Farming is a way of life in San Joaquin County, and so is destroying farmland. A schizoid land use that must change.

San Joaquin paves over more high-quality farmland than any other California county, says a new report - 14,888 acres from 1990 to 2004, an area half Stockton's size.

"The fears of those who worry that the San Joaquin could become the next L.A. appear to be justified," warns "Paving Paradise" by the Amer-ican Farmland Trust.

"Unless," the report adds, "the state's premier agricultural region grows 'smarter' than in the recent past."

We can dispense with the "next L.A." idea. This region won't have the beaches, Holly-wood, the glitz, the defense industry, Philip Marlowe, even the porn industry.

It'll just be an unbroken, low-density metroplex stretching up Highway 99, a sort of infinite Fresno.

But that's beside the point. The real issue is whether we have an obligation to preserve the very best farmland.

Yes. Of course. "Farmland that has more fertile soils and more reliable water supplies tends to produce consistently higher crop yields at lower cost," the report points out.

Furthermore, if you hate seeing Delta water exported to irrigate marginal lands, then it follows you preserve the best farmland, which happens to be here.

Actually, it doesn't happen to be here; people settle where they can farm. The problem is the Valley's growth paradigm is running up against its limits.

Stockton's aggressive General Plan nearly doubles the city population to 575,000 by 2035.

Yes, the new plan calls for infill to reduce sprawl. So did the old General Plan, the one that earned the county top prize for gobbling the best farmland.

"Community plans call for increasing urban densities," the report wisely observes, "but the actual decisions of officials belie these good intentions."

The 2035 plan is a step forward. Its denser "villages" reduce sprawl, if a doubling city can talk of reducing sprawl.

But no effort was made to identify the best farmland and avoid it, said Mike Niblock, Stockton's Community Development director.

That may not be easy. Great farmland surrounds Stockton. Growth may mean its irreversible loss.

But certain soils and microclimates may be better than others. They can be inventoried. And the density of growth - people per acre - surely can be intensified.

The state average for people per acre (outside L.A.) is 7.2. The San Joaquin Valley's average is 6.5. Stockton's General Plan envisions a density of 6.9.

That's still a waste of land, by the report's reckoning.

To go on as we have is to become the generation that forever destroyed this fertile region's arable land - akin to the heedless hunter who killed the last California grizzly, forever robbing the state of one of its wonders.

Contact columnist Michael Fitzgerald at (209) 546-8270 or michaelf@recordnet.com.