State of the States (current to 2001)
III. States on the Green Plan Path

Emerging from Resource Renewal Institute’s analysis of green plan capacity is a clearer picture of which states are farthest along the path to sustainability. This section profiles the three highest-ranking states—Oregon, New Jersey, and Minnesota. These states exemplify the strides being made to develop environmental management strategies for moving beyond command and control.

Exhibited in the three profiles are many of the nuts-and-bolts steps that have been taken in pursuit of sustainable development. Undergirding all of these actions are the principles of green planning. Oregon’s Environmental Stewardship Plan proposal, New Jersey’s Sustainable State Project, and Minnesota’s Sustainable Development Initiative are outstanding examples of innovative action that can propel a state forward.

Together, these three states capture much of the geographic, cultural, economic, and environmental diversity that characterize the United States. Moreover, their efforts to embrace sustainability provide the nucleus for wide-scale development and application of the green plan model in every region of the country.

A. Oregon: Sowing The Seeds of a Green Plan

Having evolved from an economy heavily dependent on abundant natural resources, Oregon has become a magnet for the high-tech, information-based “new economy.” With the rapid growth and development brought on by this change, the very qualities that are attracting business investment are increasingly threatened by air pollution, congestion, and suburban sprawl. A variety of state leaders have recognized the seriousness of this situation and are looking to green planning as a means for ensuring that continued economic development does not destroy the state’s pristine natural character.

Oregon has long been a national leader on environmental issues. It was the first state to introduce a bottle bill; the first to institute statewide urban growth management legislation; and the first to create a regional metropolitan planning agency (Portland Metro). It is therefore no wonder that the state is making significant progress in developing the capacity for green plan implementation. Among recent actions is an executive order signed by Governor Kitzhaber last year that should generate momentum for an expanding set of initiatives all aimed at making sustainable development an overarching state goal (see Appendix C). Also unveiled recently was a detailed state of the environment report that gives leaders a clear picture of the environmental conditions and priority issues that will have to be addressed in working toward a sustainable future.

Development of Environmental Policy in Oregon

The greatest legacy of Governor Tom McCall’s administration in the 1960s and 1970s is seen by many as the introduction of a statewide growth management framework. The passing of two landmark bills put in place the framework that exists today: one in 1969 requiring comprehensive local land use plans; a second in 1973 creating statewide land use planning law. The 1973 law declared that the State of Oregon had an interest in the way growth and development occurred, reclaiming for the state some of the planning and zoning authority delegated to local government decades earlier.

The 1973 law set Oregon apart from all other states. It created the Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) to establish statewide planning goals that would guide growth and development in the state. Every city and county in the state has to shape its plans to meet the framework of these overarching goals.

In the late 1980s, under the leadership of Governor Neil Goldschmidt, Oregon launched a strategic planning effort that focused on the state’s long-term health and prosperity. Out of that effort came several important recommendations, including an understanding of the need to “engage all of Oregon’s sectors in a partnership for progress.” A fundamental tenet of this work was the need to “assure that the state can grow while protecting one of [its] key advantages, [its] quality of life.” The effort culminated in the creation of a comprehensive plan for the state’s future. Called “Oregon Shines,” the plan set five, 10, 15, and 20-year goals in three categories: people, economy, and quality of life. Approximately 35 goals focused on environmental issues ranging from carbon dioxide emissions to wetlands and forest preservation, transportation, and water quality. Progress on these goals is measured through the Oregon Benchmarks program, which issued its first report in 1991.

The Benchmarks program has become a national model in establishing a framework for the continuous improvement of government agency activities, with a focus on encouraging “state and local government agencies, businesses, and nonprofit and citizen groups to use the Benchmarks in their planning and reporting.” This includes linking environmental agency activities to specified environmental benchmarks, a critical element of outcome-based environmental management.

Oregon has also integrated its planning for transportation, land conservation, and urban development. The Transportation and Growth Management (TGM) program, formed after its approval by the 1993 Oregon Legislature, integrates “transportation planning with the statewide land use planning program to achieve benchmarks for mobility, air quality, and community design.” The program offers grants for innovative strategies and undertakes extensive outreach about smart development principles to a broad range of constituencies.

