DOWNLOAD PDF TO SECURE TO COLORADO BENEFITS OF ACT DONATING PUBLIC LANDS TO STATES.]

Transcription

1 Chapter 1 : States and Federal Government at Odds Over Public Lands States of America in Congress assembled, That there be granted to the Public lands, several States, for the purposes hereinafter mentioned, an amount of pub- notmi ~, tom lie land, to be apportioned to each State a quantity equal to thirty thou- state. Tax incentives offset some of that loss in property value, making conservation a viable option for more landowners. Landowners and land trusts should be aware that the improper use of federal income tax deductions for both land and conservation easement donations can involve potentially abusive tax shelters. To help land trusts identify and avoid any questionable transactions, we have assembled multiple resources for reference and guidance. The permanent conservation easement tax incentive is a powerful tool that helps Americans conserve their land voluntarily. For land trusts across the country, the permanent incentive represents vastly increased opportunities to protect the special places in their widely varied communities. If you own land with important natural, agricultural or historic resources, donating a conservation easement can be a prudent way to both save the land you love forever and to realize significant federal tax savings. This short brochure summarizes the conservation easement tax incentive and provides answers to some frequently asked questions also below. For the latest information and for guidance on individual properties, please contact your local land trust, which can be located at www. View the exact language that Congress passed and learn how it has changed existing statutory law and read a memo from the Internal Revenue Service offering guidance regarding deductions by individuals for qualified conservation contributions. Frequently Asked Questions What is a conservation easement? A conservation easement, also called a conservation agreement, is a voluntary and legally binding agreement between a landowner and a land trust or government agency. When a landowner donates an easement to a land trust or public agency, she or he is giving away some of the rights associated with the land. The easement permanently limits uses of the donated parcel in order to protect its conservation values, as specified in the Internal Revenue Code IRC h. Conservation easements offer private landowners flexibility in protecting their land. For example, a donating landowner can retain the right to grow crops on a parcel while, at the same time, relinquishing the right to build additional structures on the parcel. The land trust is responsible for making sure that a landowner adheres to the conservation terms of the easement. An easement may apply to all or a portion of the property and may or may not allow for public access to the property. A landowner who has donated a conservation easement can sell the land or pass it on to heirs, and future owners of the property are bound by the terms of the easement. How does the permanent, enhanced tax incentive work? First enacted temporarily in, the tax incentive was made permanent in and increases the benefits to landowners by: Easements vary greatly in value. In general, the highest easement values are found on tracts of open space under high development pressure. What is an example of the financial benefit that the permanent tax incentive provides a landowner? Can anyone deduct more than the value of his or her gift of an easement? One can never deduct more than the fair market value of the gift. The permanent incentive simply allows landowners to deduct more of that fair market value. Who qualifies as a farmer or rancher? Cultivating the soil or raising or harvesting any agricultural or horticultural commodity including the raising, shearing, feeding, caring for, training and management of animals on a farm; Handling, drying, packing, grading or storing on a farm any agricultural or horticultural commodity in its unmanufactured state, but only if the owner, tenant or operator of the farm regularly produces more than one-half of the commodity so treated; and The planting, cultivating, caring for or cutting of trees, or the preparation other than milling of trees for market. Additionally, Alaska Native Corporations are eligible as farmers or ranchers. Do these changes apply to gifts of land? The expanded incentive does not apply to gifts of land in fee. It only applies to gifts that qualify under IRC h 2, such as conservation easements. A landowner considering the donation of land should consult an attorney to determine whether the structure of his or her gift should be changed to take advantage of the permanent incentive. When does the permanent incentive apply? The permanent incentive Page 1

2 applies to all conservation easements donated after December 31, What other restrictions apply? A donated easement must be a true gift. It must protect significant natural, agricultural or historic resources that public agencies or land trusts want to have conserved. Will donors who use this provision be audited by the IRS? However, all donors should note that the IRS does pay attention to donations of property that are high in value, including donations of conservation easements. This makes it important for donors and their advisors to know and follow the law, utilize a reputable professional appraiser who has experience in the appraisal of conservation easements and donate to a well-established, reputable land trust that has adopted and implemented Land Trust Standards and Practices. What is the role of the land trust? Potential easement donors should know that donating a permanent conservation easement is a big commitment requiring careful consideration and independent legal advice. Donating a conservation easement requires a working partnership with a land trust â and time for careful drafting of documents and maps, baseline documentation and a professional appraisal. In addition, land trusts will want to see the appraisal before accepting your gift. How do other laws affect easement donations? State Income Tax Credits for Conservation In addition to the federal tax deduction, 16 states offer some form of tax credit for conservation easement donations. Many state incentives apply to fee-simple donation of land as well as conservation easements. The most powerful state tax incentives for conservation are the transferable tax credits available in Colorado, Georgia, New Mexico, South Carolina and Virginia. Download a printer-friendly brochure for landowners that summarizes the conservation easement tax incentive and provides answers to some frequently asked questions. Page 2

