With Utah farm land disappearing at an average of 100,000 acres per year, there are many - including Gov. Mike Leavitt and legislative leadership - who see the preservation of open spaces as one of the three most critical growth problems facing the state.

"We must identify what we love and what we need and protect it as a legacy for the future," pleaded state Department of Agriculture commissioner Cary Peterson, himself a rancher.But unlike transportation and water needs where problems and solutions are measurable, the preservation of open spaces is fraught with political pitfalls and contradictions. And when all was said and done at last Thursday night's information-gathering hearing at the State Office Building, it was clear that although everyone recognized the need to preserve open spaces, it was also clear there were no fast and easy solutions.

Taking center stage in the public hearing were the findings of the Land Conservation Task Force, a committee of influential state lawmakers who have studied the problem over the past year. Given the fact that any substantive change in state policy must first be approved by the Legislature, the recommendations of the task force are considered a basic framework for whatever lawmakers pass into law.

And therein lie the contradictions. The task force has indicated that "preservation efforts must not be anti-growth." In other words, lawmakers love the state's unparalleled economic growth and want it to continue.

But where do you put all the additional people that are part of that economic growth? Using models he observed in Italy, Peterson suggested preserving farm lands in the valleys and putting housing developments in non-agricultural lands in the foothills.

Not so fast, says Ted Stewart, director of the Department of Natural Resources. The foothills are critical winter habitat for deer and elk. If residential developments move further into foothills, wildlife populations will be further decimated. Already, deer populations along the Wasatch Front have fallen 60 percent to 80 percent, a reduction attributed in large part to loss of winter habitat to residential developments.

The task force has also indicated that "preservation efforts must be voluntary so not to diminish private property rights." But will Utah farmers who now receive minimal incomes from farming, voluntarily reject offers of hundreds of thousands of dollars from real estate developers?

But critics pointed out that if farmers loved the land more than the money, as many witnesses stated, Utah would not have lost 100,000 acres of farm land a year for the past 25 years, most of it along the Wasatch Front.

Could private trusts and foundations instead buy up the farm land and hold it as open space or transfer the lands to state or federal agencies to manage as wildlife habitat? That is certainly an option now available, but historically the Legislature has opposed efforts by conservation groups to purchase farms and ranches as wildlife habitat.

Given the fact the task force has indicated that "preservation efforts should not reduce the amount of privately owned land," it becomes extremely unlikely that state agencies or city and county governments could purchase and preserve open spaces. In fact, attempts by the Division of Wildlife Resources to purchase and preserve critical wildlife habitat have been repeatedly rebuffed by the Legislature.

One option is to pay farmers and ranchers the value difference between farm lands and developable lands - a conservation easement that includes the restriction the land be preserved as open spaces. But should taxpayer funds be used to pay farmers not to develop their lands? Not according to the task force, which placed any financial obligation on local governments.

One group testifying at the hearing argued that developers should be required to contribute a certain percentage to land conservation trust funds as a condition of their permits to build new homes and businesses. That money could then be used to acquire and preserve open spaces.

But as is the case with impact fees, those costs are typically passed along to the homebuyer. Given the fact Utah already has one of the most expensive real estate markets in the West, it is unlikely lawmakers would pass legislation making the cost of homes even greater.

Another funding mechanism could be a tax return check-off where part of peoples' tax refunds could go to a nonprofit fund to preserve open spaces. But Utah already has numerous tax check-offs, and the amount of money generated by those check-offs has fallen as more and more items are added.

But supporters are undyingly optimistic. "The public will sacrifice from their pocketbooks now to preserve the quality of life in the future," predicted Sherri Einfeldt.

Maybe, but state wildlife supporters are still waiting for any kind of substantial financial return from the sale of state wildlife license plates. And the voluntary non-consumptive wildlife license program, designed as a mechanism for people to voluntarily contribute money for the preservation of wildlife habitat, has been an unconditional bust.

Nevertheless, lawmakers in attendance at Thursday's hearing pledged their support and willingness to address the problem. But only as long as it doesn't encroach on private property rights and inhibit economic growth.

View Comments

Consequently, to many in the audience, the hearing amounted to a lot of hand-wringing over a problem that may ultimately require difficult and potentially unpopular decisions - decisions like local, county and state land-use planning, statewide master plans with zoning restrictions that preserve farm lands in certain areas and coming up with lots of cash for cities, counties and the state to purchase and preserve open spaces.

And those are politically volatile solutions lawmakers seemed unwilling to even consider.

Thursday's hearing was the third in a series of three "information-gathering" meetings in anticipation of the statewide Growth Summit scheduled for Dec. 6 and 7. The first day of the Growth Summit will be televised live on all local television channels.

Most of those in attendance Thursday were lawmakers, government bureaucrats and individuals representing special interest groups.

Join the Conversation
Looking for comments?
Find comments in their new home! Click the buttons at the top or within the article to view them — or use the button below for quick access.