Safeguarding Conservation
<
SONOMA LAND TRUST
Bulldozers and other machinery attempting to uproot and transplant one of the mature oak trees on the property.
Historic Court Ruling Upholds Conservation By BOB NEALE, LESLIE RATLEY-BEACH and SARAH SIGMAN
SEVEN YE ARS AG O , Sonoma Land Trust found itself in the regrettable position of having to enforce a conservation easement in court. The organization persisted and ultimately won despite repeated appeals, with a final ruling in the spring of 2021. Their story offers a cautionary note and important takeaways for all land trusts. The 34-acre property at the center of the dispute had been placed under a conservation easement in 2009, then sold in 2013. But the new landowners willfully violated the easement and caused extensive damage. They uprooted three mature oaks and attempted to move them to an adjacent parcel for landscaping around a house they were building. Two trees died after being moved, and another tree died when crews could not move it because of large boulders entangled in its roots. To move the trees, the owners had built a one-third-mile road across the length of the property, killing 12 smaller trees and other vegetation and scraping soils and native plant communities to bedrock in some locations. They also dumped dredged pond sediments from the abutting parcel onto the conserved land, introducing invasive weeds. Despite requests from the land trust, the landowners refused to develop and implement an adequate restoration plan, leaving the land trust no choice but to file a lawsuit backed by Terrafirma Risk Retention Group LLC. During the seven years of litigation, numerous groups banded together in support—the California Council of Land Trusts, the Land Trust Alliance, Save the Redwoods League, Sierra Foothill Conservancy and The Trust for Public Land filed a joint amicus brief, and the state attorney general also filed an amicus brief representing several state agencies involved in land conservation. Ultimately, Sonoma Land Trust prevailed, recovering $586,289 in damages, $37,226 for costs, $2.96 million in attorney fees and additional costs, and over $500,000 in interest. In the process, it won two appellate court opinions in favor of conservation easements. The trial court ruled that the landowners had engaged in “truly extraordinary” violations of the conservation easement, and the appellate court’s published opinion on attorney fees and costs strongly affirmed the enforceability and importance of conservation easements. Sonoma Land Trust is now in the process of restoring the damage on the protected property using funds awarded in the case. P
While such a high level of damages and fee recovery is rarely awarded much less collected, Sonoma Land Trust’s historic win offers three key lessons for other land trusts: 1 . ACT P ROMP TLY AND P ROP ORTION ATE LY. Land trust staff communicated quickly and clearly with the successor owners, documented those communications and conditions on the protected property, and followed Land Trust Standards and Practices, which provided the factual foundation for a strong legal case. 2 . HAVE A VERY S TRON G COS TS AN D FEES CLAU SE . Do not negotiate away any part of it. The Land Trust Alliance has suggested language and a Practical Pointer on negotiating to keep your costs and fees clause strong. 3 . S TAN D S TRON G. This was a huge effort by the land trust and its legal team with Terrafirma support. Despite enormous pressure, drain on capacity and a wealthy determined opponent, Sonoma Land Trust stood resolute.
BOB NEALE is stewardship director for Sonoma Land Trust. LESLIE RATLEY-BEACH is director of conservation defense for the Land Trust Alliance. SARAH SIGMAN is a partner at Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger.
LAN DT R U STA L L I A NC E . OR G
|
31
