Survey of Recent State Policies to Manage Growth and Protect Open Space

Congressional research reportSep 23, 2002

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

Order Code RL31656

Report for Congress

Received through the CRS Web

Survey of Recent State Policies to

Manage Growth and Protect Open Space

September 23, 2002

Jeffrey A. Zinn

Contract/Project Officer

Prepared by The Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs

The University of Texas at Austin

Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

Survey of Recent State Policies to Manage Growth and

Protect Open Space

Summary

Many states have been actively addressing the closely-related issues of sprawl

and loss of open space in recent years by working to manage growth and protect

remaining open spaces. The mix of issues and levels of activity vary widely from

state to state. Many Members of Congress are interested in these state efforts

because federal polices and programs have impacts on these issues, both direct and

indirect, and both positive and negative. Federal policies and programs with an

impact include transportation, housing, the environment, and agriculture, among

others, and others have important but less direct effects, such as the federal tax code.

Some federal programs provide positive assistance to states that are trying to address

these issues, while others may support incompatible activities. Congressional

deliberations generally have given limited consideration to how decisions on federal

policies might affect sprawl and loss of open space although both have become

prominent topics in more states and communities in recent years. Some Members of

Congress also may be interested in states as incubators of innovative approaches to

public policy that might serve as models for future national policies.

CRS contracted with the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Policy at the

University of Texas at Austin (LBJ School) to survey every state and compile a

catalogue of state efforts that have been initiated or amended since 1990. The LBJ

School returned this compilation to a contact in each state for a final review for

completeness and accuracy before it was submitted to CRS. This report identifies

and compares the recent state efforts and presents some of the reasons for a resurgent

interest in addressing this suite of topics in many states. It also discusses the

effectiveness of these efforts where evaluations or analyses could be found. It draws

not only from the LBJ School survey, but also reviews of literature and other sources.

Appendix III is a narrative summary of each state, introducing major programs and

activities, drawn from the same sources. The LBJ School also prepared a table

summary for each of the 354 programs that it identified.

Through the survey and related information-gathering activities, the LBJ School

students determined that the overall level of interest and activity on managing growth

and protecting open space is high, that issues vary widely, and that approaches and

resources committed to address these issues vary greatly. The state efforts are

responses to problems. They are concentrated in states where sprawl and loss of

open space have been most pronounced. How states have responded also reflects

how responsibilities are spread among state agencies, how they are divided between

state and lower units of government, and resource management and land use planning

traditions. Places where there has been less economic or population growth in recent

years have found little reason to act, according to this survey. Congressional interest

reflects the same geographic pattern, as most of the interested Members represent the

East Coast, Great Lakes, and West Coast states. This interest is bipartisan and

generally reflects what is occurring in the district or state than broader ideologies.

This report will not be updated.

Contents

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Causes of Unmanaged Growth and Open Space Loss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Costs of Unmanaged Growth and Open Space Loss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Roles and Relationships Among Levels of Government . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Federal Programs and Land Use Patterns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Housing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

State Policies and Priorities: Overview and Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

The Focus of State Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Issues Addressed by State Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Approaches Employed to Address Policy Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Policy Recommendations from Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Concluding Observations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Appendix I: Research Methods and Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Appendix II: Explanation of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Policy Issues in Managing and Protecting Open Space . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Land Use Management Approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Appendix III: State Summaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Alabama . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Alaska . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Arizona . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Arkansas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Colorado . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Connecticut . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Delaware . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Georgia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

Hawaii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Idaho . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

Indiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Iowa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

Kansas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

Kentucky . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

Louisiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Maine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Maryland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

Massachusetts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

Michigan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

Minnesota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

Mississippi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

Missouri . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

Montana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

Nebraska . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

Nevada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

New Hampshire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

New Jersey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

New Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

New York . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

North Dakota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

Oklahoma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

Oregon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

Pennsylvania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

Rhode Island . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

South Carolina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

South Dakota . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

Tennessee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

Utah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

Vermont . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

Washington . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

West Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

Wisconsin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

Wyoming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

List of Tables

Table 1: State Policy Focus (in %) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Table 2: Seriousness of Growth Management Issues (in %) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Table 3: Effectiveness of State Policies (in %) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Table 4: Policy Issues, by State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Table 5: Policy Approaches, by State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Table 6: Number of Issues Addressed per State Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Table 7: Frequency of One-Issue Templates, by Issue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Table 8: Recommendations to Further Minimize Sprawl (in %) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Table 9: Recommendations to Better Preserve Open Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Table 10. Responses to LBJ School Survey, by State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

For questions or further information, please contact Jeffrey Zinn, Congressional

Research Service, 7-7257.

Survey of Recent State Policies to Manage

Growth and Protect Open Space1

Introduction

This report describes the policy approaches each U.S. state has adopted since

1990 to address the closely-related issues of managing growth in order to minimize

sprawl2 and protecting remaining open space from being converted to other uses. 3

Both issues are addressed by trying to manage the use and allocation of land and

resources in socially-beneficial ways. Under the U.S. federal system, land use

management is principally an issue addressed by state and local governments. Given

that state governments define powers and authority of local governments, this study

concentrates on state government legislation, including policies that empower local

governments, enhance the power of existing state agencies, strengthen or create new

regulations, encourage regional cooperation, and initiate land management studies.

Sprawl and open space loss are of concern to a growing number of both

governmental and nongovernmental organizations. While land use planning

resonates with most states, this power and responsibility has traditionally been

delegated to localities through state laws such as zoning enabling laws and Home

Rule authority. Local governments’ proximity to the issues of land use, growth

management, and open space protection make them the most affected level of

government. They are responsible for local infrastructure and service delivery, as

well as preserving open space and dealing with blighted inner cities. While some

communities have begun to tackle these important land use issues, there is a broad

lack of knowledge concerning the issues and costs of unmanaged growth, and many

The LBJ School compiled an inventory of state laws and activities to manage growth and

protect open space, based on a survey of every state. This work was conducted under

contract with Congressional Research Service as a Policy Research Project (PRP). PRPs

are designed to give students a realistic policy research experience and to culminate in a

final research product for a client. This PRP involved 18 students from the Master of Public

Affairs Program; two professors served as project directors.

Sprawl is typically characterized by low-density development distant from a city’s urban

core, and often consists of noncontiguous development or isolated, single-family homes.

Typically uncoordinated, this type of development leads to single-usage of land, rather than

a more concentrated mix of residential, commercial, and other uses. Many academics,

planning professionals and interest groups have presented similar definitions of sprawl.

Open space includes three subsets: productive land, environmentally significant areas, and

green space. Productive land includes farm and agricultural lands and resource lands such

as forests. Environmentally significant areas include wildlife habitats, wetlands, and coastal

lands. Green spaces include public open space inside urban areas, such as parks, and large

tracts of undeveloped lands outside urban areas.

CRS-2

communities have avoided making the politically and technically challenging

commitments required to alter growth patterns.

Historically, the federal government’s role in land use was focused primarily on

federally owned lands, largely acquired when the western regions were annexed to

the United States in the nineteenth century. However, with increasing urbanization

and the new societal needs of the twentieth century, the federal government initiated

numerous programs that today affect land use patterns in a multitude of ways.

Policies in transportation, housing, agriculture, and the environment, among others,

play a significant role in how land is developed and used. Some within the federal

government have been taking an active interest in how federal policy and programs

affect land use and how they can better enable localities and states to manage growth

and preserve open space, generally under the moniker “Smart Growth.” This interest

was raised to the presidential level during the Clinton Administration.

The next two subsections introduce some of the causes of unmanaged growth

and open space loss and some of the costs that result. Generalizing about these two

topics is a challenge because no two places are identical. In addition, these topics are

viewed differently by people based on their perspective and interest. Following these

subsections are sections that provide an overview of four topics where federal

policies and programs can affect patterns of change, and that compare state

perspectives on managing growth and protecting open space using materials collected

through the survey, including comparisons of responses from governmental and

nongovernmental representatives.4 Appendix I describes the research method and

process; appendix II describes key terms used in the survey; and appendix III

summarizes the laws and activities in each state.5

Causes of Unmanaged Growth and Open Space Loss. Urban sprawl

and loss of open space result from a variety of factors as well as unintended

consequences of public policies. Among the central social and economic factors in

the United States are a preference for owning detached single-family homes with

yards, almost universal car ownership, and a rising standard of living.

Homeownership is an objective desired by most Americans. When financially

feasible, most people will purchase a home. While homeownership itself does not

cause sprawl or the loss of open space, the location and concentration of new and

existing residential developments largely determine the land use patterns in an area.

Developers try to measure the market and build homes that will sell and provide the

desired rate of return. When homes and large developments are built distant from

urban cores and their denser surrounding areas, sprawl can result.

The survey contacted only people who administer programs or work in support of them.

It did not contact opponents, and therefore did not gather views that could be used to

characterize the opposition.

A separate CRS congressional distribution memo will contain descriptions of each of the

354 identified programs. Each description follows a template that includes entries on: basic

information on the administrative code; date of adoption and/or amendment; description of

the program and its approach; the source of funding; and evaluations or assessments of the

policy.

CRS-3

Virtually universal car ownership has fundamentally changed the patterns of

land development in American communities. Car ownership has facilitated

residential expansion into once isolated, undeveloped areas. With land prices in

these outlying areas lower than in areas closer to the urban core, consumers will

consider purchasing land and building homes in these less-dense areas.

The overall rising standard of living, particularly since the end of World War

II, has enabled more Americans to attain homeownership. The purchase of a home

involves the consideration of factors that typically includes some mix of price,

convenience, and safety. With land prices in outlying areas comparatively

inexpensive, and factoring in ease of travel and perceived safety, cities have

experienced a dispersal of their population to less developed areas. Although the

provision of infrastructure is more expensive in outlying and undeveloped areas than

in already-developed areas, these costs are likely to be averaged among all residents

who are served by the same provider. When costs are averaged, those further from

the center city do not incur the true cost of services and infrastructure, thus lowering

the cost of living further from the urban core.

Federal, state, and local public policies in areas such as transportation, housing,

and land use also can encourage or cause urban sprawl and open space loss. As

discussed below, unintended impacts of federal policy affect patterns of urban

development. Federal transportation policy is often cited as leading to the expansion

of roads and the highway system, opening rural lands and other lower-density areas

to development by improving access to center cities. With less-expensive land in

lower-density areas, homebuyers are able to buy larger plots of land than they would

be able to in higher-density areas. Federal housing policy can influence land use

patterns in multiple ways, such as encouraging and rewarding single-family

homeownership over denser multifamily housing. These single-family homes are

often built away from the city’s central core, further proliferating sprawl and the

destruction of open space.

Zoning and land use policy have also contributed to sprawl. Zoning rules

initially emerged in the early part of the twentieth century as a tool to separate

incompatible land uses, protecting urban centers from heavy industry and

manufacturing plants. Ultimately, these rules reinforced lower densities throughout

communities. Today, some of these rules seem inadequate to address prevalent

development issues. In many localities, the original concept of zoning may still

apply, although the sharp separation of commercial, industrial, and residential uses

may no longer be desired or needed. These rules may prevent practices such as

mixed-use development and urban infill, and suppress urban revitalization.

Comprehensive planning, a tool that could be used to manage growth and

protect open space, remains nonexistent in many areas, and is inconsistently applied

in some places where it is used. Typically, land use policies have supported or

allowed growth that results in a reduction in public facility service levels.6 At times,

they have allowed new public infrastructure to be built in areas where the city does

Arthur C. Nelson and James B. Duncan. Growth Management Principles and Practices

(Chicago: American Planning Association, 1995), p. 96.

CRS-4

not desire development. Where land use policies have failed to prevent expansion

of sprawl, they have also led to the loss of open space, including agricultural land and

important habitat. These policies, while not the only ones that affect the expansion

of sprawl, have been large contributors.

Costs of Unmanaged Growth and Open Space Loss. While the

benefits of economic growth are obvious, the costs imposed by sprawl are often less

so. Loss of open space, agricultural lands, cultural/historical sites, and loss of natural

resources including coastal lands are all part of the price of sprawl. Additional costs

might include providing expensive infrastructure, trying to improve blighted center

cities, and responding to a decrease in some aspects of the quality of life. These costs

could be considered when land use and other policies are being formulated. While

communities can benefit from growth, many experts believe that it is important that

they effectively manage the way they grow if they desire to minimize the costs of

sprawl and open space loss.

Green spaces are lost as cities become less compact and expand to undeveloped

lands. If this growth takes place in an unconstrained and uncoordinated way,

development may be scattered. Agricultural lands may be lost as developers build

homes in rural farming areas, subdividing agricultural land. While the impact may

not be felt immediately on the entire farming community, as more farmland is

purchased, farming may become less viable in the area. Farming practices, especially

ones that result in noise and odors, are often perceived as nuisances to the new

homeowners, creating conflicts, and if farming is not protected, the resolution of

these conflicts can accelerate the rate of at which farmland is converted to other

uses.7

Cultural/historical sites also may be lost as residents leave center cities. In the

same way that general open space is lost, these sites can become slowly consumed

by low-density development. Areas deemed important by the community and by

society as a whole are often unprotected from the destruction caused by low-density

developments. Another cost of sprawl is the loss of natural resources as larger open

spaces are either subdivided or converted to other uses. Wildlife habitats may be

damaged; wetlands can be degraded or destroyed; forests and other resource lands

may be lost, and beach, bay and estuary systems along coasts may become damaged

without necessary protection. One review, summarizing numerous other studies ,

estimated that responding by applying growth management systems can increase

environmentally sensitive land savings by 20% or more in some communities.8

Sprawl is expensive to support with public investments. The cost of financing

roads, schools, water and sewage systems, additional infrastructure, and services perperson in these less dense areas is more than in higher-density areas, where

economies of scale can be realized. It has been estimated that capital costs are 25%

less, on average, when density is ten units per acre compared to density at five units

per acre. While developers provide some of this infrastructure, service, upkeep, and

Rutgers, Brookings, Parsons Brinckerhoff, ECONorthwest, The Costs of Sprawl-Revisited

(Washington D.C.: National Academy Press, 1998), pp. 75-76.

Ibid., pp. 78-79.

CRS-5

replacement of these less-efficient infrastructure systems may add to each taxpayer’s

burden.9

Other costs of urban sprawl can include blighted and decaying downtowns.10

As more affluent residents and businesses leave for cheaper land and larger plots,

center cities must contend with empty storefronts, vacant office space, and inactive

streets. Healthy downtown areas are considered by many to be essential to the longterm success of an overall region, but many city governments have been unable to

successfully protect their vitality in the face of urban flight.

