Director Nicole Rosmarino took leadership of the Colorado State Land Board in June 2025 promising the Rural Caucus she’d support existing agricultural lessees, prioritize revenue generation, and maintain transparent communication. The January 21-22 board meeting—her most significant policy showcase since appointment—reveals how those promises translated into practice.
Grade: D
The assessment isn’t about Rosmarino’s intentions or competence. It’s about measurable outcomes for trust beneficiaries and agricultural lessees who depend on consistent, revenue-focused land management policies.
Agricultural Lessees: Promises vs. Reality
Rosmarino told the Rural Caucus in May 2025 she’d protect existing lessees and value their stewardship. January’s Moffat County decision did neither.
C&C Cattle LLC lost their 10-year lease on 9,634 acres despite scoring 18 points on stewardship versus competitor Ely Ranch’s 15 points. Ely Ranch’s $57-per-AUM bid—203 percent higher than C&C’s $18.83—drove the decision. The 5-0 vote prioritized revenue over the exact stewardship Rosmarino claims to value.
C&C invested heavily in regenerative agriculture education through Ranching for Profit, Soil Health Academy, and Understanding Ag consulting. They developed long-term grazing plans. They attended State Land Board workshops. They did everything Rosmarino’s educational initiatives encouraged.
Then they lost their lease to a higher bidder. “We can either do top-tier stewardship on our state lands, or we can offer a high lease payment,” lessee Cindy McKee told commissioners. “We can’t do both.”
High Plains Stone fared worse. The third-generation family business sought to restart decorative rock picking on their Fremont County lease held since 1990. Staff denied the request, explaining they’ve worked since 2021 to phase out rock picking leases because they “generate relatively low financial returns compared to their physical disturbance.”
The operation generated $2,860 annually. The same board meeting authorized $683,000 in conservation spending based partly on speculative “voluntary biodiversity markets” that don’t yet exist.
Conservation Spending vs. Revenue Claims
Rosmarino’s board approved $500,000 for Michigan River Camp—a CSFS training facility where State Land Board recoups investment only at lease termination through appraised value deductions—and $183,000 for fen and wetland protection fencing across seven properties totaling 105.6 acres.
The fen expenditure explicitly restricts grazing through livestock exclusion fencing and alternative water source requirements. Staff claims this “will result in enhanced stewardship outcomes” that are “unlikely to have a negative impact on agency revenues.”
That claim requires accepting biodiversity market speculation over documented grazing revenue. The same reasoning appeared in Rosmarino’s La Jara decision in November 2025, when the board emphasized “ecological continuity” over agricultural economics while approving a lease renewal with minor revenue increase.
The pattern is clear. When the revenue gap is small, conservation rhetoric dominates. When the gap reaches 203 percent (Moffat County), revenue suddenly matters. The selective application undermines trust in stated priorities.
Staffing Decisions Signal Direction
Rosmarino’s hiring choices reveal institutional priorities. Carla DeMasters joined as Stewardship Trust Manager with credentials as a Certified Ecological Restoration Practitioner and Professional Wetland Scientist bringing 20 years restoration ecology experience. Previous employers: Western EcoSystems Technology, Corvus Environmental, Boulder Open Space, Westervelt Ecological Services, Denver Botanic Gardens, Division of Mining Reclamation.
Biodiversity Program Manager Lindsey Brandt leads both the Fen Stewardship Action Plan and integration of Colorado Parks and Wildlife’s State Wildlife Action Plan into State Land Board operations. The dual role ensures wildlife and wetland priorities drive land use decisions.
A Renewable Energy Program Manager hire is underway with Q1 2026 target. HB 25-1332 added two positions for legislative oversight (one permanent, one term-limited FTE).
The staff expansion serves conservation and renewable energy goals, not agricultural revenue generation. That’s a choice. Rosmarino could have hired agricultural economists, grazing specialists, or mineral development experts. She hired restoration ecologists and biodiversity managers instead.
Revenue Reporting Gaps
The January Staff Report omitted FY 2025-26 year-to-date revenue—an unusual oversight in materials typically including detailed financial data. Commissioners approved hundreds of thousands in conservation spending and major lease decisions without current revenue context.
Historical data from board materials shows the stakes. Oil and gas generates 80-plus percent of land revenues. FY 2021-22 produced $175 million from minerals versus $26 million from surface and agricultural uses. Grazing and agriculture return 1.1 percent cash on $2.5 billion surface value.
