Conservation Easements

[Mark Reynolds]

I've heard of utility companies doing this. Typical. Put the power company off for another year and in the meantime get a conservation easement on the property. Then ask the power company how they like those apples? Stick with your attorney. You will get 95% if not everything he is arguing for you.

 

[Mark Reynolds]

I've seen it both ways. Some are one line easements and some allow for multiple lines. The company will have to have a larger, short term, construction easement, which will likely pay damages. The original agreement will determine if that all has to be renegotiated or not.

Not sure how that plays in to the conservation easement.

I've never actually seen the paperwork on one but I would like to. Just from talking to people there seems to be quite the variety.

One of my concerns is that if a govt agency manages it, and their goals change, then it could end up being used in a way you did not intend. I know they would not go for it, but to me, the goals should be listed out in the agreement. If the agency attempts to change the goals, the deal is done and it reverts back.

Government agency goals can and do change. However, the created Easement, regardless whoever created it to begin with, is a legal document that can't be altered by anyone, including the government, except (possibly only) through lengthy court proceedings and very expensive restitution payments. Understand I am talking permanent easements. There are easements that are created for finite periods of time.

 

[Travlr]

"...it remains your land to do as you please"
Not so. If you sign up for grassland preservation and then want to add waterlines and troughs - that is prohibited as you disturb sod. I know a guy who signed up, then wanted a few acres back to put in the end of a dam for irrigation water for the farm and was denied.

So who is it making the decisions on what is allowed? Is it a bunch of urbanites that haven't a clue, or college kids with stars in their eyes and degrees in environmental sciences, or some government bureaucrat that just likes to say NO?

If this is an issue... what's the fix?

 

[GoWyo]

So who is it making the decisions on what is allowed? Is it a bunch of urbanites that haven't a clue, or college kids with stars in their eyes and degrees in environmental sciences, or some government bureaucrat that just likes to say NO?

If this is an issue... what's the fix?

With a conservation easement you have a new co-owner of your land. Every easement is as unique as the property it is being placed upon. Outline potential future building envelopes, utilities corridors, roads, fields, creek crossings, ponds, etc. Once you have this new co-owner it gets virtually impossible to change anything or construct new infrastructure that was not in the easement agreement. For example I know of a ranch that put the land in an easement. They decided they would really like another hay shed just outside the headquarters building envelope and wanted to trade an equal amount of land on the other side of the headquarters. No go. Couldn't get it worked out with the easement owner - and this was an ag focused easement owner. Easements can be good, but need to be very careful. They are a much better deal when the next door neighbor has one that will preserve the view from your own ranch and you can leave your land unencumbered.

 

[Travlr]

With a conservation easement you have a new co-owner of your land. Every easement is as unique as the property it is being placed upon. Outline potential future building envelopes, utilities corridors, roads, fields, creek crossings, ponds, etc. Once you have this new co-owner it gets virtually impossible to change anything or construct new infrastructure that was not in the easement agreement. For example I know of a ranch that put the land in an easement. They decided they would really like another hay shed just outside the headquarters building envelope and wanted to trade an equal amount of land on the other side of the headquarters. No go. Couldn't get it worked out with the easement owner - and this was an ag focused easement owner. Easements can be good, but need to be very careful. They are a much better deal when the next door neighbor has one that will preserve the view from your own ranch and you can leave your land unencumbered.

And I'm still betting the people with the authority to impede changes are generally less knowledgeable and realistic than someone on the place involved...

AND there should be some kind of easy to use appeal to reason process.

 

[GoWyo]

And I'm still betting the people with the authority to impede changes are generally less knowledgeable and realistic than someone on the place involved...

AND there should be some kind of easy to use appeal to reason process.

The owner of the easement has fiduciary obligations and there are always tax implications, which is the driving force behind why a lot of easements happen. If the easement owner allows uses not under the agreement or that changes the value of the ag land, then they run into a tax problem as does the landowner.

 

[Travlr]

The owner of the easement has fiduciary obligations and there are always tax implications, which is the driving force behind why a lot of easements happen. If the easement owner allows uses not under the agreement or that changes the value of the ag land, then they run into a tax problem as does the landowner.

And herein lies the problem. The priority being satisfying egos, economics, and legalities instead of improving the environment and using agricultural lands to do it.

 

[farmerjan]

With a conservation easement you have a new co-owner of your land. Every easement is as unique as the property it is being placed upon. Outline potential future building envelopes, utilities corridors, roads, fields, creek crossings, ponds, etc. Once you have this new co-owner it gets virtually impossible to change anything or construct new infrastructure that was not in the easement agreement. For example I know of a ranch that put the land in an easement. They decided they would really like another hay shed just outside the headquarters building envelope and wanted to trade an equal amount of land on the other side of the headquarters. No go. Couldn't get it worked out with the easement owner - and this was an ag focused easement owner. Easements can be good, but need to be very careful. They are a much better deal when the next door neighbor has one that will preserve the view from your own ranch and you can leave your land unencumbered.

