South Dakota Legislature: Cap on conservation easements to get look

Here's what this legislation is about "South Dakota landowners would be barred from signing perpetual conservation easements under a bill filed ahead of the legislative session. House Bill 1007, one of two proposals to emerge from a summer committee that met to study how farmland is valued, would cap the length of conservation easements at 30 years."

One of the comments in the FOR column on this bill is quoted as saying "because future landowners can't do anything with the land".

DUH DUH DUHHHHHHHH!

If I want to sell some of my rights to the public who offers to buy them at a price them that is my right and no legislation should come in and try to restrict the free trade market system.

Isn't it OK that I don't want my wetlands drained or filled or my native prairie to be broke after I die?
 
I never understood the need for this, especially not nowwhen CRP is going the way of the albatross. I am going to contact my legislators.
 
Heard the man who introducted the bill on the radio today and his reason was that we needed to allow NEW people into farming and with perminate easments it chokes that off.

EXACTLY SIR!!!! If I want to put the land into perminate protection so that the future landowner can't drain the wetlands or plow the native grass as a landowner thats my right.

His proposal was a 30 yr limit--why not 10 or 5 or better yet termination at the death of the current landowner or the sale of the properity.

Bad idea and I hope it dies a quick death.:D
 
I guess i would prefer that there was a thirty year OPTION for an easement. I have land that I would tie up for 30 years but I won't put it in a permanent easement. I do not want to tell my grandchildren that they have to raise cattle on it. Forever is a long time. I prefer choices.
 
I thought the James River WRP/CRP/ CREP emphasis area, had lifetime grant of rights provision? and had an requirement for pulbic hunting? I thought the hunting rights was an exception by South Dakota and the state money involved? Somebody enlighten me?
 
haymaker said:
I guess i would prefer that there was a thirty year OPTION for an easement. I have land that I would tie up for 30 years but I won't put it in a permanent easement. I do not want to tell my grandchildren that they have to raise cattle on it. Forever is a long time. I prefer choices.
Click to expand...

Yes sir more options would be the way to go--let the landwoner make the decision.:10sign::10sign::10sign:
 
haymaker said:
I guess i would prefer that there was a thirty year OPTION for an easement. I have land that I would tie up for 30 years but I won't put it in a permanent easement. I do not want to tell my grandchildren that they have to raise cattle on it. Forever is a long time. I prefer choices.
Click to expand...

A lot of the easements I have looked at do have that option along with the permanent. they just pay more for the perm than 30 year.

That's what is so weird about the legislation is that they want to remove the permanent option and limit only to 30 years.
 
The wife and have looked a couple of pieces of land that had conservation type easements (Wet-Land I believe ). We have a few cows and 5 draft horses. We couldn't even use any of the property to graze our animals if we bought it. It does deter some from buying the land, should one want to sell sometime down the road.
 
Here is an example of one of South Dakota's conservation easement programs (WRP). There are planty of term options making the legislation proposal silly.

Wetlands Reserve Program

The Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP) is a voluntary program offering landowners the opportunity to protect, restore, and enhance wetlands on their property. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) provides technical and financial assistance to eligible landowners.

Landowners have the opportunity of enrolling eligible lands through permanent easements, 30-year easements, 30-year Tribal contracts, or restoration cost-share agreements. The program is offered on a continuous signup basis and is available statewide. This program offers landowners an opportunity to establish, at minimal cost, long-term conservation and wildlife habitat restoration practices and protection.

The NRCS goal is to achieve the greatest wetland functions and values, along with optimum wildlife habitat, on every acre enrolled in the program. Long regarded as wastelands, wetlands are now recognized as important features in the landscape that provide numerous beneficial services for people and for fish and wildlife. Some of these services, or functions, include protecting and improving water quality, providing fish and wildlife habitats, storing floodwaters, and maintaining surface water flow during dry periods. These beneficial services, considered valuable to societies worldwide, are the result of the inherent and unique natural characteristics of wetlands.

WRP Funding for Flooded Ag Land (Prairie Pothole Special Enrollment Option)

This funding is available because the 2008 Farm Bill expanded the eligible land criteria for the WRP to include 30-year easements for cropland or grassland that was used for agricultural production prior to flooding from the natural overflow of a prairie pothole (closed basin). Currently, the Prairie Pothole Region WRP has additional funding for eligible counties including everything east of the Missouri River in South Dakota. This category of the program was included to provide landowners with one more option for their flooded agricultural land.

