Never Waste a Good Crisis

Every politician now knows the famous advice of then-Congressman Rahm Emanuel: “Never allow a good crisis go to waste. It’s an opportunity to do the things you once thought were impossible.” It may be a sad commentary on the state of modern politics, but tactically shrewd. In fact, it works for both sides, whether the “crisis” is real, perceived, or created out of whole cloth. Given any “urgent” problem, leaders will agree to policies they once opposed.

During his first week, President Biden endorsed the latest environmental fad, a goal to conserve 30 percent of the land in the U.S. by 2030, known as “30-by-30.” It responds to a created crisis, because far more than 30 percent of America is already open space, open lands, and unoccupied territory. In the West, most of the land is permanently “protected” by federal ownership (nearly 40 percent of Colorado), so the evils of development will never be visited upon millions of acres of pristine landscapes.

What 30-by-30 advocates really want are legal restrictions on 30 percent of the remaining private land in the U.S. To be sure, conservation easements, and other restrictions, have been designed and used to preserve over 32 million acres of farms and open spaces against future development, including over 4,000 properties in Colorado.

In Governor Bill Owens’ Administration, we permanently protected over 300,000 acres of open space, including one conservation easement guaranteeing that Denver and Colorado Springs can never grow together. Future generations will be proud of that record. Yet we did not approve every such proposal, partly because not all open space is in danger of development. One wealthy landowner wanted millions for an easement to “preserve” land on the Colorado-Wyoming border, where there was no development planned. Most people agreed that “protecting” what is not threatened simply wastes public resources.

Two conservation new tools we tried to employ, though, were hotly contested. The first asked why easements must be “perpetual.” State and federal laws require it, if the easement involves tax credits or other subsidies. Several Western Slope leaders, led by T.Wright Dickinson, questioned the wisdom of “perpetual” easements decades ago, arguing that permanent easements foreclose any ability for future generations to use the same tool. Generations later, if agriculture still has difficulty surviving, what might happen to a farm that can neither be sold nor farmed? We proposed “term easements,” which stirred up a hornet’s nest of opposition, among environmental groups and government agencies alike.

Obviously, easements of a few years would be less valuable, but could still solve a crucial problem for one generation, still leaving future generations with alternatives. Nobody wanted to talk about term easements then, but last year Summit County raised the issue again, unwittingly, by rescinding a conservation easement to permit a housing development, saying the original “permanent” easement stood in the way of progress. Now, Chaffee County is using a new conservation sales tax to pay landowners, on 5-year contracts, not to develop their land – or sell their water rights.

That was our second new tool, conservation easements on water rights. Just as landowners sell the ability to subdivide and build houses, these easements would preserve water rights, which are often worth more than land. It is hard to second-guess the wisdom of owners who sell water rights to thirsty cities for more money than they could ever earn farming. Still, drying up farmland is a long-term mistake. So, if society wants the farmers to refuse to sell water rights, why shouldn’t it pay them for that, too? The legislature agreed, authorizing water rights easements in 2003, but until now, nobody has actually tried it.

The Chaffee County sales tax increase was approved by voters in 2018 to address forest health, growth impacts, and to support working ranches, farms and rural landscapes. That meant finally being able to compensate landowners for the value they provide to wildlife, open space, and clean water, without the “perpetual” shackle. The program was developed in cooperation with area ranchers, and is showcasing a new market-based approach to preservation. It is also proving much more popular with landowners who may not want to sign something permanent. And land trusts, which previously fought proposals for short-term easements, or water rights easements, are suddenly intrigued.

That could be because the Chaffee County agreements are leading some ranchers into conversations about longer-term programs. But it could also be that the perceived “dire” need, to preserve massive amounts of land quickly, has created a “crisis” that requires more creative thinking.