Had a neighbor that did the same thing... could not build the needed pole barn for more hay storage near the existing one because it was outside the area that was not included... and could not do a trade either.
Be a cold day we would put anything here into easements...
In cases like @Dave 's place, it makes sense since it is not in places he would be building anything anyway...
Yes, they may have their place but too often they also are too much like signing your place into someone elses control.
@GoWyo has it exactly right.

 

[Dave]

The conservation easements are totally different than what I am doing. The power line deal is an easement but just an easement to build the power line. No restrictions that I know of but who would want to build under a Mega watt powerline. The GRP is not an easement where it goes on forever. It is a 15 year contract much like CRP. Left out 67 acres of irrigated meadow plus the house, shop, barn, stack yards, and corral which is another 3 acres or so. The rest of the place the only improvements would be to grow more grass. ie: Spray weeds. Much of which would have to be done by helicopter.

 

[bird dog]

I don't think you are right Dave. Most power line easements won't allow any structure under them, even a outhouse. I had one where they would not even allow part of a pond I was going to have dug back up under the line.

 

[StrojanHerefords]

My motivation is mainly trying to protect my family and our multi generational land from development. Our "home farm" or headquarters has been in the family for 4 generations. We are in a very hot real estate market , 60 miles east of Nashville, quickly becoming a bedroom community for Murfreesboro and Nashville. In the past few years, most of the farms in the community have been bought up by out of town doctors or out of town residential developers. We have already had 1 forced sale of a couple of acres to the city government for a water tank. My main concern is that the government will want to take more of our property for "public good" until there is none left. I sure am not worried about "buying my way into heaven", just trying to protect my family's piece of earth.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but don't think that all conservation easements involve money. I am looking to prevent division and development, that's it. Who enforces them? I really don't want a government agency or one of the hippie outfits involved. Give the next generation an opportunity, part of giving them "the right stuff to farm" is ensuring that there is land available to do so.

I am going to respond to Mark Reynolds with some questions later. Just wanted to try to gain some knowledge from folks who have experience with them.

One idea is to see if the town could use your farm to apply its treated waste water. I know of several places out here in California that irrigate with pasture with waste water.
Regardless of whether development comes or not, the people operating the land need to be able to farm without limits. The most important thing a person needs to farm long term is to make long term investments without the worry of getting squeezed out. I would think there might be away to allow the kid who is farming the ability to be paid for the investments he made to the land in the event of a development happening.
Having a good plan that takes into account the needs of the heirs is very important. After a loved one dies, things don't get better.

 

[Mark Reynolds]

So who is it making the decisions on what is allowed? Is it a bunch of urbanites that haven't a clue, or college kids with stars in their eyes and degrees in environmental sciences, or some government bureaucrat that just likes to say NO?

If this is an issue... what's the fix?

What is allowed is ultimately decided upon by the property owner of the property on which the easement is to be placed at the time the easement is designed. The utility company in the case of utility easements can (and does) make proposals to the property owner upon which the easement is to be placed. Similarly, the NRCS presents to the property owner what is in a conservation easement (WRE & ACEP) and the property owner decides to accept that or not. Pretty much, it is the property owner deciding what 'rights' to the property they are selling.

 

[simme]

An example of a conservation easement contract for a property in my area. This one covered 121 acres and was done in 2010. Owner was paid about $290,000 which is about @2400/acre. That was a little after the 2008 major recession so prices may have been lower due to the economy. The owner lived on the property, but the house and an acre of land were not included in the easement. Terms of the easement say no houses can be built. Can't add chicken houses. The owner sold the farm (not including his house) about 8 years later. Due to the restrictions, there was not a lot of interest. No one could purchase and move to the property since they could not add a house to the property. An old small barn was not suitable for use. It sold to a farmer who owned the adjacent pasture. He just used the property as an expansion of his pasture. I think it sold for $2500/acre.

Notice the $290,000 came from the taxpayers. Farmers here purchase land, enter it into the conservation easement program and end up with a greatly reduced cost of purchase thanks to the government contribution. To me, just another example of bad policy of a government with out of control spending.

 

[mayesfarm]

Thanks for all the input, I am learning a lot. Please keep the ball rolling.

 

[Brute 23]

I don't think you are right Dave. Most power line easements won't allow any structure under them, even a outhouse. I had one where they would not even allow part of a pond I was going to have dug back up under the line.

That is correct. No structures in the easements. That includes cattle pens, deer blinds, etc. They will have access along it to maintain it and if you read the fine print, to the entire property if deemed necessary for emergency situations. A few years ago the regulations were changed on how far vegetation could be from lines. They came in and widened all their ROWs.

Power line easements are very invasive and unregulated. Most the time large transmission lines are taken under eminent domain. There is no regulatory committee either when they don't hold up their end of the deal. Your only choice is to sue the company.

I'll take a pipeline over a power line any day but I'm actually to the point of not allowing any thing to come across. All those companies think they own your land just because they have an easement. I'm fed up with all of them.

