The Law of Unintended
Consequences
Recent calls for a zoning moratorium have made it clear that
There are three industries that make a county rural: farming and agriculture, ranching, and logging. With these industries come open spaces, recreational forests, and beautiful views. Without them, you get subdivisions. The dilemma we have been facing in the last three decades is that the very industries that make communities rural are also industries that have potentially harmful effects on the environment. In our zeal to protect the environment (Objective A) we imposed a cumbersome host of regulations on rural industries (Rule B). We have, as intended, created a more protected environment. We have also increased the cost of doing business in these three industries, pushing many farmers, ranchers, and loggers to “exit the market.” When they exit the market, they have large plats of land they no longer need or want and begin selling their land to interested developers (Unintended Consequence C).
Take for example the now gone logging industry in the upper
county. When it existed, people were concerned about logging practices and
their impact on the environment even though they enjoyed easy access to hiking
and fishing in the summer and snowmobiling in the winter. To alleviate concerns
about the environment, our logging industry came under a well intentioned
assault. A 1998 lawsuit by the Alpine Lakes Protection Society against Plum
Creek Logging shows the extent to which we regulate logging in this country.
When Plum Creek actually tried to log some of its trees (you know, to stay in
business) they were being regulated by the Department of Natural Resources, the
Department of Ecology, and the Forest Practices Board. They were already
subject to SEPA provisions, Endangered Species Act provisions, and bound by
Watershed Analysis requirements. But that wasn’t enough. When they got sued,
they had to prove they were mitigating effects on recreation, aesthetics, and
grizzly bears. As noble as these goals
are, they have the unintended consequence of making logging very difficult and
unprofitable. When logging becomes unprofitable logging companies sell off
their land. Hmmm? Who would want to buy large tracks
of forest land in a rural community close to
This story can be repeated with both farmers and ranchers in the staring role. Those on the left correctly pointed out that farmers use pesticides and cows harm river banks and riparian zones. So, we regulated and regulated to the benefit of the environment. But, many farmers and ranchers threw up their hands, realizing it was easier to sell their land than navigate an increasing body of complex regulations enforced by a compassionless Department of Ecology. If you take away a farmer’s ability to farm, he is not going to leave the land untouched for your viewing pleasure. He is going to sell the land to a developer. The Law of Unintended Consequences strikes again.
Here is the irony. Those people who once crusaded against loggers, ranchers, and farmers are now the same people who are expressing shock over the decreasing rural nature of our valley. Refusing to accept they are the cause of this long-term change, they seek an easy scapegoat. The simplistic blame developers. The ignorant blame Perry Huston and the clueless blame free trade. Here is the uncomfortable truth: shuffling county commissioners or re-writing the Comprehensive Plan will have limited impact on preserving the rural nature of our community unless, we also adopt a regulatory environment that is friendly to the professions that make this county rural. Too many people in this valley believe that salvation can be found in a cleaver zoning plan or in a moratorium by fiat. These people are misled by the mistaken belief that we are running out of farmland when in reality, we are simply running out of farmers.