If a Maine city condemns a privately-held conservation easement so it can hand the land to a developer, does the easement automatically end, or does a court still have to approve the change?
Subject
Whether the City of Belfast's condemnation of a conservation easement, in connection with conveying intertidal land rights to Nordic Aquafarms, was effective without prior court approval. AG Aaron M. Frey, through Assistant AG Lauren E. Parker (Natural Resources Division), concluded that court approval is required.
Plain-English summary
Belfast wanted to clear the way for Nordic Aquafarms to run pipes for a land-based salmon farm across some intertidal land in Penobscot Bay. There was a conservation easement on that land, held first by Upstream Watch and then assigned to Friends of the Harriet L. Hartley Conservation Area, prohibiting industrial use, structures, vegetation removal, and earthwork (essentially everything Nordic needed to do).
The City asked the AG's office to confirm that it could simply condemn the easement under its standard eminent domain authority and convey the cleared land to Nordic, with no court approval required. The AG declined to give that confirmation. Instead, the opinion took the opposite position: a city can condemn a conservation easement, but the condemnation by itself does not erase the easement. Since 2007, when the Legislature amended Maine's conservation easement statute (P.L. 2007, ch. 412), only a court can terminate or amend a conservation easement in a way that materially detracts from the conservation values it was set up to protect. The court action has to include the AG as a party.
The legal mechanics: under 30-A M.R.S. § 3101, a municipality can condemn real estate or easements for public use. The City could thus become the holder of the easement after condemnation. But becoming the holder doesn't make the easement go away. If the new use the City wants to enable (running Nordic's pipes) would violate the easement's terms, the easement still has to be either terminated or amended, and that requires a court action under 33 M.R.S. § 477-A(2)(B). Anything else would conflict with the explicit statutory text: "Amendments and terminations of a conservation easement may occur only pursuant to this subsection."
There was an underlying ownership dispute: Mabee and Grace conveyed the conservation easement to Upstream Watch in 2019, but their actual title to the disputed intertidal land was being adjudicated in Mabee v. Nordic Aquafarms, Inc., RE-2019-18, in Waldo County Superior Court. The conservation easement is only valid if the grantors actually owned the land. The AG's opinion bracketed that issue and assumed (for purposes of the analysis) that the easement was valid. The point of the opinion was the procedural one: even on the assumption of validity, the City couldn't unilaterally extinguish it.
The AG's office signaled it takes its statutory role in conservation easement administration seriously. Under 33 M.R.S. § 477-A(2)(B), the AG must be a party to any court action that materially detracts from a conservation easement, so the AG would be in the courtroom for any such termination proceeding.
What this means for you
If you are a Maine municipal attorney considering condemning a conservation easement
This opinion is a clear caution flag. You can condemn an easement under 30-A M.R.S. § 3101, but if the new use you want to enable is inconsistent with the easement's protections, you cannot just record the condemnation and proceed. You need a court action under 33 M.R.S. § 477-A(2)(B), with the AG named as a party, to terminate or materially amend the easement. Plan the timeline accordingly. Skipping the court step risks having your conveyance to a downstream developer challenged successfully.
If the new use is consistent with the easement (you condemn the easement and become the holder, but don't change its protections), no court approval is needed. That is a narrow path. Most condemnations that target conservation easements happen because the existing protections block a planned use.
If you hold a conservation easement (land trust, conservation organization, government body)
The 2007 amendment to Maine's conservation easement statute gives you procedural protection. A municipality cannot condemn its way around your easement. Even if the municipality takes title, the easement's protections persist until a court rules. The AG is a mandatory party to any termination or material amendment, so you get an additional check on the process. If a municipality threatens to "just condemn" your easement, the answer is that the law doesn't work that way.
If you are a developer with a project that requires lifting a conservation easement
Don't let a municipal partner promise you they can clear an easement quickly through condemnation alone. They can't, at least not under the AG's reading. The realistic path is a court action under 33 M.R.S. § 477-A(2)(B), with the AG involved, where you (or the municipality) prove that termination or amendment is appropriate. Plan for that timeline and that legal expense up front.
If you are a Maine landowner thinking about granting a conservation easement
The 2007 framework gives the easement durability. Once granted to a qualified holder, the easement does not disappear if a future municipal owner condemns the land. Termination or material amendment requires court approval and the AG's involvement. That is design, not accident.