Eligible land must be located in eastern South Dakota and meet WRP criteria and the four items below. To be eligible for the WRP Prairie Pothole Special Enrollment Option:

The land is cropland or grassland that was used for agricultural production prior to flooding by a closed basin or lake.
Soils must be hydric. Areas that meet ponding criteria (soils that pond for longer than seven days during the growing season) will be labeled hydric regardless of soil type.
The depth of water will be 6.5 feet or less.
The size of the parcel offered is a minimum of 20 contiguous acres.
If accepted into this WRP Prairie Pothole Special Enrollment Option, the land can not be farmed but compatible uses, such as haying or grazing, may occur as determined by the NRCS. This WRP option also provides wildlife habitat and recreational opportunities.

Link to page where sourced http://www.sd.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/WRP.html
 
This isn't about the farmers or future generations of farmers but about the people who only make money off of them when the land is in production.

If memory serves this got done in MN when the Minnesota CREP acreage was in play.
 
UGUIDE said:
Good point Bang! Same reason local folks don't like CRP.
Click to expand...

It has been resisted by counties because it generally results in lower taxation which reduces the tax base for the county, less roads, less school money, and less wages for the public employees. They jump up for acreages being contemplated for inclusion for wildlife acreages in Missouri. Made the conservation commision step up and freeze their taxes and what rate as before, which has a detrimental affect on purchasing public land here.
 
oldandnew said:
It has been resisted by counties because it generally results in lower taxation which reduces the tax base for the county, less roads, less school money, and less wages for the public employees. They jump up for acreages being contemplated for inclusion for wildlife acreages in Missouri. Made the conservation commision step up and freeze their taxes and what rate as before, which has a detrimental affect on purchasing public land here.
Click to expand...

Interesting to know. I was thinking more about the guy that used to rent my ground and now has lost his ability to produce and generate income from my ground. :(
 
UGUIDE said:
Interesting to know. I was thinking more about the guy that used to rent my ground and now has lost his ability to produce and generate income from my ground. :(
Click to expand...

I'm sure farmers who are taking advantage of the high crop prices and renting ground for good amounts of their income are not big supporters of permanent conservation easements either. I still don't really view them as all that politically organized or galvanized in that belief or much of a lobbying/financial force.

To me the real players in opposition to permanent conservation easements are the people who sell inputs, chemicals etc. etc. and have well established lobbies and financial influence already in place. As Old & New points out that already established influence with our representatives gets a lot of help from those who also put maintenance of the tax base well above soil & water conservation, preservation of habitat and public access.

Doesn't the SD GF&P already struggle with legislation that requires the state turn over equal acreage to private ownership (school trust land etc.) every time they purchase a new Game Production Area? Similar efforts are in play in MN now that they are trying to use Lessard-Sams money to preserve acres through WMA purchases in the MN pheasant range.
 
Downtown Bang! said:
Doesn't the SD GF&P already struggle with legislation that requires the state turn over equal acreage to private ownership (school trust land etc.) every time they purchase a new Game Production Area? Similar efforts are in play in MN now that they are trying to use Lessard-Sams money to preserve acres through WMA purchases in the MN pheasant range.
Click to expand...

Here's some reading on the no net gain on public lands sweeping across the midwest

Prime hunting land is target for 'no net gain' debate in west central Minn.

By: Tom Cherveny, West Central Tribune / MCT
Published April 30, 2011, 07:12 PM
http://www.grandforksherald.com/event/article/id/202058/

LAKE JOHANNA TOWNSHIP, Pope County - Kurt Nelson has 80 acres of land in the southeast corner of Pope County that are the kind often touted in the classified ads of outdoor publications as "prime hunting acres."

Last winter he dished out more than 3,000 bushels of corn to pheasants and deer just outside the back door of his home here.

"I'm too busy feeding them to hunt them,' laughed Nelson, a conservation officer with the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources.

This spring he's watching waterfowl splash in the four-acre wetland he restored, and anticipating the green-up. A prescribed burn conducted a couple of years ago has revived a wide-range of native prairie plants on much of the land. He knows it will soon be shooting forth a fireworks display of colorful flowers through the warm months ahead.

Part of the property holds natural fens, where the water table furnishes moisture to plants from below. There is a glacial esker creating a prominent ridge covered by oak trees, a haven for deer.

Mud Creek, arguably the clearest running water in Pope County and its only designated trout stream, cuts a path through a corner of the land.

A good portion of the land had been grazed until he bought it several years ago. Nelson feels its use for agriculture does more harm than good. "Put a cow in here and it would sink to its belly,' he said.

He kept goats for a while, and even they wouldn't venture beyond a baseball diamond-sized island of dry ground.

It's what he considers a prime location for a public hunting area, and that's his intention. The Pope County chapter of Pheasants Forever has an agreement to purchase roughly 75 of the 80 acres from Nelson, with plans to transfer those acres to the state of Minnesota for use as a public hunting area.

Perfect location for a controversy too, Nelson has since discovered.

