Stealing Land in the Atchafalaya and Immokalee -
Conservation Easements Used In Colossal Government Land Grab
by J. Zane Walley
7/1/02 - Conservation Easement definitions: A non-possessory interest of
a holder in real property that imposes limitations or affirmative
obligations. ~ American Farm Bureau Federation
Right of use over the property of another. ~ Black's Law Dictionary
Fragmentation of land title to deny future generations a
full range of productive land use options. ~ David Guernsey, Alliance
for America
Mobile, AL (PFNS) An American citizen who has land condemned by a
federal agency or by any governmental entity, especially those receiving
federal monies, has significant rights under Fifth and Fourteenth
Amendments of the U.S. Constitution and Public Law 91-646, (The Uniform
Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies of 1970.)
Further, important statutes contained in the Code of Federal Regulations
and the United States Code protect citizens' property rights. These laws
contain literally hundreds of safeguards that keep condemning agencies
on a stringent, expensive and
protracted path.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), in a and highly questionable
action, has moved to usurp traditional private protections in
Louisiana's Atchafalaya Basin. Citing Congressional authority, (but
unable to produce substantiating documents) and the threat of lawsuits
from the environmental community, the USACE has forced conservation
easements on the properties of an untold number of homeowners, farmers,
timber producers and sportsmen in a 338,000 acre area.
Tom Dowell Esq., a USACE contract land appraisal agent stood at the
International Right of Way Association (IRWA) podium on June 19 in
Mobile, Alabama explaining the method his team used to arrive at a
"fair market value' for the involuntary conservation easements.
Dowell did not refer to them as conservation easements but rather
"Flowage Development Control and Environmental Protection
Easements" (FLOWAGE).
Dowell's math was interesting and certainly a delight to the USACE.
Instead of the USACE having to pay the full price for land taken by
outright commendation, they were able to control the encumbered land by
paying a fraction of the land value. As an illustration, Dowell used
land and resources worth $1,000 an acre. By applying a complex formula
based on before and after values, he pointed out the Corps would only
have to pay landowners $125 an acre for the easement.
Dowell's definition of "fair market value" rapidly crumbled
when a member of the audience showed that his formula did not take into
account the diminished loan value of the property. It is noteworthy that
Internal Revenue Service (IRS) regulations prohibit lending institutions
from lending money on property encumbered by an easement unless the
lender will take a second position to the agency or organization that
owns the easement. Dowell was also unfamiliar with other IRS regulations
affecting easement-encumbered property. He did admit that these moves
were "robbing" future generations of the ability to use the
land as loan collateral.
According to the USACE handouts provided at the IRWA meeting, FLOWAGE
easements prohibit the construction of new structures and prohibit
conversion or development of land from existing uses. The easements
restrict timber harvest by imposing unworkable regulations subject to
activities that "promotes fish and wildlife preservation."
Further, the restricted timber removal by the property owner is subject
to prior approval by the USACE. The property owners retain oil, gas, and
mineral rights. However, the extraction of those natural resources,
along with the necessary accompanying construction, is subject to
obtaining permits from the USACE.
The apparent advantage to the USACE is absolute control of the
encumbered private property for pennies on the dollar. However, the
major financial and administrative benefits to the Corps or any
governmental agency taking property by easement are not obvious. The
Fifth Amendment is absolutely circumvented and the landowners stripped
of civil rights and protections provided under public law.
By utilizing easements as a tool for taking private property, agencies
can and do contend that they have not employed their powers of
condemnation. Thus, they avoid complying with the far-reaching laws that
protect property owners and relocated persons. They are not required to
provide a costly array of services required under these laws such as
relocation assistance payments, mandatory negotiation, advisory
services, litigation, moving and related expenses, replacement housing
and many others. In short, condemnation by easement is cheap and fast.
Alarming, other agencies empowered with condemnation powers have been
watching and learning.
Recently, Commissioners in Collier County, Florida (again under the
pressure of the environmentalist lobby and threat of lawsuits) vastly
diminished the ability of property owners in the 22,600-acre Immokalee
area to develop their property and expand agriculture by placing
mandatory conservation easements on their land. The owners did not
receive any compensation for the drastically reduced value of their
land.
Unless the practice of condemnation by conservation easement is checked,
it has the potential to destroy property rights nationwide. It will
render mute the solemn words of the Fifth Amendment: ".nor shall
private property be taken for public use without just
compensation."
-00-
PFNS is a public service of the Paragon Foundation, Alamogordo, NM
1-877-847-3443
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any
copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair
use without profit or payment for non-profit research and
educational purposes only. [Ref. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml]
|