 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
||||||||
 |
| Home > Policy Issues > Conservation Funding > Bill Text |
 |
Bill TextThe previous version of this package was based on the Florida Forever bill. Florida Forever is still, perhaps, the most comprehensive, well-funded, aggressive land conservation program in the country. In this updated package, we feature, in addition to the omnibus Florida Forever bill, exemplary programs in four other states. Please find below an overview of the process of creating and operating a conservation funding program, and examples of innovative and successful programs in five states. An effective conservation program will:
The Process1. A review board is created.A board or council consisting of any manageable number (9 is common) of objective representatives from a variety of backgrounds and affiliations is selected. Usually, they represent differing state agencies with a vested interest in the natural environment. The governor may opt to appoint additional members should supplementary expertise be needed. Review Boards in Some StatesTypically, land acquisition review boards consist of members from state offices such as community affairs, environmental protection, forestry, agriculture, fish and game/fish and wildlife, finance, and the department of state. Board members are usually not elected officials, but there are exceptions, such as the bipartisan Legislative Commission on Minnesota Resources. Review boards in a few states:
2. Criteria for reviewing project proposals is established.While each state’s council or board is responsible for creating a set of criteria by which they review project proposals, some general guidelines to follow might include:
3. Funding sources are identified.There are many funding sources states use to finance land conservation. Some of these sources are listed below: Municipal BondsMunicipal bonds are one of the most common and sizable sources of conservation funding. The Florida Forever program stands out as an example of a stable and effective habitat acquisition program funded by bonds. It requires that protection of the integrity of ecological systems and habitat form the basis of the state’s land acquisition programs. Approximately, $105 million per year is generated through bond issuances.(1) In California, between 2000 and 2002, voters approved approximately $10 billion in bonds for the state’s conservation programs.(2) Real Estate Transfer TaxThis can provide stable, high-level funding for habitat protection. The real estate transfer tax is imposed when property is bought or sold. Illinois levies a tax of 50 cents per $500 of a property’s assessed value.(3) In Maryland, 0.5% of a property’s selling price is paid at settlement to the state’s conservation program, Program Open Space.(4) (Unfortunately, many corporations are avoiding the real estate transfer tax in Maryland by creating holding companies, which shelter any real estate transaction from the tax. By applying the real estate transfer tax to holding companies, Maryland could save $9 million.(5)) State Sales and Use TaxThis is another potential source of stable, high-level funding. The Garden State Preservation Fund in New Jersey is funded primarily by state sales and use tax. In Minnesota, a constitutional amendment is being proposed that would raise the state sales and use tax by 0.25% for various land conservation purposes.(6) State LotteryColorado has dedicated over $1 billion to state programs, including conservation funding, through its lottery since 1980.(7) Dedicated Sales TaxSeveral states dedicate a portion of the sales tax already being collected for wildlife-watching equipment (binoculars, birdseed, field guides, etc.) to non-game wildlife programs. Virginia enacted such a law in 1998 and allocates $12 million per year from sales tax revenue for conservation and wildlife law enforcement.(8) Tobacco TaxFive percent of a 25-cents-per-pack tobacco tax is dedicated to California’s Habitat Conservation Fund.(9) Fish and Game PermitsBetween 2001-2002, California spent about $88 million from their Fish and Game Preservation Fund – revenue generated from the sale of fishing and hunting permits – on protecting and preserving fish and wildlife, including habitat acquisition. Most of the money is restricted for specific purposes or species.(9) Deed Recording FeeSouth Carolina allocates 8% of deed recording fees for its Heritage Trust Program. Operating costs for the Heritage Trust Program are paid for by state appropriations, a tax check-off, and the Endangered Species License Plate.(10) Natural Resources RevenueMichigan dedicates revenue from oil, gas, and mineral easing and production on state lands toward its Natural Resources Trust Fund. In California, the Resources Trust Fund receives revenue from oil extraction on public lands. License Plate SalesSeveral states, including Indiana, California, South Carolina, New York, and Florida, use proceeds from the sale of personalized and/or environmental license plates for acquiring natural areas. Indiana, one of the first states to use license plate sales to fund conservation, has purchased 32,923 acres at 200 sites.