State trust lands in the Intermountain West could play an important role in the growing market for renewable energy. Congress granted these territories, covering 35 million acres, to states upon their entry to the Union, to support schools and other public institutions. As managers of these state trust lands search for innovative and sustainable ways to lease and sell parcels to generate income, renewables could prove to be a double boon—by supplying clean, sustainable power and providing a strong revenue stream for the public benefit.

All seven states in the Intermountain West—Arizona, Idaho, Colorado, Montana, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming (figure 1)—are using state trust lands to develop renewables, including wind, solar, geothermal, and biomass projects. Yet the industry has not flourished to its full potential. In 2011, the installed renewable energy production capacity on state trust lands was only 360 megawatts—not enough to power 2 percent of the homes in the region. The $2 million in revenue generated by these sources on state trust lands amounts to less than 1 percent of the $1 billion-plus generated there annually by other means (Berry 2013; WSLCA). Wind energy is experiencing the most activity by far; all the Intermountain West states have leased state trust lands for wind projects, and all have operational wind farms. Although Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah have leased state trust lands for solar operations, only one generation facility is in production on state trust lands in the Intermountain West, in Arizona. Only Utah has a geothermal plant on state trust land, and no states in this region have active biomass facilities on trust lands.

This article will focus on three types of renewable energy production in three states—a wind farm in Montana, geothermal projects in Utah, and solar generation in Arizona—and the conditions, legislation, and other factors that led to successful operations. All three examples demonstrate that these territories offer a largely untapped bounty for this burgeoning, sustainable market; provide learning opportunities across state lines; and help meet growing demand for renewable energy.

Judith Gap Wind Farm, Montana

Judith Gap is Montana’s only operational wind farm on state trust land, straddling private land as well, in the central-eastern part of the state. It has 90 turbines total, each with a capacity of 1.5 megawatts; 13 are on state trust lands, on the leading edge of the wind farm, with a total capacity of 19.5 megawatts. The per-megawatt fee of approximately 2.6 percent of gross receipts brings in about $50,000 per year according to Mike Sullivan of the Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (DNRC). At the time of construction, there was a one-time installation fee of $20,000 (Rodman 2008).

Bob Quinn, founder of a local wind development company called Windpark Solutions, initiated the project in 2000, when he proposed the idea to a small group including representatives from the local utility, the Montana Department of Environmental Quality, and the DNRC. Quinn says that close collaboration between the developer and personnel in these state agencies was key to successfully siting the project on state trust land. State staff also helped Quinn navigate other difficult challenges including unanticipated delays in the request for proposals (RFP) process required by the state.

After conducting preliminary studies—allowed for one year through a land use license from the DNRC—developers must apply to the DNRC in order to proceed with energy projects. The state then issues a request for proposals (RFP). Applicants with a land use license do not receive preferential treatment. After a successful applicant is identified, the developer must conduct environmental analyses, secure a power purchase agreement with a utility, and determine economic feasibility before signing a lease with the DNRC. Currently, fees for new land use licenses are generally $2 per acre per year. Lease agreement costs for new wind projects include a one-time installation charge of $1,500 to $2,500 per megawatt of installed capacity, and annual fees of 3 percent of gross annual revenues or $3,000 for each megawatt of installed capacity, whichever is greater (Rodman 2008, Billings Gazette 2010).

Lease and Fee Structures

Every state has different leasing systems for renewable energy projects on state trust lands, but they all follow a similar pattern. The process usually starts with a short-term planning lease that allows for exploration and meteorological studies. The construction phase is next, followed by a longer-term production lease. Payments to the trust land management agency usually include a per-acre rent during the planning phase, which may continue into the production phase. There are additional installation charges for equipment, including meteorological towers, wind turbines, solar collectors, structures, and other infrastructure. During the production phase, the fee is typically based either on the installed capacity or the gross revenues of the generation facility.

Since Judith Gap was completed in 2005, several wind farms have proposed development on state trust lands in Montana, but none have reached the production phase. These include the Springdale Wind Energy project—an 80-megawatt wind farm consisting of 44 turbines, 8 of which would be on state trust lands. The DNRC has also leased 3,000 acres near Martinsdale to Horizon Wind Energy for a wind farm with 27 turbines, 7 to 15 of which would be on state trust lands. The Martinsdale wind farm could expand to 100 turbines in the future (MT DNRC).