Oregon’s Plan for Salmon Restoration

Oregon’s Salmon Plan, launched in 1997, closely resembles a green plan, albeit on a small scale. When the federal government was preparing to list Oregon’s coastal coho salmon under the Endangered Species Act, the state developed a plan to enlist voluntary citizen cooperation in restoring the salmon’s habitat, arguing that because so much of the habitat involved private property, a concerted voluntary effort would be the most effective way to ensure success.

The Salmon Restoration Plan is a comprehensive, watershed-based strategy to restore, monitor, and preserve the ecosystems upon which the salmon depend. It involves efforts by federal land managers, state agencies, 81 new citizen watershed councils, soil and water conservation districts, cities, counties, businesses, and private landowners. Projects include wetlands restoration, erosion control, water conservation efforts, urban riparian habitat restoration, reduction of non-point source pollution, control of hatchery salmon stock and exotic fish species, and catch-andrelease programs for wild salmon. Federal and state agencies responsible for dams and hydroelectric projects have initiated measures to manage stream flows for the maximum benefit to fish.

Although spearheaded by government, primary responsibility for carrying out many of the plan’s restoration efforts lies with local businesses, community groups, and residents. Government provides a comprehensive framework, coordinating mechanisms, and legal and regulatory measures, as well as some monitoring and enforcement activities. Funding comes from both public and private sources. It is not yet clear whether the plan will succeed.

Toward an Oregon Green Plan

In March 1999, a bill to assess the feasibility of establishing a green plan for Oregon was introduced in the state legislature (see Appendix C for the full text of the bill). As reported in the Portland Business Journal, “patterned after ‘green plans’ in the Netherlands and elsewhere in Europe, House Bill 3135 seeks to put Oregon on a path not yet taken by other states toward eco-leadership.” The proposal was designed to establish a new state goal of sustainable development and require environmental and natural resource agencies to adopt integrated goals, measurable objectives, and benchmarks to achieve the new state goal. It would also require each agency to institute outcome-based management and regulatory tracks to foster innovation and provide maximum flexibility to the private sector and communities to achieve the goals.

Introduction of the sustainable development bill followed a 1996 RRI-led “Seeing is Believing” policy tour to the Netherlands with multi-sector leaders from Oregon. In helping to build broad interest and support, RRI also brought a delegation of Dutch industry leaders to Oregon in 1997 to present the business benefits of the green plan model.

Unfortunately, the legislative measure was not brought to the floor for a vote. However, recognizing the importance of the initiative, Governor Kitzhaber quickly moved to advance the sustainable development agenda through executive action. As the governor proclaimed in a recent speech

I believe that we are entering a new era of environmental politics—an era where the very nature of the problems we face challenge us to seek new strategies for success—particularly those that call for, and result in, greater individual responsibility and accountability for our air, land, and water. You cannot achieve that through regulation; you cannot achieve that through confrontation; you cannot achieve that through the courts. You can only achieve that through a collaborative and cooperative process that engages thousands of Oregonians and gives them a stake in the problem and some degree of ownership in the solution.

A key body that has laid much of the groundwork for Oregon’s progress in the past several years is the Environmental Stewardship Plan Committee, an informal group of diverse interests that has been meeting since 1997. The group has been pursuing “more efficient and effective approaches to environmental management and regulation” through an impressive process that is summarized in a background report. Driving the Committee’s proposal to establish a state Environmental Stewardship Plan is the need for a “unified and results oriented environmental management system, which can place Oregon on a path towards sustainable development.”

Future Directions

With the work of the Environmental Stewardship Plan Committee, the governor’s executive order to make state operations sustainable, and a comprehensive state of the environment report, Oregon is poised to lead the nation to a new level of management capacity that promises to bring sustainable development within reach. Most encouraging is the fact that these efforts enjoy strong support from the state’s residents. According to a poll of registered voters conducted in March 2000, a clear majority of Oregonians —Republicans, Democrats, and Independents alike—believe that now is the time to act decisively on behalf of sustainable development. RRI will continue to monitor the state’s progress and to share Oregon’s experience with the growing number of leaders from other states who are looking for viable alternatives to the status quo.