(11) California generated over $500 million through its program, the Environmental License Plate Fund, between 1970 and 2000.(9) Energy SavingsUtah’s Quality Growth Act (Title 11, Chapter 38 of the Utah Code) requires that state department energy savings is dedicated to conservation funding. 4. Proposals are submitted.A sponsor (local government, nonprofit organization, private citizen, or other) submits a project proposal to the selected review board outlining the ecologic potential of the selected site. If the property meets the requirements of the board, it is placed on the approved acquisition list. In time, an appraisal is done to determine fair market value. In the case of an outright purchase, the state will purchase the land and place it under protection. Other protection mechanisms such as conservation easements, rights-of-first-refusal, and retained life estates should also be considered. State Conservation ProgramsFlorida ForeverFlorida’s population has grown exponentially in recent years – 400,000 residents immigrated to the Sunshine State from 2000 to 2001 alone – a number equivalent to the entire population of Wyoming. Florida is also the most biodiverse state east of the Mississippi.(12) The Preservation 2000 and Florida Forever programs are largely responsible for conserving what remains of this biodiversity. From 1990-2000, Florida’s Preservation 2000 (P2000) provided funds generated from bond revenues for land acquisition programs. With the help of $3 billion and provisions for local government matches to state funds, the program was instrumental in the preservation of 1.75 million acres over a 10-year tenure.(13) As the program came to an end, overwhelming bipartisan support led to its successor program, Florida Forever. Florida Forever 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. Like P2000, Florida Forever provides $3 billion over 10 years for conservation purposes.(14) Florida Forever bonds are derived from an excise tax on recording documents, primarily real estate transactions, and annual appropriations. Despite the drop in funds allocated directly to conservation and recreation from 50% under P2000 to 35% under Florida Forever, the program remains one of the more comprehensive funding initiatives in the country. The Florida Communities Trust (FCT) has been a large recipient of P2000 and Florida Forever monies. FCT grants are prioritized based on how well the cash will further a local growth management plan. This has spurred communities to adopt long-range visions of their conservation needs. Between 1993 and mid-2001, more than 40,000 acres were preserved by communities using matching FCT funds.(15) By connecting state conservation funding to sound local growth management plans, the FCT spends Florida Forever cash wisely and preserves ecosystems more effectively than ad hoc conservation efforts. Read the Florida Forever statute, Title XVIII, Chapter 259.105. New Jersey – Garden State Preservation TrustNew Jersey, the most densely-populated and developed state in the U.S., has made a commitment to preserve a total of 1 million acres (half open space, half farmland) by 2009; voters approved the Garden State Preservation Trust Act by a two to one margin in 1998. The act establishes a three-part Garden State Preservation Trust:
Between June 30, 1999, when then-governor Christie Whitman signed the act into law (codified in Constitutional Amendment [Art. VIII, Sec. II, Para. 6, N.J.P.S. §13:8C-1]), and July 1, 2002, 260,000 acres of open space and farmland were conserved through the Garden State Preservation Trust.(17) As of the end of 2002, 20 of 21 counties and 187 of 556 cities approved funds that were matched by Garden State Preservation Trust monies.(18) The trust dedicates $98 million each year, through 2009, from the state sales and use tax to land conservation. Additionally, the act authorizes the state to issue up to $1.15 billion in revenue bonds (the original amount was $1 billion – voters approved a $150 million increase in Nov. 2003(19)) to be repaid, also through the state sales and use tax. Seven million dollars is allocated each year to the Garden State Historic Preservation Trust Fund and, of the remaining funds available, 65% are allocated to the Green Acres Preservation Trust Fund and 35% to the Farmland Preservation Trust Fund.(20) If New Jersey meets its 1 million-acre goal, about 40% of the state’s land mass will be preserved as open space.