A Conversation with Law School Dean David Getches

Kevin Doran; CEES Senior Research Fellow

        Law School Dean David Getches is wearing cowboy boots, and I am wearing sneakers. Tilted at a precarious angle in his office chair, he is staring at the ceiling, not speaking or moving, wearing a somewhat bemused expression on his face. After a lengthy pause, he looks toward the window that frames the Law School Courtyard, a hazy Front Range in the distance. “I tend to be a really optimistic person,” he says finally. “I think we—with the wealth of the developed countries—will be able to address problems the way we need to.” Though unquestionably a dyed-in-the-wool academic, Getches is a natural fit to the role of Dean at a major U.S. law school with one of the best environmental law programs in the country.

    Since 2003, Getches has served as Dean of the University of Colorado Law School. An international authority on natural resource and Indian law issues, he is also the Raphael J. Moses Professor of Natural Resources Law, author of numerous books and articles, former Executive Director of the Colorado Department of Natural Resources, a former Special Consultant to the U.S. Secretary of the Interior, and a member of the CEES Board of Directors. I sat down with Getches to talk about his views on such things as the future of the Law School, curriculum development, and CEES—as well as such big-ticket items as global climate change, democracy, and his grandchildren

                   When I asked Getches to comment on CEES’ development, and the exceptional rate at which the Center’s reputation, staff, and capabilities have grown, he answered without pause. “To be great today, a law school must be willing to look hard at the issues that are coming our way in the future—the issues that matter most to society. We need to ask, ‘What do we have to contribute to solving the problems and addressing the challenges of the future?’ That is exactly what CEES is doing. I’m quite delighted with the pace of growth, direction, and commitment of the Center.”

One of the goals of CEES is to assist Colorado Law in developing curricular offerings that will enable law students to understand—from a variety of disciplinary perspectives—the way that law can profoundly impact issues of energy and environmental security. When I asked Getches about Colorado Law’s curriculum in this context, he responded, “Our curriculum can never be static. We’ve been pretty agile in adding courses and modifying the content of courses to meet the challenges our graduates will face. But I think that we are in one of those transition periods right now where we are re-examining our curricular offerings and are poised to alter that curriculum somewhat to include content specifically related to climate change.”

As someone who works day-in and day-out on issues related to climate change, I am sometimes awestruck and dismayed by the sheer magnitude of the challenges presented. And though it’s true that an increasing number of U.S. states and cities are joining together to address the issue of climate change, I often wonder if this is enough—if it’s even close to enough. When I put the question to Getches, he responded, “The true yet poignant advice to think globally and act locally pertains here. To do anything about climate change in terms of prevention or mitigation requires all hands to be on deck. Until very recently some leaders in Washington were not admitting the scientific reality of climate change. State leadership in our political system is critical—and states have been instrumental in leading the way. Maybe this points to the genius of our Federal System—that you can have different approaches and different perceptions of a problem.”

I try to press Getches a bit on this last point—the idea that our brand of federalism, which permits and enables cooperation between the states and the federal government, is somehow intrinsically geared to giving us an advantage when addressing issues like climate change. Why, then, are we still talking about thee issue? Why haven’t we already acted? He answered, “We, of course, don’t have direct democracy—we have representative democracy and so there is lots of filtering that goes on. I suppose to answer your question, I’d say, in a more abstract way; the inefficiency of our decision-making process is one of its strengths. But when something emerges as an emergency, putting up with the inefficiency may work against us. That’s a reason that state and local initiatives may have to be unleashed to lead the way.”

I ask Getches to imagine the world fifty years from now and tell me what he sees—have we succeeded in preventing catastrophic climate change or have we failed? “You could write the book a number of different ways,” he mused. “I want to believe that Harrison and Benjamin, my grandsons, will say ‘Phew, we almost got wiped out there.’ I think that chapter of the book will probably read something like this: ‘Well, I’m glad they made some decisions back in 2008 to 2010 because if they hadn’t we might not be here today.’”