State ballot question
Proposed Constitutional Amendment 1
Proposed Amendment
Increases the maximum qualifying acreage for assessment and taxation as bona fide conservation use property.
House Resolution 32
Ga. L. 2025, p. 1081
Shall the Constitution of Georgia, for the purpose of protecting family farmland, be amended so as to increase the maximum acreage to qualify for assessment and taxation as a bona fide conservation use property from 2,000 acres to 4,000 acres?
Choices: Yes / No
Recommendation - Vote No
Overview
Georgia’s Conservation Use Valuation Assessment program allows qualifying agricultural and timberland to be assessed for property tax purposes based on its current use rather than its full market value. This constitutional amendment would increase the maximum amount of land that can qualify for this tax treatment from 2,000 acres to 4,000 acres. If voters approve the amendment in the 2026 General Election, an owner could enroll up to 4,000 acres beginning January 1, 2027.
The intent of this change is to preserve family farms by allowing larger farming operations to receive conservation-use tax treatment, reducing pressure to develop the land and encouraging farmland to remain in agricultural use.
Current CUVA Program Parameters
Georgia’s Department of Revenue confirms these aspects of the current CUVA program:
-
Assessment: Eligible land is assessed at 40% of its current-use value, rather than 40% of its fair market value, which reflects its potential for development.
-
Acreage: The limit is 2,000 acres statewide per qualifying owner, with rules accounting for interests held through family farm entities.
-
Ownership: Eligible owners include qualifying individuals, estates, trusts, certain family farm entities (such as partnerships, LLCs, private corporations), and specified nonprofit organizations. Private ownership alone does not establish eligibility; the owner must meet the statutory qualifications. Owners must be natural or naturalized U.S. citizens. Partners must be related by marriage or blood within the fourth degree of civil reckoning (e.g. first cousins).
-
Use: The agricultural/timber category requires a bona fide qualifying use, including crops, livestock, horticulture, aquaculture, timber production or nature conservation. At least 80% of its gross income must come from bona fide conservation uses in Georgia during the preceding year.
-
Commitment: The owner enters a 10-year covenant to maintain a qualifying use. Up to half the tract may be dormant under specified conditions. If the owners break the agreement early, they have to pay back the tax savings plus penalties.
The overall program also covers certain environmentally sensitive land, which may qualify through Department of Natural Resources (DNR) certification and preservation in its natural condition.
What is a Family Farm
A family farm entity generally must meet these conditions:
“Bona fide conservation uses” are broader than operating a conventional farm. Under O.C.G.A. § 48-5-7.4, they include:
| Use | Examples or conditions |
|---|---|
| Crops | Raising, harvesting, or storing crops |
| Livestock and poultry | Feeding, breeding, or managing animals |
| Specialized agriculture | Horticulture, flowers, dairy, aquaculture, and beekeeping |
| Forestry | Growing trees and producing timber |
| Wildlife habitat | Maintaining at least 10 acres of habitat in its natural state or under management |
| Conservation forestry | Land conservation and ecological forest management, including wood production primarily for conservation or restoration rather than financial gain |
The statute recognizes good-faith production, including subsistence farming, so commercial profit is not universally required. It also permits carbon sequestration as a secondary use under qualifying programs.
A separate category covers DNR-certified environmentally sensitive property, including qualifying wetlands, groundwater recharge areas, endangered-species habitat, river corridors, and certain stormwater wetlands. Its qualifying use may be preservation in its natural condition or water-quality protection.
Qualifying wildlife habitat can be eligible without conventional farming or timber harvesting—and without necessarily qualifying as DNR-certified environmentally sensitive land. Ownership and the other covenant requirements still apply.
Issues
The overriding issue with the proposed constitutional amendment is that it reduces property tax revenue for rural Georgia counties without providing an offsetting revenue source. Neither the baseline CUVA program nor the proposed expansion provides an alternative revenue source. That revenue pays for schools, roads and public safety services provided by the counties.
According to the Georgia Department of Revenue, CUVA costs counties about $306 million annually. $188 million of that amount comes from school budgets. Because the state does not reimburse counties for this lost revenue, the resulting tax burden shifts from participating landowners to other taxpayers within the county rather than being shared statewide.
The other issue is that there is no need or benefit from expanding the program. Farms in excess of 2,000 acres aren’t disappearing in Georgia; they are actually increasing in number. It’s the small farms that are disappearing and they already qualify for the CUVA program.
Also, the program can’t effectively compete with large corporations that can afford to pay huge prices for the land—prices that easily compensate for the loss of tax savings and even the penalty for breaking the covenant. For example, if a corporation can afford to pay $250,000 per acre for farmland valued at $2,500 an acre, owners will sell their eligible land regardless of the CUVA tax savings.
The existing program isn’t protecting large farms and timber tracts anyway. A 2002 study conducted by the University of Georgia found that most farms enrolled in CUVA were smaller than 50 acres. Only about 2% of Georgia farms are between 2,000 and 4,000 acres in size.
In summary, the program isn’t needed, it isn’t effective, and it harms taxpayers in rural counties without affecting taxpayers in metropolitan areas. Instead of expanding CUVA, it should be repealed.
For these reasons, we recommend voting NO on Ballot Question 1.
References
Georgia SoS Rules – Conservation Use Property (https://rules.sos.ga.gov/gac/560-11-6)
Georgia DoR - Conservation Use Assessment (https://www.augustaga.gov/DocumentView.aspx?DID=3290 )
Justia – 2025 Georgia Code (https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/title-48/chapter-5/article-1/section-48-5-7-4/ )
University of Georgia — 2022 Georgia Agricultural Census: General Agriculture, AGECON-24-01-01, p. 1. Documents growth from 755 to 920 farms of 2,000 acres or more between 2017 and 2022; this category does not isolate farms between 2,000 and 4,000 acres. View source
Jie Pan, University of Georgia — Evaluation of Ten-Year Implementation of the Conservation Use Valuation Assessment Program in Georgia (2005 thesis, reporting a 2002 survey). The abstract reports that most covenant holders owned less than 50 acres and that CUVA was not a significant factor affecting land-use decisions. View source
Savills — Navigating the New Normal, presentation hosted by the Georgia State Properties Commission, PDF p. 14. Reports QTS’s Fayetteville farmland purchase at approximately $250,000 per acre; it does not establish the $2,500-per-acre agricultural valuation used in the example. View source