Popular Searches
Print
E-mail
Comment
Rate
Share
Making an economic case for conservation and open space initiatives
In these columns I have frequent occasion to observe that Columbia County is very rich in ecological and environmental resources. Our vast forest tracts, fertile farmland, and extensive stream, pond and wetland systems, combine to provide exceptional wildlife habitat, highly scenic vistas, and multiple recreational opportunities. Together, these natural assets provide a central ingredient of the elusive but universally acclaimed “rural character,” so highly prized by all who live here.
But what about the economic impact? Are conservation initiatives and open space protection expensive luxuries that come at great cost to the taxpayers? Would there not be greater economic rewards to our local communities by making land available for residential or commercial development, generating tax revenues and positive multiplier impacts that flow from increased density?
Thomas DiNapoli, the New York State Comptroller, issued a report last month titled “Economic Benefits of Open Space Protection.” The report can be found at http://www.osc.state.ny.us/reports/environmental/openspacepreserv10.pdf. Well researched and extensively documented, the Comptroller’s Report reviews a broad range of familiar actions taken by government and private entities to preserve open space and inquires whether the net economic impact may be positive or negative. According to the Report, strategies designed to preserve open space and conserve natural resources can and frequently do save taxpayers money.
The Comptroller’s Report identifies three major ways in which conservation strategies can generate economic benefits.
Support for Certain Industries
Some economic enterprises fundamentally depend on the availability of certain kinds of open space. Agriculture, forestry and related industries that rely on farm or forest products can’t function without abundant farm and forest lands. Similarly, tourism and recreation are major economic engines in this State that depend to a great extent on the existence of open space and natural areas. Ten years ago a study of Hudson Valley agriculture concluded that farming in our region generated $435 million in one year alone. Statewide, it accounts for $4.5 billion; forestry, another $4.6 billion; tourism and recreation, some $54 billion.
All of these enterprises are very important to Columbia County’s economic health. We have 100,000 acres of high quality farm land and even more healthy forest tracts. The County’s strategic plan rightly identifies farming as a highly promising area for economic growth in coming years. It already accounts for some $66.5 million in economic output yearly. Many forces at work today suggest farming may be on the verge of a major resurgence, but continued availability of good farm land is essential. Similarly, the promise of tourism, also singled out in the County’s strategic plan, is tied in large part to the exceptionally scenic quality of our landscape. All of these sectors generate significant revenues directly and indirectly throughout the community, and have the potential to expand in future years so long as our local natural assets remain intact.
Water Management
Open space plays an important role in managing water. Natural open areas control storm water run-off, preserve surface water quality and stream flows and replenish underground aquifers. When land is developed, alternative means to accomplish these essential functions have to be devised, and that in turn requires construction of highly engineered water treatment facilities, levies, retention ponds, and the like. Such solutions have secondary impacts. The greater the amount of impervious surface, the greater – and faster – the resulting water run-off, bringing increased risks and costs of flooding and erosion. More paving means less groundwater recharge will take place, and less natural filtration of water, which leads to increased pollution. Studies have shown that storm water managed by engineering controls is more likely to pollute sub-surface water than water filtered through forested open spaces. And of course, these and other engineered solutions are expensive, and typically paid for by tax dollars.
A number of communities have found reliance on natural drainage and water management to be fiscally prudent strategies. A 2002 survey of 27 water suppliers found that for every 10 percent increase in forest cover in a municipal system watershed, the cost of water treatment was reduced by 20 percent. The Corps of Engineers implemented a flood control project by acquiring a wetland system at ten percent of what it would have cost for conventional flood control measures. New York City expects to save millions of dollars by working to restore natural drainage features in certain Staten Island watersheds, instead of building conventional storm water control infrastructure. And, of course, the City is trying to save the billions it would cost for a drinking water filtration system by engaging in widespread open space protection in the extensive Catskill watershed.
