Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Conservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bill to require local review of new conservation easements draws mixed testimony
Summary
House Bill 23-63 would require proposed conservation easements to be reviewed by local planning commissions with public hearings before a city council or county commission may approve recording. Proponents said local oversight protects landowners; conservation groups and agricultural interests warned it would restrict a voluntary conservation tool and add regulatory uncertainty.
The Committee on Local Government heard testimony on House Bill 23-63, which would add a requirement that proposed conservation easements be submitted to the appropriate city or county governing body and referred to that jurisdiction’s planning commission for review and a public hearing before the governing body acts.
The Revisor described the new subsection: if the land subject to a proposed easement lies wholly or partially within a city, the governing body of the city would refer the proposal to its planning commission; the commission would have 60 days to review and make a recommendation, and failure to act within 60 days would be deemed approval for the governing body to proceed. The bill provides similar procedures for county jurisdictions and allows a governing body to deny an easement that is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan or certain other programs or proposals.
Emil Bergquist, identified as chairman of the Committee on Local Government, said the bill is intended to add fairness and local oversight and argued some landowners do not realize the long-term implications of perpetual easements. "Unless documented otherwise, the easement lasts only the grantor's lifetime and can be revoked by them," Bergquist said as part of his explanation of the bill’s goals and effects. He told the committee the proposal would apply only to new easements and would require public review.
Angel Cushing, a private citizen, and other proponents described state examples and public-safety or public-works scenarios in which perpetual easements had constrained future municipal action. Cushing said the bill would not affect existing easements.
Representatives of Ducks Unlimited, the Kansas Livestock Association and conservation-policy practitioners testified in opposition. Mike Volk of Ducks Unlimited called HB 23-63 "government overreach" and said imposing local review would create a patchwork of rules across Kansas, jeopardize voluntary private conservation agreements, and risk removing federal tax incentives or program eligibility. Taylor Nickel of the Kansas Livestock Association said allowing local units of government to interfere with voluntary agreements would infringe property rights and undermine conservation incentives used for succession planning.
Brad Lovelace, a conservation-policy practitioner, argued Kansas’ existing statutory framework has worked for three decades and that adding another layer of review would create unnecessary bureaucracy and uncertainty for landowners and land trusts.
The committee recorded written-only opposition from The Nature Conservancy, Kansas Land Trust and the Kansas Outdoor Heritage Alliance. The hearing closed with no committee vote recorded in the hearing.
Committee members raised property-rights concerns and asked for further work to assess whether the bill’s objectives could be achieved without undermining voluntary conservation tools or federal program eligibility.