B. New Jersey: Translating the Dutch Model

In its conscious effort to learn from and actively incorporate key ingredients of the Dutch green plan, New Jersey has become the nation’s leading proponent for state-level green planning. Strong interest in the Dutch approach stems from the comparable environmental challenges facing both places. The Netherlands and New Jersey are both densely populated, heavily industrialized, and, because much of their land area is coastal, they face significant danger from rising sea levels brought on by global climate change.

Two initiatives in particular demonstrate New Jersey’s leadership in working to shape a sustainable future. First is the state’s Development and Redevelopment Plan, prepared in 1992, which provides a widely supported blueprint for smart growth. Complementing this effort is the Sustainable State Project, launched in 1999 to guide public and private leaders in developing new policies that meet the state’s long-term socioeconomic and environmental needs. Both endeavors are products of extensive public outreach efforts that have generated broad and influential support.

The Evolution of State Environmental Policy

It was a Resource Renewal Institute policy tour to the Netherlands in the summer of 1993 that brought New Jersey’s long-term environmental goals into focus. Seeing the Dutch green plan in action proved so compelling that the group of state NGO leaders who participated in the trip resolved to permanently change the way their state dealt with environmental matters.

Backing this bold proposition was the freshly minted Stockton Alliance, a group of 20 CEOs from the NGO and corporate communities that had come together to find better ways of achieving results than confrontation and litigation. Environmentalists and businesses were dissatisfied with the lack of progress being made and with the way the state Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) was administering its programs. All agreed that piecemeal, media-specific programs—each with their own regulations and staff—required integration and an overarching plan for the future.

Immediately after becoming governor in 1994, Christine Whitman was invited to visit the Netherlands by the New Jersey Conservation Foundation, in cooperation with the Dutch Ministry of Spatial Planning, Housing, and the Environment. Recognizing the possible benefits of such a visit, Governor Whitman sent a delegation of six high-ranking state officials to learn about the Netherlands’ plan. That trip served as a springboard for all subsequent actions in the state, beginning with the governor’s advocacy of the green plan model in her 1995 State of the State address.

In that speech, Governor Whitman detailed her strategy for moving forward: “We are working with environmentalists, corporate leaders, and the public to determine clear, measurable [environmental] goals with specific target dates ... and will merge these goals with the aims of the Economic Master Plan, Energy Master Plan, the upcoming Environmental Master Plan, and the State Development and Redevelopment Plan.” Based on the collaborative principles and purpose of the Stockton Alliance, Governor Whitman established the Green and Gold Task Force that same year to pursue working strategies for the joint promotion of environmental quality and economic vitality.

Also in 1995, 20 diverse non-profit groups united to develop the fundamental elements of a plan for New Jersey’s environmental future. A series of Environmental Summits were convened that culminated in the release of the “New Jersey Green Plan,” which set out green plan principles and objectives for the state. This document, and the organizations behind it, provided a basis for launching the Sustainable State Project.

With growing interest and support, the Whitman Administration adopted a number of the organizing principles embodied in the Dutch green plan, among them a DEP master plan and benchmarked annual report, a standards-based program for working with the U.S. EPA, and a statewide, interdisciplinary goalsetting and benchmarking process.

Toward a Sustainable State: “Living With the Future in Mind”

In a remarkably eventful year, it was also 1995 when New Jersey Future, a leading state NGO, hosted the first Sustainable State Leadership Conference. This gathering brought together representatives of business, academia, environmental, and civic groups to consider the concept of sustainability in shaping New Jersey’s future. As defined by New Jersey Future, a sustainable state is one that “recognizes that a high quality of life depends on a balance of economic, environmental, and social goals.”

The conference was the first in a series of public dialogues throughout the state that led to the identification of 11 indicators for the state’s longterm quality of life. In the four years that followed, additional outreach was conducted through workshops, conferences, and roundtables to determine what type of state New Jerseyans want. This work was carried out in a partnership between New Jersey Future and the Whitman administration, the kind of purposeful collaboration that is at the heart of the green planning process. The goals and indicators of this extensive undertaking were presented and evaluated in the 1999 Sustainable State Project Report, Living with the Future in Mind. Governor Whitman acknowledged the importance of the report by issuing an executive order directing all state agencies to pursue actions that will enable the 11 sustainability goals to be realized.