3 Chapter 2 : Colorado Coalition of Land Trusts "Transferring control of public lands to the states is a budget-busting idea that is contrary to Colorado values of environmental protection and equal access to all on our open spaces and natural areas," the nonprofit group Conservation Colorado said. Homestead Act of [ edit ] Certificate of homestead in Nebraska given under the Homestead Act, Wikisource has original text related to this article: Homestead Act The " yeoman farmer " ideal of Jeffersonian democracy was still a powerful influence in American politics during the â s, with many politicians believing a homestead act would help increase the number of "virtuous yeomen". The Free Soil Party of â 52, and the new Republican Party after, demanded that the new lands opening up in the west be made available to independent farmers, rather than wealthy planters who would develop it with the use of slaves forcing the yeomen farmers onto marginal lands. The law and those following it required a three-step procedure: Any citizen who had never taken up arms against the U. The occupant had to reside on the land for five years, and show evidence of having made improvements. The process had to be complete within seven years. Southern Homestead Act of [ edit ] Main article: Southern Homestead Act of Enacted to allow poor tenant farmers and sharecroppers in the south become land owners in the southern United States during Reconstruction. It was not very successful, as even the low prices and fees were often too much for the applicants to afford. Timber Culture Act The Timber Culture Act granted up to acres of land to a homesteader who would plant at least 40 acres revised to 10 of trees over a period of several years. This quarter-section could be added to an existing homestead claim, offering a total of acres to a settler. This offered a cheap plot of land to homesteaders. Kinkaid Amendment of [ edit ] Main article: Kinkaid Act Recognizing that the Sandhills Nebraska of north-central Nebraska, required more than acres for a claimant to support a family, Congress passed the Kinkaid Act which granted larger homestead tracts, up to acres, to homesteaders in Nebraska. Enlarged Homestead Act of [ edit ] Because by the early s much of the prime low-lying alluvial land along rivers had been homesteaded, the Enlarged Homestead Act was passed in Renewed interest in homesteading was brought about by U. In Congress passed a law, called the Small Tract Act STA of â by which it is possible for any citizen to obtain certain lands from the Federal Government for residence, recreation, or business purposes. These tracts may not usually be larger than 5 acres. A 5-acre tract would be one which is feet long and feet wide, or its equivalent. The property was to be improved with a building. Starting July, improvement was required to be minimum of sq. A homesteader [18] had to be the head of the household or at least twenty-one years old. They had to live on the designated land, build a home, make improvements, and farm it for a minimum of five years. The fundamental racial qualification was that one had to be a citizen, or have filed a declaration of intention to become a citizen, and so the qualification changed over the years with the varying legal qualifications for citizenship. Wong Kim Ark in, but little high-quality land remained available by that time. For immigrants the fundamental qualification was that they had to be permitted to enter the country which was usually co-extensive with being allowed to file a declaration of intention to become a citizen. In practice[ edit ] Settlers found land and filed their claims at the regional land office, usually in individual family units, although others formed closer knit communities. Often, the homestead consisted of several buildings or structures besides the main house. The Homestead Act of gave rise later to a new phenomenon, large land rushes, such as the Oklahoma Land Runs of the s and 90s. End of homesteading[ edit ] Dugout home from a homestead near Pie Town, New Mexico, The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of ended homesteading; [23] [24] by that time, federal government policy had shifted to retaining control of western public lands. The only exception to this new policy was in Alaska, for which the law allowed homesteading until He fulfilled all requirements of the homestead act in but did not receive his deed until May He is the last person to receive title to land claimed under the Homestead Acts. In these areas, people manipulated the provisions of the act to gain control of resources, especially water. A common scheme was for Page 3