If you cover Maine environmental and aquaculture policy
This opinion is one piece of the larger Nordic Aquafarms litigation. The intertidal title dispute and the condemnation challenge played out across multiple Waldo County Superior Court cases. The AG's letter is the AG's office's procedural framing of the easement question, separate from any merits ruling on the underlying title.
Background and statutory framework
A conservation easement under Maine law is a "nonpossessory interest of a holder in real property imposing limitations or affirmative obligations the purposes of which include retaining or protecting natural, scenic or open space values of real property; assuring its availability for agricultural, forest, recreational or open space use; protecting natural resources; or maintaining or enhancing air or water quality of real property." 33 M.R.S. § 476(1). The "holder" can be a private nonprofit, another private party, or "a governmental body authorized to hold an interest in real property under the laws of this State or the United States." 33 M.R.S. § 476(2)(A).
Before 2007, Maine's conservation easement statute did not specifically address how condemnation interacted with the easement. The Restatement (Third) of Property (Servitudes) § 7.8 (2000) suggested that condemnation could potentially modify or terminate a conservation easement to the extent the new use was inconsistent with the easement's servitude.
P.L. 2007, ch. 412 changed that. The Legislature amended 33 M.R.S. §§ 476 to 479-C to require court approval for any termination or material amendment of a conservation easement. The key text in 33 M.R.S. § 477-A(2)(B): "A conservation easement may not be terminated or amended in such a manner as to materially detract from the conservation values intended for protection without the prior approval of the court in an action in which the Attorney General is made a party." Section 477-A(2) opens by saying "Amendments and terminations of a conservation easement may occur only pursuant to this subsection."
Section 478 fills out the procedural side. Section 478(3) authorizes the court to permit termination or approve material amendment "as provided in section 477-A, subsection 2(B)." Section 478(1)(D)(4) gives the AG enforcement authority to challenge improper conduct affecting conservation easements.
Municipal eminent domain runs through Title 30-A. Section 3101 lets a municipality "acquire real estate or easements for any public use by using the condemnation procedure for town ways, as provided in Title 23, chapter 304." Title 23 sections 3021 to 3035 are the procedural mechanics; section 3023 says the condemned interest "pass[es] to the municipality upon service of the order of condemnation and check or upon recordation in accordance with section 3024, whichever occurs first." Section 1 of Title 1 M.R.S. § 816 limits eminent domain in response to Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005), restricting the kinds of public uses that justify condemnation.
The opinion brackets but does not resolve the underlying title fight. Mabee and Grace claimed ownership of the intertidal land and granted the conservation easement to Upstream Watch in April 2019. Other parties (the Eckrotes) also claimed ownership. The Superior Court was adjudicating that dispute in Mabee v. Nordic Aquafarms, Inc. If Mabee and Grace did not own the land, the easement is invalid because "a grantor may not convey more than what he or she owns." Almeder v. Town of Kennebunkport, 2019 ME 151, ¶ 28, 217 A.3d 1111.
Beyond the procedural question, the City had executed contracts with Nordic obligating itself to clear "title defects" so Nordic could build a seawater access system. The City condemned the conservation easement in August 2021 and conveyed a "Nordic easement" to Nordic in September 2021 for installation, operation, and maintenance of pipes. Mabee and Grace separately challenged the City's condemnation in Mabee v. City of Belfast, BELSC-RE-2021-007.
Common questions
Can a Maine city condemn a conservation easement at all?
Yes, under 30-A M.R.S. § 3101 a municipality can condemn real estate or easements for public use. The opinion does not contest that authority. The question is what the condemnation accomplishes, and the answer is that it makes the city the new holder of the easement, but does not extinguish or materially modify the easement's protections.
So what does the city actually need to do to lift the protections?
Bring a court action under 33 M.R.S. § 477-A(2)(B), with the AG named as a party, asking the court to terminate or amend the easement in a way that materially detracts from the conservation values. The court has to approve. Without that approval, the easement still binds the property even if the city now holds it.
What if the municipality's planned use is consistent with the easement?
Then no court action is required. The city can become the new holder of the easement and continue to honor its protections. That's a narrow set of cases, but it exists.
Does the AG always have to be involved?
Yes for any termination or material amendment. The statute is explicit: "in an action in which the Attorney General is made a party." That puts the AG in court for every such proceeding, with standing to argue the public interest in the easement.
What was the AG's office actually being asked to do here?
The City wanted the AG to confirm two things: (1) that the AG would not sue under 33 M.R.S. § 478(1)(D)(4) to challenge the condemnation, and (2) that the AG agreed court approval under 33 M.R.S. § 477-A(2)(B) was unnecessary. The AG declined both. The letter explicitly says the AG "declines to provide the requested confirmation."
