In the recent election, Initiative 933 – a proposal to compensate property owners for value lost to government regulations – failed, but the consequences created by burgeoning land-use regulations remain. Fears that Initiative 933’s passage would inhibit the ability of local and state governments to maintain the rural areas in our state were one reason the initiative failed. Unfortunately, opponents of Initiative 933 failed to grasp the counterintuitive notion that, sometimes, laws designed to protect rural areas actually backfire and cause additional development.

This post-election environment is a good time to discuss “The Law of Unintended Consequences.” The “Law” tells us that when people set out to accomplish Objective A by imposing Rule B, they may indeed accomplish Objective A, but they may also create Unintended Consequence C. This is exactly why the rural areas of our state are dwindling.

There are three industries that make parts of our state rural: farming and agriculture, ranching, and logging. With these industries come open spaces, recreational forests, and beautiful views. Without them, we get subdivisions. The dilemma we have been facing in the last three decades is that the very industries that make communities rural are also industries that have potentially harmful effects on the environment. In our zeal to protect the environment (Objective A) we imposed a cumbersome host of regulations on rural industries (Rule B). We have, as intended, created a more protected environment. Unfortunately, we have also increased the cost of doing business in these three industries, pushing many farmers, ranchers and loggers to “exit the market.” When they exit the market, they have large plats of land they can no longer use and so begin selling their land to developers (Unintended Consequence C).

Take for example the now gone logging industry in Kittitas County. When it existed, people enjoyed scenic views, hiking and fishing in the summer and snowmobiling in the winter. But, there was also concern about logging’s impact on the environment. To alleviate concerns about the environment, our logging industry came under a well intentioned assault. A 1998 lawsuit by the Alpine Lakes Protection Society against Plum Creek Logging shows the extent to which we now regulate logging in this state. When Plum Creek actually tried to log some of its trees (you know, to stay in business) the company was regulated by the Department of Natural Resources, the Department of Ecology, and the Forest Practices Board. It was also subject to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), the Endangered Species Act, and Watershed Analysis requirements.

But that wasn’t enough. When Plum Creek was sued, it had to prove it was mitigating effects on recreation, aesthetics, and grizzly bears. As noble as these goals are, the costly rules have the unintended consequence of making logging very difficult and unprofitable. When the logging became unprofitable, the logging company had to sell its land. Hmmm? Who would want to buy large tracks of forest land in a rural county close to Seattle? In step the developers.

This story can be repeated for both farmers and ranchers. Those on the left correctly point out that farmer’s use of pesticides and cows harm river banks and riparian zones. So, the state regulates and regulates to the benefit of the environment. But, these regulations make it very difficult and expensive to use the land. Many farmers and ranchers eventually throw up their hands, and realize it is easier to sell than navigate increasingly complex regulations enforced by a compassionless Department of Ecology. If a farmer loses the ability to farm, he is not going to leave the land untouched for your viewing pleasure. He is going to sell the land to a developer. The Law of Unintended Consequences strikes again. Laws designed to protect the environment actually end up encouraging the spread of subdivisions.

Here is the irony. Activists who once crusaded against loggers, ranchers and farmers are now the same people who are expressing shock over the decreasing rural nature of Washington state. Refusing to accept they are the cause of this long-term change, they seek an easy scapegoat. The simplistic blame developers. The ignorant blame inattentive county commissioners, and the clueless blame free trade.

Here is the uncomfortable truth: shuffling county commissioners, re-writing the Growth Management Act, or amending local Comprehensive Plans will have limited impact on preserving rural communities, unless we also adopt a regulatory environment that is friendly to the professions that make our state rural in the first place. Too many people believe that salvation can be found in a clever zoning plan or a mandatory building moratorium. Such people are misled by the mistaken belief that we are running out of farm or ranchland, when in reality we are simply running out of farmers and ranchers.

Professor Mathew Manweller a member of the Washington Policy Center’s Academic Advisory Board and Assistant Professor of Political Science at Central Washington University.