The Problem With Conservation Easements

George Wuerthner

The Washington Post recently published an article that repeated the old and flawed idea that ranching will “protect” the land and suggesting conservation easements are the solution to sprawl. If championing cows or hayfields is your conservation policy, one must rethink the strategy. Keep in mind that nearly all the development found along the Front Range in Colorado, Wasatch Front in Utah, the Phoenix area, around Boise, Bozeman or for that matter most of California’s major cities were all dominated by Ag use prior to transformation to housing tracts. If California farms which are the most valuable agricultural lands in the nation can’t impede development than why would anyone believe lower value lands scattered about the West would prohibit development? Not only is there abundant evidence that Ag does not prevent land development but in many cases, the environmental impacts of agriculture are often far more destructive than a rural subdivision. Keep in mind that a hayfield, cornfield or wheatfield is a biological desert consisting of a single or few species of plants that are removed annually. Your typical suburban housing tract with its landscaping has far more diversity and wildlife habitat than a similar acreage of Ag land...In short, what’s there not to like about conservation easements? Many things, it turns out. Land trusts and public agencies are often quick to trumpet the additional acres they add to their portfolios each year but are less concerned with the quality of the lands they protect (not all open space is equally valuable) or the quality of the easements that are sold as a public benefit. For instance, there are opportunity costs that come with easements since there is usually only a limited pot of money. What parcels didn’t get bought by outright fee acquisition because funds were expended on an easement instead? Because conservation easements are nearly always celebrated as a public good, there is little scrutiny of the specific terms of easements, nor a public review of the costs/benefits of any particular land conservation easement. The lack of public transparency in easement creation and maintenance is a potential long-term problem associated with them. Though the public has a financial stake in all conservation easements, it often has no one with direct responsibility to watch-dog for the public interest. Why should the public care? For one, it’s our money that is subsidizing easements. With few exceptions, nearly all conservation easements come with significant government-funded subsidies. These include, but are not limited to, a tax deduction for the individual(s) landowner, as well as reduced real estate property taxes for the landowner and estate. These losses in tax revenue are all made up by other citizens who must pay higher taxes to maintain services...MORE

It would appear the envro-left also has problems with conservation easements. Although from a different perspective, one concern of theirs is "monitoring and enforcement". Read the entire column for a complete litany of their reservations.

Its's clear they prefer outright land acquisition. It is interesting they can't stand the flexibility and innovation possible with CE's, something decentralized that they can't control. Much better, for them, is the stultifying government ownership.