The Free Press, Mankato, MN

Editorials

Related Photos

  • toon-china 3-9.jpg

    toon-china 3-9.jpg

March 8, 2010

Our View: Set-asides need better handling

The Free Press

— Since the 1970s, conservation “set-asides” have been a valuable tool to help protect wildlife habitat and water in Minnesota.

The program has an opportunity to expand thanks to the new Legacy Amendment, which puts dedicated sales tax money into environmental projects.

But as more resources are put into protecting land, the Legislature and Department of Natural Resources need to find a way to better ensure the land is being used as it should.

The DNR has more than 1,000 easements for which landowners receive taxpayer money. Use of the land is to be restricted to protect trout stream water quality, improve wildlife habitat or otherwise guard the environment.

But a review ordered by a legislative panel found poor oversight of the program. The DNR has no centralized system for tracking use of the land, often hasn’t inspected whether set-asides are being used properly and admits that many of the parcels put into the program early on are not being used in accordance with the law.

In the DNR’s defense, the agency says it has limited funds and technology. Many of the set-aside agreements are paper copies in regional office files and even the exact boundaries of the set-asides are complicated to determine.

And the DNR says it is reluctant to be confrontational with landowners as they’ve been heavily criticized — by the public and lawmakers — for being too adversarial.

The DNR isn’t even sure how much it has spent on easements. (In 2008 alone, $8.1 million was spent to set aside 54,496 acres.)

The problems come as legislators decide whether to use more funds from the state’s Clean Water, Land and Legacy Amendment for set-asides. And the problem doesn’t just affect the DNR. There are a host of nonprofit conservation groups and local governments that hope to leverage some of the money to buy their own easements.

The program is of great value as development pressures mount. And it can be an efficient way to protect land without the high cost of the state or other groups purchasing land outright.

But a program that lacks the oversight to ensure taxpayers are getting the environmental benefit intended is neither efficient nor effective.

Lawmakers and the DNR need to find a way to provide the oversight needed. It’s too important of a program to allow it to be run ineffectively, and it’s unfair to taxpayers to sink more money into without better results.    

Text Only | Photo Reprints
Editorials