Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T05:56:27.716Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Property Tax Distortions and Participation in Federal Easement Programs: An Exploratory Analysis of the Wetlands Reserve Program

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 September 2016

Gregory L. Poe
Gregory L. Poe*
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural, Resource, and Managerial Economics at Cornell University
Get access

Abstract

Higher propety taxes and uncertainty about post-easement tax levels may create a disincentive for landowners to participate in federal easement programs such as the Wetlands Reserve Program, and thus may distort participation levels in a manner inconsistent with the environmental benefits associated with individual parcels. Support for this hypothesis is provided in an exploratory analysis of state level participation in the Wetlands Reserve Program. If such distortions prove to be policy relevant, then either they should be accounted for in the bid acceptance process of future federal easement programs, or individual states and localities should correct property tax differentials and post-easement tax uncertainty.

Type
Economics and the Environment in the 21st Century
Information
Agricultural and Resource Economics Review , Volume 27 , Issue 1 , April 1998 , pp. 117 - 124
Copyright
Copyright © 1998 Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

American Farmland Trust. 1993. The Wetlands Reserve Pilot Program: An Assessment Based on State Leadership Workshops. Washigton, D.C.Google Scholar
Anderson, J.E., and Bunch, H.C. 1989. “Agricultural Property Tax Relief: Tax Credits, Tax Rates, and Land Values.” Land Economics 65(1): 13–22.Google Scholar
Bureau of National Affairs. 1997. “EPA's Draft Proposed Strategy of Nonpoint Source Pollution.” Environmental Reporter 28(25): 1269–71.Google Scholar
Chan, L., Chandler, M., Giordano, D., Proakis, G., Roop, L., Suginaka, A., and Werries, K. 1996. Marketing the Wetlands Reserve Program: A Comprehensive Outreach Strategy for the New York State Natural Resources Conservation Service. The Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, Syracuse University.Google Scholar
Cushman, J.H. Jr. 1997. “Million Wetland Acres Lost in 1985-1995: Loss Is One-Third of the Previous Decade, Despite New Protections.” New York Times, Sept. 18.Google Scholar
Duda, M.D., Young, K.C., and Graham, T. 1995. “Indiana Residents’ Opinions on and Attitudes towards Wetlands Conservation.” Harrisonburg, Va.: Responsive Management.Google Scholar
Dunlap, R.E. 1995. “Public Opinion and Environmental Policy.” In Environmental Politics and Policy, ed. Lester, J.P. Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Environmental Opinion Study, Inc. 1991. “Market Strategies.” Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
Federal Register. 1996. “Wetlands Reserve Program Final Rules.” 61 FR 42137.Google Scholar
Hart, Peter D. 1994. Unpublished survey research for the National Wildlife Foundation.Google Scholar
Harvey, D.A. 1997. “The Effects of Agricultural Assessment and Farm Building Exemptions on School Tax District Tax Bases in New York State in 1993.” Master's thesis, Department of Agricultural, Resource, and Managerial Economics, Cornell University.Google Scholar
Heimlich, R.E. 1994. “Costs of an Agricultural Wetland Reserve.” Land Economics 70(2): 234–46.Google Scholar
Heimlich, R.E., Carey, M.B., and Brazee, R.J. 1989. “Beyond Swampbuster: A Permanent Wetland Reserve.” Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 44(5): 445–50.Google Scholar
Iowa State University Extension. 1992. Extension Wetlands Reserve Program: Restoring America's Wetlands Heritage. Pamphlet.Google Scholar
Lester, J.P. 1995. “Federalism and State Environmental Policy.” In Environmental Politics and Policy, ed. Lester, J.P. Durham: Duke University.Google Scholar
Lynch, S., and Smith, K.R. 1994. “Lean, Green and Mean: Designing Farm Support Programs in a New Era.” Paper presented at the annual meetings of the American Agricultural Economics Association, San Diego, Calif.Google Scholar