Municipal Revenue Savings
It is widely assumed that open space protection comes with a high opportunity cost, requiring a community to forego the increased tax revenues that would come with development. But this may not be the case, for two reasons. The increased revenues from development are very often more than off set by greatly increased costs to the municipality, caused by increased demand for municipal services. Numerous studies have shown that open space demands far fewer municipal services than other uses. Although the gross tax revenues from agricultural properties are smaller to be sure, there is typically a net surplus for the town. According to one study a few years ago, for every dollar of real estate tax revenue from a farm, the municipality is required to spend only $.37 in municipal services. In contrast, it is not at all uncommon for the net economic impact on a town of commercial or residential development to be negative because of the greatly increased cost of services. The same study showed that for every dollar of tax revenue on residential development, the cost of municipal services was greater than a dollar.
In addition, in places like Columbia County where population growth is relatively stable, conversion of open lands to more intense uses comes at considerable expense to adjacent urban areas or population centers because of what some people refer to the “sprawl without growth” phenomenon. Established population centers tend to lose people and revenue as families and businesses move out to the open spaces, and nobody else moves in. A study of the loss of open space in upstate New York found that from 1982 to 1997, 425,000 acres were urbanized, a 30 percent increase. The land was being developed at twelve times the rate of population growth, and the tax base of previously established population centers was reduced. Here in Columbia County, in the period 1990-2000 population growth was essentially static, and yet the number of parcels in the county increased by 16.5%.
A drive down any country road will confirm a dramatic increase in the number of recently built homes situated on land that was farmed or forested only 20-30 years ago. And we are all familiar with the challenges facing Hudson and so many of our villages and hamlets.
Next time someone suggests to you that all this focus on conservation and environmental protection is saddling the taxpayer with a huge expense, suggest they take a look at Comptroller DiNapoli’s analysis. It is a worthwhile read for anyone interested in the future of Columbia County.
Peter Paden is Executive Director of the Columbia Land Conservancy, a community-based land trust dedicated to land conservation in Columbia County. He may be reached at peterpaden@clctrust.org. His column appears on the first Thursday of every month.
But what about the economic impact? Are conservation initiatives and open space protection expensive luxuries that come at great cost to the taxpayers? Would there not be greater economic rewards to our local communities by making land available for residential or commercial development, generating tax revenues and positive multiplier impacts that flow from increased density?
Thomas DiNapoli, the New York State Comptroller, issued a report last month titled “Economic Benefits of Open Space Protection.” The report can be found at http://www.osc.state.ny.us/reports/environmental/openspacepreserv10.pdf. Well researched and extensively documented, the Comptroller’s Report reviews a broad range of familiar actions taken by government and private entities to preserve open space and inquires whether the net economic impact may be positive or negative. According to the Report, strategies designed to preserve open space and conserve natural resources can and frequently do save taxpayers money.
The Comptroller’s Report identifies three major ways in which conservation strategies can generate economic benefits.
Support for Certain Industries
Some economic enterprises fundamentally depend on the availability of certain kinds of open space. Agriculture, forestry and related industries that rely on farm or forest products can’t function without abundant farm and forest lands. Similarly, tourism and recreation are major economic engines in this State that depend to a great extent on the existence of open space and natural areas. Ten years ago a study of Hudson Valley agriculture concluded that farming in our region generated $435 million in one year alone. Statewide, it accounts for $4.5 billion; forestry, another $4.6 billion; tourism and recreation, some $54 billion.
All of these enterprises are very important to Columbia County’s economic health. We have 100,000 acres of high quality farm land and even more healthy forest tracts. The County’s strategic plan rightly identifies farming as a highly promising area for economic growth in coming years. It already accounts for some $66.5 million in economic output yearly. Many forces at work today suggest farming may be on the verge of a major resurgence, but continued availability of good farm land is essential. Similarly, the promise of tourism, also singled out in the County’s strategic plan, is tied in large part to the exceptionally scenic quality of our landscape. All of these sectors generate significant revenues directly and indirectly throughout the community, and have the potential to expand in future years so long as our local natural assets remain intact.
