These days it's sometimes difficult to feel positive about the future and quality of life when, for example, your neighbor thinks building a destination resort on his property is a fabulous idea.
Or when your legislature tries to take away over half the money it gave to open space...only a year after initially approving it.
Or when a friend's way of life is going to change drastically because a freeway interchange is being built on his farm. Whether you are looking out your window in Moab, stocking up on supplies in Grand Junction, or visiting friends along the Wasatch Front or Front Range, you cannot help but notice growth, development, sprawl, progress...whatever name you choose to give it. It can be utterly depressing.
Finding and focusing on the positive is critical because it is the only way to maintain hope. Hope, in turn, is one of the only emotions that can enable you to feel as though there might actually be something you can do to influence the future. (Whether or not you believe any of us actually can influence our future depends upon your attitude--so adjust it for the moment.) No matter how positive your attitude is, it's easy to become overwhelmed by the negative. I could bitch and moan for another 1500 words about calamity and crisis and the dismal prospects for the world and its inhabitants...human and otherwise if we don't watch out.
Instead, let's try something different. Okay, take a deep cleansing breath in, and a here are a few fun facts to get us in an optimistic frame of mind:
* Nationally, the number of land trusts has grown from 743 in 1985 to more than 1200 today.
* Regionally in Colorado, as of December 1999, the Gunnison Ranchland Conservation Legacy had placed conservation easements on six ranches, permanently protecting 3,500 acres of land.
* Statewide, a 1998 Dan Jones & Associates poll showed that 62% of Utahns strongly agree that open space should be set aside now for the future. (Do you think the legislature can read? Or do they just think we don't know what is good for us?)
* Locally, in the 1995 scoping survey for the Grand County General Plan, 92% of respondents favored preserving the rural character of community.
Now that we're jazzed with those facts, we should talk further about positive, local events, because we've all grown used to hearing about these cool, progressive, grass-roots, community-based things happening...in other states. (My general rule of thumb about Utah is that if an action is taking place somewhere else, it will hit here anywhere from 5-15 years later. The exception to that is population growth.) However, there is good news here. At home.
We can now boast of a local branch of Utah Open Lands (our statewide land trust)--Castle Rock Collaboration! If you haven't heard much about the CRC, as it is known, and what it is "up to", you may have homed right in on the reference to Castle Rock and be thinking, mmm-hmm, sounds like Castle Valley.
Yes, it was organized by Castle Valley residents, but don't turn up your nose too hastily. An initial reaction such as this is one we might as well deal with right away and up front. Castle Valley politics are notorious for being fraught with contentiousness, right? And there can be a certain perception that, well, some folks out there don't inhabit the reality the rest of us do...whatever that is. I've made reference before to our local standard in which the length of one's residency here directly correlates to the degree of one's credibility, and to the fact that this standard isn't consistently applied if you add "...and I live in Castle Valley" to your opinion. (Of course, if life was fair and the rantings and ravings of individuals somehow translated into a lack of credibility for everyone who lived in their neighborhood, be it Moab, Spanish Valley, Cisco, or Castle Valley, then the entire county would be coloured irrational.)
My point is that the actions of the individual should not be extrapolated to the whole community. Stepping off my sociological soap box, all I'm saying is that the Castle Rock Collaboration is different than one might stereotypically, if inaccurately, expect from Castle Valley.
From day one the CRC has had a policy of tolerance, or perhaps I should say a "zero tolerance" policy towards antagonistic inciting behaviour. This is truly a collaboration and the fact that the fledgling organization will soon celebrate its first birthday speaks to the success of this policy and the individuals who are involved. It has not gone up in flames or fizzled out.
The formation of the CRC, which technically is a local branch of Utah Open Lands, deals primarily with planning issues in the greater Castle Valley area. It came about much the same way many grass-roots efforts often do: in reaction to a particular turn of events.
