Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Federal Easement Property Tax topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Debate over exempting agricultural land under federal easements pits farmers against state agencies
Summary
House Bill 1383 would exempt agricultural land encumbered by federal perpetual easements from property tax; sponsors said decades‑old easements can make large portions of parcels effectively unusable and unfairly taxable.
Representative Green (sponsor) opened a hearing on House Bill 1383 proposing a property‑tax exemption for agricultural land burdened by perpetual federal easements. Sponsor testimony argued many landowners inherited perpetual easements that severely limit productive use and that taxing the entire parcel penalizes owners who can farm only a small portion of a quarter section.
Travis Ziblotny, a Minot farmer who testified in support, said easements frequently depress land values and that some easement payments were small relative to today’s land values. He described operational challenges of farming land with wetland easements and urged the Legislature to find ways to make easement‑encumbered land manageable.
Agriculture Commissioner Doug Goehring testified in opposition, saying federal perpetual easements have removed economic opportunity and infrastructure options for affected areas; he also said landowners accepted federal payments and federal income‑tax deductions when entering easements. Pete Hanna (North Dakota Farm Bureau) and Julie Ellingson (North Dakota Stockmen’s Association) also testified in opposition, warning the exemption could incentivize new perpetual easement signups and further erode the property‑tax base. They urged federal engagement (for example through a concurrent resolution asking Congress to permit termination or modification) rather than a state tax exemption.
Committee members asked how perpetual easements were drafted and whether recorded language treated small wetland areas as affecting entire parcel taxability. Sponsor said older easements sometimes recorded entire parcel numbers though original physical features were only a few acres, and argued owners received one‑time payments long ago and now live with limited control.
No committee vote was recorded. The committee allowed both sides to present technical and policy arguments and invited further information; the agriculture commissioner asked for the opportunity to testify despite scheduling conflicts and departed shortly after giving testimony.