In order to make state trust lands more attractive to these and other renewable energy developers, the DNRC would benefit from a more streamlined process. Developers working on state trust lands in Montana have cited struggles with timing, financing, environmental mitigation, cooperation from power buyers, and transmission (Rodman 2008). According to Quinn, Judith Gap succeeded in part due to dedication and close collaboration between agency personnel and the energy developer. In the future, the DNRC may need to assign personnel to renewable energy projects in order to guide developers through the process. The DNRC could also attract projects by granting land use license holders preferential status in the RFP process and by opening up bidding faster. Quinn notes that evaluating bids according to performance rather than price alone would improve the system.

Geothermal Energy, Utah

Geothermal energy is a potentially constant power source, offsetting fluctuations from intermittent renewables such as wind and solar. However, it’s also technically complex and expensive—and thus rare on state trust lands in the Intermountain West. Utah is currently the only state in the region with active geothermal facilities on state trust land. Measured by land area, geothermal is Utah’s largest renewable energy supply, with approximately 100,000 acres leased on state trust lands. There are currently two geothermal energy plants in production, generating revenue of $200,000 to $300,000 per year. For geothermal projects, the State and Institutional Trust Lands Administration (SITLA), which manages state trust lands in Utah, charges 2.25 percent of electricity sales for the first 5 or 10 years, and 3.5 percent thereafter.

PacifiCorp’s 34-megawatt Blundell plant, on a mix of federal, state, and private territory, was the state’s first, built in 1984. Blundell taps into an underground reservoir that is 3,000 feet deep, more than 500° F, and pressurized at 500 pounds per square inch. A well brings the hot, high-pressure water to the surface, where it powers a steam turbine. The Blundell plant has two units, a 23-megawatt unit built in 1984 and an 11-megawatt unit completed in 2007.

The newer Raser plant in Beaver County has been less successful. Raser originally planned to build a 15-megawatt operation using a new, modular technology produced by United Technologies, says John Andrews, SITLA associate director. The company aimed to cut costs and development time by exploring the geothermal resource while constructing the generation facility—instead of fully developing geothermal wells first, then building the power plant later. Unfortunately, the geothermal resource fell short of expectations and could not support a 15-megawatt operation. With limited income, Raser could not cover debts and declared bankruptcy in 2011. The plant continues to run at limited capacity (Oberbeck 2009).

The experience at Raser shows that the costs of geothermal development continue to be daunting and that it’s worthwhile to fully characterize the available geothermal resource prior to constructing generation facilities, although that additional step is costly and time-consuming. Future technological advances may help to cut the costs and time required for geothermal development, but, given the current state of technology, geothermal projects still require significant upfront outlays.

For renewable energy development, SITLA responds to applications as they are received; they can also offer lands through a request for proposals or a competitive sealed bid process (Rodman 2008). The state has mapped renewable energy zones, but the task of finding locations and proposing renewable energy projects devolves to developers.

Utah faces other challenges to all forms of renewable energy development on trust lands. Because of the high proportion and pattern of federally owned territory, national agencies sometimes take the lead on energy development projects. According to Andrews, the absence of an RPS in Utah is another drawback, leaving local utilities without a state mandate to supply renewable energy.

Even without an RPS, however, Utah is geographically well-positioned to export energy to other states—particularly to population centers on the west coast. Although transmission can be a barrier in some parts of the state, transmission capacity is available between Utah and southern California. What’s more, developers can tap an array of renewable resources—wind, solar, and geothermal. SITLA would benefit from marketing trust lands within renewable energy zones to potential developers and by offering reduced rates for renewable energy projects within these areas.

Solar Developments in Arizona

Even in Arizona—the sunniest state in the U.S., according to the National Weather Service—the solar industry faces several obstacles on state trust lands. The only active solar facility on state trust lands, the Foothills Solar Plant opened on 400 acres in Yuma County in April 2013, when the first 17 megawatts came online. An additional 18 megawatts are scheduled to go online in December 2013. Once it’s fully operational, the facility will serve 9,000 customers. The 35-year lease will generate $10 million for state trust lands beneficiaries, and most of that money will fund public education.

The slow development of the solar industry on trust lands mirrors a larger trend seen nationwide. In 2010, only 0.03 percent of the nation’s energy came from solar projects, while 2.3 percent came from wind (www.eia.gov). Solar projects usually require exclusive use of a site—putting them at an even greater disadvantage on state trust lands, where many acres are already leased for agriculture, grazing, or oil and gas production. Wind projects, by contrast, can co-exist with other land uses. Solar projects also require large tracts—as many as 12 acres per megawatt (Culp and Gibbons 2010)—whereas wind facilities have a relatively small footprint. And, although prices are dropping, solar generation facilities can be very expensive.