(16) MarylandFor seven years in a row (1995-2002), Maryland has had the distinction of being the only state where more land was preserved than developed. Maryland has preserved over 1.8 million acres, about 19% of the state’s land mass, through five conservation programs. The state’s profound success at land conservation can be attributed to two factors. First of all, Maryland’s conservation programs utilize stable funding sources, primarily funds generated from the real estate transfer tax and general obligation bonds. Second, there is a high level of coordination between state, local, and private conservation authorities. The Smart Growth and Smart Conservation Initiative (SB 389, 1997) ended state funding for misguided development and redirected the cash to existing communities and areas approved for growth. Since 1997, the Rural Legacy Program has helped create 25 rural legacy areas with the participation of 21 of 23 counties and 21 local land trusts. In total, the Rural Legacy Program allocated $132 million in grants between 1998 and 2003, $92.5 million of which was used to acquire 39,000 acres of contiguous open space. Maryland’s long-term vision for conservation is its GreenPrint program. Established in 2001, GreenPrint coordinates ongoing public and private conservation efforts to preserve a statewide network of green infrastructure. GreenPrint’s goal is to increase Maryland’s conservation capacity by 10,000 acres per year. Scientists, local governments, and conservation organizations work together using satellite data to target their choices for conservation. So far, they have mapped 1.5 million acres of important unprotected lands. GreenPrint operates under the premise that organized conservation is much more effective than ad hoc conservation. By linking conserved parcels together, Maryland has a better chance of preserving critical wildlife corridors, habitats, ecosystems, and watersheds.(21) For more information about green infrastructure, read SERC’s Policy Issues Package on this topic (coming soon). Massachusetts – Community Preservation ActIn November 2002, the Community Preservation Initiative was selected by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for the 2002 National Award for Smart Growth Achievement.(22) The success of Massachusetts’s conservation efforts is attributable to stable funding and a strong relationship between state, local, and private conservation organizations. Through Community Preservation Act (CPA) funds, Massachusetts allocated $26 million in matching grants to local governments between 2000 and 2003. The CPA funding is paid for through a $20 surcharge on each recording fee and a $10 fee on the recording of a municipal lien certificate. If a city wants a matching grant, they must, through local referenda, create Community Preservation Trust Funds financed by up to 3 percent surcharges on property taxes. Cities must also create a Community Preservation Committee to assess community preservation needs and make recommendations to local officials regarding how to spend CPA money. If a community passes a CPA they also receive priority in their application for funding from the Self-Help and the Urban Self-Help conservation programs.(23) CaliforniaCalifornia is home to over 15 million people, over 1,000 rare, endangered, or threatened species, and 75 million acres of wildlands. The state has a long history of funding conservation efforts, particularly through voter approved bond measures. In 2002, voters approved the largest conservation bond in U.S. history. Proposition 40 dedicated $2.6 billion to various state and local land and water conservation projects. Proposition 12 passed in 2000, dedicating $2.1 billion for conservation projects. A total of $10.1 billion in voter-approved conservation bond measures passed between 2000 and 2002. The immense bonding authority granted by Californians funds numerous conservation programs. A handful of the more important ones are summarized below, as are some additional sources of revenue for conservation projects. Wildlife Conservation Board (WCB)The key California agency responsible for wildlife protection. Most of the land protected by the WCB is critical habitat for cougars, deer, and rare or endangered species. As of 2002, the board had preserved almost 600,000 acres of critical habitat and restored about 210,000 acres. The WCB receives money from the Habitat Conservation Fund, general fund appropriations, and Proposition 12 bonds. Habitat Conservation Fund (HCF)The HCF was created in 1990 by authority of the voter-approved Wildlife Protection Act. The fund receives $30 million per year, through 2020, from the unallocated account created in the Cigarette and Tobacco Products Surtax Fund and the state’s general fund. Most of the HCF is allocated to the Wildlife Conservation Board. Resources Trust Fund (RTF)Created in 1997, the RTF helps preserve and protect natural and recreational resources in the state. It receives a portion of its cash from the state revenue derived from oil, gas, and other minerals mined out of state tidelands.(24)(9) For more information on planning and conversation in California, visit the Planning & Conservation League and PCL Foundation online. For further examples of state conservation programs, see the State
Activity Page for this package. |
Sources: |
| This package was last updated on September 2, 2004. |