I have the honor and privilege to transmit to you the report of the Rural Affairs Study Commission.

The Virginia General Assembly's concern about the future pattern of development in the Commonwealth is expressed in the Statute establishing the Rural Affairs Study Commission, Chapter 768 of the 1968 session:

Whereas, the rapid shifting of the state's and the nation's population is estimated to mean that by 1985 three-fourths of the Commonwealth's then over six million people will live in urban centers...at least one solution to the numerous special problems which afflict our urban areas would be the decentralization of industry and attendant facilities and the better utilization of our rural resources to support. this burgeoning population and increasing industrial activity ... The Commission shall consider, study and report its recommendations on the ways and means best designed to utilize existing rural resources and to develop facilities in our rural areas to support industry and an expanded share of the Commonwealth's growing population...

This report is directed toward these legislative charges. Underlying all of the Commission's work is the proposition that to the maximum extent possible the future growth of the Commonwealth ought to be directed toward the nonmetropolitan areas of the state. We began and finished our work with the belief that the people of Virginia, acting through their state and local governments, are able to influence the future pattern of settlement.

What is Rural?

One early need was to develop a working definition of what "rural" meant for the purposes of this study. Everyone has his own idea about what is Rural. It may be the farm he grew up on, a favorite mountain spot, or the small town where his grandfather had a store. Defining rural is more difficult today than it would have been at the turn of the century. Then, sparse population and a way of life tied to the land typified "rural." Today, however, with automobiles, telephones, electricity and television, the ways of life in the city and in the country are not so different. The farm manager operates as complex and highly automated a business as many urban manufacturers. Those who live in rural areas may work, shop, and go to church in town.

In spite of the decreased distinction between urban and rural, we needed a definition so we could gather statistics and talk about different kinds of areas with some consistent meaning.

The need for a definition was solved in two steps:

The primary concern about concentration of Virginia's population, in our view, was not directed to all of the state's cities and towns, but rather toward the few large and officially identified Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas. The concern was even more narrowly focused on the metropolitan areas in the Urban Corridor from Northern Virginia to Richmond and then on to Hampton Roads. Therefore, in the Commission's report that follows, metropolitan and nonmetropolitan are often used as the distinction, rather than urban and rural. Metropolitan means the six Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (These are identified and explained in Appendix I of this report).

The second step was to divide all of the cities and counties into four categories representing different urban and rural settings ranging from most rural to central cities. The Commission sought to minimize individual judgments on whether a particular county should be in one category or another by using simple rules uniformly in the classification. Those who conducted studies and prepared statistics for the Commission were asked to use the system so that there would be comparability in their statistics and the inferences drawn from them. (The system is explained in Appendix I.)

Agriculture

The excellent and intensive study of the Commission of the Industry of Agriculture made it unnecessary for us to devote much of our study to agro-business. We recognize; however, the continuing importance of this industry to rural Virginia and endorse the recommendations of the Commission of the Industry of Agriculture for strengthening agriculture in Virginia.

The Commission Program

At its May 9, 1969 meeting, the Rural Affairs Study Commission adopted a statement of objectives and a program of hearings and staff studies.

- Hearings and Workshops - There were four parts to the hearing and workshop program. The first was a conference and seminar held at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute on June 2, 1969. Experts in the fields of education, health, local government, taxation and community development were invited to lecture and lead discussion sessions of members and staff.

Between June 23 and September 18, seven public hearings were held. The hearing sites (Emporia, Abingdon, Lexington, Accomac, Tappahannock, Lynchburg, and Warrenton) were selected because they would bring the Commission in touch with a variety of regional problems and make it more convenient for the public to attend and to testify if they wished. The response was very gratifying. Not only did more people attend and testify than is usually the case with such study commission hearings, but the variety of views presented met the Commission's objective of hearing a broad cross-section of the Commonwealth's economic, social and industrial groups.

