Michigan voters will decide next month whether to let the state spend more money developing recreational facilities. Proposal 1 would amend two funds that support state parks and preserve sensitive land, one proposed change has divided conservationists.
A “yes” vote on Proposal 1 would amend the how the funds’ revenues are spent. A “no” vote would keep the funds as they are.
The Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund provides grants to local governments to buy land for recreation and conservation. The State Parks Endowment Fund does…just what it says—funds state parks. Both collect royalties from the sale or lease of state-owned oil, gas and mineral rights. The Michigan Oil and Gas Association says the industry has contributed more than a billion dollars to the funds since they were established.
By law, at least 25 percent of the Natural Resources Trust Fund’s annual spending must go toward land purchases. But no MORE than 25 percent can be spent on development or renovation of facilities. Proposal 1 would ensure both get at least 25 percent. And that is controversial.
Supporters say investing more money in development would boost recreation statewide. Conan Smith is the president and CEO of the Michigan Environmental Council. He says people would benefit from new or better facilities.
“Now those are things like building trails or establishing playgrounds or marinas. So it really helps us ensure that everybody across the state has access, equal access, to recreational opportunities.”
Smith’s organization is one of several conservation groups supporting Proposal 1. The Nature Conservancy of Michigan has donated more than a half-million dollars to the “yes” campaign. Rich Bowman is the Nature Conservancy’s policy director. He says the ballot measure would also require the State Parks Endowment Fund to spend at least 20 percent of its budget on capital improvements.
“We have places where we have outdated shower buildings that may not be universally accessible. Or as people have started to use larger campers, the electric service that we have at some parks is not necessarily adequate. Upgrading those kinds of things is really helpful.”
On that point, many of Proposal 1’s critics agree. But they say changing the Natural Resources Trust Fund’s formula to allow more funding for development will mean less money to buy land. Jack Smiley of the Michigan Land Conservancy says the amendment would also undercut the original purpose of the trust fund.
“When the Natural Resources Trust Fund was established, it was to compensate for the loss of natural resources. And that compensation was to buy land for public benefit. Future generations won’t be able to benefit from the resources that are extracted. So this is a way to make sure there will be perpetual benefits.”
Smiley and other Proposal 1 critics say when those non-renewable energy resources run out, so…eventually…will the revenue they put into the funds. But the costs will remain. Sierra Club forest ecologist Marvin Roberson says using a finite funding source to pay for ongoing expenses such as operation and maintenance creates a vicious circle.
“Now you’ve got a demand for funding placed upon a non-renewable resource. And we shouldn’t be making oil and gas drilling and sales decisions based upon whether or not we need the money for a visitors’ center.”
But even if oil and gas royalties do dry up, supporters of Proposal 1 say the trust fund won’t. Conan Smith of the Michigan Environmental Council says the revenue is invested and earns interest, and as long as that interest grows, the fund will always have some money in it. Right now, the trust fund is capped at 500-million dollars. If Proposal 1 passes, that cap would be lifted when the state parks fund reaches 800-million dollars, giving trustees more money to buy land. But that could take two or three decades, according to the Sierra Club’s Marvin Roberson. He says the imminent threat of climate change and the fossil fuel industry’s contribution to it makes preserving land now urgent.