Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Conservation Easements topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Panelists say OWEB's easement rules block partners, urge alternative title restrictions and tribal engagement
Summary
Land-trust leaders and the Oregon Land Justice Council told OWEB's committee that requiring state-held conservation easements and the agency's strict implementation have blocked projects, strained partnerships, and discouraged tribal collaboration; they urged staff and board to consider alternative instruments and deepen government-to-government engagement.
Panelists and public commenters at the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board committee meeting said the agency's current practice of using and implementing conservation easements has created barriers to tribal partnerships and delayed or derailed conservation projects.
"Through our relationships with some tribal staff, we're aware of several tribes that are reluctant to work with OWEB because of easements," Joe Buttafuoco of the Oregon Land Justice Council told the committee during public comment. He urged the agency to consider protection mechanisms that carry a lower impact on tribal sovereignty.
Carson Kendrick of the Coalition of Oregon Land Trusts asked whether OWEB can "consider more flexibility for land trusts to use their expertise and judgment in the long-term care of lands," arguing that land trusts are capable stewards and that staff interpretations of easement terms, not easements per se, often drive delays. Several land-trust panelists reinforced that position, outlining examples where strict or prescriptive application of easement terms created negotiation and timing burdens.
OWEB staff acknowledged the concerns and reiterated that Measure 76 and the agency's title-restriction statute require an enforceable instrument on lands funded by grants, but staff said rules and internal guidance can be examined to determine what might be changed administratively and what would require rulemaking or legislative action. Diane Lloyd (Oregon Department of Justice), present as assigned counsel, clarified legal distinctions between constitutional language and the conservation-easement statute in Oregon.
The committee asked staff to return with case studies and options that distinguish changes possible within existing policy from those that would necessitate rule or statutory changes. Board members and staff also agreed on the importance of more robust government-to-government outreach with tribal councils as part of future work.
