Some three million acres of Colorado lands have been protected through land trusts and their partners, and new online resources launched by the group Keep it Colorado aims to help more families keep producing on their farms and ranches, and maintain their land for future generations.
Erin Quinn, conservation director with the Aspen Valley Land Trust, said protecting lands through conservation easements now is a good idea for a number of reasons.
"One is that the cost of real estate is so high," said Quinn. "But second, the state's incentives have never been better. So if you're considering, now is a great time."
By donating a conservation easement on private property to a qualified land trust, the charitable act qualifies the landowner for a transferable state income tax credit, which can be traded to people seeking to lower their tax liability for up to $5 million per easement.
Toolkits for landowners interested in learning more about easements, and for people who have purchased lands already protected, are available online at 'KeepItCO.org.'
A 2018 study found that every $1 invested in conservation through the tax credit generates $12 in economic benefits by protecting prime farmland, habitat for Colorado's wildlife, and land along streams, lakes and rivers.
Quinn said one question she hears a lot from landowners is, 'Will I still own my land after conservation easement?'
"And the answer is yep, the land is still yours," said Quinn. "And you're free to sell it, transfer it or mortgage it, but with the knowledge that the conservation easement will protect it in perpetuity."
Quinn said land conservation is meant to keep Colorado's treasured places open and natural, and to protect the region's land, water, wildlife, culture and heritage. She added that the actual uses of conserved land can change over time.
"But the land will remain undeveloped," said Quinn. "Maintaining space in my area for farming, ranching, scenic corridors, wildlife habitat and just simply for places for kids to play - those are all benefits."
get more stories like this via email
A coalition of environmental groups has filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration, challenging its revocation of President Joe Biden's protections for 625 million acres of federal waters from offshore drilling.
The lawsuit, filed in federal district court in Alaska, argued the Trump administration's action is illegal and threatens coastal communities, ecosystems and marine life.
Christian Wagley, coastal organizer for the advocacy coalition Healthy Gulf, emphasized the importance of protecting Florida's coastline from drilling.
"The water is clean, our beaches are clean, and Florida's economy really depends on that," Wagley asserted. "That's kind of the quintessential experience in Florida is being able to go to the beach and have the clean white sand and blue-green water and that would be directly threatened by expanded oil and gas drilling in the Gulf of Mexico."
The legal challenge focuses on Biden's decision in his final days in office to withdraw vast areas of the Outer Continental Shelf -- including parts of the Atlantic, Pacific, Arctic and eastern Gulf of Mexico -- from oil and gas leasing and drilling. President Donald Trump argued boosting fossil fuel production is essential to meeting energy demand and maintaining U.S. leadership in global energy markets.
Environmental groups, however, contend the move is illegal and threatens ecosystems, coastal communities and the transition to clean energy.
Devorah Ancel, Environmental Law Program senior attorney for the Sierra Club, said the move also violates the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act.
"That is an illegal action," Ancel contended. "The law only allows presidents to withdraw those areas for protection. It doesn't allow presidents to revoke or cancel those withdrawals of previous presidents."
The lawsuit highlighted the ecological and economic risks of offshore drilling, particularly in the Gulf of Mexico, which the Trump administration is attempting to rename the Gulf of America, where 99% of U.S. offshore drilling occurs. Ancel pointed to the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill as a stark example of the dangers posed by offshore drilling.
Disclosure: The Sierra Club contributes to our fund for reporting on Climate Change/Air Quality, Energy Policy, Environment, and Environmental Justice. If you would like to help support news in the public interest,
click here.
get more stories like this via email
The Minnesota Legislature and a regulatory agency will be busy this week weighing demands for large data centers.
Business leaders say this digital infrastructure is badly needed, but environmental voices are urging a cautious approach.
Hyperscale data centers, which store and process virtual information like medical records and website content, are popping up across the U.S. - with proposals surfacing in Minnesota.
A Public Utilities Commission hearing is scheduled Friday for a project in Becker.
Sarah Mooradian is the government relations and policy director with CURE, a nonprofit focusing on rural environmental issues. She said there are key considerations for this type of development.
"What are the things that Minnesotans can and should be asking for to make sure that our communities, our resources, are protected," asked Mooradian, "so that these data centers aren't coming in and taking up a ton of water, a ton of electricity?"
The centers can use roughly a half-million gallons of water each day to cool their systems.
Before Friday's hearing, a House bill will see debate Tuesday about making it easier for projects to add backup diesel generators. Opponents say that would conflict with Minnesota's emission goals.
Business groups want accommodations, noting these centers are critical components of today's economy.
The House bill would also shift environmental review duties to municipalities for these projects.
Skeptics say that would mean a less thorough analysis, as developers court officials with the potential of local jobs.
Mooradian said even if you don't live near a proposed data center, its impact should make you think about how their collective footprint will shape Minnesota in the years ahead.
"A thing that might not seem like it impacts you today," said Mooradian, "is going to start impacting you tomorrow."
Tech giant Amazon is behind the Becker project, and Friday's hearing could determine whether the company is exempt from a permit for backup generators.
The company insists those generators would run minimally and that, in the event of an outage, having them would benefit critical services like hospitals.
Disclosure: CURE contributes to our fund for reporting. If you would like to help support news in the public interest,
click here.
get more stories like this via email
Legislation to provide legal immunity for pesticide companies has been introduced in state capitols across the country and lawmakers in Boise could soon join them. Research, including from the University of Idaho, has shown a link between agricultural chemicals and cancer rates in adults and children.
Irene Ruiz, executive director, Idaho Organization of Resource Councils, says pesticide manufacturers know they're selling something potentially harmful.
"To throw the responsibility on a small farmer or on a pesticide sprayer or on other folks, that's just not a fair thing to do. And for them to absolve themselves from this liability is not a good thing in the long run," she contended.
A poll from September found 90% of Idahoans oppose legally shielding pesticide companies. In 2024, lawmakers introduced a bill to provide legal protection for companies that fail to warn people about health and safety issues from pesticides, but the bill died in the Senate. The sponsor of the legislation says potential lawsuits create uncertainty for farmers and ranchers.
But Ruiz said there isn't enough warning about these chemicals and their impacts, and added it is not clear how many people have become ill from pesticides.
"I used to be a farm worker, and I know some of the ills that I have comes from pesticides. My family and friends and people that I know have long term effects from that, and there needs to be better ways and better resources and better studies to help us understand if we are getting harmed by pesticides or how to prevent them in a better way," she explained.
Ruiz said pesticides are also an issue in rural areas, where the chemicals can drift from fields to nearby homes and schools.
get more stories like this via email