CEQA Mitigation On Conservation Easement Lands: How a Plea to Legislators Killed a Threat to Farmers’ Property Rights (For Now)


Shortly before the close of the last legislative session, I found myself writing a strongly-worded letter (on behalf of myself and interested clients of Miller Starr Regalia) to Governor Brown, the authors of proposed SB 436 (Kehoe) and AB 484 (Alejo) and certain Senate and Assembly Committee Chairs to urge an amendment of – or alternatively a “no” vote on or veto of – those bills.

I specifically requested removal of proposed Government Code § 65968(b), which would have provided: “A property that has been previously protected for conservation purposes, including the placement of a conservation easement on the property, may not be used for mitigation purposes.” My letter pointed out that the provision would: (1) constitute an unconstitutional taking of the property rights of farmers and landowners who have granted conservation easements on their properties; (2) violate constitutional prohibitions against contract impairment and public policy favoring freedom of contract; and (3) conflict with the existing statutory law and legislatively-established public policies governing voluntary conservation easements embodied in Civil Code §§ 815, et seq. In short, it was an illegal “property rights grab.” And it was buried in an otherwise innocuous bill whose only purpose, as disclosed by every available legislative analysis, was to clarify and expressly authorize a non-controversial existing administrative practice regarding transferring endowment funds from governmental agencies to non-profits that acquire their conservation easements.

That the proposed law would have unlawfully taken property and contract rights was clear, as underscored by the statutorily-defined characteristics of “conservation easements”...

Please see full article below for more information.

LOADING PDF: If there are any problems, click here to download the file.