For the first time in more than a decade, Island County commissioners are planning on changing the criteria used in granting Conservation Futures funds.

This week, commissioners Jill Johnson and Rick Hannold, the two Republicans on the board, pushed to have a property’s economic potential considered in the process of deciding which properties or development rights to purchase.

In other words, they want to prevent the county from buying up land that could be a great place for a business someday.

Which makes perfect sense.

The Conservation Futures tax is a 1970s-era state program designed to protect “resource lands,” including wildlife habitat, open space and farmland.

Over the years, Island County officials have used tax dollars to protect such lands, most notably the Greenbank Farm and the Trillium Forest on South Whidbey.

The program has caused some controversy as critics complain about the wisdom of taking valuable property off the tax rolls, especially when the county doesn’t have the funding to maintain the land.

Commissioner Helen Price Johnson, the sole Democrat, argues that the changes go against the intent of the program, which is to conserve open space.

But there’s no reason that the county should be targeting property for conservation that has true economic value. Planning officials have identified the dearth of commercial and industrial properties as an economic problem in North Whidbey and elsewhere in the county.

As part of the Conservation Futures application, the review board assigns points to the proposed property based on its alignment with state and local priorities. Johnson proposed new language that would take away points for properties with “unique economic opportunity” or that come with “noted community controversy.”

Extra points would also be given for land that protects existing or future industry.

Both conserving our resources and promoting the economic vitality of Island County should be priorities for the board. The ideals are not mutually exclusive.