Despite these drawbacks, there are ways in which solar development is well-suited to state trust lands. For starters, these territories are untaxed and owned free and clear; unburdened by the carrying costs that private owners might have, state trust land management agencies have an advantage for holding and maintaining renewable energy projects. Some solar developers have found state trust land attractive because they can work with one owner for very large tracts. Solar generation is also well-suited to previously disturbed sites, such as old landfills and abandoned agricultural areas, which may include trust lands. Near urban areas, state trust lands slated for future development could be used for solar generation in the interim; after the solar leases expire, the grounds could be developed for urban uses (Culp and Gibbons 2010).

State-level RPS and tax incentives could also encourage solar development. Some states provide up to 25 percent investment tax credits, property tax exemptions, and standard-offer contracts on solar, guaranteeing a long-term market for solar output.

As one of the largest landowners in the state, with several large, consolidated parcels, the Arizona State Land Department (ASLD) would do well to position itself as an attractive partner for the renewable energy industry (Wadsack 2009). The ASLD is taking steps in the right direction by developing a GIS-based renewable energy mapping system to analyze state trust lands for general suitability for solar production, based on avoiding critical wildlife habitat and wilderness areas, and minimizing distance to roads, transmission, and load. But it must follow up and market the most suitable areas for renewables (Culp and Gibbons 2010) and facilitate the process for developers, who can be deterred by complex leasing structures, requirements for public auctions, and required environmental and cultural analyses (Wadsack 2009). The more the agency can build capacity to help developers through this process, the more the renewable energy industry might flourish on state trust lands. For example, the department could offer long-term leases, expedite land sales, or develop a reduced-cost, revenue-sharing lease system specifically tailored for renewable energy development.

General Recommendations for Montana, Utah, and Arizona

Leasing renewable energy on state trust lands is complicated. Each state has a unique set of political, environmental, and economic circumstances that makes it difficult to determine any one best method for all. However, the accomplishments, problems, and solutions detailed in the examples above provide some general recommendations for success.

At the state land trust agency level:

• Proactively market suitable sites to developers. State trust land management agencies in some states, including Arizona and Utah, are creating inventories of the most suitable areas for renewable energy development on state lands. Other states could follow this model (BLM 2011, Berry et al 2009), market these parcels, and offer incentives for development, either as a part of the leasing process or through tax incentives (Culp and Gibbons 2010).
• Reduce risks to developers by granting them exclusive rights early in the discovery phase or prioritizing those who have conducted initial site assessments in the bidding or auctioning process.
• Foster close collaboration between the developer and trust land managers by educating staff on renewable energy issues in order to guide developers through the process of permitting, financing, and working with federal agencies.
• Break down silos and collaborate with other landowners and land management agencies to streamline permitting and coordination between various agencies at the local, state, and federal level.

At the state level:

• Streamline environmental requirements. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires a thorough analysis of environmental impacts for projects on federal lands. Montana and other states require additional, separate analyses for developments on states lands, while others streamline their requirements by allowing federal NEPA analyses to meet state obligations for projects on both federal and state jurisdictions. This streamlined approach can be more attractive to energy developers, while still effectively protecting environmental resources.
• Adopt or increase renewable portfolio standards. In the Intermountain West, Arizona, Colorado, Montana, and New Mexico have enacted RPS policies, whereas Utah has only a renewable energy goal. Trust land managers in Utah and Idaho sited the lack of a renewable portfolio standard as an impediment to the renewable energy industry in their states. Within the region, states’ RPS targets range from 15 percent renewable energy up to 30 percent. Those states with lower targets could reasonably consider strengthening their RPS policies to encourage more renewable energy development.
• Offer tax policies that encourage renewable development, including property tax incentives, sales tax incentives, or tax credits. Each state could either adopt additional tax incentive policies, or increase existing incentives to better encourage renewable energy development.

Federal policies play a considerable role as well. Production tax credits in particular have spurred U.S. renewable energy deployment in recent decades. Likewise, federal investment tax credits for renewable energy—which provide developers with a tax credit during the planning and construction phases—have helped the renewable energy industry grow in recent years, even when the national economy was in recession. Finally, there have been several proposals for a federal-level renewable portfolio standard, although researchers disagree whether this type of policy would interfere with existing state-level RPS policies, which have proven extremely effective.

Renewable energy offers state trust land managers an opportunity to diversify their revenue stream to benefit the public good. For the most part, wind and transmission projects can be co-located with pre-existing leases for grazing, agriculture, oil, and gas. Solar projects could have great potential in previously disturbed sites or areas with little other value. Where geothermal resources are available, they offer consistent power that can offset intermittent sources like wind or solar. Technological advances could help bring down prices for renewables, particularly solar, geothermal, and biomass. As our energy demands grow, state trust lands are poised to play an important role in the growing renewable energy industry.

