To Preserve Our Land, We Need to Reconsider Conservation Easements (Opinion)

As more landowners explore ways to protect the value and character of their property, conservation easements have become a popular option for preserving farmland, forests, and open spaces. These agreements, often celebrated for their role in safeguarding natural landscapes from development, are viewed as a tool to maintain the rural beauty and ecological integrity of large tracts of land. However, new concerns are emerging about how these easements might unintentionally weaken a landowner’s ability to negotiate with utility companies, particularly when it comes to the construction of high-voltage power lines.

Conservation easements, such as those offered through Maryland’s Rural Legacy Program, restrict certain types of development on a property. While this serves the goal of preserving agricultural, scenic, or environmental values, these restrictions may fail to address the installation of infrastructure projects, including power lines. This can leave landowners in a difficult position when utility companies seek to install power lines through their property, knowing the easement provides little room to prevent such construction.

Unlike traditional development for housing or commercial purposes, utility companies frequently classify power lines as a necessity, especially when serving the public good. This distinction can work against landowners whose easements don’t explicitly prohibit power lines, making them easier targets for infrastructure projects. The presence of a conservation easement can lower the property’s development value, giving utility companies the upper hand in negotiations. They know that without the option for large-scale development, the landowner has fewer arguments for higher compensation or alternative project routes.

Adding to the challenge, utility companies can invoke eminent domain if negotiations with a landowner stall. Eminent domain allows these companies to acquire the necessary easements for power lines without the landowner’s approval, leaving the landowner with little say in the process. Although compensation would still be provided, the conservation easement weakens the landowner’s position to demand better terms or mitigation measures, such as rerouting the lines or requiring them to be buried underground.

In contrast, landowners without conservation easements tend to have more bargaining power. Without restrictions on future development, they are better positioned to argue that installing power lines would reduce the potential market value of their land. This can lead to higher compensation from utility companies, who may be more willing to negotiate favorable terms to avoid legal battles or costly project delays. Moreover, landowners without easements can negotiate other conditions, such as minimizing the visibility of power lines or requesting financial concessions, which is not always an option for properties bound by strict conservation terms.

This imbalance between preserved and unrestricted properties is creating a dynamic where utility companies may view land with conservation easements as more attractive targets. Since many easements don’t explicitly prevent the installation of utility infrastructure, utility companies can often secure necessary easements at a lower cost, knowing the restrictions on the land already limit its market value. For utility companies, it’s a win-win: they can claim the project serves a public need, while also facing less resistance in acquiring rights to the land. Easement holders, such as land trusts or government agencies, may also have little recourse to block the installation if it doesn’t violate the specific terms of the easement.

While conservation easements are designed to protect land from urban sprawl and environmental degradation, they may come with unintended consequences when it comes to large-scale infrastructure projects. For landowners who want to preserve their land but also retain control over how it is used in the future, these agreements can be a double-edged sword. They offer protection from housing or commercial developments, but they often leave landowners with fewer tools to resist projects like power lines.

Landowners considering conservation easements need to weigh the benefits of long-term preservation against the potential loss of flexibility in negotiations with utility companies. What might seem like a straightforward decision to preserve open space could lead to a situation where utility companies have the upper hand. As energy infrastructure projects continue to expand across the country, the issue of how conservation easements affect a landowner’s negotiating power is becoming increasingly relevant. For those who prioritize both preservation and future control, the decision to place land under an easement may not be as simple as it once seemed.

Opinion article by Ken Buckler, President of RFHC. All opinions are his own, and do not reflect those of our sponsors or clients.

[wtpsw_carousel]