Degradation of quality of life in rural areas can result from unmanaged growth

and open space loss. With many residents living in outlying areas and commuting

into town for work, roads and highways have become congested. The inability of the

transportation system to meet the needed carrying capacity, especially during

morning and evening hours of peak demand, frustrates and delays commuters and

costs individuals and society valuable time. The increase in car usage and distance

traveled also increases auto-oriented emissions and may lead to decreased air and

water quality in a community.11

Loss of a sense of community is another potential cost of sprawl. In lowerdensity areas, many residents live on larger plots of land that are substantial distances

from the nearest neighbor. Combined with a reliance on cars for transportation, this

greater distance often leads to less interaction with neighbors. Many also live in new

communities that lack tradition and events that bring residents together. Some

experts view this combination of sprawl externalities as contributing to a loss of

social capital.12

Roles and Relationships Among Levels of Government.

Traditionally, land use planning and land use policy have been the responsibility of

state and local governments. Before World War II, the federal role in land use

planning and management included little beyond managing federally-owned lands,

disposing of federal lands, and dealing with land issues on a piecemeal basis in policy

areas such as housing and highways. The magnitude and intensity of effects of

federal actions on private lands were more limited in an era of smaller and less farreaching government programs and policies. Following World War II, however,

federal laws have increasingly affected policy decisions made by state and local

governments. For this reason, this study and survey examined the intergovernmental

context of land use planning and management. While it is impossible to identify

roles unique to each government level, it is important to understand why different

levels of government are involved in land use issues and what types of policy

decisions they each make.

Nelson and Duncan, Growth Management Principles & Practices, p. 5.

Ibid., p. 7.

Rutgers, Brookings, Parsons Brinckerhoff, ECONorthwest, The Costs of Sprawl-Revisited,

p. 91.

Ibid., p. 87.

CRS-6

Federal programs and policies that affect land use include environmental

regulations, federal spending on infrastructure (highways, for example), and tax

incentives for home ownership, among others. State programs and policies can also

play many roles in land use by implementing statewide comprehensive plans intended

to manage growth and/or protect open space, preserving historic sites, protecting land

from future development, and promoting certain forms of development. States

authorize the creation of substate political jurisdictions (cities, counties, and special

districts) and assign them powers and responsibilities. Local government powers and

duties, such as land use planning and regulation, are usually assigned by the state.

Relationships between state and local levels are based on either a Dillon’s Rule or

Home Rule approach, and the approach determines how much independence local

governments have to act without state approval.13

Local governments generally deal with land development efforts that require

land use regulation and the infrastructure issues that accompany new growth. The

federal government’s role in these matters traditionally has been limited for many

reasons. The U.S. Constitution does not mention land use; its only reference to what

may be expressly deemed a planning subject occurs in the Bill of Rights, through the

Fifth Amendment’s injunction against taking land for public purposes without just

compensation.14 Other constraints include the sheer size of the United States and the

variation in topography, culture, and economies. Further limiting the role of the

national government is the political value placed on both states rights and local

government control. Most land use authority resides at the local level through

zoning, subdivision, and building code powers, which were assigned by most states

to local government in the 1920s.15

One level generally not extant is regional government. In theory, a regional

approach would seem like a good scale for addressing many land use topics. Local

governments could use this structure to collaborate on concerns of mutual interest.

However, a regional framework is difficult to accomplish with the multitude of

localities that comprise the typical metropolitan area in the United States, who would

each have to cede authority to a regional entity. Moreover, efforts to coordinate

among localities in a region can be complicated because the powers assigned to local

governments can vary considerably, as between counties, cities, and special use

districts (water authorities, for example), and because many metropolitan areas lie in

more than a single state.

Even though land use is controlled largely by local government, several federal

policies and programs have had a tremendous impact on sprawl and loss of open

In Dillon’s rule states, the state gives municipalities only those powers and duties

expressly detailed in their enabling legislation (a limited authority approach). In Home Rule

states, the prevailing form in most states, the municipality has authority over all decisions

not otherwise explicitly reserved by the state.

Jerold S. Kayden, National Land-Use Planning in America: Something Whose Time Has

Never Come. Washington University in St. Louis. Online. Available from the university’s

web site: http://law.wustl.edu/Journal/3/pg445to472.pdf. Accessed: March 20, 2002.

Rutherford Platt. Land Use and Society: Geography, Law, and Public Policy. Island

Press, Washington, D.C. p. 233-238.

CRS-7

space. In a 1999 survey conducted by the Fannie Mae Foundation,16 urban experts

were asked to rank the top ten influences on the American city over the past 50 years.

The 1956 National Defense Highway Act and the Federal Housing Administration’s

(FHA) mortgage financing program were cited as the two top-ranking influences.

These programs offer federal incentives that substantially influenced

development patterns in U.S. cities for decades. For example, under the Interstate

Highway Act, federal gas tax revenue funds a very large portion of the total

investment in new highway construction. By contrast, local governments are

expected to assume a much higher percentage of investments in mass transit, which

allows cities to grow in a more condensed area.17 Another example of the indirect

effects of federal programs on growth are the FHA-insured mortgages which date

from the 1930s. These mortgages have encouraged new housing on the suburban

fringe as some lenders refused to insure mortgages on older houses in most urban

neighborhoods, thereby reinforcing residential development outside urban

boundaries, especially after World War II.18

On the other hand, some federal policies were purposefully created to assist in

growth management and open space preservation. The U.S. Department of Housing

and Urban Development has contributed roughly $12 billion to urban planning, water

and sewer facilities, open space acquisition, and public transit since it was created in

1965.19 Its creation elevated housing and planning considerations to the cabinet level

for the first time.20 The 1968 Douglas Commission appointed by President Johnson

considered sprawl and possible solutions, including urban growth boundaries. In the

late 1960s and early 1970s, Congress considered, but did not enact national land use

legislation which would have provided federal aid to states devising statewide land

use plans and creating procedures to protect environmentally sensitive lands.21 It did

pass coastal zone management legislation in 1972, which was characterized as

federal land use legislation applied to areas which were especially threatened by

environmental degradation and rapid development at that time. Some congressional

supporters of coastal zone management legislation stated that they would return to

consider national land use legislation at a later date, but the early 1970s turned out

Fannie Mae Foundation, American Metropolis at Century’s End: Past and Future

I n f l u e n c e s . O n l i ne. Avai l abl e: ht t p: / / www.f anni emaef oundat i on.or g

/programs/metropolis1/index.html. Accessed: March 31, 2002.

Ibid.

Rutgers, Brookings, Parsons Brinckerhoof, ECONorthwest, The Costs of SprawlRevisited, p. 52-53.

NGA Center for Best Practices, Growth Tool Kit: Recognize the Historical Roots of

Growth Management. Online. Available: http://www.nga.org/center/divisions/

1,1188,C_ISSUE_BRIEF%5ED_2469,00.html. Accessed: March 15, 2002.

Robert W. Burchell, David Listokin, and Catherine C. Galley, “Smart Growth: More

Than a Ghost of Urban Policy Past, Less Than a Bold New Horizon,” Housing Policy

Debate, vol. 11, issue 4 (2000), p. 832. Online. Available from the Fannie Mae web site at:

http://www.fanniemaefoundation.org /programs/hpd/pdf/hpd_1104_burchell.pdf. Accessed:

March 5, 2002.

Ibid.

CRS-8

to be the “high water mark” for national land use legislation. Numerous other laws

focusing on the environmental sensitivity of lands and resources were enacted,

especially in the late 1960s and early 1970s. However, these laws were not

principally concerned with national growth management policy, and most focused

on a single environmental issue, such as water quality or endangered species.22 These

laws do not mandate land use planning at the state or local level, nor do they balance

land preservation with any goals of growth management such as economic

development, social equity, infrastructure capacity, or quality of life. Still, these laws

establish a national concern for the effects of land use and have been paralleled by

enactments at the local and state levels.

The Clinton Administration supported major initiatives to promote “smart

growth” at the federal level. The Livability Agenda, initiated in January 1999, aimed

to provide local governments with more tools and financial resources to pursue open

space and regional smart growth strategies. The Lands Legacy Initiative, first

proposed in FY2000, sought to expand funding to programs associated with land

acquisition and natural resource protection, but would not have amended the

programs themselves.23

The Bush Administration has not aggressively pursued either initiative, but has

begun a growth management campaign concentrated in brownfield redevelopment.24

In January 2002, President Bush signed into law the Small Business Liability Relief

and Brownfields Revitalization Act (P.L. 107-118), which provides liability

protection for prospective purchasers, contiguous property owners, and innocent

landowners for the cleanup of brownfields. This protection is intended to attract

private developers who can develop these sites, often as infill projects within urban

areas. The bill also authorizes increased funding for state and local programs that

assess and clean up brownfields.25

Numerous bills were introduced in the 107th Congress to promote growth

management and open space protection. The most widely-discussed proposal, the

Conservation and Reinvestment Act (CARA, H.R. 701) would dedicate over $3

billion annually for natural resource protection through the Land and Water

Conservation Fund (LWCF) and other specified resource protection programs.26

States may view these federal and congressional efforts differently. As part of

the LBJ School Survey, participants were asked to gauge the effectiveness of federal

Kayden, National Land-Use Planning in America (online).

Burchell et al., “Smart Growth” (online).

Brownfields are abandoned or underused properties that are known or suspected to be

contaminated.

Environmental Protection Agency, President Signs Legislation to Clean Environment and

Create Jobs. Online. Available: http://www.epa.gov/epahome/headline_011102.htm.

Accessed: March 28, 2002.

For more information on Administration activities and current and recent legislative

proposals, see CRS Issue Brief IB10015, Protecting Natural Resources and Managing

Growth: Issues in the 107th Congress.

CRS-9

policy in assisting states with growth management efforts. (See Appendix I for a

review of the survey methods and participation numbers, by state.) These answers,

which are opinions of the respondents, provide insights into the satisfaction of states

with federal policies affecting growth management.

Respondents were asked if they agreed that “Federal policies of the past decade

have been effective in preventing or minimizing urban sprawl.” An overwhelming

majority of total respondents either disagreed (59%) or strongly disagreed (27%).

Responses from two major subgroups into which survey participants can be divided,

state government and non-state government representatives, were almost identical,

although 30% of the non state government participants strongly disagreed compared

to 26% of state government respondents.27 By contrast, only 14% of all respondents

agreed that the federal government has been effective in its growth management

efforts, but most of these, 12% of the total, strongly agreed. State government

respondents were slightly more positive than non-state government respondents in

their view of the effectiveness of federal policies, with 14% strongly agreeing that

federal policy has proven effective compared to 9% of non-state government

respondents.

This pattern of responses shows that many more state officials and others

believe these policies have been ineffective. However, the survey did not seek

further explanations for why they reached their conclusion about the effectiveness of

federal policies. A further examination of the effectiveness topic might begin with

a dialogue between those few states where respondents believe that federal policies

have been effective and the federal government. This dialogue could provide insight

into how different implementation methods might affect the performance of federally

initiated policies that influence growth management.

The next question asked respondents to broadly evaluate how changes in federal

growth management policy would affect urban growth in their state. Respondents

were asked: “If there were no changes in federal policy, would sprawl in their state

get better, worse or stay the same?” About two thirds of the respondents, or 65%, felt

that urban sprawl would get worse; however 76% of non-state government

respondents felt sprawl would get worse with no changes, while only 60% of state

government respondents answered this way. These respondents may have felt that

the federal government has a beneficial role to play in the implementation of federal

policies, and without innovation, conditions in their states would deteriorate.

Possible explanations for a higher percentage of negative responses from non-state

government respondents are that: (1) many of them are more likely to monitor the

activities of the federal government and national policy debates that affect their

concerns; and (2) because they are outside state government, some of them are likely

to forcefully promote and seek publicity for their views.

Non-government respondents included experts affiliated with professional organizations,

academics, and non-profit organizations. In each state, the LBJ School Survey contacted

the state director of the American Planning Association to initially identify the appropriate

experts. To the degree that these respondents belong to groups that advocate planning, they

may not represent the full range of views. Some additional individuals who were suggested

during initial contacts with state government and non-state government representatives were

contacted as well.

CRS-10

Roughly one-third of total respondents felt that sprawl would stay the same

without changes in federal policy, although this includes only 24% of the non-state

government respondents. This response could indicate a perceived lack of

involvement and influence that the current federal policy has on sprawl and growth

management. Some state government respondents might view sprawl as a state issue

and therefore federal policies are either unwanted or of limited importance, while

more non-state government respondents may identify strong associations between

federal policies and state actions.

Only 3% of respondents felt that no change in federal policy would make growth

management more effective in their state. From this response, one might conclude

that these few individuals are not pleased with the federal government’s role and

would rather have growth management policies left to the state or localities. This

response may reflect a view that federal policy has detrimental effects on a state’s

urban growth, and attempts to curb that growth. Interestingly, not a single non-state

government respondent chose this answer; however, there was insufficient time to

seek out an explanation.

Federal Programs and Land Use Patterns

The majority of federal policies that were believed to impact state growth

management efforts in the LBJ School survey were in the areas of transportation,

housing, environment, and agriculture; each is briefly introduced below. The impact

of federal policies in each of these four areas on land use is substantial. Survey

respondents both complimented and criticized federal efforts of the past and present

in land use management. They expressed mixed feelings toward the federal role in

the future of growth management.

Transportation. Federal transportation policies assert a powerful force on

state and local planning efforts. Transportation systems are also sometimes viewed

as contributing to unmanaged growth patterns. For example, the sprawling

development patterns found in many metropolitan areas would have been virtually

impossible without the automobile and modern highway systems. Thus,

transportation infrastructure is considered a decisive factor in growth management

and open space preservation issues. State and local policymakers recognize this key

role, and increasingly look to transportation policy as part of the solution. Recent

increases in funding for mass transit systems demonstrate congressional recognition

of the evolving relationship between federal transportation policies and local and

metropolitan development patterns.

Congress authorized the interstate highway system in 1956, in recognition of the

value of the German autobahn system to the enemy during World War II and the need

for mobility to the post-war economy and if another war erupted. This authorization

led to the construction of 41,000 miles of highways.28 Recent iterations of national

transportation policy, starting with the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency

Act (ISTEA) in 1991 (P.L. 102-240), initiated a new phase of transportation policy

Percivel, Miller, Schroeder, and Leape, Environmental Regulation: Law, Science and

Policy (New York: Aspen Law and Business, 2000), p. 761.

