers in Worst Shape Since Depression’ (28
June, 1983). This concern about the cost-price
squeeze can be supported with statistics. Not since
1979 has the price for apples received by growers
exceeded the official cost of production. For
example, for the 1981 apple crop the growers
received 8.5 cents a pound but the cost of produc-
tion was calculated at 12.9 cents a pound; in 1982
the price received was 5.3-5.5 cents a pound but
production costs had risen to 13.7 cents a pound.
Much of this loss is covered by the Farm Income
Assurance Programme, which is currently heavily
subsidized by the British Columbia Government,
but growers are understandably interested in more
than just breaking even.
The cost-price squeeze problem is not unique to
the Okanagan fruit-growers; it is a nation-wide
problem. In other agricultural industries economy
of scale and greater efficiency have been utilized to
help solve the problem. In the Okanagan increasing
the size of the farm unit is not economically feasible
because the price of land, reflecting urban-use
potential, has risen to prohibitive levels for fruit-
growing. The industry is already near the limit of
increased efficiency through site and variety selec-
tion and improved management practices.
Moreover, the Okanagan fruit-growing industry has
other problems which exacerbate the cost-price
squeeze: competition from lower-cost fruit from
Washington and Oregon, which have an earlier
harvest season; lack of a large domestic market,
which forces the industry to sell in a very competi-
tive foreign market; and periodic loss of trees and
crops due to low-temperature injury.
Austerity budget cuts in various areas, initiated by
298
the Social Credit Government re-elected in 19~
have led to conjecture in the fruit-growing industi,
that it will lose the level of financial assistance it has
received in the past. For example, it is known that
the provincial government wishes to reduce its
subsidy of the Farm Income Assurance programme,
which would therefore require higher premiums
from the growers. Given the economic problems
discussed in this paper, it is doubtful if the
fruit-growing industry could survive without sus-
tained provincial and federal government inputs of
at least the order of magnitude of those of the past.
Since senior government actions, such as the joint
federal-provincial irrigation programme, which
provided domestic water supply throughout the
valley, and the joint federal-provincial industrial
development programme, greatly encouraged the
urban pressures that are creating problems for the
fruit-growing industry, it would seem to be incum-
bent upon the senior governments to continue
supporting the industry in order to save a valuable
renewable resource.
The British Columbia (Agricultural) Land Commis-
sion Act, with its Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR)
programme was a bold and innovative attempt at
preventing needless destruction of agricultural land.
In the Okanagan Valley we cannot state how much
fruitland the ALR programme saved, because we
do not know how much would have been converted
to urban uses or how widespread the urban impact
would have been had there not been an ALR.
Undoubtedly, the urban conversion of agricultural
land has been slowed from what would have
happened without the programme. Although the
majority of appeal applications from the ALR have
been granted, there have been many applications
refused. If it had not been for the ALR, these
properties would have been taken out of agricul-
tural production. Also, the public and politicians’
consciousness of the value of agricultural land has
been greatly raised. In making land-use decisions
the presence of good agricultural land has risen
from being insignificant to being very important in
the considerations.
A major problem of the ALR programme is that it
is single-faceted, being concerned only with protec-
tion of agricultural land. In areas such as the
Okanagan Valley, where urban pressures are
strong, the writers agree with PIERCE (1981) that
the Commission should “shift attention from
defence of the reserves to co-operative efforts with
local districts in some form of area planning which
GeoforumNolume 16 Number 3/1985
reconciles the need for urban space with the need to
preserve farmland”. Other commentators, some of
whom have been involved in the B.C. Land
Commission, have agreed that until the land issue is
tackled as an urban question as well as an agricultu-
ral one, the urban pressure on farmland will remain
unremitting (RAWSON, 1979; LAVKULICH,
1979-1980; LASH, 1981). By the early 1980s there
had been some progress in integrating the ALRs
into the Official Plans of the Regional Districts, and
the municipal plans were being modified to conform
to the regional plans. After the 1983 provincial
election, however, the re-elected Social Credit
Government abolished Regional District Official
Plans, thus reversing the previous trend toward
more comprehensive regional planning.
There are other indications that the current British
Columbia government’s commitment to land-use
planning in general, and the ALR in particular, is
waning. The Land Commission’s staff has been cut
by 25%. When the Regional District Official Plans
were abolished, the regional technical planning
committees were also disbanded. These technical
planning committees had been an attempt to make
planning more comprehensive by including indi-
viduals with a range of technical skills and from
different local and provincial government agencies.
It appears from Cabinet Ministers’ public state-
ments that the government does not believe in (or
does not understand) the planning process. For
example, in the Vernon Daily News (28 June 1983)
Municipal Minister W. Ritchie is reported to have
stated, “I fully believe once an official municipal
plan is in place, there is no further need for planning
personnel”.