Did the AG's office say anything about the underlying title dispute?
The opinion expressly assumed for analytical purposes that Mabee and Grace owned the land and that the easement was valid. It did not resolve the title fight, which was being litigated separately in Superior Court. The AG made it clear that if Mabee and Grace did not own the disputed land, the easement might be invalid for that reason, but that's a separate question from the procedural one the City asked.
What happens if a developer just relies on the city's condemnation and starts construction?
Big legal risk. If a court later rules that the conservation easement was not properly terminated under 33 M.R.S. § 477-A(2)(B), construction in violation of the easement would be unlawful, and the developer could face injunctions, removal orders, and damages. The AG could also bring an enforcement action under 33 M.R.S. § 478.
Does this opinion mean Belfast can never let Nordic build?
No, it just means the path runs through court. The City and Nordic can ask a court under 33 M.R.S. § 477-A(2)(B) to terminate the easement, with the AG as a party. The court will weigh the conservation values against the proposed change. Whether such a termination would be granted in this specific case is a question for that court action, not for this opinion.
Why did the Legislature add the court-approval requirement in 2007?
The opinion does not detail the legislative history, but the timing matches a national trend after the early 2000s of strengthening conservation easement protections against unilateral termination by holders or governmental successors. The 2007 amendment locks in the conservation values until a court, on a developed record and with the AG present, decides termination is appropriate.
Citations
The opinion's central authorities, drawn directly from its text:
- Maine conservation easement statute: 33 M.R.S. § 476 (definitions); § 476(1) (definition of "conservation easement"); § 476(2)(A) (definition of "holder," including governmental bodies); § 477-A(2) and § 477-A(2)(B) (court approval required for material amendments and terminations); § 478 (enforcement); § 478(1)(D)(4) (AG enforcement authority); § 478(3) (court power to permit termination).
- Municipal eminent domain: 30-A M.R.S. § 3101 (municipal condemnation authority); § 3101(2); 23 M.R.S. §§ 3021-3035 (condemnation procedure for town ways); § 3023 (passage of title on order/recordation).
- Maine Land Use Planning Commission: 12 M.R.S. § 682(4) (definition of "structure," used to characterize Nordic's pipes).
- Eminent domain limit: 1 M.R.S. § 816 (post-Kelo limitation on Maine eminent domain).
- Maine Constitution: Maine Const. Art. I, § 21 (referenced in the Mabee v. City of Belfast complaint).
- Session law: P.L. 2007, ch. 412 (2007 amendments to Maine's conservation easement statute).
- Cases: Almeder v. Town of Kennebunkport, 2019 ME 151, 217 A.3d 1111 (grantor cannot convey more than she owns); Mabee v. Nordic Aquafarms, Inc., RE-2019-18 (Super. Ct., Waldo Cty.) (intertidal title dispute); Mabee v. City of Belfast, BELSC-RE-2021-007 (Super. Ct., Waldo Cty.) (challenge to City condemnation); Merrill v. Saco Valley Land Trust, RE-2016-44, 2017 WL 2674057 (Super. Ct., York Cty., Apr. 29, 2017) (meaning of "commercial" in undefined easements); Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005) (federal eminent domain ruling that prompted 1 M.R.S. § 816).
- Secondary: Restatement (Third) of Property (Servitudes) § 7.8 (2000); Black's Law Dictionary (definition of "structure").
Source
- Landing page: https://www.maine.gov/legis/lawlib/lldl/agops/agops.htm
- Original PDF: https://lldc.mainelegislature.org/Open/AG/Opinions/2021/ag_20210927.pdf
Original opinion text
MAINE STATE LEGISLATURE
The following document is provided by the
LAW AND LEGISLATIVE DIGITAL LIBRARY
at the Maine State Law and Legislative Reference Library
http://legislature.maine.gov/lawlib
Reproduced from scanned originals with text recognition applied
(searchable text may contain some errors and/or omissions)
REGIONAL OFFICES
84 HARLOW ST. 2ND FLOOR
BANGOR, MAINE 04401
TEL: (207) 941-3070
FAX: (207) 941-3075
AARON M. FREY
ATTORNEY GENERAL 125 PRESUMPSCOT ST., SUITE 26
PORTLAND, MAINE 04103
TEL: (207) 822-0260
FAX: (207) 822-0259
STATE OF MAINE
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 14 ACCESS HIGHWAY, STE. 1
TEL: (207) 626-8800 CARIBOU, MAINE 04736
TTY USERS CALL MAINE RELAY 711
6 STATE HOUSE STATION TEL: (207) 496-3792
AUGUSTA, MAINE 04333-0006 FAX: (207) 496-3291
September 27, 2021
Kristin M. Collins, Esq.