CRS-11

making. ISTEA marked momentous changes in federal policy by its incorporation

of additional environmental considerations into transportation policy. The following

funding provisions illustrate this point:

States spent $1 billion of an annual $20 billion grant of federal

highway funds on air pollution control projects;

! Spending on mass transit almost doubled, from just over $3 billion

in 1990 to close to $6 billion in 1999; and

! Spending on bicycle and pedestrian projects grew from just over $7

million in 1990 to more than $222 million by 1999.29

Another change gave much greater authority to Metropolitan Planning

Organizations (MPOs) in determining how and when federal transportation dollars

would be expended. Prior to ISTEA, MPOs were said to generate so-called “wish

lists” and state Departments of Transportation (DOTs) made the final decisions in the

allocation of federal funding. ISTEA required that the federal government certify

transportation planning in metropolitan areas with populations of greater than

200,000. The certification process provided an assessment of how effectively each

MPO worked with other transportation organizations, local governments, citizens,

and state DOTs to reach certain planning requirements.30

The most recent iteration of these policies, enacted in 1998 in the Transportation

Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), sought even greater authority and

flexibility for regional planning bodies in transportation planning. TEA-21 includes

a new $120 million program known as the Transportation and Community and

System Preservation Pilot Program. “Designed to explore innovative ways to

integrate transportation and land use decisions to fight urban sprawl,” this program

is one specific instance where the federal government offers assistance to manage

growth. Furthermore, the MPO certification process was amended to require public

involvement. It also requires the federal government to renew the certification of

MPOs every two years in order to maintain full eligibility for federal funding, thereby

increasing the number of opportunities for public involvement.

A number of the survey respondents indicated that ISTEA and TEA-21

increased support for efficient land use planning. Yet, despite these changes and the

resulting optimism among many of those officials, a majority of respondents stated

that federal government transportation policies are incompatible with growth

management efforts. A majority also identified any highway funding that displaces

spending for mass transit systems as a major cause of urban sprawl. A majority of

the survey respondents identified federal funding for the development of new roads,

which often improves access to more land for development, as a major impediment

to effective planning. State and local policymakers participating in the survey

advocated a combination of maintaining existing roads and more funding for mass

Barbara McCann and Stephanie Vance, Ten Years of Progress. Surface Transportation

Policy Project (2001) Online. Available: www.transact.org. Accessed: March 5, 2002.

Bruce D. McDowell, Improving Regional Transportation Decisions: MPOs and

Certification.

The Brookings Institute

(September 1999). Online. Available:

http://www.brook.edu/urban/mcdowellexsum.htm. Accessed: March 10, 2002.

CRS-12

transit or multimodal transportation systems. Many argue that the actual costs of

building and maintaining highways are greater than the amounts paid by motorists

through various taxes and fees. Respondents who felt this way expressed support for

an increased gas tax as a mechanism for paying the actual costs of commutes.

The recent shift in transportation policy by the federal government may be the

reason for increased optimism on the part of state and local officials. While a number

of state and local officials surveyed continue to view federal transportation policy as

a hindrance to effective growth management efforts, a notable number acknowledge

the progress originating with ISTEA and TEA-21. This conflicting sentiment is one

measure of how relationships between state and local planning officials and the

federal government concerning transportation policies continue to evolve.

Housing. Housing policies are important to development patterns because

residents take multiple trips daily between their homes and jobs, shopping, schools

and other destinations. If their residence is a long distance from their destinations,

they are more likely to be adding to problems associated with growth. If the

residence is in a new development, it may also be contributing to loss of open space.

Homeownership is a very important goal for most Americans. In a 1992

survey, Americans surveyed favored owning a home by a margin of three to one,

choosing homeownership over retiring from their job 10 years earlier or taking a

better job in a place where they would only be able to rent.31 Federal policies to

support homeownership emerged in the 1930s. Today, the policy to deduct interest

payments on home mortgage loans is one of the country’s largest tax subsidies. In

this setting, it should be no surprise that the homeownership rate in the U.S. is

66.2%, according to the 2000 U.S. Census.32

Many positive aspects of federal housing policies contribute to making new

homes easier to purchase. While this helps first time home buyers and veterans, the

preference for new housing over the restoration of existing housing has the potential

to encourage development further away from downtowns, where the land is less

expensive and infrastructure must be installed to meet the needs of the incoming

residents, while existing homes are allowed to deteriorate. When adequate public

transit is not available, which is more likely with new development, longer and more

frequent trips by auto can cause traffic congestion, air pollution, and other problems.

Survey respondents consistently indicated that federal housing policy greatly

influences land use patterns and growth management. Most responses that listed the

federal government as a hindrance to growth management policy indicated that FHA

and VA loans for single-family housing, and the federal income tax mortgage

deduction favor homeownership over multifamily and rental housing, and encourage

housing patterns that convert more land per housing unit. Federal policy that

Michael A. Stegman, Johanna Brownstein, and Kenneth Temkin, “Home Ownership and

Family Wealth in the United States,” in Housing and Family Wealth: Comparative

International Perspectives, ed. Ray Forrest and Alan Murie (London: Routledge, 1995).

U.S. Census Bureau, People Quick Facts.

Online. Available:

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html. Accessed: March 25, 2002.

CRS-13

encourages new homes over rental units or the rehabilitation of existing housing was

also listed as a problem. One recommendation from many respondents is to enact the

proposed Historic Homeownership Assistance Act (H.R. 1172). This act would

create a 20% federal income tax credit to homeowners who rehabilitate or buy a

qualified historic house, up to a maximum credit of $40,000. More generally, survey

respondents identified legislation that would connect home ownership programs with

growth management issues as one solution to some of these problems.

Environment. Federal environmental policies and programs have affected

growth management activities in states, especially since the late 1960s, when the

federal government became more actively involved in protecting the environment.

An example of the thinking at that time is a comment by Russell Train, the chairman

of the Council on Environmental Quality in the Nixon Administration. Commenting

on that Administration’s proposal for federal land use policies, he stated that “land

use is the single most important element affecting the quality of our environment

which remains substantially un-addressed as a matter of national policy.” 33

Subsequently, while Congress enacted laws to regulate aspects of environmental

quality, it has generally left land use or land quality regulation to the states.

Examples of environmental legislation enacted or amended in the late 1960s and

1970s included the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts, the Coastal Zone Management

Act (CZMA), the Endangered Species Act, the National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA), and the Federal Land Policy Management Act. The CZMA is the closest

to national land use legislation affecting private land, as envisioned by many national

leaders in the early 1970s. It provides modest grants to coastal states, including the

Great Lakes states, to encourage them to develop and implement coastal management

plans and programs that improve the protection of sensitive shoreline resources, to

identify coastal areas appropriate for development, to designate areas hazardous to

development, and to improve public access to the coastline.34 Another incentive for

state participation is a requirement that all federal actions in or affecting coastal

zones managed under a federally-approved plan must be consistent with that plan.

In contrast with all the other environmental laws that protect specific places or

resources, including those listed above, the National Environmental Policy Act of

1970 establishes a process to consider the environmental ramifications of proposed

federal actions by requiring all federal agencies to prepare environmental impact

analyses before they initiate actions that will have significant environmental effects.

In the 1990s, the federal government became interested in addressing growth

management issues, in part as they relate to resource protection and other

environmentally sensitive issues. Congress amended the Clean Air Act to strengthen

the link between transportation policy and air quality, requiring the integration of

Clean Air Act standards into transportation planning. The Clinton Administration

first proposed the Lands Legacy Initiative with the FY2000 budget submission to

substantially increase funding to about two dozen resource protection programs.

Congress has generally supported funding increases, especially in the brief time

Percivel et al., Environmental Regulation, p. 767.

Funding totals less than $100 million each year, which is divided among the 34 states and

territories who administer federally-approved plans.

CRS-14

period when the projected budget surplus was projected to grow. Proposals for

higher funding have continued under the Bush Administration, and are now known

as the Conservation Spending Category. However, as the projected surplus has been

replaced by a projected deficit, these increases may lose some support.35 These

efforts, while only indirectly connected with managing growth, have provided some

additional incentives to states who choose to pursue growth management principles.

Following the lead of federal initiatives, states have also employed brownfield

redevelopment policies to manage growth and preserve open space.

The active federal role in regulating certain activities to protect the environment

and providing more funding for some of these activities in recent years has increased

sensitivity to federal interests that can affect growth management initiatives at the

state and local levels. This study inquired about the effectiveness and impacts of

federal environmental legislation at the state level. Only 14% of the respondents

claimed that federal environmental policies, or lack thereof, were impeding state

efforts to manage sprawl. Among the identified impediments were federal regulation

of wetlands, coastal areas, and waterways.

Agriculture. Farmland in or near suburbs is affected by urban growth and by

federal policies. Farmland lost to urban sprawl has been measured at one million

acres a year.36 In economic terms, the highest price for farmland will be paid to

convert it to non-agricultural uses in or near urban areas. This economic value can

be at odds with the amenity and food production values attributed to farmland by

protection advocates, especially in some suburban areas.

Urban sprawl encroaches upon farmland by inflating property values, thereby

making it extremely attractive for farmers to sell their land when developers make

large offers. Urban sprawl also encroaches on farmland when developments expand

near farms. Homeowners near farms may object to normal farming practices,

including the use of noisy machinery outside “normal” working hours and spreading

manure. These incompatibilities can lead to nuisance lawsuits; many states protect

farmers from these actions with right-to-farm laws.

Federal policies affect agricultural land use and conversions. Many policies

indirectly encourage these lands to be converted to other uses, while few directly

protect them. In one of these, the Farmland Protection Program (FPP), the

Department of Agriculture works with state or local governments to purchase

conservation easements. Participation by farmers, as with all conservation programs

created in recent farm bills, is voluntary. The 2002 Farm Bill authorizes $50 million

in FY2002, rising to a maximum of $125 million in FY2004 for this purpose. It

continues to require pending offers (so that funds will be used only where an interest

in buying an easement has been expressed), and expands the eligible land to also

include rangeland, grassland, pastureland, incidental forest land, and historic and

Jeff Zinn, “Managing Growth and Related Issues in the 107th Congress,” CRS Issue Brief

[out of print; available only through author], Congressional Research Service (Washington,

D.C.: The Library of Congress, 2001), pp. 6-8.

USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. Summary Report: 1997 National

Resources Inventory. (Washington, December, 2000), 89p.

CRS-15

archeological sites. It also expands eligible participants to include Indian tribes and

non-profit organizations that meet certain qualifications.

Agriculture traditionally has been exempted from most environmental

legislation, such as many provisions of the Clean Water and Clean Air Acts.

However, non-point water pollution and confined animal feeding operations as

concentrated sources of pollutants are receiving more attention, largely as a result of

litigation. Agricultural sources are considered by many states to be the leading

causes of water pollution. Pending regulatory decisions by the Environmental

Protection Agency may encourage USDA to refocus many agriculture conservation

programs to addressing water pollution.37 Due to the difficult nature of tracking nonpoint pollution back to its source, the federal government has struggled for years to

find a workable solution, using provisions of the Clean Water Act to regulate places

where the most severe problems are found.38

State Policies and Priorities: Overview and Comparison

State governments have become more central in addressing open space topics.

Many of them have expanded planning efforts since the late 1960s in response to

issues related to growth management and open space preservation. Some perceptions

of state officials regarding these policies were discussed above. While the effects of

federal policies can be far-reaching, the primary policy tools for land use planning

are found at the state and local level.

State government-led efforts in this field were quite limited until the 1960s,

when some states started to find unacceptable the consequences of uncoordinated

local land use policies. Some states began to implement policies to encourage

localities to consider the effects of their land use decisions on the surrounding region

and the state as a whole. A common perception of this early state level planning was

that only densely populated states were active in creating land management polices.

For example, California began adopting new land use policy in the late sixties and

early seventies,39 long before the issue was even considered in many of the less

populated states. The survey responses indicate that most states have become active,

if not aggressive, in the 1990s in pursuing growth management policies.

State involvement in growth management has been described as occurring in

waves.40 The first wave is characterized by a concern for environmental protection

and agricultural land preservation. The second wave builds upon environmental

concerns and expands the focus to broader land use management policies. During

For a general background on these issues, see CRS Report RL30437, Water Quality

Initiatives and Agriculture.

The location of water quality problems are identified in a state-by-state survey compiled

by EPA biennially in the National Water Quality Inventory, most recently released for 2000.

Stephanie Pincetl, Transforming California: A Political History of Land Use and

Development (Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press, 1999), p. XV.

Richard Haeuber, “Sprawl Tales: Maryland’s Smart Growth Initiative and the Evolution

of Growth Management,” Urban Ecosystems, vol. 3 (1999), pp. 132-3.

CRS-16

the late 1980s, states continued to develop policies to facilitate coordinated land use

planning. Growth management and open space preservation issues gained national

prominence due largely to widespread publicity of both the negative effects of

unplanned urban growth on the environment and how sprawl can reduce the standard

of living in many urban areas. Increased awareness about these negative trends and

consensus-building on ways to promote more sustainable development patterns leads

to another round of changes in state planning policies. This third wave places greater

emphasis on comprehensive planning, either voluntary or mandated, at the local

level. Topics identified as essential considerations for a well-developed plan include

affordable housing, infrastructure, natural resource protection, urban revitalization,

and interagency and intergovernmental coordination.41 The state’s role in growth

management programs becomes primarily one of providing effective incentives and

disincentives to support local and regional entities with plan development and

implementation. The incentives and disincentives may include judicial review and

regulatory sanctions as well as technical and financial assistance.42

The most recent policy trend in many states, comprehensive planning at the state

level, has emerged more strongly since the late 1980s. Integrated statewide planning

encourages localities to consider issues beyond their boundaries and to coordinate

their plans with other government units. States can be distinguished by specific

features of their comprehensive planning policies, such as whether the plans are

mandated or voluntary, whether incentives and disincentives are included, and the

degree of regulatory authority granted to local planning entities.43 Many state-level

policies originate in the Governor’s office. In a review of state Governors’ state-ofthe-state addresses in 2000, reference to the importance of Smart Growth initiatives,

open space preservation or urban revitalization was made by 32 Governors.44

The Focus of State Policies. The broad increase in concern for growth

management and loss of open space issues has not resulted in uniform policy

responses across the states. The survey identified two distinct, but closely-related

dimensions of land use: one connected to cities and urban sprawl, and the second to

nonurban or urban-fringe issues such as the loss of open space. The survey asked

about the relative importance of these dimensions. Results, in table 1, show that 47%

of the respondents believe that their state places equal weight on both issues.

