Why are Arizona’s Wide Open Spaces Disappearing?
What Can Be Done About It?
An Overview of the Issues

Arizona’s open spaces are disappearing.

As masses of humanity arrive seeking pleasant climates and open space, Arizona’s expansive mountain, grassland, and desert landscapes are being carved into subdivisions, planned communities, and two to forty-acre ranchettes.

Because new communities require water and people want to build where there’s a view, the fragmentation of open space is occurring mostly in Arizona’s premiere grasslands, northern forests and water-rich areas. Unfortunately, these areas are not only perfect for mankind, they are critical for wildlife and water supplies. These are also areas that traditionally supported agricultural endeavors such as ranching and farming, important elements of Arizona’s heritage and culture.

 Arizona, like much of the West, has become a battleground, struggling to balance the wants of newly affluent humans with protection of the environment and sustainable economic systems. Cooperative energies and problem solving have been lost in a sea of rancorous public debate and legal wrangling.

 This discussion paper—the first to be issued—is an overview of the results of more than a year’s work by a group of concerned citizens known as the Arizona Common Ground Roundtable. Under the auspices of the Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy at the University of Arizona, members of the ranching, environmental, and scientific communities have maintained an open, problem-solving dialogue aimed at defusing the destructive polarization surrounding environmental issues and the use of Arizona lands.

Dialogue among Roundtable participants has revealed that the current public debate obscures one of the most devastating threats to sensitive biological systems and traditional rural communities in Arizona: rapid growth and development which fragment landscapes. The "common ground" for this group is a desire to help find solutions that protect against the accelerating landscape and habitat fragmentation that is occurring in Arizona’s premiere grassland and riparian areas. The Roundtable, after careful study and lively debate, has agreed that properly managed, ecologically responsible ranching is one important tool to help preserve open space.

This discussion paper will explore:

• the causes and consequences of accelerating landscape fragmentation in Arizona,
• ecologically-sensitive ranching as one tool to protect open space, and
• other tools to help build a shared sustainable landscape in Arizona.

What is landscape fragmentation and why should it concern you?

 Ecological systems are characterized by complex interrelationships among many elements: soils, water, air, insects, vegetation, wildlife, climate, and natural disturbances such as fire and flooding. Even with thorough study, many of these interactions are not completely understood, making it difficult to know how to best conserve and manage the land. Given these uncertainties, scientists believe that large open tracts of land may offer the safest approach to conserving ecological processes that sustain native plants and animals.

Arizona is famous for its large sweeping views from mountaintops to valley bottoms. Its vastness beckoned those of independent and pioneering spirit, who appreciated its open untouched lands. This heritage, energy and beauty continue to attract people today.

But what happens to this open space as Arizona’s sweeping landscape is carved up by roads, buildings, power lines, dams, fences, and a host of other human uses? The effects reverberate outward, affecting the complex web of life that characterizes all ecological systems. Landscape and habitat types are decreased, homogenized, or destroyed, forcing our native plants and animals into smaller, more isolated units where some species cannot survive. This is landscape fragmentation.

It is now rampant in rural Arizona areas adjacent to growing communities like Prescott, Sierra Vista, Kingman and Flagstaff. As rural lifestyles and open spaces of the West attract people, land values increase. Large ranches in these areas are rapidly being carved into 36-40 acre parcels (and smaller) and sold. However, "ranchette-type" development is not limited to the above areas; it is occurring in 13 of Arizona’s 14 counties.

The result is a hodgepodge of small parcels chopping up areas that once were vast open valleys and foothills. Connective corridors between private, state, and federal lands--critical to existence of large, mobile species of wildlife--are being blocked.

Why is land fragmentation accelerating in Arizona?

Arizona has witnessed a human population explosion in recent years, fueled in part by a general prosperity that enables individual families to exercise more choice in their residence. Increased population in the dry, hot desert is made possible by human technologies that extend the "carrying capacity" of the land. These factors explain the "demand" side of real estate development.¹

 On the "supply" side, urban sprawl has advanced in tandem with the deterioration of economic and political conditions for the type of livelihood this land supported historically—mostly cattle ranching. Ranching has become economically less viable due to declining cattle prices, increased operational costs, and new financial burdens including the rash of lawsuits designed to remove cattle from the land. And, as land values increase due to demand from increasing population, estate taxes make it almost impossible for ranchers to pass the ranch on to their children.

Can Ranching help maintain open spaces?

Historically, ranching has proved uniquely capable of protecting grassland and riparian areas from landscape fragmentation. Due to Arizona’s aridity, large land areas are required to support ecologically sustainable ranching operations. However, Arizona is a patchwork quilt of private, state, tribal, and federal lands, and to be large enough, most Arizona ranches must combine the private land of the rancher with grazing land leased from the federal and state governments. Thus lands are often managed as single units, across ownership boundaries. And, this keeps large areas free from development while still accessible to a variety of uses in addition to ranching.

But at a time when political and economic conditions for ranching are deteriorating, this same patchwork pattern of land ownership in Arizona makes large portions of the landscape vulnerable to development. Why? Because loss of any portion of the ranch, whether private holdings or leased State Trust, BLM or Forest Service land, threatens the viability of the ranch unit as a whole. This may force the sale of the deeded portion of the ranch for residential development.

