The Experience of Term Agreements in Farm and Ranch

Land Protection Programs

Bob Wagner, American Farmland Trust

Term Easements in PDR Programs

• Pennsylvania: 1988. Provided a 25-year term easement option @ 10% of full value. No takers. Repealed in 1994.• Montana: 1999. Offered term easement as an option. No takers. Program has since

sunset. • West Virginia: 2000. Amended 1990 law to remove term easement as an option in voluntary farmland protection programs authorized by the state.

Term Easements in PDR Programs

• Florida: 2001. 30-year term easement option w/RoFR for properties with significant natural areas. No more than 10% of funds dedicated to program maybe used for this purpose. No funding to date. No experience to date.• Arizona: 2002. Program provides for a 25-year

term easement option. No details on valuation. No experience to date.

Term Agreements in Incentive Programs

• Federal Farm Bill Programs: CRP – 10-15 year contracts.

WRP – 30 year easements.

WHIP – 5-10 year contracts.

GRP – 10-30 year contracts or 30 year easements.

Term Agreements in Incentive Programs

• Massachusetts, Farm Viability Program: Encourages farm business planning and farm re-investment. 5 or 10 year covenants depending on grant size.

• Florida, Resource Conservation Agreements: Annual payments to improve habitat and water restoration/conservation. 5-10 year agreements. Yet to be implemented.

Term Agreements in Incentive Programs

• New Jersey, Ag District Program: 8-year term easement. Eligible for conservation cost- share funds.

Term Agreements in Tax Programs

• California, Williamson Act: “Rolling” 10-year term easement in return for use-value taxation. “Super” Williamson Act: 20-year term = more benefits, including additional 35% property tax reduction.

• Clifton Park, NY, Local Tax Reduction: 10-20% additional tax reduction in return for 15-25 term easement.

Term Agreements in Zoning Ordinances

• Southampton, NY, Ag Planned Development District: 10-year term easement in return for development density based on gross acreage for the purpose of PDR, TDR, fee purchase or conservation subdivision.

Pros and Cons

• Pros: Cheaper. Potentially attracts more landowners. Provides landowners with more options in

the future. Good linkage with conservation programs.

Pros and Cons

• Cons: Not permanent. Limited return on investment. May reduce public’s interest in providing funds. Structural and legal complications – valuation, status at transfer, disruption of funds.

Issues to Consider

• Remember that Development is rarely temporary – match conservation option to the alternative.

• Use the right tool for the job – temporary agreements do not achieve long-term solutions.

• Maximize return on investment – link programs to a clear public benefit.

Issues to Consider

• Match term to achieving the desired outcome – length of agreement should = time needed to realize public benefit.

• Be prepared – organizational issues, legal complications, monitoring and enforcement.