Copyright 2006 The Trust for Public Land

Transcription

1 1

2 Council of Infrastructure Financing Authorities November 15,

3 The Trust for Public Land National non-profit (est. 1972) Protected 2.8 million acres in 42 states Created $36 billion in new public funding since 1996; 400+ ballot measures, 84% approval rate 2010 Elections: 83% approval rate, $2.1 billion created (highest since 2000) 3

4 From Inner City to Wilderness Urban Suburbs Working Lands Natural Lands Heritage Lands TPL protects places of historic and cultural importance that define our communities and who we are as a people. 4

5 Voter Support for Conservation Purposes Drinking Water W ater Quality /Riv ers /Streams Natural Lands/A reas W ild lif e 89% 87% 84% 84% Preserve Historic Lands Public Access (w ater) Farms/Ranchland Park Improvement (General) Scenic V iew s Open Space o f Specifically Named Parcel/A rea Bike, hike, w alk, ride trails 78% 75% 75% 74% 72% 71% 69% 69% Parks/Brow nfield Redevelopment Copyright 2006 The Trust for Public Land 61% 5

6 Research Study: CWSRFs and Land Conservation Doris Duke Charitable Foundation asked The Trust for Public Land to research the following What is the potential of the CWSRF to support more investments in land conservation that can address nonpoint source pollution? Project Team: The Trust for Public Land, Evergreen Conservation Finance, New Forests, Inc. Copyright 2006 The Trust for Public Land 6

7 Top causes of impairment in assessed streams Source: National Water Quality Inventory: 2004 Report to Congress 7

8 8

9 Success Stories: Land Conservation and CWSRF NYC and Catskills Watershed ($27m loan 1996) Conservation Fund Big River Salmon Creek Working Forest ($25m loan, 16k acres 2006) OH Water Resource Restoration Sponsor Program ($15m/year) Georgia Land Conservation Program 9

10 Challenges of Using CWSRF Framework to Support NPS State Legal Barriers Financial and Economic Barriers Limited Loan Capacity Credit Risks Lack of Demand for NPS 10

11 Challenges of Using CWSRF Framework to Support NPS Technical Barriers Numerous Small, Labor Intensive Transactions Difficulty Monitoring and Quantifying NPS Pollution Abatement Federal Cross Cutting Requirements Cultural Barriers 11

12 Incremental Approaches: Addressing Challenges to Boost NPS Activity Legal authority to lend for NPS and to private entities Sponsorships (addresses credit risk) Linked deposit loan systems (address transax. cost) Leverage (addresses capacity challenges) Ranking NPS projects with point source projects on integrated IUP Carve out for just NPS Partnerships with other agencies to source and evaluate NPS projects (addresses technical staff capacity) 12

13 The Root Problem The CWSRF program cannot be remade for NPS and shouldn t be; the current program works, why change it To address NPS in a significant way, we need to work within the system of existing primary borrowers the public utilities. Who will borrow money for NPS projects when they don t have an obvious source of repayment? 13

14 The BIG IDEA We need ratepayers (taxpayers or voters) to take financial responsibility for addressing NPS We need NPDES permits to have NPS component 14

15 HOW? Link loans for POTW projects with NPS projects Increase loans by fixed % to cover NPS projects Borrowers must ID projects that meet state NPS plans NPS projects must be completed by end of POTW construction period Unspent loan proceeds regranted to other NPS projects 15