4 an individual, acting as a front for a large cattle operation, to file for a homestead surrounding a water source, under the pretense that the land was to be used as a farm. Once the land was granted, other cattle ranchers would be denied the use of that water source, effectively closing off the adjacent public land to competition. That method was also used by large businesses and speculators to gain ownership of timber and oil-producing land. The federal government charged royalties for extraction of these resources from public lands. On the other hand, homesteading schemes were generally pointless for land containing "locatable minerals," such as gold and silver, which could be controlled through mining claims under the Mining Act of, for which the federal government did not charge royalties. The government developed no systematic method to evaluate claims under the homestead acts. Land offices relied on affidavits from witnesses that the claimant had lived on the land for the required period of time and made the required improvements. In practice, some of these witnesses were bribed or otherwise colluded with the claimant. Although not necessarily fraud, it was common practice for the eligible children of a large family to claim nearby land as soon as possible. After a few generations, a family could build up a sizable estate. Some scholars believe the acreage limits were reasonable when the act was written, but reveal that no one understood the physical conditions of the plains. Its application was restricted after the passage of the Natural Resources Acts in, and it was finally repealed in The Legislative Assembly of Quebec did not expand the scope of the Province of Canada Act which modern day Quebec was part of in, but did provide in that such lands were exempt from seizure, and chattels thereon were also exempt for the first ten years of occupation. In the early 21st century, some land is still being granted in the Yukon Territory under its Agricultural Lands Program. They had to live there for five years, build a house and cultivate a third of the land, if already open, or a fifth if bush had to be cleared. For instance, the Australian selection acts were passed in the various Australian colonies following the first, in, in New South Wales. In popular culture[ edit ] This section appears to contain trivial, minor, or unrelated references to popular culture. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. The movie Shane depicts some early homesteaders in Texas opposed by a cattle baron who abuse, threatens and terrorizes them, calling them "pig farmers," "sod-busters," "squatters" and other taunts and insults. When the rancher gets violent, the homesteaders are divided over whether to leave or to hold onto their claims. A drifter working on one of the homesteads reluctantly tries to take action. Page 4

5 Chapter 3 : Public Lands Transfer Facts - Sportsmenâ s Access An act donating public lands to the several States and Territories which may provide colleges for the benefit of agriculture and the mechanic arts. It manages and pays for nearly everything that happens on more than million acres, from recreation and wildlife conservation to mining, logging, grazing and oil and gas drillin g. This presents the states with a range of challenges as high and wide as the Western sky. Federal lands are not subject to state or local taxes, of course, affecting revenue generation, and they sometimes wrap around state or private lands that do generate revenue, leading to conflict because of federal environmental regulations. Land Locked Those claims took on a renewed vigor in when the Utah Legislature passed the Transfer of Public Lands Act, sponsored by Representative Ken Ivory R, a vocal proponent of conveying federal land to state control. Most have passed measures that call for studies of the land-transfer issue, with attention to its economic feasibility and legality. In Montana, for example, Senator Jennifer Fielder R backed a measure typical of others introduced throughout the West. It would have created a task force to study the ways Montana might benefit if the state, and not the U. The once-plentiful logging jobs in her rural district have become scarce largely because of federal land-management policies, she says. Critics Cite Cost, Access On the other side of what at times has been a partisan debate, land-transfer opponentsâ conservationists, hikers, hunters and anglers, among othersâ want to keep the feds involved in land-use desicsions. The biggest problem, they say, is the enormous cost of managing federal land. Paying for wildfire protection aloneâ it accounts for about half of the U. States would be forced to raise taxes or sell off iconic national properties to developers or other private investors in order to pay for everything the federal government does nowâ from complicated tasks like enforcing environmental regulations and maintaining cultural and historic resources to simple ones like putting up road and trail signs. Another problem is access. If states were to pay their bills by selling federal land gained from a transfer, the amount of land available to the public for hunting, fishing and recreation could be reduced to a patchwork. Polls of Western voters have found attitudes toward land transfers vary, though a Colorado College State of the Rockies Project survey found a majority of voters in six Western states strongly believe public lands belong to all Americans, not just the residents of particular states. In Alaska, a bill to transfer federal lands to the state is pending. In New Mexico, a bill that would have created a study commission died in part because of objections from conservationists and American Indian tribes. Complicated History The deliberate approach Western states are taking on the land-transfer issue is no surprise. Starting in, so-called sagebrush legislation was consideredâ if not passed into lawâ in almost every other Western legislature, Robert H. Nelson writes in a history of the movement. The reality was that the West had found the rewards of federal ownershipâ the right to graze certain public lands at less than market rates, for exampleâ to be worth the annoyances. Despite the long odds, some state legislators argue all of these are tasks states can do, and do better than a federal agency. Is there a middle way? Perhaps, if legislation Colorado passed recently is any indication. The new law offers local governments technical and financial support so they can address concerns about the management of federal lands without taking control of them. The text reads like a measured attempt to address anxieties on all sides: Get people at the local and federal levels talking. Locals will feel they have more say in decisions that affect their jobs and lifestyle; the feds will be more responsive to local concerns when managing the vast resources in their care. The bill passed with bipartisan support and was signed by the governor in May. Page 5

