White Paper: Option for Land Protection Component

Home Browse Search

Land Entity White Paper November 30, 1499 established as a legal entity such as a state or federal corporation, if desired. At that point, however, federal legislative approval would likely be needed. The JLP wauld function under an operating agreement developed and approved by the Governance Committee to manage the land activities of the Frogram. That operating agreement would establish lines af responsihiiity for carrying out land protection, management and restvra#ivn functivns, which could include being responsive to an aversight graup consisting of a braad set of stakeholders. Substantive tasks assumed by state agencies wauld be credited toward that governmcnt's contributions to the Program. Contracts for services and acquisition uf interests in lands could be with individuai governments or jnintly with one or all others to accommodate "fair share" division of costs. Within this optian is flexibility to either cammit staff from each of the governments to carry out sorne tasks, particularly planning and coordinating activities, ar contracting out most tasks. The JLP mode] could use either nonprofit ar private contractors, to negotiate transac#ions, manage and restore lands. Assuming that the JLP is not estabiished as a legal entity, the govemments could hald the interests in land acquired with their funds, either solely or jointly, or leave them in the hands of contractars. Advarttages: • Assuming the dI.P is not legally estabiished, no new legislative authority would be needed, so it could be implemented relatively simply and quickiy, • The players with the money are responsible for getting actions camed out. • Accauntability to signatories is direct. • Requires signatories to agree before acting, but allows actions to be carried aut by one govemment instead of a groezp or hybrid. • Accommadates stakeholder input but leaves action in the hands of a relatively small group that could act fairly yuickly. Drsndvantages • JMP is four-headed, with no single entity bringing continuity or cfecisiveness to the process. • Unbalanced structure heavily weighted toward federal/state government presence, with particularly highly active roles far the federal govemment arad foreigm states. It could be perceived as unrepresentative to local interests and stakeholders because it will be under the "cantral" of its faur member governments. • Limited role for outside entities may result in iess flexibility and creativity in developing land pratection options_ • High government presence may lead to trouble interesting individual landowners in entering into deals. 1 4