Background

The successes of conservation programs in states, such as Florida, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and California, certainly deserve applause, yet the need for land conservation is still urgent. Development substantially outstrips open space preservation in every state but Maryland.(1) As natural lands become scarcer, continuing to preserve parcels ad hoc spells disaster for habitats, waterways, and rare and endangered species. Some states have recognized this and are taking more coordinated approaches to conservation and planning. These states have also taken measures to ensure they have funding available for conservation projects long into the future.

Despite the varying ages and strategies of state conservation programs, each successful program has one element in common – at least one significant, stable funding source, most often general obligation bonds. This funding is dedicated, in the same way funding is secured for roads, sewers, and other capital infrastructure. Colorado’s conservation program is funded by proceeds from the state lottery; in Florida, it is general obligation. Maryland assesses a fee on real estate transfers. The bottom line for any state that is serious about conservation is to make it a dedicated, fiscal priority.

Even for states on a tight budget, which most are nowadays, dedicating money for conservation must become a priority. Viewing land conservation as a “necessity” rather than a “luxury” is essential. Failing to make this distinction may result in irreparable damage to our air and water, and irretrievable loss of natural resources and ecosystem services. Viewing conservation as a necessity and having the means to fund it is not a pipe dream – the ongoing success of conservation programs featured in this package is a testament to this. Citizen support is critical to this success.

In states such as California, the sizable cash dedicated to land conservation reflects its citizen’s support for parks and habitat preservation. Between 2000 and 2002 alone, voters in California approved $10 billion in conservation bond measures.(2) Indeed, the public has played a key role in securing conservation funding in many states. In 2003, voters in 23 states approved 100 of 134 conservation-related ballot initiatives, securing $1.2 billion specifically dedicated to land conservation financing.(3) With sponsorship from conservation organizations such as the Trust for Public Land and the Conservation Fund, citizens across the United States have made an enormous difference helping to save what’s left of our wildlands. Seven hundred sixty-five conservation-related municipal and county ballot initiatives were approved nationwide from 1998 through 2003.(4)

Voters in New Jersey approved 250 county and municipal conservation-related ballot measures between 1998 and 2003.(4) This astonishing fact can, in part, be attributed to the well-crafted design of its flagship conservation program, the Garden State Preservation Trust (GSPT). Like many exemplary conservation programs, the GSPT gets its power from the people. It was approved by voters in 1998 by a two to one majority. GSPT makes available $98 million per year, through 2009, in matching funds for open space and farmland preservation. By 2003, 20 out of 21 counties and 187 of 566 municipalities had approved funding for local open space and recreation plans to match GSPT funding.(5)

GSPT’s success highlights a key feature of state conservation programs: matching funds for local preservation. In Florida, for example, key to the success of both Preservation 2000 (P2000) and Florida Forever is their proven commitment to assisting local governments with their own land preservation goals.(6) Florida Forever allows nonprofit conservation organizations and private citizens to be project sponsors. It also ensures that each dollar spent goes further by requiring matches through local government funds. This provision has resulted in hundreds of cities and counties using matching state funds to purchase land for conservation, recreation, open space, and coastal management. Conservation programs in Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Illinois, and Colorado, to name a few, also maximize their budgets by providing matching grants to counties and municipalities. Some of these programs scale their funding, and give the largest grants to local governments who have set up land acquisition review boards to administer conservation projects, created local growth management plans, or established other important mechanisms to channel growth sustainably.

In order to maximize the impact of their conservation dollars, several states are taking a “green infrastructure” approach to conservation. Scientists working in Maryland’s GreenPrint program use satellite data to map the state’s remaining wildlands. They coordinate with state and local officials and nonprofit organizations to select parcels for purchase that contribute to the conservation of entire habitats, ecosystems, and watersheds. Taking this approach saves Maryland money and more effectively conserves its natural resources. For more information, see SERC’s Green Infrastructure Policy Issues Package (forthcoming).

The bottom line is that land and water conservation must be perceived as a necessity, not a luxury, if states want to save what’s remaining of their natural lands. Without any substantial federal funding, it is up to states to dedicate money for this purpose. The states highlighted in this package have made conservation a priority, and proven that it can be done in a fiscally responsible manner by taking a systems approach with ecosystem integrity and smart growth as guiding principles, and matching grants made available for municipalities. Dedicated conservation financing shows foresight on the part of these states because human societies need healthy ecosystems to survive. Ecosystems purify our air and water, detoxify and decompose wastes, regulate the climate, regenerate soil fertility, and produce and maintain biodiversity, from which key ingredients of our agricultural, pharmaceutical, and industrial enterprises are derived. Conservation, unlike sprawl development, is not an investment that produces a quick profit; it is, however, a smart buy, with immeasurable, long-term rewards.

Sources:
(1) Benedict, Mark A. and Edward T. McMahon. “Green Infrastructure: Smart Conservation for the 21st Century.” Washington, D.C.: Sprawl Watch Clearinghouse, May 2002. 5 May 2004 <http://www.sprawlwatch.org/greeninfrastructure.pdf>.
(2) McQueen, Mike and Ed McMahon. “Land Conservation Financing.” Washington, D.C.: Island Press, 2003: p. 61.
(3) “Land Vote 2003.” The Trust of Public Land. Updated 3/2004. 5 May 2004 <http://www.tpl.org/tier2_rp2.cfm?folder_id=2406>.
(4) “Approved County and Municipal Conservation-Related Ballot Measures (1998–2003).” Common Ground 15.1 (January-March 2004): p. 7. The Conservation Fund.5 May 2004 <http://www.conservationfund.org/pdf/cg151gr.pdf>.
(5) McQueen and McMahon, pp. 28-32.
(6) “Funding Profile: Florida.” The Trust for Public Land. Posted 3/2003 5 May 2004 <http://www.tpl.org/tier3_cdl.cfm?content_item_id=11424&folder_id=706>.
The Florida Forever legislation is the successor to Preservation 2000 (P2000), the successful program that provided over 3 billion dollars for state land preservation programs from 1990 to 2000. The highly popular P2000 program was first created by a Republican governor and a Democratic legislature and was continued in the mid-1990s with a Democratic governor and a Republican legislature. In the 1998 race for governor, both the Democratic and Republican candidates tenaciously supported a continuation of a P2000-like land conservation program. As P2000 began winding down in early 1999, the citizens of Florida were vocal about their desire for continued and expanded state preservation programs. Such overwhelming public support coupled with bipartisan legislative backing led to the creation of Florida Forever, a groundbreaking piece of legislation that provides $3 billion over 10 years for the acquisition, restoration, and/or improvement of park, recreation, and conservation lands. Its large funding base is primarily a result of the sale of state revenue bonds and further supplemented by real estate transfer tax revenue. The signing of Florida Forever by Republican Governor Jeb Bush in April 1999 created one of the more aggressive and expansive land preservation programs in the country. As such, it addresses a wide range of conservation goals beyond land acquisition, including the restoration of damaged environmental systems, water resource development and supply, increased public access, public lands management and maintenance, and increased protection of land by acquisition of conservation easements. While the Florida Forever program is still rather new, the innovation used in its predecessor (P2000) preserved an impressive 1.25 million acres in just ten years. With a similar funding base, bold, new initiatives, and broad public support, the successes of Florida Forever promise to be even more impressive.