Citizen Portal
Sign In

Conservation groups push to restore diverted land‑preservation funds; sponsors say bill preserves long‑term conservation tools

Budget and Taxation Committee · February 19, 2026

Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts

Subscribe
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

SB 424 would prevent the diversion of $25 million annually from the land preservation special fund to the general fund for FY2027–FY2029 and keep those dedicated transfer‑tax dollars in the preservation fund. A broad coalition of land trusts, farm bureaus and local groups urged a favorable report, warning that the diversion undermines long‑term conservation and farmland preservation.

Senate Bill 424 would suspend a prior diversion of $25 million a year from Maryland’s land preservation special fund to the general fund for fiscal years 2027–2029, keeping those transfer‑tax dollars available for program open space, the agricultural land preservation fund (MALF), and related conservation programs.

Sponsor testimony emphasized that the diversion reduces funding for longstanding land‑conservation programs and that lost opportunities for preservation are effectively permanent when farmland is converted to development. A coalition of land trusts and statewide conservation organizations — Forever Maryland, Maryland Farm Bureau, Eastern Shore Land Conservancy and others — urged the committee to restore the funding streams, arguing that predictable, stable funding is essential to complete deals and maintain landowner confidence.

Witnesses cited studies and economic-impact figures for agriculture and tourism and warned that delays or cuts in program funding increase the likelihood that conservation projects will be delayed, scaled back, or abandoned. Several speakers requested a favorable report and said the group had compiled nearly 75 organizations in support; they also urged a repayment plan for prior diversions and pledged to work with the committee on implementation details.

Committee members asked procedural questions and were told additional people were signed up to testify; the hearing included a range of land‑trust and farm‑community voices. The transcript records no committee vote during the hearing; sponsors requested favorable consideration and follow‑up.