This article was adapted from the Lincoln Institute working paper, “Leasing Renewable Energy on State Trust Lands,” available online here: http://www.lincolninst.edu/pubs/dl/2192_1518_Berry_WP12AB1.pdf.

About the Author

Alison Berry is the energy and economics specialist at the Sonoran Institute, where her work focuses on land use issues in a changing West. She holds a bachelor’s degree in biology from the University of Vermont and a master’s degree in forestry from the University of Montana. Her work has been published in the Wall Street Journal, the Journal of Forestry, and the Western Journal of Applied Forestry, among other publications. Contact: aberry@sonoraninstitute.org.

Resources

Berry, Jason, David Hurlbut, Richard Simon, Joseph Moore, and Robert Blackett. 2009. Utah Renewable Energy Zones Task Force Phase I Report. http://www.energy.utah.gov/renewable_energy/docs/mp-09-1low.pdf.

Billings Gazette. 2010. Wind farm developers eye school trust land. April 22. http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/montana/article_14bfb038-4e0a-11df-bc99-001cc4c002e0.html.

Bureau of Land Management. 2011. Restoration Design Energy Project. http://www.blm.gov/az/st/en/prog/energy/arra_solar.html.

Culp, Peter, and Jocelyn Gibbons. 2010. Strategies for Renewable Energy Projects on Arizona’s State Trust Lands. Lincoln Institute of Land Policy Working Paper WP11PC2. https://www.lincolninst.edu/pubs/dl/1984_1306_CulpGibbon%20Final.pdf.

Montana Department of Natural Resources. 2011. Montana’s Trust Lands. Presented at the Western States Land Commissioners Association annual meeting. Online: http://www.glo.texas.gov/wslca/pdf/state-reports-2011/wslca-presentation-mt-2011.pdf accessed November 23, 2011.

Oberbeck, Steven. 2009. Utah geothermal plant runs into cold-water problems. Salt Lake Tribune. September 17. And Bathon, Michael. 2011. Utah’s Raser Technologies files Chapter 11. Salt Lake Tribune. May 2.

Rodman, Nancy Welch. 2008. Wind, wave/tidal, and in-river flow energy: A review of the decision framework of state land management agencies. Prepared for the Western States Land Commissioners Association. http://www.glo.texas.gov/wslca/pdf/wind_wave_tidal_river.pdf.

Wadsack, Karin. 2009 Arizona Wind Development Status Report. Arizona Corporation Commission.

Like many schoolchildren, I learned that years ago a squirrel could cross the country from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean never touching the ground, using our magnificent forests as an aerial highway. After massive clearing and development for agriculture, cities, and roads, those forests are now a tattered patchwork, and are nonexistent in many places. More than a squirrel’s dilemma, though, the loss and altering of America’s forests have created both an enormous challenge to climate health and an opportunity for climate policy and action.

Amedida que las ciudades costeras continúan enfrentando las amenazas de un clima cada vez más volátil, las marejadas y el ascenso del nivel del mar, todas las cuales están relacionadas con el cambio climático y pueden llegar a ser muy costosas, desarrollar un mayor nivel de resiliencia se está convirtiendo en una prioridad principal de planificación. Sin embargo, la resiliencia posee varias dimensiones: no sólo significa construir cosas tales como compuertas contra inundaciones y estructuras más sólidas, sino también conservar libres de desarrollos sistemas naturales como los pantanos, y, en muchos casos, tomar la decisión de no construir nuevamente en los lugares más vulnerables. Y aquí yace un problema complejo y en continua evolución que afecta los derechos de propiedad privada.

Al menos desde los albores del siglo XX, la Corte Suprema ha estado lidiando con una pregunta básica: ¿cuándo la regulación del uso del suelo constituye una expropiación que requiere pagar una compensación a los propietarios, según la 5º enmienda de la Constitución de los EE.UU. (“…la propiedad privada no podrá ser objeto de expropiación para uso público sin la debida compensación”)? Desde los casos Pennsylvania Coal contra Mahon, 260 U.S. 393 (1922) y Euclid contra Amber Realty, 272 U.S. 365 (1926), la esencia de los fallos ha sido que el gobierno posee una libertad de acción considerable a la hora de ejercer su facultad de regular el uso del suelo. En el caso Kelo contra City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005), el tribunal supremo afirmó la facultad que posee el estado de utilizar la expropiación a los fines del desarrollo económico en el siglo XXI.