Preti Flaherty Beliveau & Pachios, LLP
45 Memorial Circle
Augusta, ME 04330
Re: Conservation Easement Recorded in the Waldo County Registry of Deeds, Book 4367,
Page 273
Dear Ms. Collins,
Per William Kelly's letter dated July 13, 2021, the City of Belfast has requested the Office
of the Attorney General (the OAG) confirm that it will not initiate any action pursuant to 33 M.R.S.
§ 478(1)(D)(4) or take the position that court approval of real estate transactions as to certain
disputed intertidal land is necessary pursuant to 33 M.R.S. § 477-A(2)(B). Since my preliminary
email response to Mr. Kelly, dated August 9, 2021, I have reviewed the information provided by
the City in support of its request. Based on that review, the OAG declines to provide the requested
confirmation. Instead, this letter confirms the OAG's position that, assuming the validity of the
subject conservation easement and the City's condemnation of same, the City's condemnation of
the conservation easement does not terminate that real property interest because, pursuant to 33
M.R.S. § 477-A(2)(B), only a court may terminate a conservation easement.
Background
Based on the information provided by the City, the OAG understands as follows.
1. Disputed Ownership of Intertidal Land
Nordic Aquafarms Inc. (Nordic) has obtained various federal, state, and local approvals to
construct, operate, and maintain a land-based recirculating aquaculture system. The aquaculture
system would consist of a primary upland facility site in Belfast and a seawater access system.
The seawater access system would include one water discharge pipe and two water intake pipes
that would run from the upland facility, cross intertidal land, and extend onto state-owned
submerged lands in Penobscot Bay. Both Jeffrey Mabee and Judith Grace and Richard Eckrote
and Janet Eckrote have claimed ownership of the disputed intertidal land where Nordic proposes
to bury its pipes. The Superior Court is adjudicating that title dispute in Mabee v. Nordic
Aquafarms, Inc., RE-2019-18 (Super. Ct., Waldo County).
2. The Conservation Easement
In April 2019, Jeffrey Mabee and Judith Grace conveyed to Upstream Watch a perpetual
conservation easement over the disputed intertidal land, as further described in the Waldo County
Registry of Deeds, Book 4367, Page 273. See 33 M.R.S. § 476(1) (defining "conservation
easement"). As a threshold matter, the disputed intertidal land is not subject to the conservation
easement unless Mabee and Grace owned that land at the time they granted the conservation
easement to Upstream Watch. See Almeder v. Town of Kennebunkport, 2019 ME 151, ¶ 28, 217
A.3d 1111 ("[A] grantor may not convey more than what he or she owns."). As stated above, the
Superior Court is adjudicating whether Mabee and Grace owned the disputed intertidal land at the
time they conveyed the conservation easement to Upstream Watch. See Mabee v. Nordic
Aquafarms, Inc., RE-2019-18 (Super. Ct., Waldo County).
If valid, the conservation easement prohibits Nordic's seawater access system on the
property subject to the conservation easement. The purposes of the conservation easement are to:
1. Preserve the Protected Property in perpetuity as open space and free from
structures of any sort, especially any principal or accessory structures erected,
constructed or otherwise located in furtherance of any commercial or industrial
purpose.
2. Preserve the property in its natural condition. The term 'natural condition' as
referenced in this... Conservation Easement shall mean the condition of the
Protected Property as it exists at the time of this Conservation Easement, or
other changes that may occur to the Protected Property related to restoration of
the adjacent Little River as a natural Fishway.
3. Provide a significant public benefit by protecting and preserving, in perpetuity,
the Protected Property in its present and historic, primarily undeveloped, natural
condition.
To achieve its purposes, the conservation easement expressly prohibits, among other things: filling,
excavating, and removing natural materials; any alterations of topography; vegetation removal,
except by the grantor in limited instances; industrial activities; commercial activities; and
structures.
Based on available information, Nordic's aquaculture system could be characterized as
either a commercial or industrial use, or perhaps both. See, e.g., Merrill v. Saco Valley Land Trust,
RE-2016-44, 2017 WL 2674057, 5-6 (Super. Ct., York Cty., Apr. 29, 2017) (discussing the
meaning of "commercial" as used in a conservation easement that did not define the term).
