Aligning Institutional Characteristics: Implementing Innovation in Land Protection

Aligning Institutional Characteristics

National/Federal

• Attempts to centralize regulatory

power, 1970s

• National-level Wise Use groups

• National-level land conservation groups



71



Constitutive

• Village of Euclid v. Ambler Reality Co.,

1926

• Zoning power delegated to localities

by states

• Fifth Amendment

• Proposed National Land Use Policy

Act 1971–73 (failed)

• State growth laws

• Historic Structures Tax Act 1976

• American Farm and Ranch Protection

Act 1997



State

• Centralizing regulatory power, 1970s

• Statewide/regional land control in

subset of states

• State-level land rights groups

• State-level land protection groups

Top Down



Collective

• Land rights groups

• Land protection groups



Great Outdoors

Colorado



Bottom Up

Local

• Municipalities, counties

• Sagebrush Rebellion 1970s

• Wide Use Movement 1980s

• Land trust movement 1980s/1990s



Operational

• Euclidean zoning

• Conservation easements

• Fee simple ownership



Figure 3.1: Influences on Land Use Governance

lost each year to land use changes.1 In addition to the loss of open space, agricultural

lands, and wildlife habitat, more people placed pressure on existing parks and open

spaces. From 1980 to 1990 annual visits to state parks increased nearly 50 percent,

to more than eight million with more than two-thirds of Coloradoans visiting a park

at least once a year.2 During the economic and population boom throughout the

1990s, these trends intensified.

Typical of the West, Colorado’s lands are under 35 percent federal ownership and

protection.3 Colorado places a premium on residents’ concerns about maintaining

private property rights, preserving “home rule,” and preventing the overregulation

of land use at the state and local level.4 Consequently, like the majority of states,

Colorado lacks enabling legislation to support state or regional planning. In a setting

dominated by an antiregulatory state legislature influenced heavily by Colorado’s rural

constituencies, local county and municipal governments are granted the authority

to plan for and regulate the use of land without any state-level guidelines or goals.5

With increasing pressure on natural resources, robust growth in population,

and a political culture that favored local action on land issues, Colorado provided

an innovative solution to its land protection challenges in the form of GOCO—a

quasi-governmental agency with dedicated funding to provide competitive grants to



72



CHAPTER 3



city, town, and county governments; special districts; and nonprofit organizations

to protect land and enhance outdoor recreation opportunities. Coming to fruition

through a citizen-led initiative process in 1992, GOCO provided funds to local

governments and nonprofit land protection organizations to facilitate the purchase,

enhancement, and protection of land. GOCO illustrates the power of initiated regulation (see chapter 1), which results in actions that are legally binding but do not

involve government. Rather, citizens place an issue on the ballot for ratification by

the public, usually bypassing more representative legislative bodies.



A NARRATIVE ACCOUNT OF GOCO

Beginning in the 1970s when the “quiet revolution” was playing out, Colorado attempted to join other states in protecting sensitive natural areas and lands. As detailed

in table 3.1, efforts to centralize regulatory power at the state level were undertaken in

Colorado in 1972 by Gov. John Love (D) and again in 1976 by Gov. Richard Lamm

(D).6 However, the legislature rejected all efforts to centralize power and maintained

that land protection should remain within the domain of local government. Nonetheless, the Colorado public consistently expressed concern about growth and the loss

of open space in their state.

Colorado had been witnessing significant growth in its population. From 1970

to 1980 the population grew approximately 25 percent, and from 1980 to 1990 the

population grew an additional 12 percent.7 In 1988 a poll by The Nature Conservancy (TNC) revealed that only 30 percent of Coloradoans felt the state was doing

enough to facilitate land acquisition.8 In 1990 another poll indicated that 87 percent

of the Coloradoan public felt that it was important to devote additional public and

private resources to acquire and promote open space, outdoor recreation, and wildlife

in their state.9

To address open space concerns, the General Assembly of Colorado used the referendum process to submit a constitutional amendment to voters to allow a statewide

lottery in 1980. Article XVIII of the Colorado Constitution stated that proceeds

from the lottery would be “allocated to the conservation trust fund of the state for

distribution to municipalities and counties for park, recreation and open-space purposes.”10 Enabling legislation adopted in 1982 required that the net lottery proceeds

were allocated with 50 percent dedicated to capital construction, 10 percent to state

parks, and the remaining 40 percent to the Conservation Trust Fund, which made

per capita payments to local governments for expenditures on local parks, open space,

and recreation projects.11 After passage, however, the legislature interpreted a clause

in the amendment to enable legislators to spend a larger portion of the money on

capital construction. In 1988 under great pressure to build more prisons, lawmakers

amended lottery statutes to permit the game of Lotto and altered the funding formula

to direct lottery proceeds to the construction of correctional facilities. Beginning in