In addition, as cities begin to sprawl, State Trust Lands--historically used for grazing--can be sold for development. The Arizona Constitution mandates that State Trust Lands be managed to maximize returns to the state. The money made from the sale of State Trust Lands for development goes to the state’s "Permanent Fund" for investment. As population sprawl affects every county in the state, more state land is vulnerable to conversion from low intensity agricultural use to high intensity real estate development.

Between State Trust Lands and privately owned lands, 30% of Arizona’s landscape could be converted to residential development unless ranch tenure security is stabilized.

Can’t the government purchase and set aside land for conservation purposes?

Some propose that environmentally sensitive ranch lands should be purchased by the government and set aside for conservation purposes. A major problem with this idea is that funding for conservation is inadequate. We are in a time of shrinking budgets and increasing demands on public lands. In itself, this effectively limits government acquisition as a mechanism to protect open spaces.

Discussions during Roundtable meetings have suggested that helping to maintain ecologically-sensitive ranching operations may be an effective and economical tool to help protect open landscapes. Indeed, Arizona needs stewards who have both economic and ecological interests in the land. Every day ranching families monitor their private and leased lands. It is to their benefit to keep the land in the best possible condition and to restore land that may have been harmed by past grazing management and public recreation.

Ranching helps maintain open space, but is it sustainable?

Cattle ranchers, environmentalists, and scientists agree that during the nineteenth century, many Arizona rangelands were severely damaged by a combination of overgrazing and drought. The effects can still be seen in some places. But contrary to the oft-heard idea that lands simply need to be "rested," many lands may never be fully restored without long-term, active management.² Who better to invest the time and money needed for restoration than stewards with both economic and ecological interests in the land?

Important advances in range management have been made in the past 30 years. Models for appropriate grazing vary in every part of the state depending upon climate, soil, and landform. While some areas are inappropriate for livestock grazing, in many other areas, ranchers are contributing to restoration and maintenance of healthy ecological processes. Modern range management techniques, including properly managed and carefully timed rest/rotation grazing (moving cattle from one pasture to another, allowing each pasture a period of rest), have demonstrably improved conditions. Even riparian areas, when rested in the growing season and grazed in the dormant seasons under a carefully crafted, site-specific plan, have recovered quickly and dramatically from antiquated grazing techniques that concentrated livestock year-round near creeks and rivers.³

Many ranchers are working with public agencies to restore a critical component for grasslands: fire. The natural need for fire in grassland areas has not been understood until recently, and statewide fire suppression policies have taken this natural land restoration tool out of use. Presently, some ranchers, environmentalists, and researchers have joined together with public agencies to restore fire to grasslands. However, if current trends of population sprawl into rural areas continue, the return of fire as a land management tool is much less likely. Fire and subdivisions are incompatible.

Ranches also use less of Arizona’s precious groundwater supply than subdivisions. An analysis by the Audubon Research Ranch in Elgin found that, in the non-irrigated natural grasslands of the Sonoita-Elgin area, water consumption from cow-calf operations is approximately one quart per acre per day. In ranchette subdivisions of five-acre parcels (popular in the Sonoita-Elgin area), water consumption averages 80 gallons per acre per day.⁴

 In sum, sustainable land-use practices must accommodate and (where necessary) restore natural ecological processes. They must function within landscape carrying capacity. And they need to minimize habitat fragmentation that occurs with numerous land uses that alter the natural landscape, including timber harvesting, livestock grazing, mining, recreational use and residential development.

Toward a shared sustainable landscape—biological, economic, and cultural diversity in Arizona

Early in the formation of Arizona Common Ground Roundtable, participants agreed that attention to both economic and ecological health was necessary to insure the continuing sustainability of native flora and fauna, and the survival of rural communities in Arizona. Ranching and farming communities are an integral part of the cultural heritage of our state—they are one of the last refuges of a disappearing component of human diversity that emphasizes community values based on physical labor, neighborly cooperation, and the importance of food production. Only four percent of Americans are still involved in food production. In Arizona, ruminant animals are used to convert range grasses and forage into food production. Ranchers’ knowledge about how to do so—sustainably--is in danger of being lost.

And open spaces keep our options open.

More tools to help build a shared sustainable landscape

The environmental movement of our time has alerted the public to the serious impacts of human activities, including grazing, upon the landscape. Lawsuits over environmental issues have likely contributed to development of more environmentally- sensitive practices. However, environmentalists are starting to look beyond the black-and-white approach of removing all cattle from the land, and are working cooperatively to design approaches to using the land in a sustainable manner. They are recognizing that a potentially serious, unintended effect of the grazing lawsuits may well be the accelerated subdivision of ranches and a serious loss of habitat required to sustain Arizona’s native flora and fauna.

Through a collaborative process, the Arizona Common Ground Roundtable has studied and discussed the following tools that may help provide economic stability and protect open landscapes:

• A statewide purchase-of-development-rights (PDR) program. A PDR program in Arizona would enable the purchase of development rights on private and State Trust Lands, thereby providing the private landowner, or the State Trust, with much of the land’s asset value. It allows the land to continue to function as a ranch, but precludes residential subdivision.