Water Management
Open space plays an important role in managing water. Natural open areas control storm water run-off, preserve surface water quality and stream flows and replenish underground aquifers. When land is developed, alternative means to accomplish these essential functions have to be devised, and that in turn requires construction of highly engineered water treatment facilities, levies, retention ponds, and the like. Such solutions have secondary impacts. The greater the amount of impervious surface, the greater – and faster – the resulting water run-off, bringing increased risks and costs of flooding and erosion. More paving means less groundwater recharge will take place, and less natural filtration of water, which leads to increased pollution. Studies have shown that storm water managed by engineering controls is more likely to pollute sub-surface water than water filtered through forested open spaces. And of course, these and other engineered solutions are expensive, and typically paid for by tax dollars.
A number of communities have found reliance on natural drainage and water management to be fiscally prudent strategies. A 2002 survey of 27 water suppliers found that for every 10 percent increase in forest cover in a municipal system watershed, the cost of water treatment was reduced by 20 percent. The Corps of Engineers implemented a flood control project by acquiring a wetland system at ten percent of what it would have cost for conventional flood control measures. New York City expects to save millions of dollars by working to restore natural drainage features in certain Staten Island watersheds, instead of building conventional storm water control infrastructure. And, of course, the City is trying to save the billions it would cost for a drinking water filtration system by engaging in widespread open space protection in the extensive Catskill watershed.
Municipal Revenue Savings
It is widely assumed that open space protection comes with a high opportunity cost, requiring a community to forego the increased tax revenues that would come with development. But this may not be the case, for two reasons. The increased revenues from development are very often more than off set by greatly increased costs to the municipality, caused by increased demand for municipal services. Numerous studies have shown that open space demands far fewer municipal services than other uses. Although the gross tax revenues from agricultural properties are smaller to be sure, there is typically a net surplus for the town. According to one study a few years ago, for every dollar of real estate tax revenue from a farm, the municipality is required to spend only $.37 in municipal services. In contrast, it is not at all uncommon for the net economic impact on a town of commercial or residential development to be negative because of the greatly increased cost of services. The same study showed that for every dollar of tax revenue on residential development, the cost of municipal services was greater than a dollar.
In addition, in places like Columbia County where population growth is relatively stable, conversion of open lands to more intense uses comes at considerable expense to adjacent urban areas or population centers because of what some people refer to the “sprawl without growth” phenomenon. Established population centers tend to lose people and revenue as families and businesses move out to the open spaces, and nobody else moves in. A study of the loss of open space in upstate New York found that from 1982 to 1997, 425,000 acres were urbanized, a 30 percent increase. The land was being developed at twelve times the rate of population growth, and the tax base of previously established population centers was reduced. Here in Columbia County, in the period 1990-2000 population growth was essentially static, and yet the number of parcels in the county increased by 16.5%.
A drive down any country road will confirm a dramatic increase in the number of recently built homes situated on land that was farmed or forested only 20-30 years ago. And we are all familiar with the challenges facing Hudson and so many of our villages and hamlets.
Next time someone suggests to you that all this focus on conservation and environmental protection is saddling the taxpayer with a huge expense, suggest they take a look at Comptroller DiNapoli’s analysis. It is a worthwhile read for anyone interested in the future of Columbia County.
Peter Paden is Executive Director of the Columbia Land Conservancy, a community-based land trust dedicated to land conservation in Columbia County. He may be reached at peterpaden@clctrust.org. His column appears on the first Thursday of every month.
Share this Article
Article Rating
Reader Comments
The following are comments from the readers. In no way do they represent the view of registerstar.com.
You must register with a valid email to post comments. Only your Member ID will be posted with the comments.
Registered users sign in here: |
Become a Registered User |