After a thorough review of land-use controls in
British Columbia, CORKE (1983) concludes that
the Agricultural Land Commission continued to
operate with considerable success despite “a
* political environment ideologically hostile to State
intervention in private rights over land use and
development”. Corke goes on to say that many civil
servants express amazement at the continued exist-
ence of the Land Commission. It appears that the
Land Commission and the ALR have survived
because of strong farm, general public and media
sympathy for the goal of agricultural land preserv-
ation.
With a weakening of commitment at the provincial
level and abolition of planning at the regional scale,
much now depends upon the actions of the local
GeoforumNolume 16 Number 3/1985
municipalities. Our 3 years of field investigation and
interviews in the Okanagan Valley have led us to
believe that in most cases municipalities react to
land-use controls in the same way as do most
property owners: they believe in the principle of
agricultural land preservation but act contrary to
that belief if directly constrained by the preser-
vation controls.
If the future urban develcjpment patterns, economic
conditions and political climate continue along
recent trends, it is difficult to be optimistic about
the long-term future of the Okanagan Valley fruit-
growing industry, and concomitantly, about success
in preserving the prime agricultural lands of the
Okanagan Valley. However, the control machinery
is in place, and if the political will can be stiffened
within the near future, it may still be possible to
preserve a valuable resource for future generations.
Acknowledgements -- The research on which this paper is
based was supported by the Social Sciences and Humani-
ties Council of Canada. The writers wish to acknowledge
the co-operation of the many peope related to the
fruit-growing industry and others involved in the land
planning process, all of whom so freely provided infor-
mation and answered questions. The maps were prepared
by Barry Levely, Faculty of Environmental Studies
Cartographic Centre, University of Waterloo.
For large-scale maps of orchards, vineyards and urban
growth patterns in the Okanagan Valley, see KRUE-
GER and MAGUIRE (1984). The maps in this paper
have been generalized at a much smaller scale.
The map showing the extent of prime agricultural land
(Figure 2) has been generalized from the following
CL1 maps: Soil Capability for Agriculture, Vernon 82
L/SW, Kelowna 82 E/NW, Penticton 82 E/SW
(Ottowa: Environment Canada). The soils mapped in
Figure 2 include areas with more than 50% CL1 class
1-3 land.
Basic data for the urban patterns of Figure 2 were
obtained from 1974 instead of 1981 air photos because
the scale made them much easier to interpret. These
data were then updated from 1981 manuscript maps
provided by the Lands Directorate, Environment
Canada. The built-up category on this map includes
residential developments covering at least 12 acres and
having a density of at least two buildings per acre, and
large industrial and commercial plants. The original
data were plotted on maps with a square kilometer
grid. The average number of farmsteads for each grid
block was determined from sample field checks, and
this number was deleted from the total number of
residences to obtain an estimate of the number of
non-farm residences for each block (KRUEGER and
MAGUIRE, 1984;).
299
Field observations and interviews in April 1983, and a
personal comunication from E. W. Manning, Lands
Directorate, Environment Canada, November 1983.
Information about the Indian Reserves received by
personal communication from E. W. Manning, Lands
Directorate, Environmental Canada, Ottawa, Novem-
ber 1983.
Personal communication from J. SCguin, Lands
Directorate, Environmental Canada, May 1984.
Even if the amount of $370 millions that BULLOCK
(1983) says is generated by the fruit-growing industry
reflects some elements of regional boosterism, the
order of magnitude gives an indication of the economic
value of the industry.
References
BAXTER, D. (1974) The B.C. Lund Commission - a
Review, U.B.C. Faculty of Commerce and Business
Administration, Report No. 8.
B.C. LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (1979) Tree-fruit and
Berry Production, Select Standing Committee on
Agriculture Report,
BOND, W. K., MANNING, E. W. and BIRCHAM, P.
D. (1981) Analysis of the impact of government
programs on Canada’s fruitlands, Ont. Geogr., 18,
57-77.
BRYANT, C. R. (1984) The recent evolution of farming
landscapes in urban-central regions, La&cape Plan.,
11, 307-326.
BRYANT, C. R. and RUSSWURM, I. H. (1979) The
impact of non-farm development on agriculture: a
synthesis, Plan Can., 19, 122-139.
BRYANT, C. R., RUSSWURM, L. H. and MACLEL-
LAN, A. G. (1982) The City’s Countryside: Land and
its Management in the Rural-Urban Fringe. Longman,
London.
BULLOCK, R. (1983) Address to Kelowna and District
Chamber of Commerce.