No obstante, en junio de 2013, una decisión en cuanto a un proyecto de desarrollo en Florida pareció indicar un cambio sutil en otro sentido. En el caso Koontz contra St. Johns River Water Management District, los jueces fallaron 5 a 4 que el gobierno presentaba un celo excesivo al imponer requisitos de mitigación a los desarrolladores como condición para obtener permisos de construcción. Coy Koontz, padre, cuya intención había sido construir un pequeño centro comercial en su propiedad, objetó las demandas de un distrito de administración del agua de Florida, según las cuales debía pagar por la restauración de los pantanos que se encontraban fuera del sitio con el fin de compensar por el daño ambiental causado por la construcción. Koontz citó dos casos, Nollan contra California Coastal Commission, 483 U.S. 825 (1987) y Dolan contra City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374 (1994), con el fin de sustentar su aseveración de que los requisitos constituían una expropiación por exceder una “proporción aproximada” entre dichos requisitos y los alcances de los daños causados por el desarrollo. En el año 2011, la Corte Suprema de Florida rechazó el argumento de Koontz, pero en junio de este año el tribunal supremo falló que los requisitos de mitigación impuestos al constructor eran excesivos.

Este fallo alarmó a algunos ambientalistas y grupos, como la American Planning Association, quienes temieron que se establecieran nuevos límites a la facultad del gobierno de controlar el desarrollo e imponer requisitos para restaurar y conservar áreas naturales. Este motivo de preocupación se extendió hacia las regiones metropolitanas costeras que se estaban preparando para los impactos del cambio climático; un ejemplo de esto es la Ciudad de Nueva York que, en el mes de mayo, propuso un plan modelo de 20 mil millones de dólares consistente en una combinación de estrategias para vivir con el agua y mantenerla alejada. Los expertos en derechos de propiedad especularon que los desarrolladores podrían citar el caso Koontz como justificación para negarse a pagar un fondo para dichas iniciativas.

A un nivel más amplio, la pregunta permanece en pie: después de una situación como la del huracán Sandy, ¿tiene el gobierno derecho de prohibir la recon-strucción o de modificar las regulaciones con el fin de evitar nuevas construcciones? La respuesta legal es, básicamente, “sí”, según Jerold Kayden, abogado y profesor en la Facultad de Diseño de la Universidad de Harvard, quien participó en el Foro de periodistas sobre el suelo y el entorno construido llevado a cabo por el Instituto Lincoln el pasado abril.

Especialmente a raíz de la mayor disponibilidad de datos sobre el ascenso del nivel del mar y las marejadas que se tiene hoy en día, el gobierno tiene el derecho legal de evitar que los propietarios construyan en lotes vacantes expuestos a las inundaciones y al ascenso del nivel del mar o que reconstruyan una vivienda que fue destruida. Sin embargo, según Kayden, “desde el punto de vista político, esta es otra historia”.

Nueva York y Nueva Jersey representaron dos enfoques muy diferentes en cuanto a la reconstrucción que tuvo lugar con posterioridad al huracán Sandy. El gobernador de Nueva York, Andrew Cuomo, y el alcalde de la Ciudad de Nueva York, Michael Bloomberg, abogaron por una serie de normas destinadas tanto a la reconstrucción como a una “retirada estratégica”, mientras que el gobernador de Nueva Jersey, Chris Christie, se enfocó en la asignación de fondos destinados a los residentes para que éstos pudieran reconstruir en las parcelas afectadas por la tormenta, aun cuando dichas propiedades permanecieran dentro de la zona de riesgo.

Por otro lado, la ciudad de Boston ha comenzado a requerir a los desarrolladores de zonas costeras que se preparen ante la posibilidad de ascensos del nivel del mar y marejadas, mediante la reubicación de las maquinarias que guardan en los sótanos a pisos más elevados, entre otros requisitos. A medida que el caso Koontz despeja el camino hacia un escrutinio más rígido de las medidas impuestas por el gobierno municipal como condición para la construcción, los desarrolladores podrían demandar al gobierno por estos costosos requisitos relacionados con el clima, argumentando que dichos requisitos son demasiado onerosos y podrían constituir una expropiación reguladora.

Aunque las demandas por derechos de propiedad relacionadas con la reconstrucción y las restricciones sobre nuevas construcciones en áreas costeras indudablemente continuarán proliferando, Pratap Talwar, director de Thompson Design Group, presentó una alternativa para la planificación a largo plazo que podría evitar que surgieran dichos conflictos. Talwar detalló ante un grupo de periodistas el caso de estudio de Long Branch, Nueva Jersey, una ciudad que, hace varios años, se replanteó su proceso de planificación con el fin de incluir normas más rígidas y a la vez un proceso más rápido para el desarrollo que estuviera de acuerdo con las pautas. Según Talwar, Long Branch fue la única milla de la costa de Nueva Jersey que soportó las inclemencias del huracán Sandy de forma relativamente intacta.

