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

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/crs%3ARL31656

## Record

- **Collection:** Congressional research report
- **Document type:** CRS Report
- **Published:** September 23, 2002
- **Citation:** RL31656

## 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

1

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.

2

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.
3

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.

4

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.
5

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

6

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
7

Rutgers, Brookings, Parsons Brinckerhoff, ECONorthwest, The Costs of Sprawl-Revisited
(Washington D.C.: National Academy Press, 1998), pp. 75-76.
8

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.

9

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

10

Ibid., p. 7.

11

Rutgers, Brookings, Parsons Brinckerhoff, ECONorthwest, The Costs of Sprawl-Revisited,
p. 91.
12

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
13

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.

14

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.

15

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

16

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.
17

Ibid.

18

Rutgers, Brookings, Parsons Brinckerhoof, ECONorthwest, The Costs of SprawlRevisited, p. 52-53.
19

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.
20

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.
21

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

22

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

23

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

24

Brownfields are abandoned or underused properties that are known or suspected to be
contaminated.
25

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.
26

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.
27

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

28

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

29

Barbara McCann and Stephanie Vance, Ten Years of Progress. Surface Transportation
Policy Project (2001) Online. Available: www.transact.org. Accessed: March 5, 2002.
30

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

31

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).
32

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
33
34

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

35

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.
36

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

37

For a general background on these issues, see CRS Report RL30437, Water Quality
Initiatives and Agriculture.
38

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.
39

Stephanie Pincetl, Transforming California: A Political History of Land Use and
Development (Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press, 1999), p. XV.
40

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.

41

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.
42

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.
43
44

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)

15
36
47
3

12
32
53
2

19
44
33
3

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.
Govern.
(n=86)
(n=36)
50
53
20
17

Moderately Serious
State
Non-State
Govern.
Govern.
(n=86)
(n=36)
37
44
47
58

Not Serious
State Non-State
Govern. Govern.
(n=86)
(n=36)
13
3
34
25

45

33

48

61

7

6

43

36

43

47

14

17

47
41

61
72

36
49

33
28

17
10

6
0

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)
7
3
34
25
59
72

Open Space Preservation
State
Non-State
Government
Government
(n=85)
(n=36)
13
8
46
44
41
47

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

2
1
4
0
11
5
5
8
5
6
2
4
1
4
1
1
5
0
0
8
6

1
1
2
0
2
7
4
10
4
4
4
4
0
7
0
0
1
0
5
5
7

0
0
3
0
6
4
0
8
4
1
3
0
2
5
1
2
5
0
0
6
1

0
0
2
1
8
5
3
3
5
1
0
0
0
4
0
1
1
0
2
13
3

0
0
3
0
4
5
1
3
6
1
1
1
0
1
0
0
2
0
1
11
2

0
0
2
0
2
4
2
6
6
2
0
1
0
2
0
0
1
0
3
5
3

0
1
0
0
6
0
2
3
11
3
3
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
4
0

1
0
2
1
1
3
3
2
5
0
2
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
1
2
0

