More attacks on easements?

[Big Fin]

I'm still at a loss as to why Congress continues their attacks on conservation easements. The bill linked below doesn't do a very good job of explain the scope of what easements they want to change or terminate, but suffice to say, the efforts behind this bill do nothing for conservation.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-117hr7021ih/pdf/BILLS-117hr7021ih.pdf

According to the sponsor from Minnesota, the MN and ND Corn Growers Association are very supportive of her efforts. Her promotion of this bill is on her website - https://fischbach.house.gov/press-releases?id=496F82EE-04D1-459F-B498-81C59A1C2A9F

I'm just tired of the BS that we enter into deals for conservation and then people want to back out, possibly even get paid again. Falls into the WTF category. You, or your anscestors were happy to take the money to sell an easement for unproductive lands. You took the land subject to that easement.

The public paid, either through direct funds or through tax benefits, to acquire a property right now held by the Department of Interior. This public property right that was acquired via "willing buyer-willing seller" is now being given away to some subsequent landowner, possibly a big corporate farm. I thought folks like her were supposedly big property rights advocates. Evidently only certain property rights are important to her.

Any of you who live in the 7th District of MN and have Mrs. Fischbach as your Representative could help the cause by letting her know that giving away public property, in whatever form, is not acceptable and surely does a lot to hurt the conservation efforts for which these easements were entered into and paid for.

 

[mdhunter]

I agree with you Big Fin...the owners certainly didn’t sign up for a temporary easement.

 

[Oak]

"Farmers I have talked to never intended to sell the rights to their land forever."

I'd like them to show their work here.

 

[NoWiser]

I'm currently in the process of putting a permanent conservation easement on my grandpa's land in Minnesota. It's been in the family since the civil war and this was the only way to keep it in the family. It is complete BS to argue that you don't know what you are getting into when you sign up for one of these. It's communicated very clearly on many of the hundreds of pages of paperwork that need to be signed. I have spent more hours than I can count working on this over the last 18 months and I will roll over in my grave someday if this easement somehow gets terminated. The whole reason I'm doing this is so that future generations can see the value of this land in something other than dollar symbols. I live a few miles outside of the 7th district, but I know a lot of people who do live there, and I'll be giving Mrs Fischbach a piece of my mind.

 

[rogerthat]

Its been popular for the last 20 years or so to privatize gains and let the government absorb the losses. Seems like this is down that same path. Not a political point I am trying to make here. Both parties have been doing it for a while now. It is really frustrating for me. I think it is more a societal thing. I am a big proponent of when you make a deal you stick to the terms of the deal. That's how it should work. Not many people see it that way anymore. Make a deal and than see what needs to happen to get out of the deal or screw the counter party in deal or make the government bail you out. That the new american way.

 

[CycleFishHunt]

The bill has been referred to the House Natural Resources Committee. If your rep is on it, you can give them a call too.

Edit per Randy's comment below, the reps from Colorado on the committee are Diana DeGette, Joe Neguse, Lauren Boebert, and Doug Lamborn.

 

[Big Fin]

To make it easy for my fellow Montanans, Representative Matt Rosendale is on that Committee. If you care to contact him, here is his official website - https://rosendale.house.gov/

You would want to make reference to H.R. 7021.

 

[Ben Lamb]

There is a national push right now to do this. Wyoming had a bill to limit easements to 30 years, MT FWP is telling people they will stop doing permanent easements and go to 30 year agreements, etc.

 

[Nameless Range]

Imagine if any other type of easement assumed to exist in perpetuity that the American public paid for worked this way. Justa bunch of BS.


Of course:

 

[Dakotakid]

It surprises me that staunch private property right, smaller government folks hate conservation easements and demand government intervention.

 

[Hunting Wife]

To provide a sense of some scale….for US Fish and Wildlife Service alone, there are over one million acres of perpetual conservation easements that would be impacted by this just in North Dakota. I don’t know the acre totals for Montana, South Dakota, and Minnesota, but they are significant. The lion’s share of these were acquired using Duck Stamp funds.

Not even considering other easement programs in other parts of the country, that’s a lot of acres and many millions of dollars invested.

 

[Ben Lamb]

To provide a sense of some scale….for US Fish and Wildlife Service alone, there are over one million acres of perpetual conservation easements that would be impacted by this just in North Dakota. I don’t know the acre totals for Montana, South Dakota, and Minnesota, but they are significant. The lion’s share of these were acquired using Duck Stamp funds.

Not even considering other easement programs in other parts of the country, that’s a lot of acres and many millions of dollars invested.

It would also be interesting to see what the downstream effects of this would be on ESA issues that rely on permanent protections for species on that list.

Term easements aren't look upon well by the USFWS when it comes to keeping critters off of the endangered list.

 

[TN_Rifle_Junkie]

Sounds like some of these "folks" want paid on a generational fashion to maintain an easement and allow renegotiation based on actual cash value of the land in question. I am sure words such as "forward-leaning", "future thinking", and such will be used within these "progressive" bills to prevent the permanent release of these lands to public use.

Imagine how many easements that will have to be potentially renegotiated to secure rights again. Greed at it's best. The Secretary of Interior will be busy for years in negotiations.

 

[VikingsGuy]

In MN, in addition to Ms Fischbach (https://fischbach.house.gov/contact), we have Pete Stauber (https://stauber.house.gov/contact/email-me), and Betty McCollum (https://mccollum.house.gov/contact/email) on the committee.

