Zoning for Conservation Easements

Richardson and Bernard talk about zoning for conservation easements. Most conservation easements are perpetual and may have a huge impact on the land use in a community. With few exceptions, however, conservation easements have not been incorporated in any meaningful way into local land-use planning

Tracking the Effects of Conservation Easements on Property Tax Valuations

We establish a procedure to track the tax valuation history of properties that are fully or partially restricted with conservation easements to test the assertion that easements result in lower property valuations. Easements didn't decrease property valuations; they merely decreased the rate of value for the affected properties. On average, the restricted properties' valuations increased at a rate lower than did those for unrestricted properties - but not always, and certainly not uniformly. Valuation policy is specific to the local tax assessor: no sweeping assertions about easements and property taxes is warranted.Land Economics/Use,

Applying the Private Benefit Doctrine to Farmland Conservation Easements

Farmland or working-land conservation easements serve two purposes. One is charitable, to protect open space from development; the other is practical, to preserve the land in productive agricultural use. These purposes, however, create a tension in the easement itself that can force the land trust that holds the easement to choose between the two purposes when the easement, meant in part to protect the farm, threatens the farm\u27s continued viability. Neutral-impact amendments are amendments to working-land easements that allow farmers to improve farm production or viability without harming the conservation value of the easements. Such amendments seem beneficial: a land trust can advance one of its goals of keeping agricultural land productive–without sacrificing the other goal of preserving the conservation value of the land. By approving such an amendment, however, a land trust likely violates the private benefit doctrine and risks losing its tax-exempt status. This Note argues that the IRS should explicitly decide not to apply the private benefit doctrine to neutral-impact amendments of farmland and working-land conservation easements

Evaluating Conservation Effectiveness and Adaptation in Dynamic Landscapes

Rissman talks about evaluating conservation easement effectiveness requires interdisciplinary research that reaches beyond legal analysis to examine how easements influence human behaviors, which subsequently influence environmental conditions. Conservation easement effectiveness is not a fixed target, but is influenced over time by social and ecological landscape change. The promise of perpetuity is central to the appeal of conservation easements within the conservation movement

Exploring Net Benefit Maximization: Conservation Easements and the Public-Private Interface

Gustanski and Wright talk about conservation easements and the public-private interface. The ease of application across varied lands coupled with the financial and tax-associated benefits of conservation easements have driven the popularity of their use in conserving private lands across the US. Conservation easements typically require sizeable public funding resources, which are provided through either direct public expenditures via diverse public programs established to promote the conservation of land or through tax benefits

FLOOD EASEMENTS

We examine the efficiency of current flood risk allocation and the use of flood easements as a means of reallocating flood risk and reducing total flood damages in large river floodplains. Changes in agricultural floodplain land use and levels of crop insurance coverage as the risk of flooding changes are simulated using mathematical programming. The net benefits of flood easements to a portion of the Lagrange Reach of the Illinois River region are then simulated. Our results indicate that flood easements may provide positive net benefits. This positive result stems primarily from the decreased risk of flooding for non-inundated agricultural levee districts, rather than from reduced municipal flood damages. Our results are robust to changes in the estimated dollar damages, yet extremely sensitive to changes in hydrological estimates.Resource /Energy Economics and Policy,

Foreword

The land trust community and governments at all levels have become married to conservation easements as their land conservation tool of choice. The numbers speak for themselves: as of the date of this writing, there were reportedly 1,700 land trusts that have protected twelve million acres of land by use of conservation easements. The bulk of this growth both in conservation easements and the land trusts that deploy them has occurred since the 1980s when federal income tax incentives became more fully utilized by conservation easement donors. But the parties to this marriage have become complacent and inattentive in the face of a rapidly changing world resulting from global ecological catastrophes such as climate change and accelerated species extinction

Do Conservation Easements Reduce Land Prices? The Case of South Central Wisconsin

While theory strongly suggests that restricting development rights should reduce land prices, empirical evidence of this effect has been notoriously hard to obtain. Indeed, largely based on this difficulty a Congressional committee has recently recommended that tax benefits for such restrictions be severely curtailed. We collect data on 131 land transactions in South Central Wisconsin, including 19 cases of development-restricted parcels. When we use the whole sample to estimate the impact of conservation easements we replicate the results of Nickerson and Lynch (2001), finding a negative but statistically insignificant effect. However we then show that when the sample is appropriately restricted to a more homogenous group of land parcels, our ability to detect an effect increases dramatically. In particular, for vacant agricultural land we find a statistically significant negative impact of conservation easements that ranges up to 50% of land valuesland use, valuation of development rights, conservation easements, hedonic regression

'Retired' Sensitive Cropland: Here Today, Gone Tomorrow?

Falling commodity prices have renewed farmers' interest in expanding the Conservation Reserve Program, or CRP, which protects environmentally sensitive land by paying farmers "rent" to take it out of crop production. CRP has long been the cornerstone of federal conservation policy, but its benefits are fleeting. Once the rental contracts expire, farmers go back to planting crops and the benefits are lost. Long-term or permanent conservation easements would do a much better job of mitigating the negative environmental impacts of American agriculture.That's the finding of a new EWG report that shows how conservation easement programs are better for the environment and are better investments for taxpayers than CRP. Traditional row-crop agriculture is increasingly causing environmental and public health problems. Threats to public health through contaminated drinking water, poor air quality and toxic algal blooms are widespread and costly, and fish and wildlife habitats and populations face ongoing risks.Although CRP provides conservation benefits that help alleviate these threats, the benefits are lost as soon as the contract expires and land is brought back into crop production. Between 2007 and 2014, 15.8 million acres dropped out of the CRP program and were not re-enrolled. These 10-year contracts cost taxpayers an estimated $7.3 billion to rent. At the same time, only 6.7 million "new" acres were enrolled in CRP, for a net loss of more than 9 million acres.Programs that focus on long-term or permanent easements already exist. The Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program works with states to target high-priority objectives, including conservation easements. The Wetland Reserve Easement option in the Agricultural Conservation Easement Program enrolls acres in easements to restore, protect and enhance wetlands.Instead of expanding CRP, more funding in the 2018 Farm Bill should go to both of these highly effective programs. That would be a better deal for taxpayers, the environment and public health.

A Tradable Conservation Easement For Vulnerable Conservation Objectives

Weeks talks about tradable conservation easement for vulnerable conservation objectives. The critical conservation objectives in some conservation easements will probably be compromised by the effects of climate change in the relatively near future. Conservation easements broadly intended and drafted to serve those kinds of general purposes are, as a group, unlikely to be so acutely affected by changing ecological conditions that their broad purposes will cease, over time, to be served