America’s open
spaces are an integral part of our national identity. Our natural landscapes
not only provide us with places of great beauty, but they also play a critical
role in providing habitat for wildlife along with clean water, fresh air and
recreational opportunities for Americans.
With these
values at stake, many states —and their taxpaying citizens—have made significant
investments in protecting these beautiful landscapes from destructive
activities. Nevertheless, America’s woods, fields, and meadows are steadily
slipping away. Sprawling, unplanned development and mounting pressure to drill,
log, and mine America’s last remaining wilderness areas threaten the health of
our environment and communities and jeopardize the natural legacy we will leave
to future generations.
Development
covered an additional 21.6 million acres of land in America—an area larger than
the state of Maine—between 1992 and 2003. The country lost approximately 34.6
million acres of agricultural land over that same time period—lands that are
not only important for the production of food but which also play an important role
in local ecosystems.Despite the recent downturn in the
real estate market, there is every indication that the long-term trend toward
sprawling development will result in continued paving over of woods, pastures
and other open spaces across America.
If states want
to save the special places that remain within their borders, they need to redouble
their efforts—and quickly. Fortunately, the examples set by existing state land
preservation programs hold important lessons for states as they seek to protect
their most treasured natural areas. This report profiles the experiences of
preservation programs in 15 states as they have striven for consistent and
adequate funding for open space protection.
The experiences
of these states suggest that future state-level land preservation efforts in
the United States should:
Plan for and
finance preservation over the long-term. States in which funding for preservation issubject to the annual state budget process have a more
difficult time sustaining consistent and meaningful land preservation efforts.
Consistent funding is important because there is often a very short window of
opportunity during which threatened open spaces can be protected. The loss of funding
at a critical moment could result in important natural areas being lost
forever. The most effective way to ensure long-term stability in funding is to
adopt multiyear programs paid for with bonds backed by dedicated revenue
streams. States such as Florida, which has established 10-year preservation
programs funded through the issuance of bonds, have been able to maintain
momentum for their preservation programs without having those efforts interrupted
by funding cuts during periods when state budgets are tight.
Create a
dedicated funding stream. States have created a variety of dedicated funding streams for
preservation programs – ranging from real estate taxes to a percentage share of
lottery revenue to a designated portion of the state’s general sales taxes. In
reality, however, no source of funding is truly “dedicated” forever, and legislators
in several states have diverted funding from these sources to fill short-term budget
holes. The “dedicated” funding sources that appear least likely to be diverted
are those that are dedicated in the state constitution to land preservation or
are used to secure revenue bonds. Constitutional provisions that dedicate
specific funding sources to preservation programs are difficult to overturn.
Issuing revenue bonds secured with a stable source of dedicated funding can
make it difficult to divert funding from preservation activities while
providing consistent funding for preservation needs over a period of time.
In several
states, dedicated sources are not the main source of preservation funding, but
still play a useful role in helping a state to diversify its funding stream for
preservation, minimizing damage in cases where funding from one source
temporarily dries up.
Set goals and
evaluate progress. Several states,
including Connecticut and North Carolina, have set numerical goals for the
amount of land they wish to preserve through their open space protection programs.
In addition, North Carolina produces an annual report evaluating progress toward
its “million acre” goal and the challenges faced in achieving that target. These
numerical goals enable government officials, preservationists and the public to
evaluate the success of a state’s preservation efforts, evaluate where those
efforts may be falling short, and devise strategies to address those
shortcomings. The quality of land protected is as important as the quantity.
State programs should focus on protecting lands of high ecological and
community value, for example, by prioritizing the protection of contiguous parcels
of open space. Washington, Florida and other states have developed systematic criteria
by which they prioritize lands to be protected, ensuring that the investment of
state funds delivers the maximum benefit for the environment and state
residents.
Create funding
mechanisms that align with preservation priorities. Michigan obtains some of its funds
for new state land purchases through revenues from logging and other extractive
activities on existing taxpayer-owned lands—a mechanism that undermines
preservation goals. Several other states use real estate taxes to fund
preservation efforts, generating more revenue for preservation at times when
there is greater pressure to
develop land.
Harness local and
private-sector resources. Several states rely on local and private efforts to augment state land
purchases as part of their overall land preservation strategies. States such as
Georgia are using tax credits to encourage private efforts to preserve land,
while states such as New Hampshire, Connecticut and Wisconsin offer matching
grants to spur the purchase of land by local governments and land trusts.
Well-designed tax credits and matching grant programs can enable states to
protect more land with less state money and maintain momentum toward land
preservation even when state budgets are tight.
Combine land
purchases with effective land-use planning. Oregon has achieved great success in preserving
natural and agricultural lands through a combination of innovative land use planning
and purchases of important natural areas. Effective planning can reduce the
pressure placed by sprawling development on natural areas and play an important
role in America’s overall preservation effort.
Ensure that
taxpayers’ lands remain protected. When taxpayers use their hard-earned dollars to
purchase forests, fields and mountain valleys, these lands should be protected
for future generations. But in some states, powerful industries have been allowed
to trample on publicly-owned open spaces. Lands purchased by taxpayers for preservation
should not be opened to logging, mining, drilling or other destructive activities.
Seek public
support. Citizens across
the country support land preservation. When preservation funding initiatives
make it to the ballot – either at the local or state level – they frequently receive
overwhelming support. The adoption of preservation funding referendums makes it
less likely that lawmakers will choose to override the will of the voters by
diverting funding and it helps nurture the civic constituency needed to maintain a long-term commitment to protecting
the country’s natural resources.