 

[Mark Reynolds]

An example of a conservation easement contract for a property in my area. This one covered 121 acres and was done in 2010. Owner was paid about $290,000 which is about @2400/acre. That was a little after the 2008 major recession so prices may have been lower due to the economy. The owner lived on the property, but the house and an acre of land were not included in the easement. Terms of the easement say no houses can be built. Can't add chicken houses. The owner sold the farm (not including his house) about 8 years later. Due to the restrictions, there was not a lot of interest. No one could purchase and move to the property since they could not add a house to the property. An old small barn was not suitable for use. It sold to a farmer who owned the adjacent pasture. He just used the property as an expansion of his pasture. I think it sold for $2500/acre.

Notice the $290,000 came from the taxpayers. Farmers here purchase land, enter it into the conservation easement program and end up with a greatly reduced cost of purchase thanks to the government contribution. To me, just another example of bad policy of a government with out of control spending.

Kinda depends on what the individual property owner at the time wants. Easements, by design, restrict development. Not being able to construct a chicken house, which I agree is an agricultural practice, is a consequence of securing the easement on the property. Is that a bad thing? Well, only if you want to build a chicken house. However, the easement also prevents a developer from purchasing the property and converting natural agricultural land to a housing addition/community or shopping mall that ends up forcing and imposing restrictions of agricultural practices on neighboring farms that ends up putting them out of agriculture. As for the chickens.....If you still want to produce poultry/poultry products (eggs) on the property, produce them as 'free range'. Those products sell at a premium over those produced in a chicken house.

 

[simme]

Kinda depends on what the individual property owner at the time wants. Easements, by design, restrict development. Not being able to construct a chicken house, which I agree is an agricultural practice, is a consequence of securing the easement on the property. Is that a bad thing? Well, only if you want to build a chicken house. However, the easement also prevents a developer from purchasing the property and converting natural agricultural land to a housing addition/community or shopping mall that ends up forcing and imposing restrictions of agricultural practices on neighboring farms that ends up putting them out of agriculture. As for the chickens.....If you still want to produce poultry/poultry products (eggs) on the property, produce them as 'free range'. Those products sell at a premium over those produced in a chicken house.

The point I was making is that the restrictions on "development" also place significant restrictions on agricultural use and may significantly reduce the agricultural value of the property when sold. Any intensive agricultural use that requires a major building or road and parking will not be allowed. New grain bins, chicken or hog houses, greenhouses and such probably not allowed. A person could certainly have free range chickens for eggs or meat, but not able to live on the property (in this example case) to tend to those chickens. Chicken houses here allow a person to generate enough income to support a family. Free range chickens would not. Point being is that people need to understand all the implications of these agreements. Restrictions that last forever affect more than just what the owner at the time wants. And that is the point of those programs - good or bad.

 

[Mark Reynolds]

The point I was making is that the restrictions on "development" also place significant restrictions on agricultural use and may significantly reduce the value of the property when sold. Any intensive agricultural use that requires a major building or road and parking will not be allowed. New grain bins, chicken or hog houses, greenhouses and such probably not allowed. A person could certainly have free range chickens for eggs or meat, but not able to live on the property (in this example case) to tend to those chickens. Chicken houses here allow a person to generate enough income to support a family. Free range chickens would not. Point being is that people need to understand all the implications of these agreements. Restrictions that last forever affect more than just what the owner at the time wants. And that is the point of those programs - good or bad.

I agree completely. There are pros and cons to everything, and I do mean everything, we do as individuals, a community, and as a nation. Everything we do, no matter what it is, has an impact on what will happen in 5 minutes, days, weeks, months, and years from now. Some of that we can forsee, some of that we can speculate on, and some of that we don't (or didn't) have a clue that what we did today would have that impact on something 5 years from now, either good or bad. Ultimately we have to make a decision(s) one way or another, and you have to also realize that not making a decision is a decision in itself.

 

[chaded]

I have never heard of a conservation easement around here. We have a powerline that goes through our property and we haven't had any issues. It has been there long before we bought the property.

I have only seen them twice since we've been here in 7 years. Once they sent a big group of guys in to clear the dead standing trees that might fall on the lines.

The other time they just 2 guys checking the poles. That time i came back to the house from the other side of the farm to grab my gripple tool that i forgot. I heard an utv coming from where it wasn't supposed to and sure here comes these two guys.

I drove over to them and put my utv right in front of their bumper and parked it and asked if I could help them. The one guy saw my rifle I carry in my utv and stuttered a bit trying to explain what they were doing. The other guy you could tell has done this before and was calm and explained everything and then I saw their shirts and I was like "Oh ok! How was everything?" I'm pretty sure they have their utv labeled now. Lol.

 

[Ebenezer]

So who is it making the decisions on what is allowed? Is it a bunch of urbanites that haven't a clue, or college kids with stars in their eyes and degrees in environmental sciences, or some government bureaucrat that just likes to say NO?

If this is an issue... what's the fix?

The agency folks. It is in the documents that you sign. The fix is to not sign in the first place.