Vince Phillips
In November 2018, Chaffee County voters approved Ballot Issue 1A, creating the Chaffee Common Ground program. This quarter-percent sales tax (about 2.5 cents on a $10 purchase) funds forest health improvements, wildfire resilience, agricultural preservation, and recreation stewardship. Projected to generate around $1.1 million annually, it has exceeded expectations, now collecting $1.6–1.8 million per year due to tourism and growth. By 2024, roughly $9.4 million had been invested, supporting over 80 projects, leveraging $25.6 million in matching funds, and protecting thousands of acres.
The program spending aligns with the voter-approved priorities: at least 25% for forest health and wildfire mitigation, 25% for agriculture, and 5% for recreation impacts. Funds have supported forest thinning, prescribed burns, conservation easements, ditch repairs, and programs like Chaffee Chips for defensible space. Officials highlight measurable successes; 15,000 acres treated for fuels reduction and 3,500+ acres conserved.
Yet a growing body of local and statewide criticism questions whether these efforts, particularly mechanical tree thinning and masticating (using heavy equipment to cut and chip trees), are as effective or risk-free as presented. In Chaffee’s diverse landscape, steep slopes in the Sawatch Range, sparse piñon-juniper woodlands in lower elevations, dense ponderosa pine mid-slope, treatments often apply broad, one-size-fits-all density-reduction goals. Critics argue this overlooks site-specific factors like terrain, tree health, density, and ecology. For example, in arid piñon-juniper areas like Fourmile or Methodist Front, removing trees can open canopies, dry soils, and promote cheatgrass—an invasive grass that creates continuous fine fuels, leading to more frequent and larger fires.
A 2024 Western Watersheds Project report on cheatgrass invasions warns that mechanical disturbance exacerbates this, potentially increasing wildfire size and frequency despite intentions to reduce risk. Local arborist Angie Jenson has publicly called such work in sparse forests “pointless,” arguing it favors fine fuels over natural resilience. Broader Colorado evidence echoes this. Emails from open records requests (including from the Colorado Forest Restoration Institute) show officials privately acknowledging “numerous studies demonstrating both effectiveness and lack of effectiveness” of density reduction, while simultaneously advising against public engagement with conflicting science to avoid “stalemate.”
Some analysts suggest thinning can reduce severity in dense forests under moderate conditions but fail under extreme winds or in low-density ecosystems, by promoting invasives or erosion. Proponents counter that thinning, especially combined with prescribed burns, has proven effective in many Western forests, reducing crown fire potential and aiding firefighter safety. Chaffee’s plan uses GIS modeling to prioritize high-risk zones near homes and watersheds. Defensible space around structures remains key, as embers often cause ignitions more than landscape fuels.
Both sides cite peer-reviewed studies, yet the debate isn’t just technical, it’s about process. In Chaffee, the Forest Health Council (tied to Envision Chaffee County) has stated it “will not entertain debates” about the Community Wildfire Protection Plan’s goals. This echoes statewide patterns where agencies promote mitigation as settled while privately noting conflicts. A 2025 Colorado Sun article highlighted splits: some officials claim overwhelming evidence supports thinning; others argue agencies cherry-pick data, overpromise results, and dismiss concerns.
As a resident with a scientific background but without forestry expertise, I can’t definitively judge which studies are most applicable to Chaffee’s unique terrain and ecology. That’s the point: I’m not an arborist, ecologist, or fire scientist. Yet when officials frame their approach as beyond question, refusing debate or downplaying evidence, it raises serious red flags. Our tax money should not be used to implement potentially harmful policy while simultaneously forbidding scrutiny.
History shows “settled science” claims have failed our society before. During COVID, early edicts about masks, transmission, or origins shifted as evidence accumulated, after public debate was stifled. Similar patterns appear in other fields: initial consensus on certain climate models or medical treatments evolved through scrutiny. Science advances by testing hypotheses, not declaring them final. Dismissing controversy risks entrenching errors, wasting resources, or missing better alternatives. Perhaps certain areas in Chaffee County would benefit from alternative actions like targeted grazing, selective burns, or no-intervention zones in sparse areas.
This isn’t about rejecting mitigation. Wildfire threatens homes, watersheds, and livelihoods. Perhaps Chaffee’s program has delivered real benefits. But pretending no legitimate debate exists ignores valid concerns from locals, scientists, and reports. Taxpayers funding this mitigation deserve assurance that decisions reflect the full evidence, not a desired narrative established while wearing blinders. A more open approach is needed: regular public forums to air conflicting studies, independent reviews of projects, or adjustments based on monitoring (e.g., cheatgrass spread post-treatment). Envision’s shift to county oversight in 2025 offers a chance for renewed transparency. Science isn’t static; it evolves through challenge and evidence. By listening to multiple perspectives, Chaffee County can refine its strategy and better protect what matters most: public safety. Refusing debate doesn’t settle the science; it stalls progress.
Support Independent Local Journalism — High Country Advocate was created as a real alternative to regional media that too often silences dissenting voices while taking sides in the political struggle. Producing in-depth, unflinching reporting like this series and others is expensive: servers, editing, research time, and legal review all add up quickly. If these articles have informed you or given you new perspective, please consider supporting HCA with a paid subscription — every subscriber helps keep this reporting strong and independent. 