Table 3.1: Chronological Developments in Great Outdoors Colorado

Year

1970s



Significant Chronological Events

Efforts were made by Governors John Love and Richard Lamm to protect sensitive

natural areas and lands.

Increased population growth occurred in Colorado.



1970s

and 1980s

1980

The General Assembly of Colorado used referendum process to amend the

constitution to allow statewide lottery. Proceeds intended to go to parks,

recreation, and open space.

1982

Enabling legislation stated that net lottery proceeds would be allocated 50% to

capital construction, 10% to state parks, and 40% to local parks, open space,

and recreation projects.

1980s and Increased population growth and development of open spaces occurred throughout

early 1990s Colorado.

1990

Gov. Roy Romer calls together the GOCO Citizen’s Committee and charges

them to figure out a way to sustain and enhance Colorado’s outdoor resources.

GOCO Citizens’ Committee recommends creation of a GOCO trust fund.

1991

The General Assembly of Colorado declines to put GOCO trust fund on ballot

as part of referendum.

1991

Citizens for GOCO decides to undertake a campaign to place GOCO initiative

on the ballot in 1992. Lottery funds would be redirected to open space protection.

1992

Colorado voters approve GOCO initiative by a 58% margin. Half the lottery

funds would go to the Trust Fund, 40% would go to Conservation Trust Fund,

and 10% to the Colorado Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation.

1994

GOCO hires Will Shafroth as first GOCO executive director. First grants disbursed

in January 1994.

1997

Colorado House Education Committee proposes bill to siphon money from GOCO

to fund school construction. Bill is defeated.

1998

Voters reauthorize lottery. Lottery will sunset in 2024.

2000

John Hereford replaces Shafroth as executive director.

2001

Colorado voters give GOCO authorization to sell $115 million in bonds.

2003

John Swarthout replaces Hereford as executive director.

2005

The General Assembly of Colorado members propose to divert GOCO funds to

other programs. Proposal is defeated.

2007

The General Assembly of Colorado members propose to privatize the lottery with

the state receiving lump sum payment. Proposal is put on hold.

2009

GOGO has invested more than $575 million in more than 2,800 projects that

have protected 850,000 acres of open space throughout Colorado.



74



CHAPTER 3



1989 the relative shares of lottery revenues going to the Division of Parks and Outdoor

Recreation and the Conservation Trust Fund began to decrease.12 While the original

intent of the 1980 referendum had been to fund localities’ park, recreation, and open

space needs, many of these needs still were going unmet in the early 1990s.

Growing concern over disappearing agricultural land and wildlife habitat; increased

pressure on parks, trails, and recreation areas; and the desire to preserve remaining

opens spaces in Colorado led Democratic Gov. Roy Romer in April 1990 to call

together the GOCO Citizen’s Committee, a cross section of business, conservation,

and political leaders from across Colorado.13 The GOCO Citizens’ Committee was

charged to figure out a way to sustain and enhance Colorado’s outdoor resources.

Meeting over a nine-month period, the GOCO Citizens’ Committee gathered information, held twelve public meetings throughout the state, and heard from more than

five hundred citizens. The GOCO Citizens’ Committee recommended the adoption

of a nine-point program that entailed protection and enhancement of trails and rivers, rivers and reservoirs, state parks, wildlife habitat, nongame and rare species, local

parks, open space, and natural areas of statewide importance. To accomplish these

land protection goals, the GOCO Citizens’ Committee suggested the establishment

of a GOCO Trust that would generate interest income to fund a land protection

and enhancement program. The cost for the program was estimated at $30 million

per year and would be funded through a dedicated mechanism in the form of an

increase in state sales tax. Independent of legislative oversight, a board of trustees

would oversee the GOCO Trust.