However, many responded that their states focus principally on open space (36%) and

a smaller number indicated a focus on urban sprawl (15%). These results reflect a

range of priorities among states, likely to be explained by individual circumstances,

including geography, urbanization patterns, and economic and political structure.

Scott A. Bollens, “State Growth Management: Intergovernmental Frameworks and Policy

Objectives,” Journal of the American Planning Association, vol. 58, no. 4 (Autumn 1992),

p. 2.

Dennis E. Gale, “Eight State-sponsored Growth Management Programs: A Comparative

Analysis,” Journal of the American Planning Association, vol. 58, no. 4 (Autumn 1992),

p. 6.

Bollens, “State Growth Management,” p. 4.

Miller, Schroeder, and Leape. Environmental Regulation: Law, Science and Policy, 3rd

ed. (New York: Aspen Law and Business, 2000), p. 770.

CRS-17

State officials saw the focus of state efforts differently than did non-state

government officials. A majority of the state officials, 53%, perceived policy in their

states as focusing equally on the two areas, while only 33% of the non-state

respondents had the same view. A higher portion of both subgroups perceived states’

efforts to be focused on preserving open space than on managing growth. The ratio

between these two options was similar for both subgroups.

Table 1: State Policy Focus (in %)

Managing Growth of Cities

Preserving Open Spaces

Equal Focus

No Policies

Total

State Government

Officials

(n=81)

Non-State Government

Officials

(n=30)

Source: Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs. A National Survey, Fall 2001-Spring 2002.

A large portion of all respondents thought all the issues except loss of resource

lands, defined as lands that contain resources of economic value, to be “very serious,”

as shown in table 2. A larger portion of state officials deemed loss of sensitive and

of agricultural lands to be very serious than did non-state officials, while the reverse

was true for the categories of urban sprawl, zoning practices, and inadequate

infrastructure. The issues of highest concern to state representatives were urban

sprawl followed closely by zoning practices. These responses suggest the view that

traditional or available growth management tools may not be effective in handling

the challenges of development and loss of open space. Overall, the results clearly

indicate that growth management and open space preservation are high concerns for

those surveyed both within and outside state government. The loss of resource land

issue is apparently of less concern, perhaps because these lands may be more fully

valued in the market and thus less threatened by urban development.

Table 2: Seriousness of Growth Management Issues (in %)

Urban Sprawl

Loss of Resource

Lands

Loss of Sensitive

Lands

Loss of

Agricultural

Lands

Zoning Practices

Inadequate

Infrastructure

Very Serious

State

Non-State

Govern.

(n=86)

(n=36)

Moderately Serious

State

Non-State

Govern.

(n=86)

(n=36)

Not Serious

State Non-State

Govern. Govern.

(n=86)

(n=36)

Source: Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs, A National Survey, Fall 2001-Spring 2002.

CRS-18

The survey asked respondents to rate the effectiveness of state policies. Despite

the seriousness of growth management issues in states, most state officials and an

even higher share of non-state government respondents considered growth

management policies to be ineffective, as shown in table 3. Perceptions about the

effectiveness of open space preservation policies were somewhat more positive.

Although growth management is increasingly seen as an important statewide issue,

in many states policies reportedly have not been developed or are not being enforced

to meet the challenges that these respondents perceive.

Table 3: Effectiveness of State Policies (in %)

Very Effective

Moderately Effective

Not Effective

Growth Management

State

Non-State

Government Government

(n=85)

(n=36)

Open Space Preservation

State

Non-State

Government

(n=85)

(n=36)

Source: Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs, A National Survey, Fall 2001-Spring 2002.

Issues Addressed by State Programs. Since no common set of

categories for describing growth management and open space preservation initiatives

exists, the research team developed categories and definitions to provide an analytical

structure for classifying specific policy issues (see Appendix II). Each of the 354

state policies that were identified was categorized based on the issues addressed.

Many of these policies address more than one issue. For example, a smart growth

policy may well include the potentially-related topics of infrastructure management,

land use management, and agricultural land preservation. The frequency with which

states address each issue in the identified policies are provided in table 4. For

example, Alabama has 3 policies; 2 of those address natural resource protection, 1

addresses land use management, and 1 addresses hazardous places.

The frequency with which an issue is addressed could be interpreted, with

caution, as a proxy measure of its importance in policy making since 1990. States

with similar physical and cultural characteristics, and land use history, may well

share similar priorities on specific issues. For instance, states with a lengthy

coastline would be expected to place a high priority on addressing coastal

conservation issues, or states where larger portions of the remaining agricultural

lands are threatened with conversion are more likely to address this topic.

The two issues most frequently addressed by state government are natural

resource protection (19.7%) and land use management (18.5%); there is a large drop

to the next most important issue, agricultural land (13.5%). The high number of state

policies addressing natural resource protection issues may reflect a strong connection

between growth management and open space preservation initiatives and

environmental concerns. Some of the issues that are considered a part of natural

resource protection, such as wetlands protection or wildlife restoration, have been

addressed by many states for decades, where there is a long history of interest and

program development.

CRS-19

Table 4: Policy Issues, by State

InfrastrucCoastal

Natural Land Use Agricul- Urban

Cultural/

ture

ConserResource Manage- tural

Redevelop- Historical

Managevation

Protection ment

Land

ment

Preservation

ment

Frequency

(in %)

Alabama

Alaska

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

New

Hampshire

New Jersey

New Mexico

New York

North

Carolina

North

Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

Number of

Hazardous

State

Places

Policies

19.7

18.5

13.5

11.4

11.2

9.6

8.5

7.2

N/A

CRS-20

South

Carolina

South Dakota

Tennessee

Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia

Washington

West

Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming

TOTALS

InfrastrucCoastal

Natural Land Use Agricul- Urban

Cultural/

ture

ConserResource Manage- tural

Redevelop- Historical

Managevation

Protection ment

Land

ment

Preservation

ment

Number of

Hazardous

State

Places

Policies

160

150

110

354

Source: Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs. A National Survey, Fall 2001-Spring 2002.

Land use management, the second most frequently addressed issue, captures the

overall concern of state policymakers over the effectiveness of existing land use

patterns. State policymakers appear most interested in initiatives that promote

efficient growth and minimize negative externalities. A review of the policies shows

that they have addressed this need in diverse ways.

There are a number of possible explanations for the relatively low frequency of

certain policy issues, including hazardous places (7.2%), coastal conservation (8.5%),

and infrastructure management (9.6%). Hazardous places is a category in which the

federal government, through EPA, takes an active role through the Superfund

Program and brownfield redevelopment. Issues receiving less attention in the state

level may not necessarily be viewed as less important, but other levels of

government, in this case, the federal level, may have a stronger role in addressing

them. Coastal conservation initiatives are found only in those states that contain an

Furthermore, many coastal conservation programs were

eligible shoreline.45

excluded because they were created before the 1990s and have not been significantly

changed. Infrastructure management is an example of an issue that exemplifies the

intergovernmental nature of land use. Many infrastructure programs receive

substantial federal and local government funding or are funded through dedicated

sources rather than general revenues, and are therefore not a priority for state

initiatives. For instance, water and sewer lines are usually funded by local

governments.

Approaches Employed to Address Policy Issues. This study created

a set of categories and definitions for the various approaches used in state programs

to manage growth and protect open space (see Appendix II for definitions). Table

5 shows the frequency of each state approach for the 354 identified state policies.

30 states are eligible to participate in the federal Coastal Zone Management Program.

CRS-21

The categories for planning techniques recognize the three distinct approaches.

A distinction between mandated local planning and authorized local planning is

based on whether local planning is voluntary or not in the state program.

Coordinated state agency planning indicates participation across state agencies.

The three approaches most commonly used are information provision/technical

support, market incentives/disincentives, and grants/funds. The more frequent use

of these three appoaches, in contrast with the less frequent use of mandated local

planning, may suggest that states prefer to use inducements rather than mandating

action or compliance. It is possible that more aggressive approaches to many of these

issues would have political consequences, especially from adversely affected

constituencies. The popularity of these primarily “hands off” approaches may also

be explained by the relative autonomy they bestow on local governments in the realm

of land use planning. Furthermore, these kinds of approaches may become even

more attractive as fiscal constraints faced by many state governments start to limit

funding for growth management and open space preservation initiatives.

Table 5: Policy Approaches, by State

Information

Provision/

Technical

Support

Market

Grants/ Land

Coordinated Land Use Authorized Mandated Infrastructure Number of

Incentives/ Funds Acquisi- State

Regula- Local

Local

and Facilities State

Disincention

Agency

tion

Planning Planning Provision

Policies

tives

Planning

FREQUENCY

(In %)

16.7

15.0

6.0

N/A

Alabama

Alaska

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

CRS-22

Information

Provision/

Technical

Support

Market

Grants/ Land

Coordinated Land Use Authorized Mandated Infrastructure Number of

Incentives/ Funds Acquisi- State

Regula- Local

Local

and Facilities State

Disincention

Agency

tion

Planning Planning Provision

Policies

tives

Planning

FREQUENCY

(In %)

16.7

15.0

6.0

N/A

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

New Hampshire

New Jersey

New Mexico

New York

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

South Carolina

South Dakota

Tennessee

Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming

TOTALS

103

354

Source: Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs, A National Survey, Fall 2001-Spring 2002.

The categorization of programs by issue and approach can be used to examine

the extent to which state initiatives are either targeted or broader. A broader effort

to managing growth or protecting open space can be a single program that addresses

multiple issues and uses various approaches or it can be a collage of numerous, more

CRS-23

targeted, programs, each addressing narrower issues. Combining many targeted

programs for more comprehensive purposes may be very challenging to administer,

and is not inevitably more successful than narrower programs.

Relative comprehensiveness of programs can be approximated by the number

of issues they address. The number of issues addressed by the 354 programs varies

from 1 to all 8, as shown in table 6. Programs that address a single issue are the most

common. The issue(s) that each program addresses are shown in table 7. It indicates

that most states have addressed growth management issue by issue. This strategy

may be most politically viable. Legislation focused to one issue of high concern may

have a greater chance of being enacted and might be less controversial than one that

affects many interests. It is also possible that more limited programs are less

expensive than comprehensive ones, and budgetary constraints are likely to be

important in any states considering legislation addressing these issues in the future.

Table 6: Number of Issues Addressed per State Program

Number of Issues

Frequency

108

Source: Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs, A National Survey, Fall 2001-Spring 2002.

Table 7: Frequency of One-Issue Templates, by Issue

Policy Issue

Land Use Management

Natural Resource

Preservation

Agricultural Land

Urban Redevelopment

Infrastructure

Management

Cultural/Historical

Preservation

Coastal Conservation

Hazardous Places

Number of programs

addressing issue

150

160

Number of programs

addressing only this issue

Percentage

110

12.7

10.8

10.3

6.6

7.2

6.8

17.5

Source: Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs, A National Survey, Fall 2001-Spring 2002.

CRS-24

Policy Recommendations from Participants. In an open-ended question,

the survey solicated recommendations for state governments related to minimizing

sprawl and preserving open space. The recommendations for minimizing sprawl are

categorized in table 8. Of these respondents, 70 were state government officials and

30 were representatives of other organizations active in states. A higher percentage

of non-state government respondents offered recommendations. These respondents

all focused on three principal recommendations with roughly equal frequency. States

should:

Develop comprehensive plans and Smart Growth policies;

Reform the tax system and fund disbursement practices; and

Create and/or enhance market incentive/disincentive programs.

Table 8: Recommendations to Further Minimize Sprawl (in %)

Total

State

Non-State

Government Government

n=70

n=30

12%

17%

Establish Mandatory State Comprehensive Plan and Smart

Growth Policies

Reform State and Local Tax System and Fund Disbursement

Practices

Create/Enhance Market and Financial Incentives/Disincentives 9

for Sprawl

Increase and Coordinate State Funding and Investment

Structure for Growth Management

Establish, Empower, and Coordinate Local Land Use,

Planning, and Zoning Legislation

Fund and Support Agricultural and Open Space Land

Acquisition and Preservation

Encourage Redevelopment of Existing Infrastructure and

Brownfields

Educate Policymakers, Planners, Investors, and Public on

Smart Growth

Enforce and Strengthen Regulatory Legislation and Programs

Create and Empower Regional Planning Organizations and

Partnerships

Establish and Enforce Urban Boundaries/Growth Zones

Reform Local Land Use Policies

Provide Affordable Housing

Fund and Establish Water Conservation Efforts

Establish and Strengthen Purchase and Transfer of

Development Rights Laws

Show Gubernatorial/State Leadership

Develop Statewide Transportation Planning

Institute or Enforce Impact Fees

Encourage Economic Diversification

Reform State Trusts for Land

Source: Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs, A National Survey, Fall 2001-Spring 2002.

CRS-25

These three areas of recommendation reflect the diversity of state approaches

and generally support the perceived benefit of multipronged strategies for addressing

these topics. In establishing a comprehensive plan, governments would be required

to integrate issues, and probably to address them at a multi-jurisdictional scale. The

reform of the tax system and adoption of market incentives may be seen as expanding

opportunities to involve the private sector, and in this process, creating new or

strengthened partnerships between government and nongovernment sectors.

One difference between the governmental and nongovernmental respondents

occurred in the strength of preference for the two most frequent recommendations

(preferred by a higher portion of nongovernmental respondents). A second difference

was that 3 government respondents recommended establishing or strengthening

transfer of development rights laws, while no non-state government respondents

made this recommendation.

Respondents were asked what recommendations they would make to state

governments on means to better preserve open space. Recommendations were

offered by 57 respondents from state government agencies and 22 respondents from

other entities. The three principal recommendations, of roughly equal importance as

shown in table 9, were to:

Fund and support agricultural and open space acquisition and

preservation efforts;

! Increase and reform tax incentive structure to preserve

open/green/agricultural spaces; and

! Establish and strengthen purchase and transfer of development rights

laws.

In funding and supporting agricultural and open space acquisition and

preservation efforts, states act directly. States can also put in place policies that less

directly influence actions by altering incentives and disincentives, such as changing

a state’s tax incentive structure to preserve open/green/agricultural spaces. For

example, transfer of development rights laws permit developers to reach their

development goals while allowing agricultural landowners to benefit from open

space land ownership. Differences between governmental and nongovernmental

responses occurred among infrequently mentioned recommendations, with

government respondents recommending more gubernatorial/state leadership and

improved urban services while nongovernmental respondents favored reforming

zoning practices and instituting and/or enforcing impact fees.

