BILL ANALYSIS C.S.H.B. 389 By: Turner, Bob April 11, 1995 Committee Report (Substituted) BACKGROUND Chapter 183 of the Natural Resources Code defines a conservation easement as a nonpossessory interest of a holder in real property that imposes limitations or affirmative obligations designed to do any of the following: (a) retain or protect natural scenic or open space values of real property or assure its availability for agricultural, forest, recreational, or open-space use; (b) protect natural resources; (c) maintain or enhance air or water quality; or (d) preserve the historical, architectural, archaeological or cultural aspects of real property. Landowners often agree to requests for conservation easements because doing so entitles them to an income tax deduction. The duration of the easement must be perpetual in order for the landowner to qualify for the deduction. Most conservation easements therefore place a perpetual affirmative obligation on the property owner for items such as maintenance, property taxes, and periodic surveys by biologists. Chapter 183.001(c), Natural Resources Code, defines a "holder" as either a governmental body or a charitable organization, association or trust created or empowered to effect the goals listed in (a) through (d) above. Under current Texas law, these easements can be enforced by a third party who is not a holder, but who is eligible to be a holder. Current law also does not require the consent of the landowner prior to the transfer and assignment of the easement. The protection of rare or threatened lands and the species which depend upon them is a worthy goal. In Texas, the role of the private landowner in the pursuit of that goal is a major one when considered in light of the fact that Texas is so overwhelmingly comprised of private property. The current financial situation of the governmental entities whose primary responsibility is the conservation of Texas' wildlife and natural resources precludes the widespread fee simple acquisition of private property. Most charitable organizations founded for conservation, with a few notable exceptions, are also financially strained and unable to purchase anything more than specific target properties. These fiscal realities, along with the financial incentive for landowners to enter into one of these agreements, make the conservation easement appear to be an attractive choice for the large-scale future conservation of rare or threatened lands. There is concern, however, that the current law does not afford enough protection to the rights of the property owners involved in these agreements and their heirs or successors in interest. Particularly troubling to landowners are the provisions allowing for third party right of enforcement of the agreements and the absence of a requirement for landowner consent prior to the transfer of the conservation easement. PURPOSE The purpose of this legislation is to strengthen the position of the private landowner by prohibiting third party right of enforcement of conservation easements and prohibiting the transfer of a conservation easement without the written consent of the property owner unless the instrument creating the conservation easement provides that it may be transferred. RULEMAKING AUTHORITY It is the committee's opinion that this bill does not expressly grant any additional rulemaking authority to a state officer, department, agency or institution. SECTION BY SECTION ANALYSIS SECTION 1. Amends Sections 183.001(3) and (4), Natural Resources Code, by striking the definition of "third party right of enforcement" and renumbering the section accordingly. SECTION 2. Amends Section 183.002(b), Natural Resources Code, by striking the language referring to a right in favor of a person having a third party right of enforcement. SECTION 3. Amends Chapter 183, Natural Resources Code, by adding Section 183.0021. Subsection (a) provides that, except as provided by Subsection (b), the conveyance, assignment, or transfer of a conservation easement is prohibited unless the instrument conveying, assigning, or transferring the easement includes the written consent of each person who, at the time of the transfer, is an owner of the servient estate. Subsection (b) provides that if the instrument creating a conservation easement provides that the easement may be transferred, then that easement may be transferred without the consent required by Subsection (a). SECTION 4. Amends Section 183.003(a), Natural Resources Code, by striking Subsection (3) relating to third party right of enforcement and renumbering the following section accordingly. SECTION 5. This act takes effect September 1, 1995 SECTION 6. Emergency clause. COMPARISON OF ORIGINAL TO SUBSTITUTE Section 3 has been amended to consider multiple owners when an easement is transferred. Also, old Section 183.0021 is now Section 183.0021(a), and a new subsection (b) has been added to allow an original instrument to provide a provision that makes subsection (a) not apply. In other words, an easement can be worded to allow the landowner(s) that enter into the primary agreement to explicitly forego the consent required by subsection (a). SUMMARY OF COMMITTEE ACTION H.B. 389 was considered by the committee in a public hearing on March 7, 1995. The following person testified in favor of the bill: Bill Powers, representing the Texas Farm Bureau. The following persons testified against the bill: Janice Bezanson, representing the Natural Area Preservation Association; and Sandra Skrei, representing the National Audubon Society. The bill was referred to a subcommittee to be named later by the Chair. On March 14, 1995, the Chair named the following subcommittee: the Subcommittee on Property Rights consisting of Representatives Turner, Combs and Hamric. After being recalled from subcommittee, the bill was considered by the committee in a formal meeting on April 6, 1995. The committee considered a complete substitute for the bill. The substitute was adopted without objection. The bill was reported favorably as substituted, with the recommendation that it do pass and be printed, by a record vote of 6 ayes, 0 nays, 0 pnv, 3 absent.