Gov vetoed WMA $

[Salt Marsh]

It is a no win situation for the resource.

Taking money from the Conservation Bank, where, for the most part, it is used to purchase conservation easements to prevent development of environmentally sensitive lands, to engage in upkeep of environmentally sensitive lands owned by government.

This apparently was not new money for conservation.

It is simply the expression of policy preferences using already dedicated money.

DT - Thank you for your efforts. It is not my first choice to use a policy of diverting money from one conservation effort to funds a different conservation preference. I would prefer taking the money from non-conservation spending to use on WMA's. However, I do believe this was most likely the only source of funding which was able to get through the sausage making machine.

[Duck Tape]

The rub is what is the public benefit from the easements?


Funds have been split evenly between easements and outright purchases.

Easements rarely allow public access. This is not the issue of this diversion.


The diversion of funding is actually a good problem. Funds from the bank have purchased valuable properties and DNR has been the beneficiary thus we all have benefitted. Unfortunately DNR does not have funding to take care off the new properties and that means the public is not getting their value.

I need to check but it looks like the 1.6 million is not from the bank but from the general fund.

[Salt Marsh]

The rub is what is the public benefit from the easements?


Funds have been split evenly between easements and outright purchases.

Easements rarely allow public access. This is not the issue of this diversion.


The diversion of funding is actually a good problem. Funds from the bank have purchased valuable properties and DNR has been the beneficiary thus we all have benefitted. Unfortunately DNR does not have funding to take care off the new properties and that means the public is not getting their value.

I need to check but it looks like the 1.6 million is not from the bank but from the general fund.

There are significant public benefits from easements: Reduced development and therefore less demand for infrastructure which is frequently funded by the State, watershed preservation, Wetland preservation (ties into watershed issues) and many others. Benefits are similar to state purchase without the cost of the state having to pay for the upkeep. Downside, is as you pointed out, lack of public access. I could go into issues related to the State purchases feeding into building bureaucratic empires, but that is for a different time.

If you are able to divert from General Fund, I support your policy choices and I will send money towards your re-election because we have the same policy objectives. I would send more if you did not divert from the Conservation Bank, but the resource needs victories, even if they are not total victories.

I appreciate your sacrifices to serve in Cola. Thank you.

[Duck Tape]

I understand the salient points of conservation easements.

I do not understand why "saving the family farm" is a worthy goal for the bank. While property purchases have public value, giving a tax break to a family farm in rural counties hardly seems critical habitat.

I am not against the easements I just do not believe the public is getting enough benefit out of conserving the average family farm.

[JABIII]

Good for you PL. Ask the hard questions.

It is repulsive to see public monies going to "protect" undevelopable private property, like flooding swampland, in the name of conservation.

North Carolina is light years ahead of our state with their Conservation Bank. Ours is nothing but a trust fund for well connected landowners to raid at will...

[BOGSTER]

I understand the salient points of conservation easements.

I do not understand why "saving the family farm" is a worthy goal for the bank. While property purchases have public value, giving a tax break to a family farm in rural counties hardly seems critical habitat.

I am not against the easements I just do not believe the public is getting enough benefit out of conserving the average family farm.

I agree completely.

[QUOTE=JABIII;2161570]Good for you PL. Ask the hard questions.

It is repulsive to see public monies going to "protect" undevelopable private property, like flooding swampland, in the name of conservation.

Public money should never benefit private interests.

[GMAC]

Speaking of micromanagement, she sure seems think she knows a lot about coyote management.

[Duck Tape]

The House overrode her veto. The senate needs to now.