International Initiative

In yet another bold step, New Jersey signed a landmark agreement with the Netherlands in 1998 to address the issue of global climate change. The jointly signed letter of intent established a framework for developing shared initiatives to combat global warming, including a trading system for greenhouse gas emission credits. The national Center for Clean Air Policy has facilitated the project.

Over the past year, New Jersey has deepened its relationship with the Netherlands in order to make even greater advances on progressive emissions policies. The two governments have agreed to convene meetings every six months, alternating host sites between the Netherlands and New Jersey. The general purpose of these meetings is to promote innovative environmental policies that will help both places achieve high environmental standards and to further facilitate exchange of information and technology between New Jersey and the Netherlands for mutual benefit.

Future Directions

New Jersey’s actions thus far demonstrate a commitment to the sustainability agenda that has propelled the state into a position of national leadership. Yet, despite these efforts, it remains to be seen whether the conviction truly exists to turn words into deeds that enable the state to achieve its widely shared goals for the future. The Sustainable State Report rightly concludes that “much work remains to be done if we are to see this project bear sustainable fruit. We must continue to fill in gaps in our knowledge of trends affecting our future. We must set meaningful targets, or benchmarks, for each indicator. We must commit, as citizens, businesses, and government officials, to achieving these benchmarks —and eventually, our goals of a sustainable and fulfilling life for all New Jerseyans.” New Jersey does not yet have an official green plan, but as RRI’s analysis reveals, no other state has done more to learn about and incorporate green planning principles, especially in the areas of flexible, goal-oriented environmental regulation and statewide land use and transportation planning. While New Jersey has only just started down the path to sustainability, the state’s current willingness to employ new environmental strategies has positioned it well for the next generation of environmental management.

C. Minnesota: The First U.S. Green Plan?

Minnesota’s natural wealth, coupled with a commitment to progressive policy actions that represent the interests of many groups, have made the state a leader in developing and implementing sustainability initiatives. Like New Jersey, by scrutinizing the ways in which the environment, the economy, and human communities are interrelated, Minnesota has moved forward on the path to a sustainable future. The state offers a good model of how to secure the broad participation necessary to make sustainable development policies a reality.

A Collaborative Process for Achieving Sustainability

When Governor Arne Carlson was elected in 1990, he committed his administration to reforming the management of state government. The centerpiece of this reform was Minnesota Milestones, an initiative to establish goals and a 30-year vision for the state. Led by Minnesota Planning, the Administration turned to the public for suggestions on the state’s future and what Minnesotans most wanted that future to look like. Thousands of citizens participated in the effort, as did the heads of each and every state department. They identified 20 broad social, economic, and environmental goals under a vision for the future, which stated, among other things: “We do not want growth and change to overpower our quality of life. ... A new respect for the environment based upon a deeper understanding of our role in the natural world will become a part of our personal and corporate values.” Eighty measurable indicators of progress, or milestones, were selected to track progress toward the vision and goals. They have been routinely monitored since the program’s inception.

Building on elements of the Milestones’ vision, cited above, and a Milestones goal that the state would seek sustained economic growth consistent with environmental protection, the state’s Environmental Quality Board (EQB) decided to examine sustainable development as a strategy for the State of Minnesota. The EQB is a policy forum consisting of the heads of ten state agencies involved with environment and development, five citizens, and a chair who serves at the request of the Governor. The Office of Strategic and Long Range Planning, also known as Minnesota Planning, is both a board member and staff to the board. The EQB develops policy, creates long-range plans, and reviews proposed projects that would significantly affect the environment.

Redefining Progress provided the basis for a state strategic plan for sustainable development, distributed by the Governor and EQB in 1995. The plan called for appointment of a Governor’s Round Table on Sustainable Development, which took place in 1996. The Governor asked the Round Table to serve as a catalyst for sustainable development, foster public and private partnerships, and reach out to Minnesotans across the state to stimulate interest in and communicate the importance of achieving sustainable development. The Round Table consisted of 30 business, environmental and community leaders, half of which were members of the original Initiative teams. The Round Table issued its final report in 1998, “Investing in Minnesota’s Future: An Agenda for Sustaining Our Quality of Life.” The report identifies six challenges to sustainable development in Minnesota. Subsequent agency efforts have begun to respond to these challenges.