 

[WyoDoug]

I say this is a case of follow the money. Unfortunately, neither party really represents the people who voted them in, but rather the people who pay them the most in terms of donations to their election campaigns and that. Follow the money.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Imagine how many easements that will have to be potentially renegotiated to secure rights again. Greed at it's best. The Secretary of Interior will be busy for years in negotiations.

Term easements exist, and agencies like the NRCS use 50 year easements to good effect, but those easements are valued at roughly 50% or lower than the full permanent easement payment. But your statement is 100% spot on. This is a grift to get more taxpayer money for less conservation outcome. If a CE doesn't work for someone, then don't get one and simply go with stewardship measures to protect your property. If you want a term easement, then find the right product for you, and if you want a perpetual easement, then do that.

I have little doubt the land trust community will ensure that this bill doesn't get out of committee.

 

[bucdoego]

Tom Emmer (R-MN,6th District) is Chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee for the current Congress. In this role he works to grow and maintain the number of republicans serving in congress. He might be interested to learn how voters interested in conservation and continued (and/or additional) easement access would potentially impact your vote for any republican candidate(s).

If you live in his district, you can send him a message electronically (https://emmer.house.gov/contact). If you don't live in his district, you can still contact him via his D.C. office (202-225-2331) or send him snail-mail/fax at:

315 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Phone: (202) 225-2331
Fax: (202) 225-6475

Because of his role with the NRCC, any potential voter would have reason to contact him (not just those voting in his Minnesota district) to "voice your concern on this important issue".

Incidentally, he has a dedicated Second Amendment page too, so don't be shy, let him know what you think about the proliferation of Red Flag laws across the country. You might remind him that the recent middle-of-the-night budget bill, previously passed by the House and now by the Senate) included anti-second amendment changes as well. Many republican Senators voted to pass the bill.

 

[radman]

Just emailed Rep. Stauber and requested a reply to my letter. My thought process in requesting a reply is it makes elected officials think a bit more and opens dialog for more conversation on the issue. Especially when I receive a form letter reply, which always deserves a pointed second email. BTW Rep. Stauber has been very responsive in the past.

I would appreciate it if everyone would let their representative know their thoughts on this and other issues that arise. Takes a bit of time but it sure makes me feel better that I am at least attempting to stop a wrong and not just being a bystander.

 

[mottlet]

Senate companion was introduced yesterday by Senators Cramer, Rounds, and Hoeven. From Senator Cramer's website:

Landowner Easement Rights Act​

APRIL 04, 2022

Sens. Cramer, Rounds, Hoeven Introduce the Landowner Easement Rights Act​

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Kevin Cramer (R-ND), member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, introduced the Landowner Easement Rights Act with Senators Mike Rounds (R-SD) and John Hoeven (R-ND). This bill will prohibit the Department of the Interior’s (DOI) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) from entering into a conservation easement with a term of more than 50 years. It will also give owners of existing easements the option to renegotiate, renew, or buy out the easement.

“For far too long farmers and landowners have been subject to the heavy-handed and punitive enforcement of conservation easements managed by the Fish and Wildlife Service. Too often, these bureaucrats have overstepped the legal bounds of their contracts and turned a blind eye to the appeals of North Dakotans. Our bill acknowledges private property owners’ grievances and provides them the opportunity to make decisions on the land they live and work on,” said Senator Cramer.

“The Landowner Easement Rights Act protects the private property rights of South Dakotans,” said Senator Rounds. “By ending the practice of permanent, non-transparent easements, this bill will make certain the power is with our farmers, ranchers, and other landowners across the state, not federal bureaucrats.”

“Following our efforts to provide regulatory relief for landowners under the FWS easement process, this legislation would help further reduce the burden that long-term easements have on our producers,” said Senator Hoeven. “By limiting easements to 50 years and giving landowners the ability to renegotiate or buy out existing easements that have existed beyond that timeframe, our bill provides greater flexibility and empowers farmers, ranchers, and other landowners to make the best use of their property.”

In March, U.S. Congressman Kelly Armstrong (R-ND) and Congresswoman Michelle Fischbach (R-MN) introduced companion legislation in the House of Representatives.
Click here for bill text.

Background:
Senator Cramer has long discussed the history of FWS’s heavy-handed enforcement of conservation easements and its impact on North Dakota landowners and producers. A September 2017 townhall hosted by Senator Cramer featured testimony from several North Dakotans upset with federal agents being armed when they came to their property to discuss the easements, a practice which was then walked back by the Trump Administration. In October 2019, then-Interior Secretary David Bernhardt visited the state to hear directly about these issues, which led to FWS releasing a memorandum establishing a template for consistent enforcement and the first-ever appeals process.

A subsequent site visit and roundtable in Devils Lake, North Dakota with then-FWS Director Auriela Skipwith in August 2020 revealed the new appeals process was proving ineffective in making the meaningful changes sought by North Dakotans. Senator Cramer outlined these problems to Assistant Secretary of Fish and Wildlife and Parks, Shannon Estenoz, during her EPW nomination hearing in May 2021. As her first official visit as Assistant Secretary, Estenoz came to North Dakota to hear about these problems firsthand. Senator Cramer voted against the current FWS Director, Martha Williams because the FWS remains intransigent.

There has not been a single substantive change in any appeal under the review of the FWS Director, but the new mapping and appeals process has created a beneficial administrative record for landowners and the state.

 

[warmer]

Any ND guys know why the FWS would show up armed? And what is "heavy handed" enforcement?

Rounds voted against the Land and Water Conservation bill making it permanent, so this doesn't surprise me.

Our Governor whores out every bit of wildlife she can lay her hands on in the name of "habitat enhancement", and Rounds is doing everything in his power to eliminate it. Do these guys ever talk to each other?