Complete Report - Yale University

14OPTIMIZING PRIVATE LAND CONSERVATION AND PUBLIC LAND USE PLANNING⁄REQUISITIONimportanceAddressing Funding ShortfallsA number of strategies, each with their own costs, exist to protect open spaces andnatural resources. For land trusts, these primarily take the form of fee-simple purchases,rental/leases, and permanent easements. For local governments, these may take theform of zoning and subdivision regulations, as well as neighborhood, city, and regionalplanning. The effectiveness and efficiency of these strategies will depend on local-scalebiological, social, and economic conditions (Casey, McMurray, Kroeger, Michalack, andManalo, 2008). Initial estimates to secure a national system of habitat conservationareas over a thirty-year horizon have ranged from $5 – 8 billion a year (Theobald et al.,2008; Shaffer, 2002). A more recent study by Casey et al. (2008) uses a thirty-yearhorizon and multiple scenarios to estimate the cost projections for preservingunprotected, priority habitats in the United States. In one scenario to protect 12% of thecontinent, or about 218 million acres, the authors (ibid) estimate the associated costs forseveral conservation strategies:Thousands of 2006 dollars●●●25000002000000150000010000005000000$135 billion to pay current landowners to manage land for biodiversity values;$219 billion via land rentals/leases; and$927 billion for fee-simple purchases with associated management costs.Figure 1.Appropriations from the Land and Water Conservation Fund(inflation-adjusted)Fiscal YearOther Federal Land Acquisition State GrantsSource: Walls, M. 2009. Federal Funding forConservation and Recreation. Resources for the Future.While these costs are comparable toother large-scale infrastructure investments(Casey et al., 2008), conservationdoes not have the public financial backingof highways and other infrastructuralinvestments. Based on compensatorymitigation spending under key federalprograms (Austin et al., 2007) and federaland state spending on land conservationbetween 1992 and 2001, duringwhich over $30 billion was spent, the US“is running an annual $5 billion conservationdeficit” if it wants to protect a national network of conservation areas(Theobald et al., 2008, p. 3).The past decade has seen a general decrease in key pots of federal money for localland acquisition. The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), which was createdin 1965 to stimulate a nationwide action program for public outdoor recreation, hasprovided matching grants to support state and local acquisition and development ofrecreational sites and facilities. While the fund has authorized $900 million a year tosupport land acquisition, appropriations of the LWCF have typically fallen short ofthe authorized levels. In 2008, approximately $255 million was appropriated to thefund, of which $155 million went to acquisition and stateside grant programs (ORRG,2009). The rest of the funding was diverted to other expenses like the maintenanceyale school of forestry & environmental studies