Significant Legislative Landmarks

In 1996, the state legislature took the remarkable step of directing all state agencies, departments, and boards to assess how well their missions and programs reflect and implement the Round Table’s principles of sustainable development, or how they could be changed to do so. Minnesota was the first state to take this dramatic step forward.

In addition to this directive, the state has enacted other groundbreaking, sustainability-focused legislation, including:

• The Sustainable Forest Resources Act of 1995, which established a Forest Resources Council. The Council in turn set guidelines for sustainable forest management and created compliance audits that have shown levels of compliance exceeding 90 percent on most ownerships. Improved information sharing, landscape planning, and a training program to certify loggers are also results of the Council’s work.
• The Metropolitan Livable Communities Act, also passed in 1995, which established a multimillion-dollar program to redevelop contaminated sites for urban revitalization and set area-wide goals for affordable housing.
• The Community-Based Planning Act of 1997, which created mechanisms and guidelines for community-based planning aimed at achieving sustainable development. The Act promoted citizen participation, improved cooperation among local governments and the development of sustainable approaches to economic development, conservation, community design, housing, transportation, land use planning, public investment, and education
• The Environmental Regulatory Innovations Act of 1996, which sought to reward Minnesota companies by granting regulatory flexibility in exchange for superior environmental performance. Promoting corporate environmental responsibility in this way stands as a cornerstone strategy of any successful green plan.

Toward a Minnesota Green Plan

Minnesota has many of the key components of a green plan already in place, the most important being a comprehensive, integrated, systems-based approach. As with any such endeavor that is in its initial phase, however, there is much room for improvement. For example, many of the goals and strategies that have been identified are in need of greater specificity. Each community, along with the state as a whole, will need to set clear, coordinated priorities and develop specific goals with measurable outcomes and a fixed timetable in order to achieve meaningful change.

The extent to which the goals and principles that have been adopted are being integrated into areas of government other than those traditionally responsible for environmental concerns is unclear, nor is there much evidence that environmental factors are being integrated into economic decision-making. Both are cited as key priorities in the strategic plan, Challenges for a Sustainable Minnesota, but it will take a steadfast commitment from government leaders to actually bring about changes of this magnitude.

Although the Governor’s Round Table on Sustainable Development went out of existence in 1998, sustainability continues to be a focus in Minnesota. In particular, smart growth has emerged as a priority of the Ventura Administration, demonstrated by the “Growing Smart in Minnesota” initiative. The framework paper for that initiative calls for the state to “support local governments around the state that make sustainable development choices.” For example, the Governor’s 1999 transportation budget recommendations called for funding of community-based planning in conjunction with inter-regional corridor improvements. The intent was to ensure that communities would be equipped to control highway access and prevent the sprawl that highway improvements might otherwise engender. While the legislature balked at the planning initiative, the Governor has established a Local Solutions Alliance, a recommendation of the Governor’s Round Table, to unify financial and technical assistance across state agency lines in pursuit of smart and sustainable communities.

Two other signs of continuing progress are the 1999 release of Smart Signals: Economics for Lasting Progress and the December 2000 adoption by EQB of the scope for an Urban Development Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS). The Smart Signals study recommends specific policy actions to move the state toward a sustainable economy, including taking better advantage of market forces, developing new tools to measure progress, and redesigning incentive programs to encourage sustainable development.

The Urban Development GEIS seeks to understand the social, economic and environmental implications of urban development in Minnesota, and the effectiveness of state and local policies and institutions in managing growth. It will examine the influence of state tax policy, general local government aid, and state spending programs on urban development cost and form. It will also examine the extent to which local land use controls export growth costs. The goal is to separate myth from reality and, by so doing, improve urban development policy and practice.

Future Directions

What direction the state will go in the coming years is difficult to predict, but the solid framework that has been established is capable of driving the process forward regardless of political changes. Creating an environmentally and economically sustainable society is not a short-term proposition, and as Minnesota continues to blaze a path for itself and for other states it will take years to determine the true effect of the state’s actions. What is certain is that Minnesota has already accomplished more than almost any other state. The state’s pioneering efforts are sure to provide important lessons and inspiration for all those who follow.