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
tomaintain a long-term commitment to
protecting the country’s natural resources.