Foro de periodistas sobre el suelo y el entorno construido: La ciudad resiliente

Treinta y cinco escritores y editores de primera línea que cubren noticias sobre problemas urbanos asistieron al 6º Foro de Periodistas sobre el Suelo y el Entorno Construido, llevado a cabo el 20 de abril de 2013 en el Lincoln House. El tema del foro fue “La ciudad resiliente” y abarcó desde los municipios costeros que se preparan para el ascenso del nivel del mar y las marejadas hasta las ciudades tradicionales que intentan evolucionar a pesar de la reducción de sus poblaciones y de su actividad comercial.

Kai-Uwe Bergmann, director de Bjarke Ingels Group, abrió el foro dando un panorama general sobre las innovaciones en diseño urbano que maximizan la eficiencia en el suelo, la vivienda y los proyectos de infraestructura de gran envergadura. Johanna Greenbaum, de Kushner Companies, quien ayudó a poner en funcionamiento la iniciativa de microviviendas del alcalde de la Ciudad de Nueva York, Michael Bloomberg, dio detalles sobre dicho proyecto y otros de similares características en diferentes lugares del país destinados a personas solteras y parejas que pueden vivir en espacios de 28 metros cuadrados.

Alan Mallach, coautor del informe sobre enfoque en políticas de suelo del Instituto Lincoln titulado Regeneración de las ciudades históricas de los Estados Unidos, observó señales de resurgimiento en lugares tales como el Central West End (St. Louis) o el barrio Over-the-Rhine (Cincinnati), a la vez que reconoció los desafíos que en-frentan Camden, Nueva Jersey, Flint y Detroit, Michigan y Youngstown, Ohio. Antoine Belaieff, director de innovaciones en MetroLinx, dio detalles sobre el uso de las redes sociales para obtener la opinión de los ciudadanos con respecto a una inversión de 16 mil millones de dólares en infraestructura de transporte resiliente dentro del área de Toronto.

John Macomber, de la Facultad de Negocios de la Universidad de Harvard, dirigió una sesión sobre la ciudad global, en la que reconoció que existen cientos de millones de personas que continúan migrando de áreas rurales a urbanas, lo que requiere una planificación a gran escala para la infraestructura. Martim Smolka, director del Programa para América Latina y el Caribe del Instituto Lincoln, lamentó los desplazamientos generalizados que están teniendo lugar a causa de los preparativos para la Copa Mundial de fútbol y los Juegos Olímpicos que se disputarán en Río de Janeiro. Bing Wang, de la Facultad de Diseño de Harvard, observó que 11 ciudades en China tienen una población de más de 10 millones de habitantes y, aún así, esta nación en rápido crecimiento sólo ha logrado la mitad de la urbanización esperada.

John Werner, director de movilización en Citizens Schools, explicó la manera en que los sistemas escolares urbanos pueden encender pasión entre los estudiantes trayendo desde fuera a distintos profesionales para que actúen como maestros y mentores. Gordon Feller, de Cisco Systems, imaginó un mundo completamente conectado y una Internet para todo. Se sumó Dan Keeting, periodista de investigación del Washington Post, quien compartió sus experiencias al extraer datos de diferentes niveles del gobierno.

El foro se vio obligado a abreviarse debido a la búsqueda de las personas que pusieron las bombas en el Maratón de Boston en el área de Cambridge-Watertown; sin embargo este evento dio pie a un diálogo acerca de la solicitud de procedimientos de “refugio en el lugar”, presentada por el gobernador de Massachusetts, Deval Patrick, la seguridad y el espacio público, y otros tipos de resiliencia en el área de Boston. Varios participantes escribieron sobre estos eventos, como Emily Badger (The Atlantic Cities), Donald Luzzatto (Virginian Pilot) e Inga Saffron (The Philadelphia Inquirer).

La reunión de periodistas cada abril es una asociación entre el Instituto Lincoln, la Facultad de Diseño de la Universidad de Harvard y la Fundación Nieman para el Periodismo de la misma universidad. La misión de esta actividad es reunir a periodistas a fin de compartir ideas y aprender acerca de las últimas tendencias relativas a la cobertura de noticias sobre ciudades, arquitectura y planificación urbana. — AF

Planning and land policy experts recognize the need for timely and accurate information about how to take account of likely, if uncertain, environmental and climate change impacts on global land use and development patterns. The Lincoln Institute’s fifth annual land policy conference in May 2010 addressed the status of many of these issues currently and through the twenty-first century.

Transport and Land Use

Providing effective transit service—a smart growth policy—requires residential densities of at least 30 persons per hectare. A review of census tract data for 447 U.S. urbanized areas in 2000 indicates that about a quarter of the urbanized population resided in areas with such densities, down from half in 1965. Fully 47 percent of the 447 areas had no tracts with a transit-sustaining density. But, transit ridership requires more than just dense residential areas.