CRS-26

Table 9: Recommendations to Better Preserve Open Space

(in %)

Total

Fund and Support Agricultural and Open Space Acquisition

and Preservation Efforts

Increase and Reform Tax Incentive Structure to Preserve

Open/Green/Agricultural Spaces

Establish and Strengthen Purchase and Transfer of

Development Rights Laws

Adopt Smart Growth Legislation for Farmland Protection

Educate Policymakers, Planners, Investors, and Public on

Land Preservation

Establish and Enforce Urban Boundaries

Mandate/Strengthen Coordination between State and Local

Planning Agencies

Establish a Statewide Greenway System

Reform State Funding

Establish Funding for Conservation Land Trusts

Enforce and Strengthen Regulatory Legislation and Programs

Give Local Governments Additional Planning and Zoning

Authority

Establish Legislation for Land Easements

Show Gubernatorial/State Leadership

Reform/Limit Local Zoning Practices

Improve Urban Services (i.e., Urban Schools)

Institute or Enforce Impact Fees

State

Non-State

Government Government

n=57

n=22

17%

16%

18%

Source: Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs, A National Survey, Fall 2001-Spring 2002.

Concluding Observations

The survey elicited views on state-level policies from knowledgable respondents

who either work within state government or work on these issues in those states.

These views were aggregated to identify the approaches used and the most critical

considerations. The mix of key issues and approaches that emerge as priorities as

states engage in managing growth and protecting open space varies widely. With

varied amounts of experience in growth management and open space preservation,

and differing degrees of urgency in addressing these issues, states are positioning

themselves along a spectrum of state planning, from emerging leaders to not active.

For some states where these issues began to be addressed 30 years ago and more,

recent policies are grafted onto many years of interest and well-developed programs

and approaches, whereas others started taking their first ambitious steps in the 1990s.

Useful lessons can be gleaned from comparing state activities. Examples of

these lessons include the effectiveness of different approaches, the ability to

coordinate efforts that recognize the interconnected nature of growth management

issues, and the capacity to calculate fiscal impacts of unplanned growth. The amount

of expertise states will be able to draw on can be expected to grow as new approaches

are tested and implemented in more places. Experience from each state offers some

CRS-27

indication of the policy development challenges and the feasibility of particular

approaches, but the context, including different political, geographic, social, and

economic characteristics, may make direct transfers to other states difficult. In these

experiences, the federal government often plays important roles. However, the

federal role is seldom an isolated factor; the research findings show that success

requires that multiple governments, linked both vertically and horizontally, work

together to resolve pressing problems that transcend political boundaries.

A state-level analysis has yielded insights not only into the statewide policies

and their outcomes, but also to the limitations of trying to evaluate planning policies

without also examining local and regional approaches to planning. In addition, the

setting each state finds itself in is important. The project research shows that the

level of involvement in growth management and open space preservation issues is

largely determined by these variables:

Geography: states with a high proportion of natural resource land

or rich agricultural land threatened with conversion to other uses are

more likely to preserve remaining land and place a high value on

resource land.

! Dramatic population growth: states that experienced significant

population growth and development in their urban centers sought to

work cooperatively managing growth to minimize the impact on the

peripheral regions and hinterlands.

! Political leadership: states with gubernatorial support for

comprehensive planning approaches or other growth management

policies were the most likely to see these policies implemented.

Local politics also influenced the extent to which the state would

attempt to impose and regulate its planning activities.

! Economic development goals: many states have recognized the

value of both strategic economic growth, and minimizing the

negative externalities of development.

Encouraging local

governments to engage actively in the full spectrum of issues related

to the development of their community, to consider the effects of

this development on surrounding regions and to coordinate with

other units of government has become a goal for many state

programs that can have long-term economic benefits.

! Environmental concerns: states with valuable natural resources are

responsible for preserving these assets in coordination with federal

and local governments. Many states are also aware of the tourism

benefits to their economy in preserving natural resource land.

! Managing fiscal impact: states implementing growth management

and open space preservation programs recognize that trying to

accommodate unplanned growth has fiscal costs that may grow.

Funding new infrastructure and increasing tax burdens to

accommodate development often stresses the tax base and existing

resources.

State-level planning occurs primarily because localities and agencies find

coordinating efforts or facilitating that process difficult without a framework in place

or a regulated process. State policies frequently encourage localities and agencies to

CRS-28

examine the statewide or regionwide impacts of their policies. The state level is

positioned to determine the overall planning and preservation goals within its

boundaries, and to recommend methods for implementing coordinated solutions to

growth issues. It also has the authority to develop and implement approaches that are

too large for political subdivisions to address. States use multiple approaches to

address planning issues. Some approaches are more effective than others.

Ineffective policies reflect several limitations, including:

policies and regulations that are put into place and not followed or

diluted to the point of ineffectiveness;

! policies and regulations that are not clearly understood; or

! policies without penalties.

Policy focus varies across states. Within each state, public officials, agencies,

NGOs, and various coalitions may disagree on priorities. Nonetheless, smart growth

initiatives, task forces, and commissions on state planning issues frequently stimulate

a productive dialogue and encourage units of government at every level to examine

the impacts of existing planning policy frameworks. No one agency or layer of

government acts in a vacuum to address growth management and open space

preservation because they are interrelated with many other public policy issues,

including affordable housing, private property rights, public transportation, and

historical preservation, for example. State-level planning has emerged in response

to the need to coordinate these and to do so in a way that is sustainable and

consistent.

CRS-29

Appendix I: Research Methods and Process

The purpose of this study was to create an inventory of state activities directly related

to growth management and open space preservation that were enacted, adopted, or

undertaken in some other way since 1990, and to be able to make observations about the

effectiveness of these policies. State activities were defined to include laws passed by state

legislatures (including significant amendments to existing laws), voter initiatives, programs

initiated without explicit enabling legislation, and executive orders. The research team

settled on broad definitions of growth management and types of state responses when

compiling this inventory. The issues and approaches that were identified illustrate the

breadth of growth management and open space preservation techniques being used by states.

The research team decided to use a survey to identify the relevant activities in every

state. Staff at appropriate state agencies and experts affiliated with nonprofit organizations,

academics, and professional organizations were identified as the target population to be

invited to participate in the survey. Responses to this survey provided current information

and some original material, since survey recipients were asked to offer their personal

assessment of state policies. Respondents completing the survey could choose to remain

anonymous. This option was offered to encourage the highest level of candor in the

responses, and their candor helped separate issues of substantive policies from political

ones. Most respondents chose anonymity and this report respects all such requests.

Respondents were asked to rate the seriousness of urban sprawl and the loss of

environmentally sensitive land issues in their state. Particular attention was paid to federal

policies that help or hinder states’ efforts. Detailed information on specific policies adopted

or amended by states since 1990 was requested. To facilitate this process, a list of

previously identified policies was included in the survey. An initial mailing was made in

early November 2001 to 325 individuals employed by states and nonprofits. A second

mailing was sent out in early January 2002 to individuals who had not responded as well as

to an additional 75 individuals. A total of 128 surveys were returned. The table on the next

page summarizes the mailings and response rates, by state.

Following the written survey, a telephone interview was conducted to solicit additional

information. During this interview, questions were asked regarding implementation

approaches, outside assessments, and individuals’ own opinions on the effectiveness of the

policies. The interviews often identified additional individuals, who were sent the written

survey and often interviewed by phone.

Alternative sources of information complemented the survey and telephone interviews.

Many state websites provided up-to-date information on state policies and allowed for

review of key agency reports and legislation. Internet searches provided additional

information, including inventories of state initiatives and studies of similar subjects.

Nonprofit organization websites provided alternative perspectives and legislative reviews.

Library materials often were helpful in identifying laws that were not found elsewhere.

Searches of other published materials, including law review articles and newspaper archives,

were also used.

The study team encountered a number of difficulties while administering the survey.

The return rate for many states was lower than anticipated. Often the return rate was higher

from program directors, whether governmental or nongovernmental, in smaller states. In

larger states, program directors typically requested subordinates to complete the survey, and

this often resulted in the survey becoming misplaced in large departments. Forwarding the

survey to an identified individual became necessary. Responses to the events of September

11, 2001 caused many northeastern states to never receive the first and second mailings.

CRS-30

Table 10. Responses to LBJ School Survey, by State

State

Alabama

Alaska

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

New Hampshire

New Jersey

New Mexico

New York

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

South Carolina

South Dakota

Tennessee

Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming

Survey Responses(received/sent)

Government

Nongovernmental

Officials (93/244)

Organizations (36/86)

0/3

0/0

1/5

0/0

2/4

1/2

2/4

0/0

3/14

4/11

1/4

0/1

2/6

0/2

3/5

1/2

0/6

2/3

3/5

0/1

2/6

0/1

1/4

0/1

0/2

1/1

1/2

0/3

0/2

1/3

1/1

0/0

3/5

1/1

1/3

0/1

0/3

5/9

0/2

2/5

3/5

4/12

1/2

1/3

0/2

2/4

0/0

3/3

1/2

3/8

0/0

1/2

1/1

2/4

1/2

3/9

1/4

1/3

2/2

4/7

0/2

3/4

1/2

2/5

0/0

0/4

3/4

0/1

2/2

8/12

1/2

3/5

2/3

3/6

0/0

1/5

0/0

1/4

0/0

0/2

1/1

3/6

0/0

3/7

1/1

1/4

1/1

2/8

0/1

1/5

0/2

0/1

1/4

1/2

3/5

1/2

Telephone Interviews

Government

Nongovernmental

Officials

Organizations

Source: Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs, A National Survey, Fall 2001-Spring 2002.

CRS-31

Survey responses varied in comprehensiveness. Some respondents completed the

opinion-based sections and left the more substantive sections on specific policies blank.

Also, many recipients stated that the survey would take too long to complete. The telephone

survey also presented challenges because many potential participants were unavailable or

difficult to contact. Frequently the telephone interviews required multiple calls. Yet

information derived from the phone interviews was especially valuable as topics regarding

triggering events, policy effectiveness, and assessments of state-level commitments were

discussed. During the information-gathering process, the research team consulted with

Henry Richmond and John DeGrove, two eminent scholars in the growth management field

and advisors to this project. A final quality control step was to mail the draft chapter that

described the state’s experiences to the governor’s office, with a request for a review for

factual accuracy. Nearly half of these offices responded, and all oversights and factual

errors were corrected.

The search strategy utilized by individual team members was varied in relation to the

survey responses and telephone interviews in specific states. For some, the majority of

information was derived from a few comprehensive survey responses requiring nominal

supplementary research. For others, especially larger states, consulting alternative sources

of information was necessary. Despite the limitations mentioned above, the written and

telephone surveys, when combined with the supplementary information sources, provided

original information on current policies in the 50 states.

CRS-32

Appendix II: Explanation of Terms

State governments pursue growth management and open space protection policies in

a multitude of ways. The priority given to these issues and the policy instruments chosen

vary substantially across states. In order to provide a consistent structure to these issues for

this project, a number of categories and definitions had to be agreed to. Through the use of

categories, the relative importance of various issues and policy instruments can be

established. Given that state governments recognize no common categories or definitions,

the definitions used here reflect those used in academic and policy literature.

Policy Issues in Managing and Protecting Open Space. One set of categories

was created to disaggregate the general policy issues of managing growth and protecting

open space. Each state law or program was classified with respect to the specific type of

land management concern addressed:

! Agricultural Land concerns the preservation and viability of farmland

and related farm operations, understood as the practices that contribute to

the production and preparation of crops, livestock, and livestock products.

! Coastal Conservation concerns the preservation and development of any

coastal area natural resource such as wetlands, beaches, and wildlife

habitat.

! Cultural/Historical Preservation concerns the continued existence and

use of areas or entities of cultural or historical value, ranging from single

buildings and parks to farms and entire downtown areas.

! Hazardous Places concerns land where use is limited by actual or

potential natural hazards and environmental contamination, or the

perception of such contamination. Examples include floodplains, seismic

hazard zones, abandoned mines, factories, and solid waste sites.

! Infrastructure Management concerns the maintenance, feasibility,

and/or rehabilitation of existing infrastructure or the need for

provision/planning of new infrastructure.

! Land Use Management concerns the determination of how land is used

as addressed through planning, zoning, and the like.

! Natural Resource Protection concerns the use of resource land,

environmentally sensitive areas, and other critical open space that is not

encompassed within other designations, such as coastal or agricultural

lands. This designation includes, but is not limited to, the issues of

general open space preservation, wildlife habitat, and wetlands and forest

preservation.

! Urban Redevelopment concerns the development needs of existing urban

environments, especially deteriorating areas, and may relate to increasing

urban densities, downtown revitalization, and/or neighborhood

preservation.

Land Use Management Approaches. In addition, each state law or program is

classified by the land use management approach(es) adopted. Frequently, a single state

CRS-33

effort adopts multiple approaches. The presentation of information on individual laws and

programs allows for identification of multiple approaches. The approaches are:

! Coordinated State Agency Planning: collaborating among state agencies

to manage growth. Examples of this approach include task forces and

regional planning programs in which several state agencies are

represented.

! Mandated Local Planning: requiring planning actions by local

governments, as in a state government legally requiring all localities to

undertake and submit a comprehensive plan.

! Authorized Local Planning: enabling, but not requiring, local

governments to take planning actions.

! Land Use Regulation: imposing regulations that govern land use by the

state, including planning laws, zoning, and the like.

! Market Incentives/Disincentives: provision of economic benefits to

encourage certain actions and/or discourage others, including tax

incentives, farmland special assessments, easements, and transfer of

development rights.

! Land Acquisition: acquiring and securing land by the state to preserve it

as open space.

! Infrastructure & Facilities Provision: guiding or meeting the

infrastructure needs of an area and using infrastructure investments as a

land use policy tool.

! Grants/Funds: creating funding mechanisms or allocating special funds

for growth management activities.

! Information

Provision/Technical Support: providing detailed

information or analysis and/or technical support to facilitate improved

growth management policy or action. Examples of this approach include

land surveys, creation of a committee to study an issue, and technical

assistance to local governments.

