30 



term easements can have significant conservation benefits and val- 

 ues also. 



And while we support a priority or a focus on longer term ease- 

 ments, I do not think it is prudent to restrict our capability to use 

 also short-term easements if it is appropriate to protect habitat or 

 ensure the future of certain species. 



I think under the Act as it is written now, and especially with 

 the language, the conference report language, the oversight of the 

 Council, and the Commission, that the focus of the projects on 

 longer term easements is certainly ensured. We do not see any 

 need to change the language of the Act to make it more prescrip- 

 tive in that perspective. 



Mr. Eno. I have two thoughts on this. One, with the limited Fed- 

 eral dollars available, I think the emphasis on long term is impor- 

 tant so that the Act not become or be viewed as another farm bill 

 in terms of handing out annual medal payments for farmers over 

 so many years to grow rice or waterfowl, et cetera. 



We support the wetlands reserve program and the conservation 

 reserve program. And the wetlands reserve sets a precedence, or 30 

 years, and I think that is a good model to follow for easements. 



Mr. Dennis. This is one of those issues which is touchy with 

 some people, but I will speak to it from a different perspective. 



I think both programs are good but I am concerned about a pro- 

 gram that will create a term for a wetland enhancement or wetland 

 protection effort. 



I am a tax attorney by training and I did work with — some of 

 you may not know this, but Congressman Dingell sponsored the 

 conservation easement legislation back in 1979, which was passed 

 in 1980, and one of the issues that came up under the conservation 

 easement legislation was, should a taxpayer get a deduction for 

 something less than a perpetual conservation restriction? And it 

 was debated pretty heavily, and at that time the response was 

 there was concern in providing that type of a subsidy for something 

 that could be used for speculatory purposes. 



For example, somebody could put a short-term conservation ease- 

 ment on their property and 10 or 15 years later walk away from 

 it with a pretty substantial tax write-off, on one side, and 20 years 

 later the conservation benefit would be gone. I share that particu- 

 lar concern. 



But I also feel there are instances where something less than 

 permanent is appropriate and necessary, especially in the area of 

 R&D. There are a lot of new ideas out there. I am working on a 

 project in the Southwest with 25 or 30 ranchers and trying to get 

 them to make a commitment to the landscape. It is hard to do it 

 permanently because no one knows whether it will work or not. 



But I think the language in the Senate reports earlier, I think, 

 is adequate and gives us enough flexibility to do our job. 



Mr. Sutherland. I concur with my colleagues from the TNC. We 

 have had this program in place for five years. We have got a pretty 

 good mix right now of long term, and that is the great majority of 

 the work that we have done has been acquisition or has been long- 

 term easements. We also have a nice mix of options which include 

 shorter term work in some parts of the country. 



