PROVIDENCE — Conservation advocates are unhappy that Gov. Dan McKee’s budget proposal leaves no money in this year’s Green Bond for key land preservation programs.

It’s not the first time such programs have been shut out of the governor’s budget proposals. Two years ago there was no money in that year’s proposed Green Bond for farmland preservation, local open space acquisition, or forest management. Lawmakers had to introduce legislation to add $16 million to the proposed bond for the programs.

“The only way we’re funding these programs is by bonding,” said Kate Sayles, executive director of the Rhode Island Land Trust Council. “There’s no other source of funding that’s directed in this budget toward these programs.”

McKee’s budget proposal, released earlier this month, offers $50 million for environmental projects. The money includes funds for improving municipal resilience, state park renovations, restoring Narragansett Bay’s water quality and, new to the bond, $10 million to fund energy efficiency infrastructure programs.

There’s $1 million for local recreational projections, which is lower than is typically listed in the bond, but there is notably no money for the state’s open space or farmland acquisition programs. Sayles said zeroing out conservation programs now couldn’t come at a worse time.

“Our big concern is we’re hearing that there are some once-in-a-lifetime conservation opportunities coming down the line, and if even the state doesn’t have access to their own funding for these sorts of acquisitions, and there’s no matching funds through local open space grants or no farmland funding, we’re in big trouble,” Sayles said.

A spokesperson for McKee’s office didn’t immediately return a request for comment.

State bonds for environmental projects are a recurring fixture in the slate of borrowing that goes before voters for approval every election cycle. The total amount in the bond, and the individual buckets that go toward state programs, can vary year to year, but the total amount of new borrowing is typically the same as whatever debt service the state has just recently fully paid off.

Many programs, such as land conservation and brownfield remediation, are only funded via state bonds every two years. The programs are really only designed to have enough funding to fit the two-year cycle, with the quiet expectation they will make another appearance the next statewide election.

Land conservation, especially in a tight, dense state like Rhode Island, is critical. Many of the state’s private, open-space landholders are retiring or seeking to offload their properties to willing buyers. Farmers, especially, are aging faster than younger farmers can replace them.

State and local conservation programs also have to compete with developers. If local authorities or organizations don’t have any money to buy green space and place easements on it, it becomes more likely the land is sold to private owners for development, who can offer a much higher premium than conservation programs typically can.

Farmland is especially at risk. Rhode Island has some of the most expensive farmland in the nation, with most of it going toward development in the past century. Protected open space and farmland are important parts of the climate change equation. Both provide valuable ecological benefits, especially compared to the traditional asphalt-and-concrete strip malls that seem endemic to Rhode Island.

Well-managed farmland provides food and shelter to local wildlife, helps control flooding and prevent erosion; protects wetlands, watersheds, and air quality; and generally improves the overall health of soils. Its most important benefits come from combating sprawl, blocking the encroaching spread of impervious surfaces, greater polluted stormwater runoff, and wetlands clearance.

It also provides benefits to the local economy. For every dollar of state funding spent in the New England region, states will see an economic return of between $4 and $11, according to Wildlands, Woodlands, Farmlands & Communities, a New England conservation advocacy group. A 2023 study from the University of Rhode Island found most of that benefit is more likely to be reaped by wealthy white homeowners than anyone else.

Sayles said advocates hadn’t finished crunching the numbers on how much funding is needed to replenish conservation programs, but suggested it would be a similar amount to what lawmakers put back into the Green Bond in 2024.

The last Green Bond, as approved by voters, included $5 million for forest health management, $5 million for local recreation, $5 million for farmland preservation, and $3 million for open space, ultimately even more than the original amounts suggested by lawmakers.

“Sometimes I think it’s easy to think about climate change and the Act on Climate in terms of energy programs, or however we typically think about climate change,” Sayles said. “But when we don’t include natural resources in that equation, it’s a missed opportunity.”