Nordic's pipes are structures. See Black's Law Dictionary (defining "structure" as "[a]ny
construction, production, or piece of work artificially built up or composed of parts purposefully
joined together"); see also 12 M.R.S. § 682(4) (defining "structure" for purposes of the Land Use
Planning Commission to mean "anything constructed or erected with a fixed location on or in the
ground, including, but not limited to, buildings, mobile homes, retaining walls, billboards, signs,
piers and floats"). Further, Nordic would need to excavate or remove natural materials, including
vegetation present, to bury the pipes in the intertidal zone, which activities the conservation
easement also prohibits. If Mabee and Grace owned the disputed intertidal land at the time they
conveyed the conservation easement, multiple provisions of the conservation easement prohibit
Nordic's seawater access system on that land.
In November 2019, Upstream Watch assigned the conservation easement to the Friends of
the Harriet L. Hartley Conservation Area (the Friends). That assignment is recorded in the Waldo
County Registry of Deeds, Book 4435, Page 344.
3. City Agreements with Nordic
In April 2021, the Belfast Water District, the City, and Nordic executed the Fourth
Amendment to Evaluation Agreement and Options and Purchase Agreement (the Fourth
Amendment). The Fourth Amendment obligates the City to clear any title defects to the disputed
intertidal land to facilitate Nordic's acquisition of necessary project rights. The Fourth Amendment
defines "necessary project rights" to mean:
fee or easement rights sufficient for a perpetual subsurface easement for the purpose
of maintaining, owning, and operating water pipes and related equipment, including
in connection therewith, installation of culverts, pipes, gaskets, pumps, valves, and
other equipment, together with an easement for the purpose of constructing,
grading, excavating, and performing earth work as may be necessary to construct,
install and maintain such pipes, gaskets, pumps, valves and other equipment as
required by any approvals issued by any municipal, state or federal authorities for
the installation and maintenance thereof.
In July 2021, the City and Nordic executed a Purchase and Sale Agreement pursuant to
which the City agreed to convey to Nordic an easement over the disputed intertidal land for the
installation, operation, and maintenance of Nordic's seawater access system along with a
temporary construction easement (the proposed Nordic easement). The proposed Nordic easement
would also convey to Nordic the right to remove vegetation and change the grade of the property.
The Purchase and Sale Agreement requires that the City convey the proposed Nordic easement to
Nordic free from specified title defects, including any right, title, and interest of the Friends.
4. City's Condemnation of Disputed Intertidal Land
In August 2021, the City condemned the Friends' property interest in the disputed intertidal
land. The City's Condemnation Notice states that the City is acting pursuant to 30-A M.R.S. §
3101, 23 M.R.S. §§ 3021 et seq., and 1 M.R.S. § 816. Neither the City's Condemnation Notice
nor its Condemnation Certificate refer to the Friends' real property interest as the conservation
easement, but the OAG assumes that the City condemned the conservation easement. Among
other findings set forth in its Condemnation Certificate, the City incorporated the Fourth
Amendment, finds that the City has been unable to purchase rights to the alleged title defects from
certain parties, and further finds that the exercise of eminent domain is "necessary to clear ongoing
alleged title defects to its land described in Schedules A and B" and obtain specified, recited
benefits. The City's Condemnation Certificate does not specify what effect the City believes the
condemnation has on the conservation easement.
Mabee and Grace are contesting the City's exercise of its eminent domain authority over
the disputed intertidal land on numerous bases, including, without limitation, as violating 33
M.R.S. §§ 477-A(2)(B) and 478 (Count VII). Mabee v. City of Belfast, BELSC-RE-2021-007
(Super. Ct., Waldo Cty.).
5. City's Conveyance of the Nordic Easement
In September 2021, the City conveyed to Nordic a permanent easement appurtenant over
the disputed intertidal land, which easement is recorded in the Waldo County Registry of Deeds,
Book 4704, Page 158 (the Nordic easement). The Nordic easement, if valid, grants to Nordic the
right to install, operate, and maintain its aquaculture piping along with a temporary construction
easement. The Nordic easement also affords Nordic the right to remove vegetation and change
the grade of the property.