For example, New York and Los Angeles have similar average residential densities, but 51 percent of commuters in New York use transit compared to 11 percent in Los Angeles. An analysis of travel diaries from nearly 17,000 Los Angeles households indicates that accessibility to employment centers increases transit use much more than living in a high-density area. Alternatively, congestion toll schemes dating from the mid-1970s have yielded sustained increases in transit use and reductions in auto use and congestion. While such policies are likely to produce land use changes, theory is ambiguous about their direction, and virtually no empirical evidence is available.

Energy and Carbon Pricing

Analysis of 13 completed LEED-certified developments showed that their residents produced fewer vehicle miles travelled than the average for their metropolitan areas, suggesting that these developments are fulfilling one of their objectives. A review of the land intensity of alternative energy sources demonstrates that wind and solar sources are feasible in terms of their land coverage, whereas heavy reliance on bio-fuels would require unfeasibly large shares of current agricultural land. However, alternative energy sources for electricity will require large investments in transmission lines across the continent.

An analysis of the effects of cap-and-trade, a carbon tax, and emissions standards as instruments to reduce carbon emissions shows that their impacts depend critically on implementation details. The first two approaches can appear very similar if permits are auctioned rather than given away. The regressivity of carbon taxes can be offset by revenue recycling that is proportional to total tax payments. Emission standards are likely to involve efficiency losses but may be most attractive politically.

Climate Change Impacts

Models of how climate change will affect sea-level rise, temperature, and rainfall differ greatly at the micro level, but all indicate that major costs will be borne by coastal cities and areas in the lower latitudes, with lower costs and some benefits accruing to those in the higher latitudes. A temperature rise of two degrees centigrade in this century seems inevitable, and constraining it to that level will require both large investments and effective policies. Such policies will have to include coordinated management of the one-third of land in the United States that is publicly owned, carbon capture in the form of larger forest areas, and mobilization of revenues for protection of environmentally sensitive areas.

The Way Forward

Many subnational U.S. jurisdictions are already engaged in implementing relevant policies, but the federal government needs to develop an approach to climate mitigation that includes benefit-cost standards, a realistic financing framework with beneficiary and user fees, and a national plan consistent with state plans. Internationally, capacity to address governance issues related to global commons is developing slowly and is hampered by inadequate funds, insufficient consensus, and a lack of legitimacy of existing institutions to address these issues, as well as by an increasing popular skepticism about the very existence of climate change.

The conference volume, with papers and commentaries by more than 25 contributors, will be published in May 2011.

As coastal cities continue to face the potentially expensive threat of increasingly volatile weather, storm surge, and sea level rise associated with climate change, building resilience has become a top planning priority. But resilience has multiple dimensions. It means not only building things, like flood gates and hardened infrastructure, but also keeping natural systems such as wetlands free of development—and, in many cases, deciding not to rebuild in the most vulnerable places. Therein lies an evolving and complex issue affecting private property rights.

From at least the turn of the 20th century, the Supreme Court has wrestled with a basic question: When does land use regulation constitute a taking, requiring compensation for property owners under the 5th amendment of the U.S. Constitution (“ . . . nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.”)? Since Pennsylvania Coal v. Mahon, 260 U.S. 393 (1922) and Euclid v. Amber Realty, 272 U.S. 365 (1926), the essence of the rulings has been that government has considerable leeway in its power to regulate land use. In Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005), the high court affirmed the state’s power to use eminent domain for economic development in the 21st century.

In June 2013, however, a decision on a Florida development project seemed to indicate a subtle shift in another direction. In Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District, the justices ruled 5 to 4 that government was overzealous in imposing mitigation requirements on developers as conditions for building permits. Coy Koontz, Sr., who had wanted to build a small shopping center on his property, objected to a Florida water management district’s demands that he pay for off-site wetlands restoration to offset environmental damage caused by the construction. Citing two cases, Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 483 U.S. 825 (1987) and Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374 (1994), Koontz claimed that the requirements constituted a taking for exceeding a “rough proportionality” between the requirements and the scope of damages caused by the development. In 2011, the Florida Supreme Court rejected Koontz’s argument, but in June the high court ruled that the mitigation requirements on the builder went too far.

The ruling alarmed some environmentalists and groups such as the American Planning Association, who feared new limits on the government’s ability to control development and impose requirements to restore and conserve natural areas. The concern extended to coastal metropolitan regions preparing for the impacts of climate change, such as New York City, which in May proposed a model $20 billion plan that is a mix of strategies for living with water and keeping it out. Property rights experts speculated that developers could cite the Koontz case as justification to refuse to pay into a fund for such initiatives.

