Local Government Actions to Conserve Open Space

Conserving open space is considered a critical issue to many people concerned about water quality, wildlife habitat, and quality of life. Local governments can play a key role in conserving open space and responding to these concerns. Local strategies include much more than fee-simple purchases of land. Strategies that local governments can implement to conserve open space fall into four broad categories: Regulation Tax funded purchase programs User fee funded purchase programs Incentives for private sector preservation

A coordinated program using several of these strategies can provide a cost-effective means of meeting public demand for open space conservation.

Open space conservation through regulation is based on the responsibility of government to protect health, safety and general welfare. Governments have the power to restrict activities that would harm other members of the public.

Improve protection of floodplains, stream buffers, wetland and groundwater recharge areas.
Protection of water resources, especially protecting drinking water sources and preventing flooding, is fully supported by case law. Local governments and the state can enact more stringent standards to protect floodplains, stream buffers, wetlands and groundwater recharge areas.
Add wildlife habitat and air quality to the list of environmental issues local governments must consider in planning.
The Georgia Planning Act requires local governments to consider the impacts of their plans on drinking watersheds, wetlands and ground water recharge areas. Expanding the list of required elements would stimulate more discussion of ways to protect these resources.
Create agriculture conservation zones that limit development and provide a "right to farm."
Farm and timber land conservation is an increasingly important issue in Georgia. Many states have laws that allow the creation of "agricultural districts" where farming and timbering are promoted as the preferred activity.
Revise local zoning and development codes to better protect open space.
Many local regulations currently discourage green space conservation. Single-lot zoning and other aspects of development codes prevent developers from setting aside land along streams and for other reasons. Local codes should be reviewed for their impact on land consumption and natural area conservation.
Incorporate information on the natural environment into the land use plan and identification of preferred areas for development.
Newton County recently completed an inventory of streams, wetlands, special natural areas, and historic and archeological sites. These areas were mapped and published with a warning that development projects in these areas would receive special scrutiny. This is one way to proactively try to steer development away from environmentally sensitive areas.

Tax-based programs take funds from a general tax to pay for purchases of land or development rights.

Most local governments use a combination of general funds and location option sales taxes to make occasional purchases of parkland, usually for active recreational use. The Georgia Planning Act calls for local governments to identify open space and recreational lands needs. Most local governments have conducted recreational facilities inventories. A recent survey by the Trust for Public Land and Georgia Parks and Recreation Association found $2 billion of unmet needs for parks in local comprehensive plans. Few local governments have taken the next step and created an ongoing funding program to pay for the purchases. Without an ongoing funding source, the people responsible for assembling the open space do not have the flexibility and negotiating power to acquire property when it becomes available.

Complete and inventory of existing natural areas and prioritize areas for conservation.
Most local governments have limited their inventories to active recreation parks. The reasons for the inventory can be expanded to include natural areas and stream corridors. Stream corridors can be useful as linear parks and wildlife corridors.
Include open space conservation in special purpose local option sales tax programs.
Use bond funds to purchase land before it escalates in cost.
Create an ongoing funding source for open space conservation.
Local governments currently have the autority, by local ordinance, to dedicate the proceeds from an existing tax, even a fraction of the property tax, for green space conservation. Dedicating a source of funds to open space conservation facilitates planning for and negotiating purchases.

User fees are a very under-utilized means of funding open space conservation.

Impact fees can provide an important source of funds for creating neighborhood and community recreational facilities.
For example, the City of Alpharetta charges an impact fee for recreational services. The current impact fee law limits the ability to use this source of funds for regional facilities or conservtion of natural areas. Expanding the impact fee law to allow it to be used to pay for "green infrastructure" would facilitate its use for open space conservation.
Water and sewer fees can be used to fund natural area conservation.
Water and sewer fees are used extensively in Northeastern states to protect watersheds. Water departments in the Atlanta region already experience additional costs to clean water, repair equipment, and dredge lakes due to upstream development. For example, it would probably be in the long-term financial interest of the Cobb, Cartersville and Canton water users to buy 100-300 foot easements on all streams feeding into Lake Allatoona.
Severance or impact fee for cutting trees in metropolitan areas.
Clearing trees imposes large environmental costs on the community, which justify imposing a fee to fund mitigation of these costs. The money should revolve through a fund that pays for land purchases and tree planting.

Incentives for private conservation of land can leverage more resources than all government purchase programs combined.

Support private party land preservation.
From the quail plantations in southwest Georgia to the families who created a private park in West Cobb, individuals have shown their commitment to protecting land for personal reasons. The wealth being created in Georgia provides the opportunity to expand this trend. There are existing tax incentives to support these kind of large land set-asides. Additional recognition and technical assistance could leverage large amounts of private funds.
Incentives for private land conservation in the development process.
Eighty percent of the land being developed in Georgia is being used for single-family residential development. Conservation subdivisions, which require conservation fo 50-80& of the land in return for higher density on the balance of the land, conserve land on site. Transfer of development rights conserves land off-site by allowing a person to build to a higher density in one place in return for protecting land in another area.

State government role in local open space conservation.

Local governments currently have most of the legal authority they need to implement a comprehensive open space conservation program.
The existing authority can be enhanced with some changes to state law, particularly in regards to impact fees and state planning requirements.
Local governments need incentives and assistance to implement open space conservation programs.
Perhaps the best incentive for local governments to commit funds for green space conservation is the prospect of matching funds from the state or federal government. The federal Land and Water Conservation Fund once provided this incentive. Some states now have programs similar to the LWCF which stimulate local investment in green space.

State technical assistance for inventorying land establishing funding programs and reviewing local codes would help many jurisdictions who are interested in open space conservation.
The state will have to play a role fostering more cooperation among local governments to implement programs that inherently cross jurisdictional borders.
The state needs to review its own programs that stimualte open space loss.
Suburban highways and the current funding process for school construction are two examples of state programs that stimulate open space loss.
The current reliance on property taxes for schools pushes local governments, especially in rural areas, to seek new development regardless of its impacts on the environment.
State government needs to establish a higher priority for maintaining and improving our existing cities and towns.
We need to recognize that the most effective way to protect open space over time, is to make our existing developed spaces more attractive places to live and work. Investing in a small neighborhood park in an existing town may hlep protect hundreds of rural areas, if it attracts people to live near to the park. The Better Hometown, Mainstreet, and Historic Preservation programs should be enhanced.