Selected Articles from the LAND Newsletter
STATE LEGISLATURES IN FULL SWING
By LeAnn M. Harner, LAND Executive Director
State legislatures now in session are taking a hard look at property rights. While opponents haven’t given up, there are encouraging developments in several states.
South Dakota had a bill to limit conservation easements. Ric Frost (speaker at 2002 LAND Annual Meeting), New Mexico was brought in to explain conservation easements and answer questions. Although the bill was killed, there is support for an interim study, which may result in another bill next year.
The Minnesota state constitution limits ag leases to 21 years. Sources predict there will be constitutional amendment proposed which restricts conservation easements to that same length. (Note: Wyoming has a constitutional provision against perpetual easements, but such easements are still being sold.)
A Missouri legislator has indicated interest in limiting conservation easements in his state.
An Oregon state senator is questioning non-profit ownership of land and has written a fiery article explaining his position (page 4).
All around the nation, states are starting to question Federal authority. Several states have passed either laws or resolutions asserting state’s rights on issues varying from taxes, the environment and education.
That’s the top of the news. Here’s more specifics:
MINNESOTA
Their session began February 2nd, so there’s a lot of time left for action, amendments and changes. Governor Pawlenty made headlines last fall asking for an expanded conservation reserve enhancement program (CREP), which LAND opposed. (NOTE: “HF” and “SF” refer to House Bills and Senate Bills.)
HF 2249, 2294 and SF 2145 have similar language - $23.2 million is appropriated to the Board of Water and Soil Resources for CREP. $20 million of the amount is appropriated from bond sales. The money shall be used for acquisition of 35-year easements, except that wetland restorations, limited to 20 percent of the total easements acquired, must be permanent easements and 5,000 acres of permanent easements may be purchased in the Red River watershed area for flood control efforts. $3.2 million is appropriated from the general fund and may be used for technical or professional services to acquire easements and implement easement conservation practices.
SF 1643 also sells $20 million in bonds to acquire conservation easements from landowners on marginal lands to protect soil and water quality and to support fish and wildlife habitat.
SF 372 - $7 million is appropriated from bond proceeds fund to the board of water and soil resources, for easement payment under the reinvest in Minnesota conservation reserve program.
Constitutional Amendments
SF 401, SF 571, SF 621 and HF 556 propose to change the Minnesota Constitution to dedicate a portion of the current sales tax to permanently fund natural resources, including fish and wildlife, parks, trails and waters. The portion varies from 1/8 to 1/4 of one percent of the sales tax. (.0025% equals $170 million annually) If voters approve of amending the constitution, the dedication would expire in 20 years.
One bill reads, in part: “40 percent of the receipts shall be deposited in the heritage enhancement fund and may be spent only to improve, enhance, or protect the state's fish, wildlife, and habitat; 30 percent of the receipts shall be deposited in the parks and trails fund and may be spent only on parks, trails, and zoos in the state; 30 percent of the receipts shall be deposited in the clean water fund and may be spent only on protection and restoration of the state's water resources. A heritage enhancement fund, park and trail fund, and clean water fund are created in the state treasury. The money dedicated under this section shall be appropriated by law and shall not be used as a substitute for traditional funding sources for the purposes specified, but the dedicated money shall supplement traditional sources of funding for those purposes. Land acquired by fee or easement with money deposited in the heritage enhancement fund under this section must be open to public taking of fish and game during the open season unless otherwise provided by law.”
While the bills do offer variations on a theme the intent is clear: some Minnesotans want to dedicate new funds to preservation of natural resources. An article by Doug Smith in the Star Tribune on February 20, 2004, “It's an idea that has been debated for several years, but has gone nowhere.”
Groups supporting the bills include the Minnesota Outdoor Heritage Alliance, the Fish and Wildlife Legislative Alliance, the Minnesota Waterfowl Association, Ducks Unlimited, the Minnesota Parks and Trails Council and the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board.