CORKE, S. E. (1983) Lund Use Controls in British
Columbia, University of Toronto Centre for Urban
and Community Studies, Research Paper No. 136.
FOISY, R. (1983) B. C. Assessment Authority Fact
Sheet on the British Columbia Assessment Act and
Taxation Act.
GAYLER, H. J. (1979) Political attitudes and urban
expansion in the Niagara Region of Ontario, Contact:
J. urban Envir. Affairs, 11, 43-60.
GAYLER, H. J. (1982) The problems of adjusting to
slow growth in the Niagara Region of Ontario, Can.
Geogr., 26, 16.5-172.
HUDSON, S. C. (1973) An Economic Study of the
Tree-fruit Industry of British Columbia. Government
of British Columbia, Victoria.
JACKSON, J. (1977) The Niagara Fruit Belt: a resource
in jeopardy, Contact: J. urban Envir. Affairs, 9,
24-41.
JACKSON, J. (1982) The Niagara Fruit Belt, the Ontario
Municipal Board decision of 1981, Can. Geogr., 26,
172-176.
KRUEGER, R. R. (1959) Changing land-use patterns in
the Niagara Fruit Belt, Trans. Roy. Can. Inst., 32,
39-140.
300
KRUEGER, R. R. (1963) The physical basis of the
orchard industry of British Columbia, Geogr. Bull.,
20, 5-38.
KRUEGER, R. R. (1965) The geography of the orchard
industry of Canada, Geogr. Bull., 7,2871. Reprinted
with updating in Readings in Canadian Geography
(revised, 1972), R. M. Irving (Ed.). Holt, Rinehart &
Winston, Toronto.
KRUEGER, R. R. (1978) Urbanization of the Niagara
Fruit Belt, Can. Geogr., 22, 179-194.
KRUEGER, R. R. (1982) The struggle to preserve
specialty cropland in the rural-urban fringe of the
Niagara Peninsula of Ontario, Environments, 14,
l-10.
KRUEGER, R. R. (1983) The orchard industry’s
response to low-temperature injury in the Okanagan
Valley, Can. Geogr., 27, 313327.
KRUEGER, R. R. and MAGUIRE, N. G. (1984)
Changing urban and fruitgrowing patterns in the
Okanagan Valley, B. C., Environments, 16, 1-9 (plus
fold-out maps).
LASH, H. (1981) Federal involvement in land policy,
Plan Can., 21, 64-66.
LAVKULICH, L. M. (1979-1980) Land, our threatened
resource, J. Bus. Admin. 11, 265-275.
MACPHEE, E. D. (1958) Report of the Royal Commis-
sion on the Tree-fruit Industry of British Columbia.
Government of British Columbia, Victoria.
MCRAE, J. D. (1980) The Influence of Exurbanite
Settlement on Rural Areas: a Review of Canadian
Literature, Lands Directorate Working Paper No. 3.
Environment Canada, Ottowa.
MANNING, E. W. and EDDY, S. S. (1978) The
GeoforumVolume 16 Number 3/1985
Agricultural Reserves of British Columbia: An Impact
Analysis. Lands Directorate, Environment Canada,
Ottawa.
MORGAN, B. (1978) The rural-urban taxation problem:
a case study of Glanbrook Township, Ontario,
unpublished B. E. S. Senior Honours Essay, Depart-
ment of Geography, University of Waterloo.
PIERCE, J. T. The B.C. Agricultural Land Commission:
a review and evaluation, Plan Can., 21, 48-56.
PROVINCIAL AGRICULTURAL LAND COMMIS-
SION (1984) Agricultural Land Reserve Statistics.
Burnaby, British Columbia.
RASHLEIGH, T. (1971) Regional Districts in British
Columbia. In: Urban Problems, A Canadian Reader,
R. R. Krueger and R. C. Bryfogle (Eds). Holt,
Rinehart & Winston, Toronto.
RAWSON, M. (1979) Rural land use issues and federal-
provincial jurisdiction. In: Report of the Council on
Land Use. Council on Rural Development in Canada,
Ottawa.
RODD, R. S. (1976) The crisis of agricultural land in the
Ontario Countryside, Plan Can., 16, 16&170.
RUSSWURM, L. H. (1970) Development of an Urban
Corridor System: Toronto to Stratford Area, 1941-
1946. Queen’s Printer, Toronto.
VAN VUUREN, W. et al. (1979) The impact of housing
development in rural areas on farm property taxes,
Can. J. agric. Econ., 26, 31-37.
WILSON, J. W. and PIERCE, J. T. (1982) The
Agricultural Land Commission of British Columbia,
Environments, 14, 11-20.
YEATES, M. (1975) Main Street, Windsor to Quebec
City. Macmillan, Toronto.