The GOCO Citizens’ Committee suggested that the state legislature place the

GOCO Trust on the ballot though the referendum process. However, the Senate

Banking Committee was unsupportive of increasing the sales tax, making the proposal

unlikely to emerge from the committee for a vote. Republican Bill Owens, later elected

as Colorado’s governor in 1998, served on the Senate Finance Committee and led the

effort against placing the GOCO Trust on the ballot.14 Moreover, general support

for the GOCO Trust in the legislature was questionable. As recalled by Gov. Roy

Romer, “The legislature was generally very conservative on environmental matters.

. . . It was not a legislature that was necessarily thinking of environmental matters,

particularly ones that were at the cutting edge.”15 The geographical political dynamics in Colorado meant that rural constituencies dominated in the General Assembly,

and land protection issues were not as important in rural areas as they were along

the urbanized and urbanizing Front Range. When the proposal was killed, no one

was surprised. But time was running out if action was to take place in 1992, and

so the Citizens’ Committee regrouped, deciding to take the proposal directly to the

Colorado public through the initiative process. Land protection’s time had not come

in the General Assembly. An alternative means was necessary to achieve the benefits

of land protection in Colorado.

Believing that the GOCO Trust concept was sound and supported by the Colorado

public, a new group formed to undertake a campaign to place a GOCO initiative on

the ballot in 1992.16 Citizens for GOCO emerged out of the GOCO Citizens’ Com-



Aligning Institutional Characteristics



75



mittee along with others to promote the GOCO Trust through the initiative process.

Two lawyers in Denver, Richard W. Daily and David Harrison, played active roles

in moving the initiative forward. The group conducted polls to determine what the

Colorado public would support in terms of a dedicated funding mechanism to bring

the GOCO vision to reality. A sales tax increase seemed unlikely to garner the needed

votes. Real estate transfers also did not appeal to the public. But the lottery moneys

struck a responsive chord. Polls indicated that the public remained aware that money

had been set aside for open space in 1980 but was less aware that the legislature had

diverted these funds away from open space protection to capital construction projects.

A key theme in the public campaign for the initiative process capitalized on pervasive feelings of resentment toward government. The lottery issue was key to this

message. According to Harrison, “Most Coloradoans thought this problem had been

fixed in 1980 with the passage of the lottery. But they were told that the problem

had not gotten fixed and that most of the money was being spent on prisons. They

were outraged. That was the time bomb.”17 Floyd Ciruli, the pollster for the GOCO

initiative, summarized, “Coloradoans don’t like centralized government; they hold it

at a distance with a lot of skepticism. In general they don’t trust government. What

we argued was that state government distorted the will of the people in terms of

their use of lottery dollars.”18 Recalled Harrison, “We tripped upon a feeling among

Coloradoans that they had been lied to about the lottery moneys.” This sentiment

gave Citizens for GOCO emotional leverage to see their idea to fruition. The success

of the GOCO initiative “was as much an anti-government reaction as much as a proenvironment action. If we hadn’t tripped upon that issue, I am not sure we would

have gotten anything done.”19

Three dominant arguments were put forth in support of the proposal. First, the

GOCO amendment would ensure that the lottery funds were spent on Colorado’s

outdoor infrastructure. The original intent of the lottery in 1980 was for proceeds to

fund parks, outdoor recreation, and open space. With the authorization of Lotto, in

conjunction with the lottery finance reconfiguration, the majority of gaming proceeds

were going to capital construction, which was not the original intent of the people. 20

As recalled by Sydney Macy, head of The Nature Conservancy and one of the drivers

behind the GOCO initiative, “We were fortunate that the lottery was there and

had been mishandled. That made for a very strong campaign.”21 Second, Colorado

had pressing needs in terms of its outdoor infrastructure. The Division of Parks and

