Bill Overview
Title: Landowner Easement Rights Act
Description: This bill prohibits the Department of the Interior from entering into a conservation easement with a term of more than 50 years. The bill sets forth requirements for the renegotiation of a conservation easement at the request of an owner of land that is subject to a conservation easement that (1) has been in effect for longer than 50 years, or (2) was put into effect before 1977 without the creation of an official corresponding map. Interior shall notify such an owner of the owner's right to submit a request.
Sponsors: Sen. Cramer, Kevin [R-ND]
Target Audience
Population: People who own land with conservation easements older than 50 years or established before 1977
Estimated Size: 60000
- The bill impacts landowners who have conservation easements on their property.
- Conservation easements are often held by landowners for tax benefits and environmental protections.
- The bill applies to easements over 50 years old or those enacted before 1977 without maps.
- Landowners in the United States are specifically affected as this is U.S. legislation.
- People involved in environmental conservation may be indirectly affected by changes to easements.
Reasoning
- The affected population includes landowners with conservation easements that are over 50 years old or lack official maps if enacted before 1977.
- Landowners may have varying levels of impact depending on the size and commercial value of their land and easements.
- Most mid to large scale farmers and real estate investors are likely to have easements in place, but their reliance on these easements for financial planning can vary.
- The policy could potentially affect the perceived stability of tax benefits and property value preservation associated with easements.
- Some environmental advocates may oppose the policy due to potential risks to preserved lands, despite not being direct landowners themselves.
- The policy's financial constraints limit significant immediate changes, so impacts could be moderate among common landowners.
Simulated Interviews
Retired Farmer (Montana)
Age: 69 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I feel uneasy about changing my easement agreement, it has preserved my land for decades.
- This bill might force me into renegotiations which could destabilize my future plans for this land.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Real Estate Developer (California)
Age: 52 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could give me opportunities to adjust the details of old easements, potentially enhancing development prospects.
- It's a double-edged sword since any renegotiation might also complicate existing tax benefits.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Conservation Activist (Georgia)
Age: 47 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could undermine years of work in preserving land by making easements less secure.
- There should be more focus on maintaining conservation integrity rather than opening up negotiations.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Historian (Virginia)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I see this policy as a threat to the historical value of lands like mine.
- It's difficult to fathom having to renegotiate something that's been long established.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Environmental Lawyer (New York)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This bill adds complexity to the legal frameworks of conservation easements.
- While challenging initially, it might be beneficial for clearer long-term agreements.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Rancher (Texas)
Age: 73 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't like the idea of renegotiating agreements that have worked for decades.
- The policy just seems like unnecessary hassle for older landowners.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Non-Profit Director (Oregon)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The renegotiation aspect worries me as it could disrupt community planning.
- Such changes might demand more resources for advocacy and education.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Retired Engineer (New Hampshire)
Age: 58 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 9.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm not keen on dealing with more paperwork or legalities at my age.
- I'd rather keep things simple without the government meddling.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Government Employee (Illinois)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 20/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I see the potential for improved management strategies with this policy.
- The renegotiations could allow better usage of some under-managed lands.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Agricultural Scientist (Colorado)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This could introduce variability in land use decisions affecting agricultural productivity.
- Policy changes might threaten conservation efforts that have agricultural benefits.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $30000000 (Low: $25000000, High: $35000000)
Year 2: $28000000 (Low: $23000000, High: $33000000)
Year 3: $27500000 (Low: $22500000, High: $32500000)
Year 5: $27000000 (Low: $22000000, High: $32000000)
Year 10: $26000000 (Low: $21000000, High: $31000000)
Year 100: $20000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $25000000)
Key Considerations
- The bill's requirement for owners to be notified of renegotiation rights could lead to increased administrative workload.
- Establishing time-limited easements could reduce the incentive for long-term conservation planning.
- The impact on local economies and tax bases could vary significantly depending on individual land use decisions.