3
1
4
1
19
13
7
17
15
8
9
4
10
11
1
4
7
0
10
18
8

3
3
2
1
0
3
3
5

7
4
2
0
1
0
3
5

3
2
0
1
1
0
0
2

6
2
0
2
0
0
0
0

4
3
0
1
0
0
2
4

2
1
1
0
3
0
1
0

2
0
4
0
0
0
0
2

7
0
0
1
1
0
2
0

15
6
4
5
5
3
2
3

9
2
4
4

9
2
5
5

10
1
7
3

7
0
3
2

8
1
3
3

5
1
2
2

9
0
3
4

5
0
2
3

15
4
16
6

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1
0
7
5
3

0
0
6
3
4

4
0
4
7
1

1
0
6
4
2

1
0
3
4
4

0
0
8
2
0

0
0
3
2
0

1
0
2
2
1

5
0
12
10
9

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
2
2
1
0
1
0
2

Number of
Hazardous
State
Places
Policies
1

6

0
2
0
3
1
2
3
1

0
1
4
4
1
2
3
1

0
1
0
3
1
1
3
0

0
0
0
2
2
0
0
0

0
0
0
1
1
0
2
0

0
0
0
2
1
0
3
0

0
0
0
0
0
1
3
0

0
0
0
3
0
0
1
0

5
5
4
6
7
6
3
2

11
1

7
1

3
0

2
0

3
0

5
0

0
0

1
1

20
1

160

150

110

93

91

78

69

59

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.
45

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

15.0

11

11

10

8

6

6.0

N/A

Alabama

1

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

3

Alaska

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

1

Arizona

2

2

3

4

0

2

1

1

2

4

Arkansas

1

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

California

5

10

11

8

3

3

0

3

1

19

Colorado

5

4

1

1

0

0

1

2

1

13

Connecticut

2

2

3

1

1

2

1

0

1

7

Delaware

6

6

0

3

4

3

0

4

0

17

Florida

7

3

5

3

0

1

0

2

2

15

Georgia

1

1

1

1

1

4

1

0

2

8

Hawaii

0

1

0

0

5

0

0

0

0

9

Idaho

0

2

2

1

0

0

0

0

0

4

Illinois

0

0

0

1

1

1

1

0

0

10

Indiana

4

2

1

1

0

2

3

0

0

11

Iowa

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

Kansas

0

1

1

1

0

2

0

0

0

4

Kentucky

1

0

2

2

0

1

2

0

0

7

Louisiana

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Maine

1

0

7

0

2

0

0

0

1

10

Maryland

7

11

3

5

5

1

3

1

2

18

Massachusetts

2

1

0

0

1

1

0

4

0

8

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

15.0

11

11

10

8

6

6.0

N/A

Michigan

7

9

6

2

2

8

4

0

1

15

Minnesota

1

1

0

0

1

1

1

1

1

6

Mississippi

1

0

1

2

0

0

0

0

0

4

Missouri

1

3

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

5

Montana

0

0

0

1

0

1

0

2

1

5

Nebraska

0

0

1

2

0

0

0

0

0

3

Nevada

1

1

1

1

0

2

2

0

1

2

New Hampshire

1

0

1

1

3

0

0

0

3

3

New Jersey

5

6

5

4

12

4

13

7

5

15

New Mexico

0

3

0

0

0

2

0

1

0

4

New York

4

4

8

1

1

1

2

1

0

16

North Carolina

3

0

3

3

0

1

0

0

1

6

North Dakota

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Ohio

1

1

2

1

1

0

0

0

0

5

Oklahoma

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Oregon

8

1

4

1

8

6

2

6

7

12

Pennsylvania

5

0

4

1

2

3

2

0

0

10

Rhode Island

1

3

2

1

3

0

1

1

0

9

South Carolina

0

3

0

2

1

0

2

0

1

6

South Dakota

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Tennessee

2

2

0

1

0

0

1

1

0

5

Texas

0

1

0

0

0

1

2

0

0

4

Utah

2

0

1

2

1

4

2

0

1

6

Vermont

0

2

2

1

1

0

1

0

0

7

Virginia

1

0

2

1

2

1

1

1

0

6

Washington

1

3

0

1

3

1

0

1

2

3

West Virginia

0

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

1

2

Wisconsin

11

2

9

6

1

5

1

0

0

20

Wyoming

1

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

1

TOTALS

103

93

92

70

67

64

50

39

37

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
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

Frequency
108
87
45
30
20
6
7
11

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
33
28

Percentage

110
93
78

14
10
8

12.7
10.8
10.3

91

6

6.6

69
59

5
4

7.2
6.8

22
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%
9%
17%

Establish Mandatory State Comprehensive Plan and Smart
Growth Policies
Reform State and Local Tax System and Fund Disbursement
11
Practices
Create/Enhance Market and Financial Incentives/Disincentives 9
for Sprawl
Increase and Coordinate State Funding and Investment
8
Structure for Growth Management
Establish, Empower, and Coordinate Local Land Use,
8
Planning, and Zoning Legislation
Fund and Support Agricultural and Open Space Land
6
Acquisition and Preservation
Encourage Redevelopment of Existing Infrastructure and
6
Brownfields
Educate Policymakers, Planners, Investors, and Public on
6
Smart Growth
Enforce and Strengthen Regulatory Legislation and Programs
5
Create and Empower Regional Planning Organizations and
5
Partnerships
Establish and Enforce Urban Boundaries/Growth Zones
4
Reform Local Land Use Policies
4
Provide Affordable Housing
4
Fund and Establish Water Conservation Efforts
2
Establish and Strengthen Purchase and Transfer of
2
Development Rights Laws
Show Gubernatorial/State Leadership
2
Develop Statewide Transportation Planning
2
Institute or Enforce Impact Fees
2
Encourage Economic Diversification
2
Reform State Trusts for Land
1

9

15

9

10

8

9

8

7

8

4

7

4

6

6

5
5

6
4

5
4
4
2
4

2
4
2
2
0

2
2
2
2
0

2
2
1
0
2

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%

13

13

15

9

8

13

6
6

6
8

8
3

6
6

6
5

8
8

5
5
5
4
3

5
7
5
5
4

5
0
5
3
3

3
3
3
2
2

4
5
2
3
1

3
0
5
0
5

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
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
1/2
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
0/2
0/1
1/4
1/2
3/5
1/2

Telephone Interviews
Government
Nongovernmental
Officials
Organizations
1
0
2
1
2
1
1
0
4
2
1
0
1
0
2
0
1
1
1
0
4
0
1
1
0
2
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
4
0
0
0
2
3
0
0
0
1
3
1
1
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
5
3
1
0
6
1
2
0
1
0
2
0
0
0
5
1
1
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
2
1

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

46

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.

47

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

48

Jacksonville State University, Alabama Commission on Environmental Initiatives. Online.
Available: http://www.jsu.edu/depart/epic/ACEI.html .Accessed: January 15, 2002.

49

American Planning Association, Growing Smart: Alabama (online).

50

Smart Growth Online, Smart Growth News. Online. Available: http://www.
smartgrowth.org/news/bystate.asp?state=AL&res=1024. Accessed: April 12, 2002.
51

American Planning Association, Growing Smart: Alabama (online).

52

Alaska Stat. Secs. 44.47.010, 44.46.010, and 46.03.010.

53

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
54

Smart Growth News, “Alaska Governor Urges Opening of Arctic Wildlife Refuge for
Energy Development.” Online. Available: http://www.smartgrowth.org. Accessed: February
27, 2002.
55

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.

56

“Governor Signs Growing Smarter Plus Legislation,” Governor Jane Dee Hull News
Releases, Phoenix, AZ, February 21, 2000.
57

“Governor Appoints Growing Smarter Oversight Council,” Governor Jane Dee Hull News
Releases, Phoenix, AZ, February 22, 2002.
58

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

[Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.]

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/crs%3ARL31656. Public record. Not legal advice.