Top 10 State and Local Environmental Solutions

7. Conserve wildlife habitat. State and local governments can buy and preserve open space and particular habitats and create other incentive programs to protect wildlife on private land.

Why conservation is a federalism issue:
Significance:
Preserving wildlife habitat obviously benefits the species that live in a particular forest, wetland, prairie, or desert, but it also has environmental and economic benefits for humans. As the State Environmental Research Center notes, "Native plant and animal species in their natural habitats - healthy ecosystems - provide free 'services' to human communities, including water filtration, groundwater recharging, stormwater control, air purification, nutrient recycling, crop pollination, and soil enrichment." The economic benefits of wildlife habitat come from increased property values for nearby homes, plus the millions of dollars a year that anglers, hunters, birdwatchers, and hikers spend in state parks and recreation areas as they enjoy their outdoor pursuits.

State and local role:
Habitat conservation is a natural extension of state and local governments' land use authority. Habitat protection under the federal Endangered Species Act has become quite controversial because landowners who host species feel that they are giving up opportunities to use their land without getting any benefits in return. But state and local governments, with their encompassing land use authority, have a plethora of ways, unavailable to the federal government, of balancing species protections with landowners' desire for returns on their property investment. For example, in establishing a habitat protection program, a local government could use transfer of development rights or TDR programs. Because local governments have authority over all the land in their jurisdiction, they can designate areas that will receive the transferred rights, and thus make a TDR program work. The federal government does not have that power. Many states have authorized local governments to use TDR programs, sometimes explicitly for the purpose of habitat conservation. To take one example, Beaufort County, South Carolina has a conservation TDR ordinance that can be found, via the Gaining Ground database, here.

Local governments can also use zoning to protect species, through habitat overlay zoning provisions. The Maine department of fisheries and wildlife has written a model zoning ordinance for Maine local governments. Summit, Colorado, and Falmouth, Massachusetts have similar ordinances (these examples also come from the Gaining Ground database).

While local plans are excellent starting places, habitats do not conform neatly to municipal or county boundaries. The most effective conservation strategies are state or region-wide, coordinate state, local, and non-profit efforts, and establish priorities for species and areas to be safeguarded. States such as California, Kentucky, Michigan, New York, Oregon, and Washington have commissions that determine which natural resources are at risk, what the threats are, and coordinate conservation efforts.

Federal role:
As noted above, the federal role in habitat protection has been controversial, with some arguing that the federal government is too prescriptive in managing endangered species habitats and that the federal government does not-and should not-possess the necessary land use powers to make habitat conservation most effective and efficient. The Western Governors' Association, for example, has called for revisions to the Endangered Species Act that would gives states a greater role in implementing the act. While such proposals should be carefully evaluated to ensure that the goals of the ESA will be fully met, more cooperative federalism in the act could make it less controversial and more effective.

The federal government does have programs that support the kinds of state and local initiatives for habitat conservation described above. For example, Congress has established a program of grants for wildlife conservation. To qualify for these grants, states must create comprehensive wildlife conservation plans by October, 2005. Biodiversity Partners has a careful explanation of the program and the plan requirements here.

Critical resources:
The Biodiversity Partnership has a very thorough site that details federal and state incentives for habitat conservation, explains why open space preservation alone will not necessarily lead to habitat and species preservation, and contains a wealth of other useful information. One particularly useful feature of the site is a report covering state conservation initiatives. The Environmental Law Institute also has useful resources on state biodiversity projects.

The State Environmental Resource Center offers many different policy approaches to habitat conservation, including conservation funding, conservation tax incentives, state endangered species acts, and green infrastructure plans. Defenders of Wildlife has published a report on state endangered species acts, which often provide frameworks for habitat conservation plans and priorities.

The Progressive Policy Institute explains in this report that hunters and anglers, so-called "hook and bullet" groups, are often ardent proponents of wildlife and habitat preservation, and can be members of a broad coalition that supports state and local conservation measures. The Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, Ducks Unlimited, and Trout Unlimited are examples of these types of organizations.

Previous Solution • Next Solution • Return to top 10 list

If you know of other state and local governments pursuing similar policies, or different policies to reach the same goal, please let us know by sending an email to redefiningfederalism@communityrights.org.

To read about how federalism concerns are playing out in the debate about policy responses to global warming, please visit our blog, www.warminglaw.com

Return to the Redefining Federalism homepage
To visit our main site, go to www.communityrights.org