In the Spring of 1999, the State and Institutional Trust Lands Administration (SITLA) put certain lands up for auction, as they frequently do, including two parcels in Castle Valley. A reverberation went through the Valley, as people were caught by surprise. Castle Valley resident and CRC board member Brooke Williams, commented that, "It came as a shock to see the level of interest in the lands when SITLA put them up for sale." The properties sold, for purported development purposes and some residents began trying to find a solution to avoid the development.
However, the reality was that the land had now become private property. SITLA, however, suggested to Castle Valley resident Deanna King that they would be willing to meet with interested people to discuss the future of other nearby state lands.
SITLA lands in the area have long been on the minds of more than a few residents--it's just hard for us humans to be galvanized unless a threat is imminent. Day-to-day life is simply too hectic, even in Moab. Last spring's sale jump-started a core group of 10-20 people to participate in planning the future of the valley they call home.
There is another aspect to the genesis of CRC. The flame to act may have been fanned by the SITLA sale, but the original spark was a sense of place and a connection to community that so many people felt. Nearly a year after its inception, the CRC has a board of eleven members and an Executive Director who meet regularly and divide up tasks and decisions among themselves in a very democratic manner. There are others who are involved in a more sporadic, time-certain way. They are all volunteers.
The way the group delegates responsibility is actually a little hard to get a handle on, but perhaps that is due to its collaborative nature. The board and the connection to Utah Open Lands provide structure, but there is a degree of fluidity in which the issues are laid out, discussed, and people then offer to complete specific tasks. It seems to be working well.
In this past year CRC has formed and surveyed all landowners in the Valley about their opinions of the Valley's future. It has developed a mission statement, delineated the first phase of its goals, become a local branch of Utah Open Lands, received a couple of small grants, and begun work on planning.
Something I find fascinating about the CRC is that you can't point to one or two people and say that they are solely responsible for its existence. Nor can you find anyone involved who wants to play the prima donna. In fact, the opposite is true. During my interview with Brooke Williams and Susan Ulery, who is also a board member, they could not reiterate frequently enough how many people deserved credit for their efforts during the past year. Again, this is truly a collaboration.
There are a couple of levels of collaboration involved. The first lies within the group that makes up the CRC itself; the second includes its connection to Utah Open Lands, and another explores its involvement with other interested groups and individuals to ensure that the planning for Castle Valley--open lands, development, water shed, wildlife habitat, recreation, etc.--is as complete as possible. For example, CRC will provide a certain perspective to the Castle Valley Master plan because of its focus. SITLA and the CRC will sit on a hydrologic study committee which is spearheaded by the town. A number of parties are thinking about the different values that varying parcels of state lands might possess.
This is a cursory overview of the Castle Rock Collaboration and one which does not do it full justice. What I hope is heartening about learning more about CRC is not simply the land-use planning they are undertaking. That is a deserving and inspirational topic in and of itself.
But there is more. It is an example of what we can do as community--whether the issue that stimulates us is land preservation, domestic abuse, welfare, education, or our local economic base. It shows the level of self-determination we can have...if we choose. And that is the key. Ulery and Williams were enthusiastic and positive about where Castle Rock Collaboration is today, and about where it is going, but they did not sugar-coat the energy it takes. "People can drive events and have more control than they think, if they're willing to put in the time," Williams remarked. Ulery echoed, "It takes a tremendous amount of time." Indeed it is a complementary goal of CRC to, in Ulery's words, "inspire other communities to participate and [help] plan their future."
To briefly pay homage to those involved in the Castle Rock Collaboration, the list includes (in a democratic, alphabetic order), but is not limited to: Adele Alsop, Damian Bollerman, Cris Coffey, Alice Drogin, Dave Erley, Bill Hedden, Catherine Howells, Laura Kamala, Deanna King, Paula Martin, Eddie Morandi, Karen Nelson, Gregg Nunn, Susan Ulery, Brooke Williams, Terry Tempest Williams.
Hats off to you all, and to the staff of Utah Open Lands, for your hard work, your dedication, your vision, your hope.