Unsuspecting property owners may find themselves on the
outside looking in
A seemingly innocuous, bipartisan House bill introduced
in late March could subject unsuspecting landowners to the whims of
power-hungry environmental groups, eager to usurp the property rights of
those who fall into their clutches.
At risk are owners of private forestlands, who may soon
discover that they have effectively lost control over property they thought
was “theirs.”
Introduced by Reps. Chris Gibson (R-NY)
(left) and John Garamendi
(D-CA) (right), the “Forest Legacy Management Flexibility Act” would,
according to its supporters, promote conservation of private forestlands
by reducing administrative burdens for states. Specifically, it
would allow conservation easements under the U.S. Department of
Agriculture’s (USDA) Forest Legacy Program to be
held by accredited land trusts, thereby relieving state agencies of the burden
of overseeing these legally binding commitments.
“This very simple legislation,
if adopted, will establish flexibility in the Forest Legacy Program to
allow greater efficiency and effectiveness, at no cost to the public,” said
Peter Paden,
executive director of Chatham, New York-based Columbia Land Conservancy.
It’s no wonder that
the Columbia Land Conservancy, California-based Pacific Forest Trust, and
other land trusts enthusiastically support the bill. The legislation
provides an opportunity for land trusts to expand their empires and gives
them the power to control land-use decisions on untold thousands of acres of
private property. And, contrary to what the Columbia Land Trust would
have you believe, the cost to the public will be incalculable.
Transferring property rights
As the USDA
points out on its website, participation in its Forest Legacy Program is
entirely voluntary. But once an owner of private forestland has
signed on the bottom line, the voluntary aspect of the program ceases, and
strict land-use controls come into play. As the USDA
explains it, the program “encourages the acquisition of conservation
easements, legally binding agreements transferring a negotiated set of
property rights from one party to another, without removing the property
from private ownership.”
People who have
enlisted in the Forest Legacy Program may have had their squabbles with
state bureaucrats, who are sometimes prone to arbitrary decisions in their
oversight of the program. But they will rue the day when land-trust
busybodies are calling the shots on their property. Once landowners
have transferred a negotiated set of property rights from themselves to a
land trust, what is to keep the latter from interpreting the language of
the easement to suit its ideological proclivities? The USDA
says most conservation easements in its program “restrict development,
require sustainable forestry practices and protect other values.”
How will land trusts interpret the “development” that is to be
restricted? How will land trusts define what is “sustainable?” What are
the “other values” the land trusts will decide to protect?
Under the
Gibson-Garamendi legislation, land trusts will be empowered to enforce conservation
easements on property in the Forest Legacy Program. But who will hold
the land trusts accountable for their enforcement? Landowners trying
to defend themselves against overzealous enforcement by land trusts will
have no choice but to enter into expensive litigation.
Climate change toolkit
According to the
Land Trust Alliance, there are 1,700 land trusts in the U.S. overseeing 37
million acres of land – an area roughly this size of all the New England
states combined. These groups have political agendas that lend
themselves to just the kind of power enactment of the bill would give
them. The Land Trust Alliance, for example, plugs a “Climate Change
Toolkit” on its website, www.landtrustalliance.org/climate-change-toolkit/adapt/adapt-land-trust-practices-to-promote-climate-change-resilience.
Among the actions land trusts can take on climate change:
- Anticipate and plan for uncertainty through scenario planning and/or adaptive management practices.
- Manage priority habitats for climate change resilience.
- Manage priority wildlife species for climate change resilience.
Open invitation to abuse
The clear political
agenda behind the “Climate Change Toolkit,” combined with the lack of any
real oversight of how land trusts enforce conservation easements, spells
trouble for landowners in USDA’s Forest Legacy Program.
Just ask Martha Boneta, the Virginia
farmer, who has been locked in a long and expensive struggle with the Piedmont
Environmental Council (PEC) over a conservation
easement the PEC co-holds on her land. After
years of intrusive inspections, relentless harassment, and even an attempt
to install surveillance cameras on her farm, Boneta learned a few weeks ago
that the easement she signed on purchasing the property in 2006 is not the
one the PEC filed with the county. This is the kind of treatment
landowners may be to subjected to if the Forest Legacy Management Flexibility
Act is enacted.
Transferring oversight
of conservation easements from state agencies to “private” entities may
seem like a step in the right direction, but the scheme is blind to the harm
land trusts can do. “If you don’t want power abused,” the Cato Institute’s Roger Pilon says, ”
don’t grant it in the first place.”
Ultimately, property
rights should be kept whole and retained by landowners to pass on to their
heirs. Both liberty and the environment are best served when farmers,
ranchers, and timberland owners keep their entire bundle of property
rights.
Related Posts
-
Filed Under: Corporatism/Fascism, Free Market Economics, Property Rights, Public-Private Partnerships, Sustainability, Wildlands NetworkCommentsHR-1582 is a bad bill. It should be called the Private Property Confiscation Act. Conservation easements are a bad deal and need to be outlawed. Forest management is best done by tree harvesters not government or environmentalists. Forest fire fans prefer government control.Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA Tea Party Leader
No comments:
Post a Comment