Photo courtesy of Gene Bakko

We find ourselves in a land crisis.

On one end of the spectrum, it seems that Americans have no respect for the fragile ecosystems we depend on and instead continually add to urban sprawl. Between the years 1970 and 1990, over 19 million acres of rural land were developed to satisfy our ever intensifying need for more: more homes, more businesses, more roads, all of which leads to less: less natural habitat, less open space, less clean air and water (Sierra Club). Urban sprawl is difficult to control and even harder to understand, yet a common emerging description can be read as "...low-density, land-consuming, automobile-dependent, haphazard, non-contiguous, development on the fringe of settled areas, often near a deteriorating central city or town, that intrudes into rural or other undeveloped areas" (Dowling, 874). This sprawl is occurring all across the United States, including Minneosota. In fact, planners in the Twin Cities area are anticipating that more than $3 billion dollars will be needed for water and sewage services to accomodate expected growth between the present and the year 2020 (Sierra Club). Between 1996 and 2001, congestion in the Twin Cities grew at a faster rate than all other US metropolitan areas except one. Is it even possible to imagine the full effect that this will have on our unique natural landscapes and ecosystems?

Urban Sprawl at it's Worst

Source: www.publichealthgrandrounds.unc.edu/urban/

On the other end of the spectrum, our ever intensifying desire for land is also, in a way, based on love. More specifically, trying to embody our love of the natural world by buying up parcels of it for our own private use and enjoyment. This crisis of loving our environment to death is currently taking place in Northern Minnesota. The recreational opportunities and the scenic beauty in this area attract tourists and homeowners, but unfortunately have also been attracting development that threatens the integrity of the area and promotes the conversion of the land to non-forest uses.

More than 42% of forested land in Minnesota is privately owned, with landowners becoming more and more willing to pay hefty sums for their own parcel of land. Land that had once been owned by timber companies has switched hands and is now owned by investment companies who are looking for the highest bidder (Myers, 2006) The DNR reports that since 1989, 400,000 acres have been developed for private homes

. "Conservation experts are worried that the emphasis has switched from growing trees over decades to growing profits overnight," to the point that the Minnesota Forest Resources Council states that the loss of private forestland is the greaterst threat to forestry in the state (Myers, 2006). Some of these purchases may be made out of love for the Northwoods, but this doesn't reduce the deleterious effects of of fragmenting the landscape with increased roads, houses, and driveways not to mention increased effects of traffic, and human and domesicated animal disturbances. Even though forested land still remains, wildlife is dislocated and forest managemen and harvesting of forest products become almost an impossibility (Myers, 2006).

The North Woods

Source: www.knowledgeproblem.com/northwoods.jpg

The primary approach to land conservation has often taken the form of government reservation, such as national parks or forests (Raymond and Fairfax, 1999). However, land preserves such as these are not sufficient to meet the current needs of conservation, especially given that many are not optimally configured for biodiversity and that at least part of habitat for 95% of threatened and endangered species is located on private lands. 19% of these species survive solely on privately owned land (Wilcove et. al, 1996). In addition, many national parks today suffer from the same fate that has befallen Northern Minnesota; they are loved to death. A high concentration of visitors to these parks shows our nation's propensity towards nature but also leads to further disturbances of wildlife and natural habitats, all of which is detrimental to conservation efforts.

In order for conservation to be effective, many feel that we need to work to reconcile conservation efforts with the obstacles provided by private land ownership (Morrisette, 2001). One possible solution to our nation's land crisis that has gained popularity in recent years is a voluntary agreement to conserve private property, known as a conservation easement. Heralded by the media and conservation organizations alike, many people that conservation easements are a big part of the step towards reconciliation ecology that we need to preserve tracts of wildlife habitat, increase water quality, and maintain areas for recreation. But are conservation easements really the solution that we need? This project will explore conservation easements, with an emphasis on those in the state of Minnesota, and will explore how although conservation easements are seen by many as a viable option for fighting against urban sprawl and land fragmentation, there are also several drawbacks that may prove fatal to the future of these conservation tools.