The heads of several state agencies were invited to appear and testify at a hearing on October 22. This permitted the members to discuss some questions raised at the public hearings with the state officials involved. Two area tours were the final element in the hearing program. The first was to the South Boston-Halifax County area, which was particularly recommended to the Commission for its community development efforts. The Commission also toured the Southwestern part of the state because that area is using a number of innovative approaches to providing education and government services for a group of relatively sparsely settled counties.

- Subject Area Studies - At its May 9 meeting, the Commission identified twelve subject areas it wished to study. These were: job and business opportunities; education; health care; government structure; rural industries; housing; transportation and communications; power and fuel; banking; natural resources; recreation; and cultural opportunities.

These cover almost the entire range of the social and economic concerns of state government and intensive studies of all of them would have been a monumental undertaking requiring at least several years to carry out. In most cases, however, some published research already was available covering part of the Commission's inquiry.

For these reasons, the Commission and its staff agreed upon a two-step research program. The first step would be a very broad, but necessarily limited, study. No more than two man-months of professional time would be available for any subject area. Primary reliance was to be placed on existing studies, reports and statistics as a source of ideas and recommendations for the Rural Affairs Study Commission. More detailed studies would follow. where the survey research indicated a need. These intensive studies would be carried out either by the Commission, or as a part of the state planning program.

Within these guidelines, studies were commissioned for each of the twelve study subject areas. Each of the consultants worked separately under general guidance. Some subjects were divided and the Commission will have seventeen individual study papers. Seven are the work of consultants, three were prepared by state agencies, and seven were produced by the Appalachian Regional Commission. (Appendix II contains an identification of these consultants.)

In view of the time available to the writers, (it varied from two weeks to two months) they have produced a very respectable body of information and ideas. The study papers have been most useful to the Commission in its deliberations. They should also be very valuable to state and local officials and researchers. The Commission plans to make them available.

In spite of the dedicated efforts of these study area consultants, we were able only to skim the surface of our twelve broad subject areas. Every one of the reports is prefaced with the warning that they are no more than a quick survey. Nonetheless, we have rapidly gathered a considerable body of information and questions that should provide a base for further research and comprehensive planning.

Staff Assistance

Several agencies contributed the extensive staff services that made it possible for us to conduct the public hearings, to produce the Commission study papers, and even to write this report. The four organizations to which we owe the greatest debt are:

• The Division of State Planning and Community Affairs
• The Division of Statutory Research and Drafting
• The Extension Division of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute
• The Appalachian Regional Commission

Many people in these organizations have helped us outside of or beyond their regular duties. They were interested and challenged by the Commission's task. We do not want to single out any individuals for expressions of appreciation (the list would be too long). But our particular thanks go to the study area consultants. They agreed to accept their tasks with very severe time limitations. Here again, they did it because they were interested in what the Commission is attempting to do.

Findings

In its hearings, tours and study papers, hundreds of valid needs of rural areas were brought to the Commission's attention. These ranged from replanting the eel grass on the Eastern Shore to assisting symphony orchestras; from bank erosion on the Northern Neck to a doctor in Rockbridge County. These were, we repeat, valid and important needs of these areas, but researching them and preparing recommendations on each was simply beyond any single commission's resources in time and money.

Furthermore, the Rural Affairs Study Commission believes that rather than coming up with a long list of needs, the Commission should concentrate on providing a permanent way of meeting the needs of the rural areas through the regular institutions of government.

The report that follows attempts to boil down the mass of information that the Commission gathered and to address the central premises underlying its work: that continued concentration of the state's population in a few large metropolitan areas would not be good and that the government of the Commonwealth of Virginia can do something to influence the future pattern of settlement for the better.

This report suggests major policy directions needed to achieve the Commission's objectives, several program changes and some additional research. Where the Commission recommends consolidation or regional actions in the pages that follow, it wishes to emphasize that it believes this should come about through voluntary local efforts.

Continuation of the Commission

The Rural Affairs Study Commission is requesting the General Assembly to continue it for an additional two years. Building upon the initial work represented by this report, we believe that the next two years can bring significant additional accomplishments.

Lyman C. Harrell, Jr.
Chairman