By a three-to-two vote, the Pope County Board of Commissioners on April 5 made known their opposition to turning the land over to the state, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources in particular.

Pope County is among a number of counties in the state to have adopted a "no net gain of state-owned land,' explained Paul Gerde, a Pope County commissioner who represents the southeast corner of the county.

It's similar to the bill State Representative Steve Drazkowski, R-Mazeppa, has introduced in the Minnesota legislature.

There's a strong sentiment among many that the state owns more land than it should. Taking more land off the tax rolls harms local governments, according to Gerde.

If the state owns the property, it will pay Pope County an annual fee equal to three fourths of one percent of the appraised value of the land. In this case, that will represent a greater annual payment than Nelson now pays in property taxes because the appraised value is greater than its current assessment, Nelson pointed out.

Five years after it becomes public land, it will be re-assessed and that value will likely reduce the payment in lieu of taxes, resulting in less revenue to the county, counters Gerde.

But for Gerde, the bigger issue is economics. There are lots of parcels in Pope County that are desired for habitat and hunting opportunities, but these are also properties where people can start small farming or other operations, he explained.

"It's in the best interest of the county to have private individuals on this property contributing to our local economy,' said Gerde.

There's more economic activity when people are living on the land, whether they've set up a small shop, hobby farm or a productive farm, he said.

He also believes there is enough public hunting land available now in the county, adding that it appears the number of hunters is starting to decline.

Gerde said the county has received resolutions of support from the Minnesota Corn and Soybean Growers and Cattlemen's Associations for its "no net' lands policy.

The local chapter of Pheasants Forever has made known its feelings too. In a letter published earlier in the Pope County Tribune of Glenwood, it pointed out that only four percent or 18,732 acres of land in the county is public. That includes the Glacial Lakes State Park and the Nature Conservancy's Ordway Prairie.

The chapter argues that public lands for hunting are a "definite plus' to the Pope County economy.

A recent study by the University of Minnesota found a $4 return in recreation dollars spent for every $1 invested in land, according to Matt Holland, senior field coordinator with Pheasants Forever in New London.

"There are tremendous benefits in public land, and not just for wildlife and habitat,' said Holland. Public lands offer hunting and other recreational opportunities for local residents, and represent an important quality of life issue beyond the economic benefits they offer, he explained.

He also points out that there is a huge disparity in the availability of public lands. In some northern, forested counties, public lands can represent more than one-half the land base. In farm country, public lands represent usually as little as two, three or four percent of the land base.

Nelson believes there is also an underlying property rights issue at stake for him as a property owner. He asks -- and his attorney has posed the question as well -- whether the county can interfere with the potential sale of his property by opposing its transfer to another party.

Gerde said the county isn't looking to stop the sale: Nelson is free to sell to Pheasants Forever.

He also points out that the county would not oppose the sale if the state would put a like amount of public land up for sale to private ownership.

Most of all, he said the county is making the point that it believes the state owns enough public land. Gerde would also like to see more open communication with the DNR, Nature Conservancy and other public entities about their intentions in the county.

As for Nelson, he said the sale is basically on hold.

He's had inquiries from individuals who are looking to own their own hunting land. Nelson said he feels strongly that this land is worth protecting for public use and for future generations, and that's what he wants to assure.

Holland said Pheasants Forever recognizes that there are legitimate concerns from both sides of the issue, and hopes the right balance can be struck to address all of the needs.

Resolution in place in

at least dozen counties

It's not known how many counties have adopted a "no net gain of public lands' resolution, but a survey conducted by the Minnesota Association of Counties gives some idea.

The association surveyed county administrators and coordinators in February 2001 as to whether or not their counties had passed a "no net gain of public lands' resolution.

The association reports that 58 counties responded, with 12 indicating that they had. Those counties are: Beltrami, Fillmore, Itasca, Kittson, Lake, Lake of the Woods, Pennington, Polk, Red Lake, Roseau, St. Louis and Traverse.

___________________________
Here's a read from North Dakota

http://www.sdwf.org/OutofDoors/2009/Out_of_DoorsMarch2009.pdf

____________________________

Tough when voters vote to put tax money aside to buy new lands for hunting and fishing and Big AG has bought off the elected officials from local and county to state and federal. Getting them to implement a NO NET GAIN IN PUBLIC LANDS. Keeping ever acre they can in production filling the pockets of those invested in the farm industry.
 
Last edited:
I know of quite a few chunks of land that was put in a perpetual grassland easement years ago(not sure how long ago) but now it is in production. And the worst part about most of this ground I have seen is all the top soil is running down in the creek bottom that runs through the middle of the 320 acres 3 miles from my house. Soon all the topsoil(as it does when it rains and when the snow melts now) will be flowing down the creek and all the rocks and clay will be exposed, then what will they grow?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top