Standing on the periphery of Kansas City, Springfield, St. Louis or any other growing community, it's easy to conclude that the disappearance of farmland is a significant problem in the state of Missouri and probably the nation, for that matter. But proximity distorts perspective.

Make no mistake; subdivisions are encroaching on farmland as we show in this month's feature stories. And the upheaval is painful, problematic and financially disruptive for those involved. For farmers and ranchers caught up in the phenomenon, suburban encroachment is a serious matter, and their plight should not be trivialized in any way.

More than 500,000 acres of agricultural land have been developed in the past 15 years in the state of Missouri. But a disinterested perspective requires a look at the totals. Of the state's 41.9 million acres of privately owned land, only 6.5 percent is developed.

More than 30 million acres in Missouri are farmed. Despite the fact that land is being developed at a rate of 35,000 acres per year in the state, land farmed is the same as a year ago, a number that has stayed stable since 1994. Many areas of the state are more concerned with disappearing farmers than disappearing farmland. Still, long-term, unchecked growth could pose a threat to the productive potential of U.S. agriculture.

Unfortunately, nationally many solutions are to immediately staunch the bleeding with a number of governmental mandates that farmland stay farmland. Most of those solutions are far worse than the problem of encroachment. How could a reasonable person possibly tell farmers their land will be off limits to development? What could you possibly say to the landowner who stands to reap a monetary windfall in selling land to suburban developers? "Sorry, but we don't want you to take two million five for that land. We'd rather you farmed it for the good of the community."

Under farmland-preservation policies like Oregon's, farmers cannot sell to developers. I cannot think of a more draconian measure than to limit a property owner's income arbitrarily to suit a group's current notion of propriety.

Still, a reasonable person could support sheltering willing farmers from dramatically escalating property taxes and discretionary eminent domain takings--byproducts of suburban encroachment that make farming unprofitable.

Consider, too, that if modern society truly was concerned about disappearing farmland, no one need look further than the battle now underway in the Missouri River valley. Paradoxically, the battle is unacknowledged by farmland-preservation groups. There's no better example of modern society's cognitive dissociation. The quasi-environmental group American Rivers wants to stop commercial navigation and dismantle the levee system in order to help the least tern, piping plover and pallid sturgeon.

Take a quick look at statistics, and you'll find something that won't surprise farmers. Of the top agricultural counties in Missouri, with a couple of notable exceptions, all are in flood plains of the Missouri or Mississippi Rivers. The approximate number we're talking about here is 2.4 million acres of the finest cropland in the state. Those are the acres under siege from encroachment--eco-encroachment, that is.

So put the matter in perspective. If today's attempts are aimed solely at insulating farmers from the consequences of suburban proximity, government needs to focus laser-like on that situation. If people are truly worried about disappearing farmland, the focus instead should be on stopping efforts to end navigation and dismantle levees in the river valleys.