Michigan’s Proposal 1 divides environmentalists

Many Michigan voters — even those inclined to support state parks and protect natural lands — are peering carefully, like a duck hunter through a blind, before pulling the trigger on Proposal 1.

The endorsements on a ballot proposal usually help you get a bead, but this time, they do not quack in unison. The Sierra Club and Michigan’s Green Party oppose the proposal, but the Michigan Environmental Council and the national Nature Conservancy endorse it.

Proposal 1 centers on two crucial, interlocking sources of funding for local and state parks — the Natural Resources Trust Fund and the State Parks Endowment Fund.

As it stands, state law requires at least 25 percent of the Natural Resources Trust Fund to go toward land acquisition and preservation. Proposal 1 would keep that requirement, but also lift a 25 percent spending cap on parks development projects such as bike trails, playgrounds, boat launches, restrooms, accessibility for the disabled and other projects.

Lansing Parks Director Brett Kaschinske said the proposal has the potential to bring more parks funding to Lansing, although the grant application process will still be competitive.

“If this were to pass, Lansing would likely apply for more parks development projects, as that is more of a need at this time, compared to the need for acquisition projects,” Kaschinske said. “If the proposal fails, the current allocations would remain in place, and Lansing would apply in the same way that we have in the past.”

Even with the 25 percent cap in place, the state trust fund has been a lifeline for cash-strapped municipal parks departments such as Lansing’s. Since 1976, the fund has helped to fund over 1,000 public parks in all 83 counties and awarded $1.2 billion in grants for public lands (acquisition and development both).

The 2015 transformation of Lansing’s Crego Park from a toxic dump to a secluded fishing and kayaking paradise was made possible primarily by a $500,000 grant from the trust fund, along with $250,000 from the city’s parks millage fund.

However, playgrounds, trails and fishing docks were not the top priority when the trust fund was established by the state Legislature and Gov. William Milliken in 1976, after a bitter dispute over proposed drilling in the Pigeon River region.

Environmentalists and industry leaders saw a rare win-win in the idea of establishing a trust fund that sets aside some of the proceeds from oil, gas and mineral lease and royalty payments to buy and preserve public lands.

Over the years, the fund’s budget priority has tipped gradually in favor of parks over wilderness. In 1994, voters approved a proposal directing $10 million in annual Trust Fund revenue to a new pot of money, the State Park Endowment Fund, which supports Michigan’s 103 state parks. In 2002, voters raised the Natural Resources Trust Fund’s cap to $500 million. When the trust fund reached the cap in 2011, the overflow went to the state parks fund.

But the state park endowment fund, too, has a cap. Proposal 1 would also ensure that when the state park fund reaches its $800 million limit — which could take anywhere from several years to a few decades — the overflow would go back to the Natural Resources Trust Fund instead of flowing to the general fund. (The state park endowment fund currently holds about $300 million.)

Many environmentalists would like to see future proceeds flow back into the Natural Resources Trust Fund when the $800 million state park fund is reached. Local parks departments are sharpening their grant writing pens at the prospect.

“There could be an increase in funding in the future for Lansing and other cities when the State Park Endowment Fund reaches the $800 million trigger,” Kaschinske said.

Earlier this month, a Sierra Club position paper conceded that conservation organizations “have rallied around Prop 1 for this reason,” but added that such support is “shortsighted.”

The Sierra Club has a venerable history of championing wilderness, with deep philosophical underpinnings, but the Mark Twain quote on its web site says it all: “Buy land — they ain’t making it anymore.”

Opponents of Proposal 1 are loath to see the trust fund pushed deeper into the parks development and maintenance business and away from its 1970s roots, as a tool for capturing revenue from a non-renewable source (fossil fuel extraction) to protect pristine land in perpetuity.

“Requiring revenue from a non-renewable source to go to ongoing, increasing funding needs creates financial problems, it doesn’t solve them,” the Sierra Club’s Proposal 1 position paper declares.

Conan Smith, CEO of the Michigan Environmental Council, called it a “principled opposition, but it hasn’t evolved with the times.” Smith joined a conference call of Prop 1 proponents Monday to talk with reporters and local officials.

The MEC is one of about 80 environmental groups, businesses and governmental units that have endorsed Proposal 1.

Smith said that if Proposal 1 is approved, the trust fund will continue to support both acquisition and development, which go “hand in hand.”

“In the past 40 years, we’ve spent $900 million on land acquisition and built a bunch of really great things, like linear trails, some of which are reaching the end of their useful life,” Smith said. “We need to make sure we have the resources to keep up access to those places.”
He cited Detroit’s transformational downtown river trail and parks, funded largely by the state trust fund, and a 330-acre riverfront land acquisition near Saginaw that will open for hiking, fishing, sledding and other activities in 2021.

“Wayne County accounts for 18 percent of the state’s population but has only received 9 percent of investments from the trust fund,” Smith said. “People who live in these areas have a harder time getting access to nature. The amendment would open the door to a new set of proposals and projects, and one consequence might be that we’re spending less money on protecting wild and natural places.”