6 Chapter 4 : Colorado Charitable Crop Donation Act Hunger Free Colorado Admitting District of Columbia to Benefits of Acts Donating Public Lands to the Several States and Territories.. [Richard D Harlan, 2d Session United States 60th Congress] on blog.quintoapp.com *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. United States, U. There, the United States Supreme Court ruled, when the United States sets aside an Indian reservation, it impliedly reserves sufficient water to fulfill the purposes of the reservation, with the priority date established as of the date of the reservation. Over half a century later, following the passage of the McCarran Amendment, the Supreme Court had occasion to revisit â and build upon â this turn of the century decision in Arizona v. In that case, the Court held that the reserved rights doctrine is not limited to Indian reservations, but also applies to all federally reserved public lands, such as national forests, national recreation areas, and national wildlife refuges. This ruling affirmed the potentially significant scope and extent of federal reserved water rights. Over the coming years, the Supreme Court had several occasions to explore the contours of the reserved water rights doctrine. For instance, in Cappaert v. Several years later, in United States v. New Mexico, U. Reserved Water Rights in Colorado With these rulings in place, the majority of the federal reserved water rights litigation has taken place, not before the United States Supreme Court, but in the state courts in the context of their comprehensive and on-going general stream adjudications â many of which have spanned decades or more. Unlike many other western states, the Colorado water courts adjudicate water rights in the first instance without any administrative, water rights permitting system, resulting in much water rights litigation. The early reserved rights decisions in Colorado include United States v. Among the specific claims at issue, the Court denied instream flow claims for national forest lands and a recreational water right for Dinosaur National Monument as unnecessary to fulfill the primary purposes of the reservations at issue. In the wake of this decision, NRS attorneys in the Denver field office handled many significant cases in the Colorado district water courts. For instance, Denver field office attorneys handled an instream flow claim for channel maintenance purposes in the South Platte River. This claim sought to satisfy the ruling in United States v. In, the water court denied the claim â following approximately days of trial spanning the course of a year â in part, on the grounds that the Forest Service possessed land use authority to regulate and limit third party diversions within the National Forests. According to the court, this authority rendered the claimed flows unnecessary to secure favorable water flows. Another success involved the negotiation of a settlement in recognizing instream flow rights for the Forest Service on every major stream in the Rio Grande River Basin. In, the Colorado water courts recognized a unique groundwater right based on federal law for the Great Sand Dunes National Park, following an uncontested trial, and a federal reserved water right for the Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park, following decades of litigation and a recent groundbreaking settlement agreement between the United States and the multitude of state, irrigation, environmental, and other interests participating in the case. The United States also had some initial â and short-lived â success on numerous Wilderness Act claims, with the Idaho Supreme Court issuing a ruling recognizing such claims before reversing itself on rehearing, following an election largely focused on the reserved rights issue in which the Idaho Supreme Court justice who had authored the earlier decision was removed from the bench. This history is emblematic of the often hotly-charged politics that can be associated with such claims. In early, the Oregon Water Resources Department filed its findings of fact and order of determination, concluding the administrative phase of the adjudication and commencing the judicial phase in the Klamath County Circuit Court. The order was largely favorable to the United States approving numerous and substantial federal reserved and state appropriative water rights for several wild and scenic rivers, Crater Lake National Park, wilderness areas, instream flow fire protection for national forest system lands, four national wildlife refuges, Indian reservations, and the Klamath Reclamation Project encompassing, acres in southern Oregon and northern California. Completion of this judicial phase of the adjudication will likely take ten to twelve years. Many successes in these states have resulted from collaborative settlements with the states rather than Page 6