CRS-34

Appendix III: State Summaries

Introduction. Students at the University of Texas Lyndon B. Johnson School of

Public Policy prepared summaries of state-level activity to address sprawl and manage

growth in every state based on information they accumulated during surveys, interviews, and

related information-gathering activities. The summaries vary widely, reflecting both

diversity in the levels of interest and types of activities among states. Each summary should

be viewed as a very brief introduction to an often complex set of laws, programs, policies,

and activities; the many footnotes identify additional resources. The summaries emphasize

actions and initiatives that have occurred since 1990. In most states, they focus on some

combination of legislation and gubernatorial initiatives, and on perspectives during the

winter and spring of 2002, when the survey was conducted. Since the survey, many states

are adjusting their approaches because of diminishing state tax revenues and less economic

growth and activity, especially in locations dominated by tech industries. The effect of the

economic downturn reportedly has placed significant constraints on some states, especially

in 2002.46 Specific information about each identified program will be published in a CRS

congressional distribution memo. Officials in each state received a draft of information

about their state and were asked to review it for accuracy and completeness.

Alabama. Alabama’s planning system is largely based on local control, and

consequently very few state laws address growth management. The state has not pursued

this avenue as vigorously as some of its neighbors, including Tennessee, Georgia, and

Florida, in reforming state comprehensive planning laws that date back to the 1920s. Three

programs and activities were identified during the survey:

! Forever Wild Program;

! Alabama Commission on Environmental Initiatives; and

! Alabama Geographical Information Council.

The Forever Wild Program, enacted in 1992, is the only program with an explicit

concern for growth management or open space preservation. This program sets aside land

for permanent state ownership using a portion of the interest earned on profits from the sale

of offshore natural gas. Land is conserved for hunting, fishing, camping, outdoor recreation,

natural resource protection and research, and preservation of unique sites.47 In 1999, the

program initiated the purchase of more than 47,000 acres of land in the Mobile-Tensaw

Delta, the largest single land purchase for conservation in the state’s history. The Delta is

home to 32 plant and 26 animal species listed as endangered, threatened, or rare by the state

of Alabama and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and is also designated by the World

Wildlife Fund as an area of worldwide ecological importance.

In recent years, the Alabama legislature has considered, but not enacted, planning and

land-use related legislation. In 1999, a bill to provide for county-level planning and zoning

authority and an amendment to the state constitution to grant municipalities home rule

powers over land use and development were proposed, but not passed.

In 2000, the Governor established the Alabama Commission on Environmental

Initiatives. Its top priorities included the development and implementation of a

Are State Budget Shortfalls Shortchanging Smart Growth Initiatives? A Natural

Resources Defense Council-Sprawl Watch-Smart Growth America Report. Washington,

D.C., March, 2002. 10p.

Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Forever Wild. Online.

Available: http://www.dcnr.state.al.us/agfd/forever.html. Accessed: December 10, 2001.

CRS-35

comprehensive environmental education plan, an increased focus on advancing water policy,

and a Smart Growth collaboration with Alabama’s Commerce Commission.48 The

commission recommended a Smart Growth Commission be established to address sprawl.

This recommendation had not been placed on the legislative agenda as of April 2002, due

to budget shortfalls and the 2002 elections.49

In 2002, the Governor increased his involvement in growth management efforts by

sponsoring a two-day Conference on Smart Growth and Brownfields Redevelopment. It was

attended by 200 officials, experts, and business leaders who discussed ways to better combat

the effects of sprawl through improved land use planning.50 The conference is an important

step in creating an awareness of growth issues affecting the state. Concerns with urban

sprawl were recently raised by a report from the U.S. Census Bureau, which stated that

Alabama had the highest percentage of people who drive to work by themselves.51

The principal agency in charge of planning is the Alabama Department of Economic

and Community Affairs (ADECA). ADECA operates as an extension of the Governor’s

Office, and administers federal grants in the areas of job creation, infrastructure, public

safety, and energy efficiency and conservation.

Alaska. The role the State of Alaska has taken since 1990 to protect its vast amounts

of open space has principally been to enforce existing state environmental protection

regulations, to coordinate state efforts with federal programs, and to enable local planning.

The federal government has a strong role in determining the use of land in Alaska since

it owns over 66% of the state. About one-third of this area is designated conservation units

by federal laws such as the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (1971) and the Alaska

National Interest Lands Conservation Act (1980). Alaska now contains 60% of the land in

the National Parks System (administered by the National Park Service) and 86% of the land

in the National Wildlife Refuge System (administered by the Fish and Wildlife Service).

The Alaska Department of Environmental Resources coordinates federal, state, and

local environmental procedures, while planning efforts are based at the local level and

supported by the Department of Community and Regional Affairs.52 With an average

population density of 1 person per square mile (in contrast to the average population density

of the entire United States of 75 persons per square mile), urban sprawl is not an issue for

most local authorities. Alaska’s largest cities (Anchorage, Fairbanks, and Juneau) can adopt

local growth management regulations as they deem necessary and have implemented

comprehensive land use regulations.53

Jacksonville State University, Alabama Commission on Environmental Initiatives. Online.

Available: http://www.jsu.edu/depart/epic/ACEI.html .Accessed: January 15, 2002.

American Planning Association, Growing Smart: Alabama (online).

Smart Growth Online, Smart Growth News. Online. Available: http://www.

smartgrowth.org/news/bystate.asp?state=AL&res=1024. Accessed: April 12, 2002.

American Planning Association, Growing Smart: Alabama (online).

Alaska Stat. Secs. 44.47.010, 44.46.010, and 46.03.010.

Denali Commission Alaska, Spotlight on

http://www.denali.gov. Accessed: December 6, 2001.

Alaska.

Online.

Available:

CRS-36

The only state legislation to address growth management created the coastal zone

management program in 1978. It was amended in 1990. In recent years, the state, working

with a very senior delegation in Congress, has focused its efforts on infrastructure expansion

and economic development across Alaska. The Denali Commission, for example, was

established by Congress in 1998 as a federal-state partnership to provide critical utilities,

infrastructure, and economic support throughout the state. Examples of the commission’s

efforts include the promotion of rural development through job training and energy

infrastructure improvements, and an educational initiative to increase the capacity of rural

communities to create and implement local plans. The Governor at the time of the survey

was advocating the enactment of measures to meet the infrastructure needs of rural Alaskans

and was a strong supporter of opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to

“environmentally responsible” drilling for oil and natural gas.54 If successful, these federal

and gubernatorial efforts are likely to have important implications for managing growth and

preserving open space.

Arizona. Arizona is one of the fastest-growing states in the nation. Despite

demographic trends, Arizona took a rather conservative approach to growth management

and open space preservation policies until the late 1990s. With the leadership of the

Governor, Arizona’s legislature passed major growth management acts in 1998 and 2000.

Arizona’s approach to growth management continues to evolve in response to demographic

trends. Four laws and programs were identified in the survey:

Growing Smarter Act of 1998;

Growing Smarter Plus Act of 2000

Arizona Preservation Initiative; and

Arizona Heritage Fund.

Local governments in Arizona have historically been responsible for land use planning.

The Arizona Department of Commerce, through its Community Planning Office, monitors

local activities, although current statutes provide little authority to enforce legislative

mandates.

Approximately 13% of Arizona’s land base is in state trust lands, which were granted

by the federal government when Arizona became territory in 1863.55 The federal

government retained extensive holdings, and currently administers approximately 33.1

million acres. Arizona experiences difficulty in trying to consolidate parcels under three

distinct types of land ownership (state trusts, federal lands, and privately owned lands) for

either managed growth or conservation purposes. In the northern half of the state,

fragmented ownership divided among private parties, federal and state lands, and Indian

reservations, has resulted in checkerboard development patterns. State officials believe that

exchanging or purchasing federal lands would allow it to plan more effectively and manage

growth, but the federal government is often reluctant to trade or dispose of these lands.

The late 1990s marked a new era in land use policy, as the state enacted the Growing

Smarter Act in 1998 and the Growing Smarter Plus Act in 2000. Critics described the 1998

Smart Growth News, “Alaska Governor Urges Opening of Arctic Wildlife Refuge for

Energy Development.” Online. Available: http://www.smartgrowth.org. Accessed: February

27, 2002.

Arizona State Land Department, Historical Overview of State Land Trust. Online.

Available: http://www.land.state.az.us. Accessed: February 28, 2002.

CRS-37

Act as meaningless and ineffective because while communities could choose how they

would like to pursue Growing Smarter initiatives, it did not include enforcement or

evaluation procedures to ensure that local governments complied with state policy. In

response to citizen initiatives and public demand, Growing Smarter Plus was passed in a

special legislative session. The Governor described the Plus Act as making “Arizona a

national leader in land use and growth management,” and praised the strong tools for

managing growth it gave to localities. 56 Its primary tools are in-fill incentive districts,

purchase of development rights and a required updating of zoning laws in order to be in

compliance with the legislation. It also uses urban service limits, impact fees for

development, and active citizen participation in the approval of land use development plans.

Yet critics of Growing Smarter Plus claim that it provides no incentive to participate, no

consistency between neighboring cities or counties, and no means of evaluation.

The political controversy surrounding Growing Smarter Plus has been fierce.

Environmental groups have attempted to strengthen it by placing initiatives on the ballot.

In November 2001, for example, citizens rejected Proposition 202, which would have

created local growth management plans including mandated growth boundaries, after

expressing significant support when it was first made public. This defeat is an illuminating

example of the political tug-of-war currently taking place as antisprawl sentiments vie with

concerns about loss of local control.

On February 22, 2001, the Governor announced the creation of the Growth

Management Oversight Council to “monitor the effectiveness of Arizona’s growth

management statutes and offer suggestions for their improvement.”57 Arizona appears to be

entering a new stage in its growth management and open space preservation agenda as it

increases emphasis on improved enforcement and monitoring of policies by increasing the

authority of state and local officials. The future of growth management as an important

issue seems likely so long as the Governor in Arizona continues to devote attention to the

issue and interest groups continue to make the topic a priority.

Arkansas. Planning and zoning authority in Arkansas exists primarily at the county

and city levels rather than the state level. No single state agency is directly responsible for

growth management and open space preservation, although a few of them indirectly address

these issues. For example, the Department of Environmental Quality addresses preservation

through watershed management plans and the Department of Economic Development

facilitates strategic planning in communities to assist them in prioritizing their goals and

objectives. County planning boards and plans, where these issues could be addressed, are

optional. The state encourages multicounty planning primarily to enhance economic

development and coordinate government services.58 Planning and development districts

provide technical assistance to local governments. City governments also have the option

to work together to facilitate coordinated areawide planning.

“Governor Signs Growing Smarter Plus Legislation,” Governor Jane Dee Hull News

Releases, Phoenix, AZ, February 21, 2000.

“Governor Appoints Growing Smarter Oversight Council,” Governor Jane Dee Hull News

Releases, Phoenix, AZ, February 22, 2002.

Arkansas Code Annotated, Title 14, Chapter 56, Section 401 et seq.

CRS-38

One law related to growth management is the Conservation Easement Act of 1983.59

It allows for the acquisition of easements, thus preserving open space. A brownfield

redevelopment law provides incentives to people who acquire abandoned industrial,

commercial, or agricultural sites that may require environmental and/or hazardous material

cleanup.60

California. California has enacted numerous state growth management laws despite

having a decentralized planning structure.61 Legislation, which ranges from amendments

strengthening previous growth management policies to innovative laws intended to limit

growth and protect open space, includes:

California Farmland Conservancy Program Act;

Energy Conservation;

Williamson Act Amendments;

California Forest Legacy Program Act;

Legislation Linking Water Supply to Development;

Safe Neighborhood Parks, Clean Water, Clean Air, and Coastal Protection

Bond Act;

Oak Woodlands Conservation Act;

Urban Park Act;

Legislation Protecting Headwaters Forest, Owl Creek, and Grizzly Creek;

A.B. 2663 (to protect agricultural land);

Downtown Rebound Program;

Natural Heritage Preservation Tax Credit Act;

Wildlife Protection Act;

California Rural Development Council;

California Oceans Resources Management Act;

Natural Community Conservation Planning Act;

Cleanup Loans and Environmental Assistance to Neighborhoods Account;

and

Environmental justice (guidelines).

The rapid population growth and extensive suburbanization of open space and

agricultural land in California following WWII forced the state to become involved in

growth management before most other states. The Williamson Act of 1965, the best-known

policy from this early growth management era, protects open space through conservation

easements. It has enrolled over 16 million acres since the early 1980s.62

The Santa Barbara oil spill of 1969 was a watershed event by engendering widespread

environmental concern among California residents and creating support for the passage of

several environmental and land use-related laws. The California Environmental Quality Act

(CEQA), passed in 1970 and modeled after the National Environmental Policy Act, requires

state and local agencies to consider the environmental effects of their policies and activities,

Arkansas Code Annotated, Title 15, Chapter 20, Section 401 et seq.

Arkansas Code Annotated, Title 8, Chapter 7, Section 1101 et seq.

Arthur Nelson and James Duncan, Growth Management Principles and Practices

(Chicago: Planners Press, 1995), p. 26.

Department of Conservation, The Williamson Act of 1965. Online. Available:

http://www.consrv.ca.gov/dllrp/LCA/info. Accessed: February 23, 2002.

CRS-39

to mitigate those impacts, and to report to the public.63 In 1971, AB 1301, a landmark

general plan law, required local governments to engage in planning, yet it did not enhance

the state’s planning authority. It imposed procedural and organizational requirements but

no policy requirements. A year later California voters approved Proposition 20, the Coastal

Protection Initiative. At the time, it was considered the boldest effort in state land use

regulation. It created six regional coastal commissions under a state commission charged

with issuing development permits and carrying out long-term planning and management.64

In 1978, Californian voters passed Proposition 13, which restricted the property tax

rate and allowed local governments to reassess property for tax purposes only when it is

sold. This legislation had a profound impact on local government and school districts.

Policymakers claim that cities have begun to favor retail development, which generates

higher tax revenues, over residential development.65

Since the early 1990s, continuous growth has placed more pressure on metropolitan

areas. In the Los Angeles region, for example, the remaining open areas are undevelopable

because the land is already protected, federally owned, too valuable as agricultural land, or

would be too difficult to develop because of terrain.66 With population projections of an

additional 24 million residents in the next 40 years, the state faces ongoing challenges.

Increased development has affected other quality-of-life issues. For example, between 1970

and 1990, while the state’s population grew by 50%, the total number of miles traveled by

cars and trucks grew by 100%.67 This increase in vehicle miles traveled is an indicator of

urban sprawl as people take longer trips on average, because more of them have moved

farther away from the urban core or have longer commutes.