At a broader level, the question remains: After an event like Hurricane Sandy, is government within its rights to forbid rebuilding or to modify regulations in order to prevent new building? The legal answer is essentially yes, according to Jerold Kayden, an attorney and professor at Harvard University’s Graduate School of Design, who was part of the Lincoln Institute’s Journalists Forum on Land and the Built Environment, held in April.

Particularly as more data become available on sea level rise and storm surge, government has the legal right to restrict owners from building on a vacant lot that is subject to flooding and sea level rise, or from rebuilding a home that has been destroyed. But, Kayden said, “politically, it’s another story.”

New York and New Jersey represented two different approaches to post-Sandy reconstruction. New York Governor Andrew Cuomo and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg called for a mix of rebuilding and “strategic retreat,” while New Jersey Governor Chris Christie focused on allocating money to residents so they could rebuild on parcels battered by the storm—even when the property remained in harm’s way.

The City of Boston, meanwhile, has begun to require waterfront developers to prepare for rising seas and storm surge by relocating mechanicals from basements to higher floors, among other measures. As the Koontz case opens the door for heightened scrutiny of various measures imposed by local government as a condition for building, developers might sue over these expensive, climate-related requirements, arguing that they are too burdensome and may constitute a regulatory taking.

While property rights lawsuits over reconstruction and restrictions on new building in coastal areas will no doubt continue to proliferate, Pratap Talwar, principal at the Thompson Design Group, presented an alternative in long-range planning that could help prevent such conflicts from arising. He detailed for the journalists the case study of Long Branch, New Jersey, which overhauled its planning process several years ago to include tougher standards but also a fast-track process for development that satisfied the guidelines. Long Branch was the one mile of New Jersey shore that weathered Sandy relatively intact, Talwar said.

Journalists Forum on Land and the Built Environment: The Resilient City

Thirty-five leading writers and editors who cover urban issues attended the 6th Journalists Forum on Land and the Built Environment on April 20, 2013, at Lincoln House. The theme was The Resilient City, from coastal municipalities preparing for sea level rise and storm surge to legacy cities trying to evolve despite diminished populations and business activity.

Kai-Uwe Bergmann, principal at Bjarke Ingels Group, opened the forum with a look at urban design innovations that maximize efficiency in land, housing, and major infrastructure projects. Johanna Greenbaum from Kushner Companies, who helped run New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s microhousing initiative, detailed that project as well as other similar efforts around the country to accom-modate singles and couples who can live in just 300 square feet.

Alan Mallach, co-author of the Lincoln Institute’s policy focus report Regenerating America’s Legacy Cities, noted signs of resurgence in places such as the Central West End in St. Louis or Over-the-Rhine neighborhood in Cincinnati, while acknowledging the challenges facing Camden, New Jersey; Flint and Detroit, Michigan; and Youngstown, Ohio. Antoine Belaieff, Innovation Director at MetroLinx, detailed the use of social media to gain citizen input on a $16 billion investment in resilient transportation infrastructure in the Toronto area.

John Macomber, from Harvard Business School, led a session on the global city by recognizing the hundreds of millions of people who continue to migrate from rural to urban areas, requiring large-scale planning for infrastructure. Martim Smolka, director of the Lincoln Institute’s Program on Latin America and the Caribbean, lamented widespread dislocations caused by preparations for the World Cup and the Olympics in Rio de Janeiro. Bing Wang, from Harvard University’s Graduate School of Design, noted that 11 cities in China have populations over 10 million—and yet the rapidly growing nation is only halfway to its expected urbanization.

John Werner, chief mobilizing officer at Citizens Schools, spelled out how urban school systems can ignite passion in students by bringing in outside professionals as teachers and mentors. Gordon Feller of Cisco Systems envisioned a completely connected world and an Internet of everything, joined by Washington Post investigative reporter Dan Keating, who shared his experiences extracting data from various levels of government.

The forum had to be shortened because of the manhunt for the Boston Marathon bombers in the Cambridge-Watertown area—but that event prompted dialogue about the “shelter in place” request by Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick, security and public space, and another kind of resilience in the Boston area. Several participants wrote about the events, including Emily Badger at The Atlantic Cities, Donald Luzzatto at the Virginian Pilot, and Inga Saffron at The Philadelphia Inquirer.

The springtime gathering is a partnership of the Lincoln Institute, Harvard’s Graduate School of Design, and the Nieman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard University. The mission is to bring journalists together to share ideas and learn about cutting-edge trends in the coverage of cities, architecture, and urban planning. — AF