Outdoor Recreation needed funding for capital improvements, maintenance, and

renovation, and the Division of Wildlife needed funding for nongame wildlife programs. Third, increased investment in Colorado outdoor infrastructure would return

great economic benefits through the tourism industry.22

To place the GOCO initiative on the ballot, supporters needed to collect nearly

fifty thousand signatures. To accomplish this goal, the GOCO campaign used paid

petition circulators as well as volunteers to collect signatures.23 “We needed to pay

the money and buy the signatures and buy the TV time. That is how the initiative

process runs,” remembered Harrison. Between eighty thousand and ninety thousand



76



CHAPTER 3



signatures were collected with approximately twenty thousand collected through

volunteers.24 Andrew Purkey, the GOCO campaign coordinator, recalled how he and

Laurie Mathews, director of Colorado State Parks, would collect signatures on the

weekends: “The State Parks people were really behind the effort.”25

Money was raised from the Colorado business community, which saw quality of life

as an important aspect of the overall business environment—$400,000 was raised to

support administration, advertising, and signature collection. Democrat Ken Salazar,

director of the Colorado Department of Natural Resources (and later the state attorney

general, U.S. senator, and head of the U.S. Department of Interior) and a principal

supporter of the GOCO initiative, recalled how they promoted the effort: “We got

the mayor, Wellington Webb had just been elected, to come to fund raisers, and we

raised money from the business community. . . . My pitch to them for raising money

for the campaign was that for Colorado to continue to have a thriving economy, we

would have to protect our natural heritage. If we weren’t careful our quality of life

would be compromised.”26

There was very little organized resistance against the GOCO initiative, and reaction

to the initiative in the legislature was mixed. “There was never a significant opposition

campaign. They never organized themselves, but there were some members of the

legislature that were very opposed and actively outspoken. They didn’t feel this was

good for Colorado,” recalled Salazar.27 Arguments against the GOCO amendment

took two dominant forms. First, passing the GOCO amendment would negatively

affect the state’s capital construction fund. The lottery provided the majority of the

funds for capital construction during the 1980s, and removing the lottery as a dedicated stream of revenue would hinder the state’s ability to engage in lease/purchase

agreements, thereby affecting the state’s ability to engage in longer-term capital construction projects.28 If the initiative passed, money would be taken from the capital

construction fund and dedicated to open space protection, which was seen as a

challenge to the authority of the legislature, especially to those overseeing the capital

construction committee. The legislature looked at the “lottery money as being the

legislature’s money” and removing the legislature’s ability to control the money was

not well received by the legislature.29 While the proposed GOCO initiative would

succeed in insulating the GOCO Trust from the vagaries of the annual legislative

appropriations process, legislators involved in longer-term planning of capital investments were very unhappy.

The second argument against the initiative focused on the policy implications of

establishing GOCO. As a constitutional amendment, the GOCO initiative would give

the protection of open space special priority at the expense of other state programs.

As part of the constitution, GOCO would be difficult to change, and budgetary

discretion would be removed from the legislature. Likewise, GOCO, as a constitutionally insulated entity, would be unaccountable to the governor, General Assembly,

and electorate.30 One of the challenges remaining for the Citizens for GOCO was

how to counter the opposition’s arguments. Citizens for GOCO was worried about



Aligning Institutional Characteristics



77



a backlash if prisons and schools could not be built. In the end, “we didn’t want to

be irresponsible. . . . We tried to address these types of concerns by stating that we

would meet any current commitments.”31

To counter these arguments, the shift in lottery funds away from capital construction and to GOCO would be phased in over a five-year period to honor the state’s

existing capital construction commitments through 1998. Local governments would

continue to get their money for parks, open space, and recreation projects through

the Conservation Trust Fund. After 1998 a new formula for distributing the net

lottery proceeds would take effect. Forty percent would continue to go to the state’s

Conservation Trust Fund for redistribution for local parks and open space spending

on a per capita basis, 10 percent would go to the state Division of Parks and Outdoor

Recreation, and the remaining money, up to $35 million in constant 1992 dollars,

would go to the GOCO Trust Fund. Any remaining net proceeds from lottery sales

over $35 million would go to the general fund. Until 1998, and the reallocation of

funds away from capital construction, GOCO was anticipated to receive $7 million

to $10 million per year, depending on the volume of lottery sales. An independent

board appointed by the governor and confirmed by the state senate would oversee

how GOCO funds were distributed.