But that’s not all! The amendment calls for establishment of a “heritage enhancement council” of 11-15 (depending on the bill version) members. Sample wording: “The council, in consultation with statewide and local fishing, hunting, and wildlife groups, shall develop a biennial budget plan for expenditures from the heritage enhancement fund. The biennial budget plan may include grants to statewide and local fishing, hunting, and wildlife groups to improve, enhance, or protect fish and wildlife resources.” Gee, does anyone notice the groups left out of this pie? So you “sell” this program to the people based on “protecting Minnesota’s natural resource heritage, and soil and water quality,” but in reality, the program is about fish and wildlife?
The makeup of the Council varies with each bill, but includes appointees from both houses of the Legislature, plus representation from hunting and fishing groups, appointed by legislative committees or officials. The hunting and fishing groups have majority representation. There is not a requirement that representatives even be Minnesota citizens. (NOTE: The ND Natural Resources Trust board has half its membership from such groups. Board members have lived as far away as Virginia.)
Kansas has a heritage council, with several members appointed by the State Legislature, but representation DOES include landowners and soil and water conservation-minded groups such as the Land Improvement Contractors Association. Their council has been in place for over a year.
SOUTH DAKOTA
Our neighbors to the south are finishing up their session. You can expect some of these bills to be introduced here in 2005.
House Bill (HB) 1056 - An act to implement an interstate wildlife violator compact. This bill allows Game & Fish to enter a compact with other western states to exchange information on anyone that looses hunting and fishing privileges. If you lose them in one state you would loose them in all. It was passed and signed.
HB 1161 - This bill prohibits people from walking on land to retrieve a bird and then flush birds to members of the same hunting party that was still in the right of way. It was passed and signed.
HB 1194 - This bill limited conservation easements to 30 years or less. Federal easements were removed from the bill and producers testified on both sides of this issue. This bill was lost on the floor of the House. The Sioux Falls Argus Leader did an editorial on conservation easements and encouraged the Legislature to further review them. The House Ag Committee requested the executive board to have a summer study on this issue.
HB 1197 - This bill establishes an oversight committee of legislators for Game, Fish and Parks (GF&P). Urban legislators voted to keep any legislative oversight of GF&P from happening. It was killed on a 30 to 40 vote.
HB 1231 - It makes it more difficult for local governments to allow conditional uses in zoning. Passed the House and is now in Senate State Affairs.
HB 1258 - Requires conservation officers to have cause before entering onto private land. The following would constitute cause:
To approach or attempt to apprehend any person the conservation officer had observed in the violation of a law.
To investigate a report of illegal hunting, fishing, or trapping activity.
To dispatch crippled or distressed wildlife.
To respond to emergency situations, accidents, or other threats to public safety.
HB 1296 - This bill would not allow the federal government to purchase land in a county without the County Commission’s approval. Passed committee, but was killed on the floor of the House.
HB 1297 - This bill would not allow the Federal government from purchasing land from the State or other political subdivisions unless legislative permission was first given. Passed the House 49 to 20. Amended in Senate Committee to apply only to State lands. Passed the Senate.
House Concurrent Resolution (HCR) 1002 - Resolutions don’t have the force of law, but this one urges the Game, Fish and Parks along with the Department of Agriculture and the Federal Government to come up with a control program for prairie dogs coming off of public ground. This passed the House and the Senate.
HCR 1016 - Supports an appeal of US Forest Service plans for the Nebraska National Forest and associated national grasslands in Nebraska and South Dakota. Passed the House.
Senate Bill SB 63 - Currently the State agencies have to have their rules reviewed by the Rules Review Committee of the legislature. The rules committee can only send the rules back to the agency for one of three reasons. The new bill would expand those reasons to nine different reasons, including failing to comply with legislative intent. This bill has passed the Senate and now moves to the House. (NOTE: ND requires rules review for some agencies, but not all.)
STAY TUNED