• Reform of State Trust Land policies. The legal framework guiding State Trust Land policies was developed when Arizona became a state in 1912 and was crafted to meet the needs of a new and sparsely populated state. This framework needs to be made more viable for the 21^st century.

• Endangered Species Act administrative reform. The Endangered Species Act and other laws and regulations were designed to protect bio-diversity and habitats on which all life depends. However, federal agencies have become gridlocked by legal challenges to their management. There is a need for better science to inform decision-making concerning endangered species. And, policy reform is needed to change the focus from protecting individual species to the protection of ecological processes and systems. Adaptive management that allows for and accommodates natural fluctuations in ecological systems may be the most effective approach to sustainable use of landscapes. These programs should include incentive-based approaches that reward good results.

• Economic diversification. Ranching, in the best of circumstances, faces a difficult future. Keeping people on the land, engaged in sustainable uses of the land, will require new ways of financially rewarding people for the benefits they provide. Ranchers perform expensive and time-consuming services that benefit many who use the lands. Road grading and snow removal, monitoring species habitat and soil, providing emergency services, reporting of illegal dumping and other activities, and local patrolling are just a few of the beneficial services. In addition, public values and public use of private lands can create direct non-reimbursable costs to landowners. For example, large numbers of elk, deer, and antelope continually graze on private as well as public forage, necessitating a reduction in managed livestock numbers and thereby reducing income to ranchers. Further, these foragers cannot be managed with the same certainty as cattle. We need to compensate ranchers for the wide range of land management services that benefit a wider public, thereby helping them to stay on the land and to assume a more visible role in public service. This would reimburse ranchers for private time and labor spent on public purposes, and make land management more effective.

• Ranching to achieve conservation values. Ecologically-sensitive ranching practices are based on the following adaptive management approach:
          -outcomes for the landscape are decided upon,
          -a management plan is determined, and
          -outcomes are monitored, with subsequent adjustments to management made as needed.

This approach enables adaptation to changing conditions (e.g., weather), as well as fostering improvements in practice based on accumulating knowledge. Many ranching families in Arizona are utilizing this approach in their livestock operations. At the simplest level, outcomes are established and monitored in consultation with scientists and public agency managers.

Some ranchers have begun to work with collaborative groups that include the conservation-minded public as well as scientists and agency managers, and they establish goals and monitor together. In Arizona, the Malpai Borderlands Group, The Diablo Trust, The Altar Valley Conservation Alliance, The Santa Maria Mountains Group, and Sonoita Valley Planning Partnership are examples of such groups. In addition to well-run and scientifically-monitored ranches that protect public values, an important benefit of working collaboratively within these groups can be found in the social ties that develop between urban dwellers and their rural neighbors. These partnerships allow urban participants to move beyond occasional tourism to develop long-standing ties to specific local landscapes through their participation in management efforts. Ranchers share their experiential knowledge derived from working the land, as well as gain new ideas, opportunities and markets for economic diversification from these developing networks. And public land managers, with diminishing budgets, gain much needed volunteer labor for restoration projects and monitoring.

• Other tools. Roundtable discussions have focused largely on ecologically-sensitive ranching as one important tool to preserve open space, but it is not the sole answer. We need an array of tools to protect ecologically-sound open spaces throughout Arizona, including tools relevant to sensitive desert areas unsuitable for grazing, and already-urbanized areas.

Footnotes:

1. Maricopa County, for example, has had the highest growth of any county in the U.S. in the past year, as well as since the last national census in 1990, according to U.S. Census Bureau figures (The Arizona Republic, March 18, 1998).
   
   
2. See Westoby, M., et al (1989) Opportunistic management for rangelands not at equilibrium. J Range Management 42(2): 266-74.
   
   
3. See:
   -- Alford, E. (1993) Tonto rangelands: a journey of change. Rangelands 15 (6): 261-268
   
   --Chaney, E., et al. (1993). Livestock grazing on Western riparian areas. Northwest Resources Information Center, Eagle, Idaho.
       (Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency).
   
   --Ehrhart, B. and P.L. Hansen. (1998) Riparian grazing management: strategies and techniques. In, D.F. Potts (ed.),
          Rangeland Management and Water Resources. American Water Resources Association, Henderson, VA., pp. 191-201.
   
   --Masters, L., et al. (1996) Riparian grazing management that worked. Rangelands 18(5): 192-195.
   
   
4. Naeser, R. and A. St. John. (1996). Water use and the future of the Sonoita valley. In, B. Tellman et al (eds.), The Future of Arid Grasslands (conference proceedings), Tucson, AZ.

For further information contact: Mette Brogden
Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy*

The University of Arizona
803 E. First Street
Tucson, AZ 85719

Phone (520) 884-4393
Fax (520) 884-4702
E-mail: metteb@u.arizona.edu

* The Udall Center acts as a neutral convener and facilitator of the Arizona Commonground Roundtable. As part of this support role, the Center is temporarily hosting this web site.