Despite those opposed to the GOCO initiative, Colorado voters approved Article

XXVII of the state constitution by a 58 percent margin (876,424 to 629,490), thereby

creating GOCO in November 1992. The GOCO initiative confirmed the original

intent of providing funds for parks and open space as approved by voters in 1980

with the lottery. The GOCO initiative stipulated that half the proceeds from the

lottery would be split four ways in the Trust Fund—25 percent for matching funds

for local parks and open space, 25 percent for statewide open space acquisitions, 25

percent for state parks, local trails, and water recreation, and 25 percent for wildlife

and wildlife habitat programs. Forty percent of the remaining half of lottery proceeds

would go the Conservation Trust Fund and 10 percent to the Colorado Division of

Parks and Outdoor Recreation.

GOCO’s funding is capped at $35 million per year and is adjusted for inflation.

So, for instance in 2002, GOCO received $46.5 million and in 2003 GOCO received

$55.9 million.32 In 2006 the lottery took in $120 million, and GOCO received $50.2

million of this total.33 If GOCO’s share of lottery funds exceeds the capped amount,

the remainder goes to the state Public School Fund. Since 2002 more than $16 million

has gone to the capital construction fund for schools. Article XXVII of the Colorado

Constitution required GOCO to allocate its lottery proceeds to four areas in roughly

equal portions over time. These four areas were investments in (a) wildlife resources

through the Colorado Division of Wildlife; (b) outdoor recreation resources through

the Colorado Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation; (c) competitive grants to the

Colorado Divisions of Parks and Outdoor Recreation and Wildlife and to counties,

municipalities, or other political subdivisions of the state, or nonprofit land conservation organization to identify, protect, and acquire open space of statewide significance;



78



CHAPTER 3



and (d) competitive matching grants to local government or other entities eligible

for distribution from the Conservation Trust Fund to acquire, develop, or manage

open lands and parks. From these four funding areas, GOCO developed seven grant

programs: the Legacy Initiative, Open Space Land Conservation Grant Program,

Local Government Park, Outdoor Recreation and Environmental Education Facilities

Grant Program, Outdoor Recreation Grants through Colorado Divisions of Parks and

Outdoor Recreation, Wildlife Grants through the Colorado Division of Wildlife, Trail

Grant Program, and the Planning and Capacity Building Grant Program.

Once the initiative was passed, additional work remained to get the actual organizational structure up and running. The grants programs had to be clarified. A

board had to be appointed. And an agency had to be formed. Ken Salazar became

the first chairman of the board of directors. Salazar and Daily began working on

hiring someone to be the executive director. As recalled by Salazar, “After it passed,

I remember working with the governor to put together a board. I think that was

the most stellar board of directors that I have ever seen that has been affiliated with

government.”34 Rick Daily had been the legal counsel for the campaign and served

as interim director, and they launched a national search for a permanent director.

They ended up hiring Will Shafroth in 1994. Shafroth, a Colorado native who had

been working in California, was a good fit for the job given his ability to work with a

variety of governmental and nongovernmental agencies. He had been associated with

the American Farmland Trust, the California Department of Natural Resources, and

the California Coastal Commission. Once Shafroth was on board, the discussions

about how to set up the grant programs began in earnest.

GOCO used two dominant techniques to accomplish land conservation through

these programs—conservation easements and acquisitions of fee title. The competitive grants process encourages various partnerships to work together to protect or

enhance land. GOCO’s flexible organizational structure did not try to overorchestrate

how the various partners should work together, but it did encourage the collaboration among various stakeholders explicitly as part of its application guidelines. This

quasi-bureaucratic, market-based approach fit well the culture and political climate

of Colorado.

The grants program was not formed when Shafroth came on board as executive

director. Creating the grants process and developing the organization of GOCO

was an evolutionary process. As recalled by Shafroth, “We didn’t expect money to

flow until 1994 and the first money came in August 1993, so there was urgency to

get some money out the door.” The GOCO board had to have discussions with the

Parks and Wildlife divisions to figure out what could be done. “My first day on the

job was a board meeting in January 1994, and they made a $1 million commitment

to State Trails through a yet-to-be-defined process and $1.5 million to State Parks.