7 litigation. For instance, on the eve of trial, the United States negotiated with the State of Utah federal reserved water rights for Zion National Park. In addition, federal reserved rights have been negotiated for all National Park Service units in Montana, with the parties agreeing to unique provisions to protect the geothermal features from diversions outside the Yellowstone National Park boundaries. Other federal reserved water right successes include: For instance, in the Snake River Adjudication, the United States has been partially decreed approximately 10, stockwater rights under state law on BLM lands and approximately 9, on national forest lands. The United States has also received partial decrees for state water rights for domestic, irrigation and other uses, such as wildlife, commercial, power, and recreation for Forest Service lands and 50 partial decrees for water uses associated with irrigation on BLM lands. As discussed in the next section, much litigation has arisen over conflicts between state and federal law concerning federal Reclamation project water. Page 7

8 Chapter 5 : National Public Lands Transfer - Sportsmenâ s Access Public Lands Transfer Facts. America's million acres of national public landsâ including our national forests and Bureau of Land Management landsâ provide hunting and fishing opportunities to millions of Americans. The history of land grant colleges of agriculture is intertwined with the history of higher education for U. The land grant system began in with a piece of legislation known as the Morrill Act see box copy, p. This law gave states public lands provided the lands be sold or used for profit and the proceeds used to establish at least one collegeâ hence, land grant collegesâ that would teach agriculture and the mechanical arts. Land grants for the establishment of colleges of agriculture and mechanical arts were also later given to U. The legislative mandate for these land grant colleges helped extend higher education to broad segments of the U. Public universities existed already in some states; however, most states responded to the Morrill Act by legislating new agricultural and mechanical arts colleges rather than by endowing existing state institutions Kerr, The Second Morrill Act, which provided for annual appropriations to each state to support its land grant college, was passed by Congress in In addition to appropriating funding, the Second Morrill Act also forbade racial discrimination in admissions policies for colleges receiving these federal funds. A state could escape this provision, however, if separate institutions were maintained and the funds divided in a "just," but not necessarily equal, manner. Thus the act led to the establishment of land grant institutions for African Americans. Today there are 17 institutionsâ including one private institution, Tuskegee Universityâ located primarily in the southeast Table ; Figure In addition to being part of the land grant system, these 17 schools are among the more than historically black colleges and universities in the United States. Page 2 Share Cite Suggested Citation: Colleges of Agriculture at the Land Grant Universities: The National Academies Press. Over the decades, as the U. As more and more U. In some states, like California, Maryland, Minnesota, and Wisconsin, land grant universities have become the foremost public institutions of higher education and scientific research. In others, such as North Carolina, Michigan, and Oregon, higher education and research functions are shared with other prominent public institutions. Today, although many land grant universities are still known for their agricultural college roots, others have little agricultural identity and students are rarely from farm families. Despite their expansion well beyond the teaching of agriculture and mechanical arts, almost every land grant university still has a "college of agriculture"â colleges more similar to each other than are the universities where they are located. Over time, colleges of agriculture have been established at non-land grant institutions as well. The relative role of the non-land grants in educating students in agriculture-related academic specializations is discussed in Chapter 3. A series of legislative acts endowed the colleges with a three-part function encompassing teaching, research, and extension. Page 3 Share Cite Suggested Citation: Chapter 6 : Morrill Land-Grant Acts - Wikipedia Morrill Land Grant College Act. An Act donating Public Lands to the several States and Territories which may provide Colleges for the Benefit of Agriculture and. Chapter 7 : Transfer of Public Lands Act and Study â PLPCO Beginning with the Congressional Act of 16 September and the Land Ordinance of, a wide variety of Congressional acts governed the distribution of federal land in the thirty public land states. Chapter 8 : Income Tax Incentives for Land Conservation Land Trust Alliance Page 8

9 Gov. John Hickenlooper signed House Bill (Tax Credit for Donating Food to Charitable Organizations), known as the Colorado Charitable Crop Donation Act, in a signing ceremony on May 30,, at Adobe House Farm in Durango. Chapter 9 : Homestead Acts - Wikipedia In some cases, the specific public benefits a PBC identifies in its articles of incorporation may also fit the definition of a "charitable purpose" under the Colorado Charitable Solicitations Act. This may be the case with any other entity formed under Colorado law or the law of other states where the organizational documents reflect that a. Page 9