A broad assortment of industry groups, conservation nonprofits, ranching families and hunting and fishing access advocates on Tuesday testified in opposition to a bill that would impose term limits on many conservation easements acquired with state funding.
If passed, Senate Bill 357 would put a 40-year term limit on many conservation easements purchased with state funding by agencies such as Montana, Fish, Wildlife and Parks. The measure includes exceptions for easements that are smaller than 1,500 acres or purchased with Forest Legacy Program funds. Easements seeking to protect critical habitat for endangered and threatened species or further Greater Sage Grouse conservation efforts would also be exempted from the term limit.
Critics contended that the limitation of perpetual conservation easements for property owners may jeopardize their ability to retain agricultural properties within their families, impede lumber companies’ access to functioning forests, and have negative repercussions on the preservation of open spaces vital for wildlife habitats and recreational activities.
Charles Denowh, the Policy Director of United Property Owners of Montana, expressed his support as the only advocate for Senate Bill 357. Denowh argued that perpetual easements result in imbalanced transactions that disadvantage both current and future landowners. He further emphasized that future potential property owners are constrained by the terms of an agreement they never consented to, essentially being held hostage.
During his opening remarks, Sen. Steve Hinebauch, R-Wibaux described SB 357 as a property rights bill that seeks to address his concerns about the proliferation of conservation easements hampering the construction of power lines, pipelines and roads. That’s true, he said, even in remote parts of eastern Montana where he ranches.
He expressed his concerns about certain areas in our country where it is not possible to construct powerlines, pipelines, or roads due to existing easements that prohibit such development. He emphasized that this issue worries him greatly as it may hinder our access to essential resources.
Hinebauch expressed his concerns about landowners who are financially struggling and giving up their rights to develop their property, leaving them with very little in the future. He worries that this could hinder the ability of future generations to obtain loans for purchasing more land or constructing a house.
He mentioned that banks would not be willing to provide loans for a property that has an easement on it.
According to Denowh, permanent easements result in transactions that grant easement holders with significantly more enduring advantages compared to landowners who sell development rights.
“Why are we solely providing subsidies for perpetual easements, if there is a valid public interest in supporting conservation easements?” he questioned. He further contended that the transaction could be accomplished without utilizing public funds, which essentially functions as a “government tax break.”
Trust for Public Land Northern Rockies Director Dick Dolan countered that transactions for conservation easements involve willing buyers and willing sellers, and are essential to maintaining “the best of Montana.” Ravalli County voters’ recent decision to reauthorize an open space bond demonstrates Montanans’ support for conservation easements, he said. More than 70% of voters approved a $10 million bond building off of the county’s 2006 bond, which helped the Open Lands Program conserve more than 10,000 acres of open space in one of Montana’s fastest-growing counties.
In addition, Dolan stated that properties that have easements remain taxable and contribute to the preservation of agricultural and timber industries, consequently bolstering the local tax revenue.
Several ranch families, who have placed their property under a conservation easement in the past few decades, testified against the bill. They emphasized that these easements have been helpful for succession planning, provided public elk hunting opportunities, and demonstrated their families’ dedication to conservation and land stewardship.
Tyrell Hibbard with Sieben Livestock Company stated that they made a deliberate and voluntary decision to forego the chance to divide and exploit the land, with the intention of safeguarding it for their children and future generations to live on and derive sustenance from. According to Hibbard, there is no need for any alterations as nothing is currently amiss.
Lumber companies argued that perpetual conservation easements that allow for some timber harvest support sawmill jobs, family-owned lumber operations and the private property rights that are important to northwestern Montana communities. They also argued that the exception for the Forest Legacy Program, which supports timber harvest, recreational and wildlife-related initiatives, fails to appreciate the complexity of that program given the multiple pots of funding that are sometimes used to execute an easement sale.
Dolan said there’s an oversight mechanism for easements purchased with state funding if that’s the concern. The Fish and Wildlife Commission, the seven-member, governor-appointed body that oversees wildlife and state park administration, must sign off on FWP-acquired easements, and the Montana Land Board has the ability, per a measure passed by the 2021 Legislature, to vote up or down on acquisitions involving more than $1 million or 500 acres.
SB 357 faced opposition from various organizations in Montana including the Montana Stockgrowers Association, Treasure State Resources Association, Montana Logging Association, Montana Wood Products Association, as well as conservation and hunting-oriented groups such as the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Montana chapter of Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, Wild Montana, and Montana Conservation Voters.
There was a lack of immediate action from the Senate Fish and Game Committee regarding the bill.
This story was updated Feb. 23, 2023, to reflect Charles Denowh’s position as a proponent of SB 357.