In February they made a grant to Wildlife for $1.5 million.”35

Grants are selected through a combination effort by GOCO staff, who screen

eligible projects, and the GOCO board of directors, a seventeen-member board ap-



Aligning Institutional Characteristics



79



pointed by the governor and subject to confirmation by the state senate.36 Two board

members from each of Colorado’s seven congressional districts are required, and no

two board members from one congressional district can be from the same political

party.37 The grants are disbursed by GOCO staff once the successful applicants are

selected and other requirements fulfilled.

The small but growing GOCO staff had to figure out the grant application process.

They collected information from other states and foundations: “We did an extensive

amount of staff work and then put it before the board at committee meetings, and

we also actively engaged stakeholders—people who were involved and were potential

recipients of the grants—Parks, Wildlife, local government and nonprofit organizations.”38 In June 1994 the GOCO board met in Alamosa to discuss application

requirements for the planning and capacity-building grant cycle and the open space

cycle. Later that summer GOCO issued the first request for proposals, which were

due in the fall of 1994. The first competitive grants were awarded in November 1994.

Since the initial grants programs were created, they have continued to evolve over

time. In response to changing demand from the Coloradoan public, grant programs

have been changed or added. As recalled by Shafroth, “We had to develop different

applications and criteria and programs as the organization evolved. We started out

with the trails program, but over the course [of the program] the trails program

criteria have changed dramatically.” For instance, GOCO now requires that impacts

on wildlife be considered. In 1995 the Legacy grants came into being. GOCO held

a retreat after its 1994 strategic planning process. Lottery proceeds were higher than

expected, and GOCO staff and the board did not want to increase funding to the

four traditional programmatic areas: “We wanted to rethink what we might do with

these funds. We came up with the idea of Legacy projects.”39 The vision for Legacy

grants was to provide funding to protect the remaining crown jewels Colorado had

to offer. All four programmatic areas would have to work together to compete for

Legacy Grant money.

GOCO grants require applicants to meet several funding criteria. These include

partnership, leveraging and matching fund requirement, integration, planning, environmental education, project sustainability, impact, and stewardship. For instance,

in each programmatic area, GOCO encourages collaboration among and between

partner agencies and organizations to leverage scarce resources.40 The criteria are

the means to encourage local agencies and organizations to think strategically about

land protection and how to utilize resources from potential partner entities. GOCO

requires matching funds from grant applicants in all of its programs. This stipulation also encourages the search for and formation of partnerships. GOCO program

managers estimate that the lottery money has leveraged more than an additional

$1 billion in cash and in-kind services from project sponsors and partners.41 These

partners include local governments, state and federal agencies, special districts, private

businesses, nonprofit organizations, landowners, school districts, community groups,

foundations, individuals, and volunteers. Integration of these interests is encouraged



80



CHAPTER 3



on both large and small scales, depending on the scope of the project. For instance,

in Idalia, a small community in northeastern Colorado, GOCO funds helped spur a

partnership between the town of Idalia, Yuma County, and the Idalia Vision Foundation to secure $111,260 in GOCO grants to construct an outdoor recreational facility

and environmental education center.

In addition to the local agencies and organizations targeted for GOCO programs,

the GOCO money also encouraged larger state bureaucratic agencies to broaden their

traditional mission and involve participants that otherwise might be excluded. The

money created an incentive to apply, but the criteria for award acceptance provided

inducements for the agencies to alter their behavior and expand into nongame wildlife conservation. For instance, GOCO funds helped support efforts to reintroduce

threatened and endangered species such as the boreal toad and Canada lynx through a

multiagency program. The program included maintenance of existing populations and

habitats, and restoration and protection of habitats.42 In this manner, Harrison said,

“GOCO helps pull together resources for Division of Wildlife, Parks and nonprofit

organizations around the state.”43

Legacy grants are the most explicit in terms of encouraging large-scale collaboration

among agencies and organizations to achieve land protection objectives. Legacy projects are of regional or statewide significance. They are large-scale, multiyear projects

that integrate and coordinate across the categories of outdoor recreation, wildlife,

open space, and local government. For instance, GOCO provided $5.48 million to

the Gunnison Ranchland Conservation Legacy Project, which has preserved seventeen family ranches through conservation easements in Gunnison County. A diverse

group of ranchers, environmentalists, local governments, and businesses formed a

partnership with the Colorado Cattlemen’s Agricultural Land Trust, The Nature Conservancy, and other partners to protect 6,650 acres of open space. Likewise, GOCO

has provided $13.30 million to the I-25 Conservation Corridor Project, which has

protected 30,000 acres along the rapidly developing throughway between Denver and

Colorado Springs via the purchase of fee title and permanent conservation easements.

