Committee advances bill allowing voluntary conservation easements for Indiana farmland

Representative Culp presented House Bill 12‑34 to the House Agriculture Committee, proposing a state framework to accept donated agricultural conservation easements so landowners can permanently restrict nonagricultural development on their farmland.

The bill would authorize the Indiana State Department of Agriculture (ISDA) to accept or hold donated easements, allow counties to create their own conservation‑easement programs, and make landowners with donated easements eligible to apply for federal and other external funds to acquire easements. Representative Culp told the committee the bill does not include state funding to purchase easements and is intended to enable willing landowners to protect family farms "for future generations." (Representative Culp, presentation.)

Why it matters: Committee testimony emphasized the scale of recent farmland loss and the potential economic and community effects. The ISDA inventory cited during the hearing found roughly 345,000 acres of Indiana farmland were lost between 2010 and 2022; presenters converted that to an average of about 29,000 acres per year and warned the trend threatens future farm access and rural economies.

Supporters said the bill would let Indiana leverage federal programs administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Natural Resources Conservation Service, and attract philanthropic or local matching funds. Chris Reynolds, Midwest regional director for American Farmland Trust, told the committee that similar programs exist in nearly 30 states and that an Ag Conservation Easement Fund established by the bill could combine state, federal, local and philanthropic dollars. "This bill lays the vital groundwork to give farmers and landowners the option to protect their land for future generations," Reynolds said.

Caitlin Smith of the Indiana Farm Bureau said the bill "gives a nod to food security as national security" and described the measure as a voluntary tool for landowners to protect agricultural use. David Harden, a sixth‑generation farmer, told the committee an easement could aid estate planning and help preserve the option for a future generation to farm without facing development‑level purchase prices.

Quentin Hayes, legislative director for ISDA, described the department's role if the bill becomes law: ISDA would implement the program in coordination with a protection board, receive and hold easements, and assist counties seeking easements. Hayes said the agency could implement the program "if we were provided additional staffing and resources," noting the bill itself does not require an appropriation as written but that staffing and legal support would be necessary to operate the program.

Several witnesses and committee members noted alternatives to the state holding easements: existing local land trusts can and do accept conservation easements and could continue to do so. Representative Culp said the bill does not force landowners to use the state and that landowners may instead donate easements to established land trusts.

Committee action: A motion to move the bill "do pass as amended" was made and the committee recorded several affirmative votes. Chair McMasters and Representatives Green, Barrett, Smith, Beard and Heine were recorded voting in the affirmative. One committee member explained they were voting "no for now" and reserved the option to change that position on the floor; the transcript shows at least one member announcing a no vote. The motion was advanced by the committee for further consideration.

Background and mechanics: Testimony described the appraisal process used to set easement value: an appraiser estimates the property's value for agricultural use and for potential commercial development; the difference is the easement value. Witnesses said a conservation easement remains attached to the land in perpetuity unless the law is changed or the easement is extinguished by the property owner following applicable legal processes. Witnesses also referenced recent research indicating additional farmland loss is likely without action.

What remains unresolved: The bill as presented does not appropriate state money to buy easements; ISDA and others told the committee that to fully capitalize on federal opportunities, some matching resources or staffing would be required. Committee members discussed board composition for program oversight and suggested potential partisan balance adjustments; Representative Culp said he is open to amendments.

Ending: The committee advanced House Bill 12‑34 to the next legislative stage with amendments and additional technical work anticipated in follow‑up sessions.