The article in the November 25, 2007 issue of the Denver Post states, concerning one scheme, "The plan outlines how 16 investors in an Adams County ranch will realize a nearly 400% return on their investment" and "By putting easements on their land, investors are told they will receive an $850,000 federal tax deduction and a Colorado tax credit of about $375,000.00. The tax credit could likely be sold for about $300,000.00". This quote apparently came from a sales brochure. I have attended several conservation easement meetings over the past ten years and have heard similar quotes many times. They are just explaining how absurdly generous the conservation easement law is.

Until the past couple of years, every newspaper article about the creation of each new conservation easement described in glowing terms how wonderful it was that these donors were saving and somehow " protecting" the land and the articles often ended by describing how these land trusts were all interested in the new buzzword "transparency" . That word has been left out of the articles recently, apparently because someone discovered that it is almost impossible to get any of the financial details about any conservation easement. Just try to get answers to such simple questions as, "How much tax credit was actually received? ; What is the total financial benefit to the donor? What is the value of the land "before" and "after" granting the conservation easement? ". This information is all kept secret because of the investor's or other donor's privacy.

A newspaper or journalist should be able to obtain copies of all such information through the Freedom of Information Act. Since most of the money comes from tax deductions or tax credits, or from direct payments from government agencies (either directly or indirectly), the public has a right to know how badly it has been deceived by the conservation easement system. A very good place to start would be to seriously scrutinize the tax credit law itself. The Denver Post article reported that these tax credits had increased from $2.3 million in 2001 to $85 million in 2006. Of course this does not show up in the budget as an expenditure because it is money that never came into the state coffers. I would hope that most bean counters and other taxpayers could readily see that it is still costing the taxpayer $85 million, even thought it is cleverly kept out of the budget and does not show up as an expenditure of tax money.

My greatest concern is that this investigation will end the same way as the investigation into abuses by aluminum siding salesmen in the great movie "Tin Men". In that movie, the investigators took away the licenses of a couple siding salesmen , so it would appear that the investigators were doing their job, and that was the end of the investigation. Business went on as usual. In this case, I have already seen the insiders' reference to a few "bad apples", indicating that quite possibly, the investigators are being let to believe that the land trusts and most donors are just doing great work saving the land from its owners. This is not the case.

The problem is not just an abuse of the system by a few "bad apples". The larger problem is the way the law is set up to encourage the very thing that they are complaining about. All a journalist or investigative reporter would have to do to prove my point is to somehow attend a sales meeting for conservation easements. These meetings are sponsored by land trusts, often in cooperation with several government agencies; at least this was the case in the ones I attended. You will understand that these outrageous tax benefits and outright gifts from the government agencies are the selling tools.

It is quite possible that this investigation of "abuse" by the I.R.S. and the Colorado Division of Real Estate will lead to a much-needed investigation into the entire conservation easement movement. It is the responsibility of the free press to examine the desirability and cost of government programs and the handing out of millions of dollars of taxpayers' money.

Lewis Anderson is a resident of Cedaredge.