The City of Castle Rock, El Paso County, Douglas County, the Conservation Fund,

Greenland Ranch, and others worked together to realize the vision of protecting this

cross-county, interjurisdictional area from development.44

Since the passage of the initiative in 1992, and the awarding of the first grants in

1994, GOCO has committed $575 million to more than 2,800 projects throughout

the state. Projects have included the protection of 850,000 acres of open space in

perpetuity, including 299,221 acres of agricultural land, 218,254 acres to protect

habitat and create new state wildlife areas, and 21,947 acres as new state parks.45

Additionally, GOCO has created or enhanced 944 community park and outdoor

recreation areas and involved more than 5,500 young people in the Colorado Youth

Corps Association. Working in conjunction with the Colorado Division of Wildlife,

GOCO has funded projects to assist in the conservation of federal threatened and

endangered species including the boreal toad, Gunnison Sage Grouse, black-footed



Aligning Institutional Characteristics



81



ferret, Colorado River cutthroat trout, and the lynx. GOCO has assisted Colorado

State Parks to improve or expand campgrounds and add new visitor centers at state

parks throughout the state.46

GOCO survived turnovers in its leadership in its first fourteen years of existence.

And different executive directors placed different emphasis in areas of land protection

and enhancement. Shafroth left GOCO in 2000, two years after the Democratic

Roy Romer administration was replaced by Republican Bill Owens. John Hereford,

a GOCO board member, took his place until 2003, when John Swarthout, a senior

policy adviser to Gov. Bill Owens and Sen. Wayne Allard, assumed the executive directorship. “GOCO has managed to stay in the center,” said Hereford. “We’ve focused

on doing deals, on acquiring land and protecting species. We’ve been through cycles of

Republican and Democratic administration without becoming a political football.”47

However, different trends under different administrations are apparent. GOCO spent

less than half the average amount of money annually on long-term land acquisition

($12.2 million) during the Owens administration than under the Romer administration ($27.2 million). The Division of Wildlife doubled the percentage of GOCO

money used for operational costs, rather than capital expenditures, under the Owens

administration.48 Romer was an advocate for preserving open space and appointed

board members who shared his views. When Owens was elected to office in 1998,

the original board was replaced with people with different perspectives about land

purchases. For instance, Greg Walcher, Natural Resources director, used to run Club

20, a group of developers, ranchers, farmers, miners, and energy executives opposed

to public ownership of land. Walcher, Hereford, and others felt the new approach

was better. They pointed to the 2002 Legacy Grant of nearly $12 million to the St.

Vrain River and Trails Legacy Project, a joint project between the city of Longmont

and Colorado State Parks that added land and trails to the Barbour Ponds State Park.

The $12 million purchased 287 acres of land and was to expand warm-water ponds

for recreational fishing. Critics decried the expensive price tag and pointed to the

21,000 acre Greenland Ranch purchase for an equal amount of funding. Overall, less

money was being spent on acquiring state park lands—an annual average of $414,000

under Owens versus $1.2 million under Romer. And the Division of Wildlife spent

30 percent less on land protection than under the Romer administration.49

GOCO survived in spite of threats from the legislature. The General Assembly’s

Capital Development Committee continued to resent the use of lottery dollars beyond their reach, while other groups within the General Assembly tried to lay claim

to GOCO dollars. In 1997 the House Education Committee proposed H.B. 1007.

The proposal would have helped fund local school construction by siphoning off

money from GOCO. Nonetheless, H.B. 1007 was defeated. While some members

in the General Assembly challenged GOCO in 1997, ultimately they supported the

reauthorization of the lottery, and thus ongoing financial support for GOCO, in

1998. In 2001 Colorado voters gave GOCO authorization to sell $115 million in

bonds to maintain cash flow and to accelerate purchase of open space and wildlife