by Paul Bean
The Vermont House Committee on Energy and Environment met on Monday morning, for a special meeting to discuss bill H.126 – “An act relating to community resilience and biodiversity protection,” otherwise known as the 30X30, 50X50. The goal of the act to environmentally conserve 30% of Vermont’s Land by 2030, and 50% by 2050.
The committee heard testimony from a variety of environmental stakeholders and conservation organizations.
“How can we use conservation to enhance and support the work our regulatory system does?” said Trey Martin, Director of Conservation and Rural Community Development, Vermont Housing and Conservation Board.
One of the big questions addressed today by the committee was how would they be able to get private landowners to comply with their stated goals. At this time, they still have not heard from the public on this subject.
Much of the land they are trying to conserve currently does not belong to the state. Approximately 75% in Vermont is owned by private landowners.
Another big concern is whether or not agricultural land will be considered “conserved land.” In total, Vermont has 6,152,801 acres of land, and about 1,173,890 acres of what is considered farmland.
If we just do some quick math, the goal by 2050, would be to conserve half of that 6 million acres, about 3.1million acres of land. 1.1 million acres is farmland and there is a question if it’s “conserved land.”
“I feel like it was clear in the statute we were not anticipating all agricultural lands would be included,” said Chair Rep. Amy Sheldon. “Not that they’re not very important, for food resilience and agricultural economies, but they don’t necessarily support biodiversity. And also, the way that we ended up crafting the statue with focus on permanent conservation on the 30 by 30 and the openness to other tools 50 by 50, I think it’s even more critical that we are laser focused on biodiversity this first 30% in particular.”
Remembering that 75% of all land in Vermont is owned by private landowners, the big question is: How are they going to reach the goal of 50% conserved land? How will they get private landowners to fork over or conserve their land, if they are even willing to at all?
Another big question VDC asked – will the thousands of acres that are to be used for solar fields and wind turbines be considered “conserved land?” I asked Chair Sheldon, and this is what she told me: “No. These are for conservation purposes.”
“I’d bet it’s not,” said Rep. Brian Smith confirmed.
One of the big concerns for Rep. Brian Smith and his constituents in the Northeast Kingdom in the fact that a disproportionate amount of land in the Northeast Kingdom is already conserved.
“My concern with that, is we’re looking at 30% by 2030 I’d like to see something fair, rather then all the land being bought in the North East Kingdom,” said Rep. Smith. We are already at 43% in the Northeast Kingdom, and we’re headed toward the 2050 goal. I’d like to see other parts of the state kick in their fair share too. ”
Impact on property taxes? Property taxes in Vermont, on average, are rising 14.3% across the board to finance the state’s education system. Now remember, that 14.3% number is only the average. In some towns property taxes are expected to rise much more, for example in Stowe and Norwich.
Is there a connection between the property tax increase and the goal to get 50% of Vermont’s land conserved by 2025?
“Goals for conservation don’t affect individual landowners decisions to buy or sell land,” said Rep. Amy Sheldon in an email reply to VDC Tuesday. “I’m not sure if the increases in property tax will cause large landowners to want to sell – many large parcels are enrolled in current use which can keep the taxes down. Additionally, many Vermonter’s property taxes are income stabilized through income sensitivity. Since tax bills are just about to go out, we will see what happens. It is my strong belief that, just like all of our health care premiums go up significantly each year, school taxes must go up to cover health care for teachers and that explains a lot of the increase in property taxes. I’m working on another aspect of Act 59 and came across this analysis which was prepared for HEE by Deb Brighton who was hired by JFO to consider the impact of conserved lands on property taxes. Deb found that the towns with the most conserved lands and fewer people have lower tax rates.”
In the presentation given by Martin at the hearing, one of the big questions he posed was how would the state acquire the land? Proposed solutions:
“develop a long term plan to support and expand capacity, find matching funding for state and federal funding sources, and identify the capacity needed to sustain increased conservation outcomes through 2050 and beyond; work with foundations and philanthropists to build a collaborative funding model with integrated goals, mutual awareness and support to enable public-private partnerships to flourish.”
Discussion on the H.126 will continue in the coming days as it is part of the Global Warming Solutions act.