Since 1990, growth management legislation has included both enacting new policies

and strengthening existing policies to address contemporary issues. The Williamson Act

was revised in 1999 to restrict recreational use and disallow lot line adjustments to land

enrolled in the program. SB 497 amended the government code in 2001 to allow lot line

adjustments for only one to four parcels. New legislation created new certification

procedures to limit development on the periphery of cities while providing low-interest

loans to facilitate urban redevelopment. Protection of California agricultural and

environmental land involved the use of conservancy programs, tax credits to landowners,

direct purchases by the state, and providing matching funds to local governments, and

nonprofit organizations.

Two bond measures have passed since 2000 to fund the preservation of open space and

increase investment in parkland. The Safe Neighborhood Parks, Clean Water, Clean Air and

UCLA Capital Programs, California Environmental Quality Act. Online. Available:

http://www.capital.ucla.edu/ep-ceqa.html. Accessed: March 20, 2002.

Frank S. So, Irving Hand, and Bruce D. McDowell, The Practice of State and Regional

Planning (Chicago: American Planning Association, 1986), p. 230.

The Southern California Studies Center, Sprawl Hits the Wall: Confronting the

Realities of Metropolitan Los Angeles (Los Angeles, 2001), p. 37.

The Southern California Studies Center, Sprawl Hits the Wall, p. 30.

Greenbelt Alliance, Beyond Sprawl: New Patterns of Growth to Fit the New California

(1995). Online. Available: http://www.greenbelt.org/pubs_merchandise/beyond_sprawl

_txt.html. Accessed: March 20, 2002.

CRS-40

Coastal Protection Bond Act of 2000 earmarked $2.1 billion in general obligation bonds to

protect and expand parkland. In March 2002 voters approved the California Clean Water,

Clean Air, Safe Neighborhood Parks and Coastal Protection Act of 2002, providing an

additional $2.6 billion for investment in protecting open space and parkland.

The last decade has seen increased activism and interest in land development and

sprawl issues.68 More coalitions, made up of residents, nonprofit organizations, academic

institutions, private sector companies, and governmental bodies, are forming in reaction to

the impacts of development and population growth. Reports such as See Beyond Sprawl

from the Greenbelt Alliance and Bank of America and Sprawl Hits the Wall from the

Southern California Studies Center with the Brookings Institution Center on Urban and

Metropolitan Policy are two examples of coalitions providing policy recommendations.

The state government is studying sprawl and open space loss. Resolutions adopted by

the legislature in 1999 encourage the use of Smart Growth principles, such as planning for

the future, promoting livable communities, providing better housing and transportation, and

conserving open space and natural resources, when making policy.69 The Smart Growth

Caucus was formed by Representative Wiggins in January 2000 and has 31 state legislators.

It released a report, Growth Challenges in the Golden State, in 2001.70 The Commission on

Regionalism, created in November 2000 by Speaker Hertzberg, published The California

Dream: Regional Solutions for 21st Century Challenges in February 2002. It identified the

need for regional efforts to address statewide problems, especially development and open

space preservation.71

Population projections, widespread development, shrinking open space, and

diminishing environmental quality fueled the increased priority placed on Smart Growth

management since the mid 1990s. State legislators and local government officials, as well

as the private sector, nonprofit community, academic institutions, and private citizens,

continue to study ways to address these growing concerns.

Colorado. Colorado has a very strong tradition of local control over land use and

growth management. Land use planning regulations, such as zoning, sign codes, and

building codes are, for the most part, locally determined. Past attempts to establish “top

down” control over aspects of development run counter to this tradition, and have been

defeated either in the legislature or at the ballot box. Nonetheless, Colorado has been at the

forefront in enacting planning reform and smart growth measures to address its explosive

growth. In recent years, Colorado has attempted to control urban sprawl and protect open

space through land use management, natural resource protection, and agricultural land

preservation. Among the laws and programs are:

! Creating an Office of Smart Growth;

! Local Government Master Plan Criteria;

! Brownfield Redevelopment Tax Credit;

Ibid.

University of Hastings School of Law, “Smart Growth: State by State, 2000” database.

Online. Available: http://www.uchastings.edu/plri/spring2001.PDF. Accessed: March 20,

2002.

California Smart Growth Caucus, Growth Challenges Facing the Golden State (online).

So, Hand, and McDowell, The Practice of State and Regional Planning, p. 230.

CRS-41

Governor’s Commission on Saving Open Spaces, Farms, and Ranches;

Tax Credit for Historic Preservation;

Conservation Easements Tax Credit;

Master Plan Dispute Resolution;

Property Owners Adjacent to Annexation;

Concerning the Mandatory Adoption of Local Government Master Plans;

Smart Growth: Colorado’s Future;

Great Outdoors Colorado Fund;

Development Impact Fees; and

Voluntary Cleanup and Redevelopment Act.

The Governor promoted the Smart Growth agenda adopted in 1999 in a comprehensive

initiative, “Smart Growth: Colorado’s Future.” The initiative intends to protect open lands

and give local communities the tools needed to plan for responsible growth.72 He also

signed six Smart Growth bills in 2000 and established the Governor’s Commission on

Saving Open Spaces, Farms and Ranches. This 2000 legislative package created the Office

of Smart Growth and the Intergovernmental Land Use Dispute Resolution Program. This

program was specifically designed to aid local governments in negotiating land use conflicts

to more efficiently implement growth management legislation.

The Governor called a special session of the legislature to address growth in

September 2001. During this session, the legislature passed a package of bills that the

Denver Post called “the most significant land use reform in Colorado since the 1970’s.”73

The package:

Requires fast-growing and large cities and counties to develop

comprehensive land use plans;

! Creates a dispute resolution mechanism for local governments to settle

plan conflicts;

! Authorizes every city and county to collect impact fees; and

! Amends laws to limit the ability of cities to annex territory far outside

their boundaries.

In addition, in November 2001, Colorado voters overwhelmingly approved the

governor’s proposal to give Great Outdoors Colorado, the state conservation agency, the

ability to bond against its revenue so that it can move quickly to protect natural landscapes

that come on the market.

The Department of Local Affairs is the statewide agency responsible for implementing

planning programs and statutes. The Department’s Office of Smart Growth acts as a

clearinghouse for information and assistance to local governments for their smart growth

planning efforts.

Connecticut. Connecticut’s growth management programs are created and

implemented both at the state and local level but focus on statewide planning. The stimulus

for this activity has been that the state’s population increased by 3.6% annually between

State of Colorado, Smart Growth: Colorado’s Future. Online. Available:

http://www.state.co.us/smartgrowth/. Accessed: January 5, 2002.

Colorado House Bill 01S2 (2001).

CRS-42

1990 and 2000. Connecticut’s goal is to have at least 7% of the land in the state dedicated

as open space. Of that land dedicated to open space, at least 10% will be held by the state

and the remainder will be held by local governments and conservation organizations.74

Relevant laws and programs include:

Coastal Zone Management Act revisions;

Conservation and Development Policies Plan;

Inland Waterways and Watercourse Act;

Neighborhood Revitalization Zone Act;

Open Space for Recreation;

Special Contaminated Property Remediation and Insurance Fund; and

Urban Sites Remedial Action Program

Connecticut first initiated statewide planning in 1976 when policymakers developed

the Conservation and Development Policies Plan for Connecticut.75 It remains the basis for

current initiatives. In the 1970s, the legislature passed laws protecting environmentally

sensitive areas such as coasts and wetlands. In the 1990s, it revised some of these laws, and

strengthened the regulatory authority of the state. For example, Connecticut’s Coastal

Management Act was amended in 1995 to promote collaborative planning efforts among

state agencies, and to extend protection to wildlife and fish habitats.

The state’s renewed activism also addressed urban redevelopment. In the 1990s, the

legislature enacted the Neighborhood Revitalization Zone Act, the Urban Sites Remedial

Action Program, and provided for brownfield redevelopment through the Special

Contaminated Property Remediation and Insurance Fund. In addition, the Open Spaces for

Recreation Act was passed in 1997 as an avenue to meet the state’s goal of preserving open

spaces.

The State Office of Policy and Management is the lead agency implementing the

Conservation and Development Policies Plan, which must be renewed every five years. This

program is used primarily as a regulatory tool for promoting coordinated planning. Regional

and local governments work with the State Office of Policy and Management to ensure that

their plans are consistent with the statewide plan. This Office also collaborates with the

Department of Environmental Protection and the Department of Agriculture to promote joint

efforts with local governments and municipalities. Through the plan and other initiatives,

local and regional governments are active participants in statewide efforts to manage growth

and give special attention to open space acquisition and preservation opportunities. Some

municipalities are also active in preserving agricultural lands.

Delaware. Delaware places a high priority on land management, as evidenced by the

abundance of legislation passed and revised since the early 1990s to preserve open space

generally and agricultural land. The creation of new committees and the expansion of

existing ones dealing with land management issues as well as changes in the state-level

approach to comprehensive planning are measures of Delaware’s leadership in growth

management. Laws and programs include:

Connecticut State Legislature. Public Acts: Public Act No. 99-235, Sec. 2b. Online.

Available: http://www.cga.state.ct.us Accessed: December 20, 2001.

Connecticut General Statutes

Secs. 16a-24-16a-33.

http://www.cga.state.ct.us Accessed: December 20, 2001.

Online.

Available:

CRS-43

Livable Delaware 2001 Agenda;

Livable Delaware 2001 – Act to Define Brownfields;

Livable Delaware 2001 Advisory Council;

Livable Delaware 2001 – Open Space Formula;

Livable Delaware 2001 – Graduated Impact Fees;

Livable Delaware 2001 – Comprehensive Plans;

Historic Preservation Tax Credit;

! Delaware Agricultural Lands Preservation Act;

! Task Force for Farmland Preservation;

! Shaping Delaware’s Future Act of 1995; and

! Land Use Planning Act of 1996.

Delaware’s recent involvement in land management began in 1989 when the Governor

introduced his first land management policy proposal. The Delaware Land Protection Act

established land preservation as a priority and created a trust that has preserved over 30,000

acres. In 1994, the Governor reestablished a Cabinet Committee on State Planning Issues

and charged it with ensuring effective and coordinated planning. This Committee quickly

became active in promoting various studies and legislation. In 1994 and early 1995 it

gathered citizen opinions characterizing development, economic, infrastructure, and quality

of life issues anticipated in 2020 and presented them in a report titled Shaping Delaware’s

Future.76 The Shaping Delaware’s Future Act of 1995 requires counties to submit

comprehensive land use plans to the Office of State Planning and Coordination based on the

report. The cabinet committee reexamined its role in state policy in a 1999 report titled:

Managing Growth in the 21st Century: Strategies for State Planning and Spending.77 This

report provided a framework to help manage growth while promoting revitalization, with

the understanding that land management is mainly the responsibility of local government.

Delaware’s 1978 Land Use Planning Act, known as LUPA, was revised in 1996.

LUPA originally sought to facilitate coordination between local governments in their

planning activities and development patterns. The revision requires local governments to

submit all planning proposals affecting adjacent jurisdictions, such as proposed annexations

and certain local ordinances, to the Office of State Planning and Coordination (OSPC) for

review and comment. These proposals are also forwarded for review to eleven other state

agencies.

Coalitions between government and nonprofit organizations have been an important

initiator of state policies. In 1997, Delaware hosted a Land Use Planning Summit sponsored

by the Delaware Public Policy Institute to study the issue of land management. The forum

made eleven policy recommendations in the following legislative sessions. Three of these

recommendations were enacted. The three enacted bills all focus on regional planning

coordination, but vary in their approaches to improve land management: one bill expanded

the membership on the Advisory Panel on Intergovernmental Planning and Coordination,

which provides a forum for regional planning; the second made all planning data available

to planning agencies at the state, regional, and local levels and to the public to facilitate

Cabinet Committee on State Planning Issues, Shaping Delaware’s Future (April 1995).

Online. Available: http://www.state.de.us/planning/shape/sdf.pdf. Accessed: March 21,

2002.

Office of State Planning Coordination. Managing Growth in 21st Century Delaware:

Strategies for State Policies and Spending. (December, 1999). Online. Available:

http//www.state.de.us/planning/shape/strategy/index.htm. Accessed: March 28, 2002.

CRS-44

responsible development; and the third encouraged regional planning and required

municipal governments to plan for housing and population growth.

The Governor continued the priority of land management established by her

predecessor when she assumed the position in 2001. One of her first acts was to issue an

executive order calling for the state to provide leadership on land use issues by setting an

example. It required state agencies to develop implementation plans by August 2001 based

upon the goals expressed in Shaping Delaware’s Future. Following the executive order,

the Governor presented an ambitious initiative in March, 2001, called Livable Delaware,

which proposed legislation and established a Livable Delaware Advisory Council.78 The

council’s main responsibilities are to: promote the Livable Delaware policy; develop

planning standards; monitor the progress of land management efforts and handle disputes

among levels of government. Legislation would support Livable Delaware by imposing

graduated impact fees, establishing comprehensive plan implementation and annexation

standards, changing the open space formula legislation, and amending brownfield matching

grants.

Numerous other policies were also passed in the 1990s and early 2000s. Conservation

easements and transfer of development rights were encouraged for open space, agricultural

land, and historic preservation. The cigarette tax was earmarked in 2001 to exclusively fund

environmental protection including the purchase of additional land through the Farmland

Preservation Fund and the Water Conservation Trust Fund.

Florida. Florida encourages the efficient delivery of public goods and protects open

space using comprehensive growth management strategies. These strategies enable and

require regional planning councils, cities, and counties to develop their own comprehensive

growth management strategies in compliance with state policy. Florida’s key laws and

programs include:

! Beach and Shore Preservation Act;

! Growth Policy Act;

! Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development

Regulation Act;

Educational Facilities Act;

Florida Preservation 2000 Act;

Brownfield Redevelopment Bonus Refunds;

Florida Communities Trust Act;

Florida Forever Act;

Florida Coastal Zone Management Act;

Affordable Housing Study Commission;

! Eastward Ho!; and

! Florida Growth Management Study Commission.

The issue of growth management first seriously arose in the early 1970s, and the state

responded by enacting the Florida Comprehensive Planning Act of 1972. This Act

promoted intergovernmental coordination to address growth management, provided

strategies for implementing the state plan, and included guidelines for determining

appropriate growth and transportation plans. It was not fully implemented until 1985. Other

Livable Delaware, Livable Delaware. Online. Available from the Delaware state web site

at: http://www.state.de.us/planning/livedel/. Accessed: February 15, 2002.

