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 is subject 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.
