WASHINGTON
-- Funding for the Grasslands Reserve Program has been approved by
the U.S. Senate in the Agriculture Appropriations bill for fiscal
year 2004. That's good news, but the agreement between property
owners and the government should be looked at carefully, according
to those involved.
The GRP, included in the 2002 Farm Bill, is the brainchild of The
Nature Conservancy and
the National
Cattlemen's Beef Association. The two organizations
announced earlier this spring that GRP was the fruit of a two-year
partnership to "conceive, create and build support for a
program to conserve native grasslands."
A recent update from NCBA also said that included in the program's
approval, were "necessary adjustments to the Grasslands Reserve
Program."
"In our view, adjustments were needed to the way the program
was being administered," said Jeff Eisenberg, NCBA director of
federal lands and executive director for the Public Lands Council.
A conservation easement program, GRP funds purchase development
rights from voluntary participants, usually ranchers. The landowner,
in turn, receives money to preserve an open space free from
development and maintain the land -- no less than 40 acres -- or
restore it to its original or natural grassland environment.
Eisenberg, an attorney formerly employed by The Nature Conservancy,
said, in the Grasslands Reserve Program, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture was "taking away all property rights and then
giving some back."
"We think the property owner should retain as many property
rights as possible," he said.
The new program purportedly imposes no regulations on grazing, but
land use restrictions are stringent and some appear open-ended. For
example, the landowner "retains the right to graze, hay and mow
the area -- in a manner that is consistent with maintaining the
viability of the grassland as described in the Management
Guidelines." A following sentence says, "Haying and mowing
is permitted subject to certain restrictions during the nesting
season for birds that are in significant decline or are conserved in
accordance with Federal or State law as described in the Management
Guidelines."
Since 30-year or in-perpetuity easements (land set aside forever)
are given precedence over 5-, 10- or 15-year rental agreements, the
question arises as to whether it possible that land conditions or
certain species could be ruled more sensitive thus prohibiting those
land uses originally entitled to the landowner.
Eisenberg agreed that environmental regulations tend to increase and
expand but added that decisions shouldn't be made based on fear and
the what-ifs of the future. However, he said entering into land
easement agreements are not to be taken lightly.
"Easements and easement documents are a very serious
matter," he said.
Bob Bartholomew, assistant state conservationist for the Natural
Resource Conservation Service in Idaho, said his agency tries to
make it very clear what the restrictions in an agreement are because
once a landowner receives the first payment, there is no going back.
"If a landowner wants to capitalize on his land for the
dollars, then an easement is an option," Bartholomew said.
"If he wants to pass the land down to the grandkids, it's
probably not an option."
In reviewing the warranty-easement-deed document, Bartholomew agreed
the language should be carefully reviewed. Legal terms and
definitions may leave the document open to interpretation, a
condition the U.S. government acknowledges in the document itself.
Under Part VI, B., Rules of Construction and Special Provisions, a
sentence says, "Any ambiguities (uncertainties, doubtful
wording) in this easement deed shall be construed (understood,
analyzed) in favor of the United States to effect the grassland and
conservation purposes for which this easement deed is being
acquired."
Bartholomew called the provision a "dangerous clause."
"People have to realize money comes with strings," he
said. "Before I signed one of these, I would have my lawyer
review it."