CRS-45

legislation enacted included the Florida Environmental Land and Water Management Act

of 1972 and the Area of Critical State Concern Program, which enabled the state to preserve

open space by actively regulating growth that threatens coastal conservation and natural

resources of statewide significance, respectively.

In spite of Florida’s early interest in growth management and open space issues, the

first enforceable legislation was passed in 1985, when both the State Comprehensive Plan

(SCPA) and the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development

Regulation (LGCPA) Acts were enacted. Together, these two laws provided a broad

framework for addressing growth management. The SCPA provides long-range policy

guidance for orderly growth and development, and the LGCPA requires all 67 counties and

407 municipalities to adopt comprehensive growth management plans consistent with state

and regional plan goals. Comprehensive plans contain chapters that address: future land use,

infrastructure, coastal management, conservation, recreation and open space,

intergovernmental coordination, and capital improvements. A key component of the LGCPA

is its concurrency policy that permits local governments to issue a development order only

when it will not degrade mandated service levels for six kinds of public facilities.79 This

requirement helps prevent growth in areas where available infrastructure levels cannot

sustain additional development and helps encourage orderly and efficient growth patterns.

Rule 9J-5 of the Florida Administrative Code contains the minimum criteria local

governments must address in their comprehensive plans and provides guidance concerning

the efficient use of land, the provision of public facilities and services, the separation of

urban and rural uses, and the protection of agriculture and natural resources.

The policies passed in the 1970s and 1980s remain important, although many of them

have been significantly revised since 1990 to meet new growth management challenges. In

addition, two new major land acquisition programs, Preservation 2000 and Florida Forever,

are providing $6 billion over a span of 20 years to acquire environmentally sensitive lands

and other significant open space. Florida’s Department of Environmental Protection

coordinates the largest land acquisition programs. The Department of Community Affairs

(DCA) coordinates growth management activities. Divisions of the DCA include

Community Planning, Coastal Management, Communities Trust (whose mission is to

preserve ecologically fragile land and wetlands and set aside green space), and Housing and

Community Development. The DCA uses planning and regulatory approaches and open

space acquisition to guide growth and development. It reviews local comprehensive plans

and plan amendments for compliance with Florida’s growth management laws and

coordinates with local authorities and Florida’s eleven regional planning councils. Many

other agencies submit comments to the DCA on comprehensive plans and amendments.

The DCA issues a public notice of finding for each plan and/or plan amendment. If the

DCA finds it to be out of compliance, the local government must respond or participate in

an administrative hearing. The DCA provides technical assistance and some planning grants

to help local communities formulate acceptable comprehensive plans, but this funding has

been chronically insufficient.

At the local level, comprehensive plans are produced by planning staffs, approved by

city councils, and then by the state. Approved plans can be amended by city governments

a maximum of two times per year, sometimes reducing the ability of local government to

fully address their growth issues. The effectiveness of these efforts relies, in large part,

John M. DeGrove, Planning & Growth Management in the States (Cambridge: Lincoln

Institute of Land Policy, 1992), p. 7.

CRS-46

upon solid local planning and enforcement. The DCA has no regulatory authority to enforce

adopted plans, but state law does allow any party adversely affected by development

approved by a local government to appeal if to the DCA it is not consistent with the

comprehensive plan.

Florida’s growth management system has been criticized by the current Governor. In

February 2000, his Growth Management Study Commission recommended relying more on

city and county growth management plans (with less state and regional oversight) and

streamlining the review of comprehensive plan amendments. While no substantial changes

had been enacted, pending legislative proposals could alter Florida’s growth management

system in the future.

Georgia. Comprehensive planning occurs primarily at the regional and local level.

At the state level, the cornerstone of the planning program is the requirement of a long-range

comprehensive plan by each local government. These plans identify community goals and

objectives, and the means by which governments propose to achieve them. The Georgia

Planning Act of 1989 initiated this program by specifying that Georgia’s 159 counties and

529 cities must maintain their plans to remain eligible for certain state and federal assistance

programs. The Georgia Department of Community Affairs (DCA) administers the program,

maintaining a schedule for required plan updates and reviewing submitted plans. In

addition to this act, Georgia has the following laws and programs:

Georgia Development Impact Fee Act;

Environmental Planning Criteria;

Mountain and River Corridor Protection Act;

Growth Strategies Reassessment Task Force;

Transfer of Development Rights (enabling legislation);

Georgia Regional Transportation Authority; and

Georgia Greenspace Program.

The Georgia Regional Transportation Authority (GRTA) has played a major role in

land use planning since 1999. It has the authority to approve a region’s transportation plan,

to overrule local land use decisions, to require municipal contributions to regional

transportation projects, to acquire existing transportation systems, and to implement new

transportation systems. GRTA works with the 13 counties in Georgia that have been

designated nonattainment under the Clean Air Act. In these counties, GRTA also works

closely with state, regional, and local agencies.

Other laws and policies focus on managing growth and controlling sprawl. The

Georgia Development Impact Fee Act provides guidelines for local governments to impose

exactions on developers to help finance the expansion of affected infrastructure. New

development projects are required to pay these fees to fund a proportionate share of the cost

of public facilities needed to serve them. The Georgia Greenspace Program provides

formula grants to eligible counties if they develop and implement plans to permanently

protect at least 20% of the jurisdiction as natural, undeveloped green space. Other

legislation attempts to protect Georgia’s natural resources and open spaces by encouraging

coordinated planning and by requiring state agencies to collaborate on meeting standards.

Examples include:the Environmental Planning Criteria, which passed in 1991 and

established minimum standards for land use; and the Mountain and River Corridor

Protection Act of 1991, which encourages local governments to control pollution in

protected rivers.

CRS-47

Georgia’s current high interest in managing growth and protecting open space is

supported by the Governor, who includes transportation, greenspace, and air and water

quality among his most important issues and has played a major role in establishing the

GRTA and the Georgia Greenspace Program.

Hawaii. Hawaii has a reactive approach to curbing urban sprawl and protecting its

natural and cultural resources. The state’s growth and land conservation objectives, shaped

by its natural surroundings, serve as a framework for county-level development projects.

Although Hawaii was the first state to codify a statewide planning program in 1978, little

change to the state’s initial planning policies has occurred in the last ten years. Among the

current laws and programs are:

Land Use Commission;

Coastal Zone Management;

State Planning Act

Transfer of Development Rights;

Habitat Conservation Plans and Safe Harbor Agreements; and

State Water Code.

The state level shares significant responsibility for public education, health, welfare,

zoning, transportation, and planning with its four counties on eight islands, making it

different from many states. Another difference is that the largest city, Honolulu, houses

81% of the state’s population. As a result, Hawaii relies on a strong state government

system to maintain consistency in implementing state policies and objectives.

In 1963, prior to developing its statewide planning process, Hawaii’s State Land Use

Commission classified contiguous land areas into one of four land use districts: urban, rural,

agricultural, and conservation. Because Hawaii, unlike other states, is entirely surrounded

by water, preservation of environmental quality hinges on protecting the state’s watersheds.

With very short distances between the upper reaches and mouths of watersheds, land use

within them can have a major impact on coastal water quality and environmental health.80

Hawaii revised its coastal zone management legislation in 1995 to include economic

considerations. Such considerations include ensuring that new developments are compatible

with their visual settings, minimizing disruption or degradation of coastal water ecosystems

by regulation of stream diversions and directing the location and expansion of coastaldependent developments to designated areas. The state’s original coastal zone management

legislation, enacted in 1977, established several priorities, which were reiterated in

Hawaii’s 1978 State Planning Act.

The State Planning Act, revised in 2000, identifies state standards for protecting

agricultural and coastal lands and serves as a foundation for county zoning requirements and

development objectives. This Act establishes a statewide planning system that is intended

to promote implementation consistency and performance by linking state programs to stated

policy goals and objectives. It provides natural resource related agencies with the tools to

implement the state’s planning objectives. While it establishes the policy linkages, the

authority and responsibility for implementing any particular tool are established under

Much of the information in this summary comes from a letter from Ruby Edwards, Office

of Planning, Department of Business, Economic Development, and Tourism (DBEDT),

State of Hawaii, to Professor Robert Wilson, May 8, 2002.

CRS-48

separate statutes that assign them to specific agencies. During the 1990s, Hawaii has added

new tools, including conservation easements, transfer of development rights, tax increment

financing, and the Real Property Tax Law for Dedicated Lands.

The Department of Business, Economic Development, and Tourism (DBEDT) leads

the State Planning Act implementation. It houses the Office of Planning (for statewide

planning initiatives), the Land Use Commission, and the Coastal Zone Management

Program. The Land Use Commission classifies land for specific agricultural, commercial,

environmental, and cultural uses. It is under constant criticism from developers. The Land

Use Law determines permissible uses within each land use district. However, counties

administer the zoning and permitting processes that determine the specific land uses allowed

within each district. Based on these designations, if a county requests state review of a

permit application under review by the Land Use Commission, other state agencies and key

offices in the DBEDT provide input as to whether the development proposal complies with

the state’s policy planning objectives. It appears, however, that these departments rarely

coordinate their reviews of development proposals.81

Idaho. Growth management and open space protection have not been high public

policy priorities in Idaho. Idaho has a comprehensive plan that considers property rights,

population analysis, land use, natural resources, and hazardous areas but delegates

implementation to city and county governments. The Planning and Zoning Commission

updates this plan. Additional state long-range plans are maintained by the Department of

Parks and Recreation, for protection and development of areas of scenic beauty, and by the

governor’s office, for protection of the state’s natural resources.

The state’s Land Use Planning Act has been in effect for 23 years and was last updated

in 1999. It allows city and county governments to establish their own planning and zoning

policies based on local criteria. Each locality must adopt a map identifying an area

surrounding urban areas that are impacted by urban growth. Geographic factors and areas

the process of annexation by the city must be incorporated into the area of impact map.

Illinois. Illinois adopted statewide smart growth measures in April 2000 that include

state laws and direct federal-state funding through the governor’s Illinois Tomorrow

program. The Department of Commerce and Community Affairs is the statewide planning

body. Counties and municipalities can engage in local planning, and the state offers grant

Many of the current laws addressing growth

programs to encourage planning.83

management have been enacted since 1998, and many of them deal with agricultural land

protection, since most of the state is farmland. These laws and programs include:

! Balanced Growth Capacity Building Program;

! Open Space Land Acquisition and Development Act;

Telephone interview by Jessica King with Office of Planning representative, Hawaii

Department of Business, Economic Development, and Tourism, Honolulu, Hawaii, April

8, 2002.

American Planning Association, Growing Smart: Statutory Summary for the State of

Idaho. Online. Available: http://www.cpa.state.tx.us/. Accessed: February 15, 2002.

Illinois Governor’s Office, Illinois Tomorrow Program Overview. Online. Available:

http://www2.state.il.us/state/balanced/programs.htm. Accessed: February 20, 2002.

CRS-49

Farmland Preservation Act (revisions);

Agricultural Areas Conservation and Protection Act (revisions);

Illinois Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program;

Conservation 2000;

Illinois Rivers 2020 Program;

Open Land Trust Act;

Real Property Conservation Rights;

Main Street Program;

Brownfields Redevelopment Programs;

Illinois Tomorrow Corridor Planning Grant Program; and

Green Illinois Communities Demonstration Grant Program.

In 1999, the Governor spearheaded the Illinois FIRST (Fund for Infrastructure, Roads,

School and Transit) Program, which will provide $12 billion over five years to build and

repair the state’s infrastructure, including roads, highways, transit, as well as redevelop

brownfields, and preserve resources.84

In 2000, a Balanced Growth Cabinet was established by executive order. Members

represent state agencies with programs that affect growth. This cabinet submits

recommendations to the Governor for additional programs and policies that will promote

coordinated planning strategies.

In April 2000, the Governor launched Illinois Tomorrow,85 which draws on the Open

Space Land Acquisition and Development Act, the Agricultural Areas Conservation and

Protection Act, and the Farmland Preservation Act. The main implementing agencies of

these laws and programs are the Departments of Agriculture, Natural Resources, and

Commerce and Community Affairs, and the Environmental Protection Agency. The

Governor has actively pursued federal funding to implement the Illinois Conservation

Reserve Enhancement Program, Conservation 2000, and Illinois Rivers 2020 programs.

Many of the Illinois Tomorrow programs provide grants to communities for local land use

planning initiatives that can improve growth patterns. These include; the Open Lands Trust

Grant Program, Balanced Growth Capacity Building Program, Corridor Planning Grant

Program, Community Development Assistance Program, and Brownfields Redevelopment

Loan Program. The governor’s office implements the growth management initiatives to

address five “balanced growth” principles:

reduction of traffic congestion;

preservation of open space;

! urban reinvestment and redevelopment;

! quality of life and traffic congestion; and

! building partnerships between state and local governments.

Indiana. Most growth management and open space preservation initiatives take place

at the local level. The state considers land use decisions a local matter, but provides

Ed Bolen, Kara Brown, David Kiernan, and Kate Konschnik, Smart Growth State by State

(Hastings, CA: University of California College of the Law, Spring 2001). Online.

Available: http://www.uchastings.edu/plri/spring2001.PDF. Accessed: January 10, 2002.

Illinois Governor’s Office, Illinois Tomorrow Program Overview (online).

CRS-50

information, technical assistance, and advice to local governments concerning their growth

patterns. Among the laws and programs are:

Assessment of Certain Forest Lands;

Indiana Heritage Trust Fund;

Indiana Land Resources Council;

Right to Farm (nuisance);

Hossier Farmland Preservation Task Force; and

Indiana Land Use Forum.

Localities can make use of enabling legislation—designed to encourage better land use

management—that consists of tax assessments86 and authorized planning.87 Although the

state emphasizes preservation of agricultural lands,88 it also addresses open space

preservation and environmental concerns, voiced mostly through task force

recommendations and studies rather than legislation.

The Indiana Heritage Trust Fund protects sensitive natural areas for recreation and

habitat purposes. The Department of Natural Resources oversees the Fund.89 Other state

groups that deal with land use issues are housed in the Office of the Commissioner of

Agriculture (Indiana Land Resources Council) and in the Governor’s Office (Indiana Land

Use Forum), reflecting the state’s awareness of the effects of unmanaged growth on

agricultural land as well as the Governor’s interest in land use.90

In 1997, the Governor commissioned th

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.