Conservation for Sale

The idea of granting large landowners tax credits for setting aside open space has merit. Conservation easements are one creative way to preserve open space while providing compensation to landowners. But a variation on the basic idea raises some questions. The way the practice is evolving in South County suggests why.

A recent article by Times staff writer Janet Wilson explained how the Rancho Mission Viejo Co. has been paid not to develop several parcels by another developer, the Transportation Corridor Agencies, Caltrans and the Saddleback Unified School District. All have been required to set aside land in exchange for destroying wildlife habitat for their various projects.

For example, the TCA paid the company $3 million in 1991 for 32 acres of wetland to make up for some it lost because of road construction. This gave the family-owned company a benefit from cash proceeds and inheritance tax breaks through the reduction in value of the land.

There appears to be no legal problem with selling land to developers and public agencies in this manner. However, assurances are needed that land will be set aside in perpetuity when it changes hands, and that these aren’t just postage stamp parcels, a museum diorama of the way things used to be.

These agreements must be overseen properly by the IRS and others to be sure that a process intended to protect land does not evolve primarily into a loophole facilitating development. For example, once a toll road comes under the jurisdiction of Caltrans as part of the state’s system of public roads, the preservation of the transferred land needs to be assured.

As always with land development decisions, one mistake is one too many. In recent years, concepts such as the conservation easement and habitat preservation agreements have sought to strike a balance between property rights and open space. But these agreements need to be carefully constructed and monitored to be sure that land is not just a bartering tool to obtain a green light for development from regulatory agencies.

There appears to be public support for conservation easements and land banks, in which pools of money are used to create or buy open space. But the expectation obviously is that land will be protected and species preserved. If building results in cutting off the historical ranges of deer, mountain lions and other animals, the risk of creating a dead zone is real. Care must be taken that sales for mitigation, done in the name of conservation, do not leave behind mere fragments of the land.