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. 1990. Wetlands and Real Property Valuation—What Does It Mean for Your Property Taxes. Pamphlet. Albany.Google Scholar
New York State Soil and Conservation Services. 1992. “Funds Available to Restore Farmed Wetlands.” News release. June 2.Google Scholar
Parks, P.J., and Kramer, R.A., 1995. “A Policy Simulation of the Wetlands Reserve Program.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 28(1): 223–40.Google Scholar
Parks, P.J., Kramer, R.A., and Heimlich, R.E. 1996. “Market-Based Incentives to Sustain Wetland Environments: Restoration and Protection Policies of the United States.” Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Parks, P.J., and Quimo, W.R.H. 1996. “Preserving Agricultural Land with Farmland Assessment.” Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 25(1): 22–27.Google Scholar
Poe, G.L. 1995. “New York Agriculture and the Coastal Zone Management Act.” Policy Issues in Rural Land Use 8(1). Department of Agricultural, Resource, and Managerial Economics, Cornell University.Google Scholar
Poe, G.L. 1997. “Extra-Market Values and Conflicting Agricultural Environmental Policies.” Choices, 3d quarter: 4–8.Google Scholar
Prato, T., Fulcher, C., Wu, S., and Ma, J. 1996. “Multiple-Objective Decision Making for Agroecosystem Management.” Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 25(2): 200–12.Google Scholar
Ribaudo, M.O., Osborn, C.T., and Konyar, K. 1994. “Land Retirement as a Tool for Reducing Agricultural Non-Point Source Pollution.” Land Economics 70(1): 77–87.Google Scholar
Ringquist, E.J. 1993. Environmental Protection at the State Level: Politics and Progress in Controlling Pollution. Armonk, N.Y.: M.E. Sharp.Google Scholar
Roper Organization. 1992. “The Times Mirror Magazines National Environmental Forum Survey.”Google Scholar
Runge, C.F. 1994. “Designing Green Support: Incentive Compatibility and the Commodity Programs: A Study Prepared for the Henry A. Wallace Institute for Alternative Agriculture.” Greenbelt, Md.: Henry A. Wallace Institute for Alternative Agriculture.Google Scholar
Soil and Water Conservation Society. 1994. “Farmer Perspectives on the Wetlands Reserve Program: A Series of Focus Groups.” Ankeny, Iowa. Google Scholar
Smith, D. 1994. “Getting Credit for Stewardship.” Farm Journal, May/June: 10–11.Google Scholar
Stockford, D.C. 1990. “Propety Tax Assessments of Conservation Easements.” Environmental Affairs Law Review 17: 823–53.Google Scholar
Swenson, R. 1997. “Remarks on Cooperation between Federal Agencies and Cornell Cooperative Extension.” Presentation to the Cornell Cooperative Extension Forum, Dec. 1.Google Scholar
Thompson, E. Jr. 1993. Workbook for Wetlands Reserve Assessment Project Leadership Workshops. Washington, D.C.: American Farmland Trust.Google Scholar
USDA. 1997a. “Remarks of Secretary Dan Glickman: The New Conservation Reserve Program.” News release 0047.97.Google Scholar
USDA. 1997b. “Questions and Answers: Conservation Reserve Program—Maryland State Enhancement Program.” News release 0373.97.Google Scholar
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 1995. “Gallup: National Survey of Attitudes towards Agricultural Resource Conservation.”Google Scholar
Wastenbarger, D., and Barnard, C. 1997. “1.4 Farm Real Estate Values, Rents, and Taxes.” In Agricultural Resources and Environmental Indicators. USDA-ERS Agricultural Handbook no. 712.Google Scholar
Wiebe, K.D., and Heimlich, R.E. 1995. “The Evolution of Federal Wetlands Policy.” Choices, 1st quarter:8–13.Google Scholar
Wiebe, K.D., Tegene, A., and Kuhn, B. 1995. “Property Rights, Partial Interests, and the Evolving Federal Role in Wetlands Conversion and Conservation.” Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 50(6): 627–29.Google Scholar
Wiebe, K.D., Tegene, A., and Kuhn, B. 1997. “Partial Interests in Land: Policy for Research Use and Conservation.” USDA-ERS Agricultural Economic Report 744.Google Scholar