Any significant shift from proven mineral revenue to speculative biodiversity markets or delayed geothermal income reshapes trust economics fundamentally. Commissioners deserve current revenue data before authorizing that shift. Rosmarino’s board didn’t provide it.
Transparency Questions
The January board packet reached 623 pages—dense technical material requiring days to process. The board published it January 19, giving the public two days before the January 21-22 meeting to review materials governing hundreds of thousands of dollars in expenditures and major lease decisions.
Executive sessions on Mt. Princeton Geothermal litigation (30 minutes) and Rangeview water cases (5 minutes) occurred with no public comment afterward. Nothing emerged from either closed session.
C&C Cattle filed CORA requests seeking their stewardship scores during the competitive bid process. They received fully redacted documents. Staff withheld scores as “pre-decisional and deliberative,” arguing disclosure “might cause substantial injury to the public interest because it might stifle frank and honest conversation.”
That reasoning prevents lessees from knowing how their stewardship gets valued during lease renewals. It also prevents public verification that scoring processes work as claimed. Transparency requires more than public meetings when critical information stays hidden.
HB 25-1332 Legislative Oversight
The working group created by HB 25-1332 meets January 29 at Lowry Ranch for an abbreviated tour featuring “wide variety of cooperative, simultaneous uses” under the Stewardship Trust. Interim report due February 2026.
This legislative oversight emerged from concerns about Rosmarino’s appointment and direction. Her performance at the January meeting supplies evidence for both supporters and critics.
Supporters can point to unanimous board votes, professional presentations, educational initiatives, and biodiversity program development. Critics can document agricultural lessee displacement, conservation spending exceeding revenue justification, selective priority application, and transparency gaps.
The February interim report will assess whether State Land Board operates consistent with its revenue-generation mandate or whether conservation ideology drives decisions at beneficiaries’ expense.
Geothermal and Energy Transition
The 576,000-acre geothermal RFI response from 11 operators including Ormat and Eavor positions State Land Board for energy transition. Enhanced Geothermal Systems drilling to 20,000 feet promises five to ten times more megawatts than traditional wells but costs three to five times more.
Production anticipated on or after 2030 if exploration proves resources. Staff admits they don’t know appropriate royalty rates because no existing Colorado geothermal leases provide benchmarks. First RFPs in Q1 2026 will test market with smaller parcels.
The transition carries risk. Oil and gas revenue is proven and immediate. Geothermal revenue is speculative and distant. If wells underperform or markets don’t materialize, years of effort produces no return while traditional energy revenue declines.
Rosmarino embraces that risk as necessary for renewable energy goals and climate priorities. Whether beneficiaries benefit financially remains unproven.
The Permanent Fund Challenge
The two-hour workshop on the $1.33 billion Permanent Fund revealed structural problems Rosmarino can’t fix alone. Distribution policies deplete principal instead of building it. Asset allocation underperformed for years before recent equity shifts. Impact investing legislation (SB25-167) requires accepting below-market returns for political goals.
Commissioners acknowledged they’ll “play defense” on impact investing while preparing for 2027 political transition with new governor and treasurer. Reform requires legislative action the board can urge but not force.
This isn’t Rosmarino’s failure—it’s inherited structural dysfunction. But she hasn’t pushed aggressively for Callan’s 2023 recommendations to deposit all revenue into the fund and distribute only from investment returns. The fund continues shrinking in real terms while Rosmarino focuses on biodiversity programs and renewable energy transitions.
Assessment
Rosmarino receives a D because outcomes don’t match promises. She told the Rural Caucus she’d support existing lessees—then approved displacing a 10-year lessee despite superior stewardship. She emphasized revenue generation—then authorized $683,000 conservation spending justified partly by markets that don’t exist while denying a family mining operation generating documented revenue.
She promised transparency—then presided over redacted CORA responses, missing revenue data, and unclear packet publication timing. She hired restoration ecologists when agricultural economists might better serve beneficiaries’ financial interests.
The grade isn’t about conservation values or climate goals. Those may be worthy. But State Land Board exists to generate revenue for schools and institutions through sound land stewardship—not to advance environmental agendas at beneficiaries’ expense.
Rosmarino’s seven months show consistent conservation prioritization, selective revenue focus, agricultural marginalization, and transparency gaps. The trajectory points toward increased regulatory control, reduced lessee autonomy, and speculative market dependence.
The February HB 25-1332 interim report and subsequent legislative session will determine whether this direction continues or corrects. For now, agricultural lessees and trust beneficiaries have evidence that Rosmarino’s State Land Board serves conservation ideology more faithfully than revenue generation mandates.
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. 