Forest Preserve District of Cook County v. Mount Greenwood

Appellate court finds that the prior public use doctrine applies to the taking of an agricultural conservation easement for a natural gas pipeline easement and sends back to the trial court for a determination of whether the pipeline easement would destroy the agricultural uses of the property.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service delivers conservation solutions so agricultural producers can protect natural resources and feed a growing world.

The taking of land for flood control purposes is not akin to the taking of a conservation easement.

This article explores the issue of condemnation of property protected by a conservation easement. The author explains that easements are compensable property for purposes of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment and thus adequate compensation must be paid by a condemning authority.

The appellate court affirmed, holding that the restrictive covenant was included at the behest of the District in order to receive a grant from the DNR. The sellers were not beneficiaries of the restrictive covenant, and had no rights to enforce it.

The summer 2008 issue of Saving Land highlights land trusts taking action on climate change, shares how the Western New York Land Conservancy was awarded a large judgement in court over a neighbor landowner’s violations of a protected preserve and features resources for the path to accreditation.

The Tax Court held that the easement did not meet the open space conservation purpose test because it did not preserve any land in its natural state and failed the historic preservation test because it did not protect the property's contribution to the historical nature of the neighborhood.

This is a general information letter answering the question of whether a contribution of an easement is deductible under section 170(h) of the Code if it is made subject to the condition that the easement can be swapped.