Discussion
As laid out above, the City (1) agreed to clear title on a disputed parcel of intertidal land
that may be subject to a conservation easement and convey to Nordic the Nordic easement, which
allows Nordic to use the property for its seawater access system; (2) condemned the conservation
easement pursuant to 30-A M.R.S. § 3101, 23 M.R.S. §§ 3021 et seq., and 1 M.R.S. § 816; and
(3) conveyed to Nordic the Nordic easement. Assuming the conservation easement is valid, it
prohibits Nordic's use of the property pursuant to the Nordic easement (i.e., for the seawater access
system). The City has asked the OAG to confirm that the City may condemn the conservation
easement and convey the Nordic easement without obtaining court approval pursuant to 33 M.R.S.
§ 477-A(2)(B).
Title 30-A M.R.S. § 3101 authorizes the City to "acquire real estate or easements for any
public use by using the condemnation procedure for town ways, as provided in Title 23, chapter
304." Assuming that "easements" as used in 30-A M.R.S. § 3101 includes conservation easements,
the City arguably may condemn for public use a conservation easement held by a private entity
provided such condemnation does not violate 1 M.R.S. § 816. Before 2007, the process used by
a municipality to condemn a conservation easement may have been fully prescribed by 23 M.R.S.
§§ 3021-3035. The condemned conservation easement would "pass to the municipality upon
service of the order of condemnation and check or upon recordation in accordance with section
3024, whichever occurs first." 23 M.R.S. § 3023. Before 2007, a municipality's purported
condemnation of a privately held conservation easement potentially could have modified or
terminated the conservation easement "to the extent that the taking permits a use inconsistent with
the continuance of the servitude." Restatement (Third) of Property (Servitudes) § 7.8 (2000).
In 2007, however, the Legislature amended Maine's conservation easement statute, 33
M.R.S. §§ 476 to 479-C, to specifically address amendments and terminations of conservation
easements. P.L. 2007, ch. 412. As amended, Maine's conservation easement statute now vests in
the courts the power to terminate a conservation easement or amend it in a manner that materially
detracts from the conservation values intended for protection. Importantly, it provides:
"Amendments and terminations of a conservation easement may occur only pursuant to this
subsection." 33 M.R.S. § 477-A(2) (emphasis added). Subsection 477-A(2)(B) further provides:
A conservation easement may not be terminated or amended in such a manner as
to materially detract from the conservation values intended for protection without
the prior approval of the court in an action in which the Attorney General is made
a party.
Title 33 M.R.S. § 478(3) further states that "[t]he court may permit termination of a conservation
easement or approve amendment to a conservation easement that materially detracts from the
values its serves, as provided in section 477-A, subsection 2(B)." Maine's conservation easement
statute does not identify any exceptions to its requirement of court approval. Nor did P.L. 2007,
ch. 412 amend 30-A M.R.S. § 3101 or 23 M.R.S. §§ 3021-3035 to provide that a municipality is
exempt from 33 M.R.S. § 477-A(2)(B) when condemning a conservation easement.
Alone, a municipality's condemnation of a conservation easement does not necessarily
require court approval provided the conservation easement remains intact: Municipalities may hold
conservation easements and conservation easements may be amended without court approval
provided the amendment does not materially detract from the conservation values intended for
protection. 33 M.R.S. § 476(2)(A) (defining "holder" to include "a governmental body empowered
to hold an interest in real property under the laws of this State or the United States"); see 33 M.R.S.
§ 477-A(2), (2)(B) (requiring, as to conservation easement amendments, court approval of
amendments that materially detract from the conservation values intended for protection). For
example, if the Nordic easement did not authorize uses prohibited by the conservation easement,
and assuming the City's exercise of its eminent domain authority was valid, the City presumably
could condemn the conservation easement and become the holder, without any need to terminate,
partially terminate, or amend the conservation easement in a manner so as to materially detract
from the values intended for protection. But where, as here, the conservation easement prohibits
the uses authorized by the Nordic easement, the conservation easement must be terminated or
amended before Nordic can exercise the rights conveyed by the Nordic easement. And as
discussed above, since 2007 the only entity with the authority to terminate, partially terminate, or
amend the conservation easement to allow Nordic's use of the property pursuant to the Nordic
easement is a court. 33 M.R.S. § 477-A(2), (2)(B); see 33 M.R.S. § 478.
Assuming its validity, the conservation easement remains in effect and prohibits Nordic's
use of the disputed intertidal land pursuant to the Nordic easement until such time as a court
terminates or amends the conservation easement to allow Nordic's use of the property in an action
in which the Attorney General is made a party, or holds that 33 M.R.S. § 477-A(2) and (2)(B) do
not apply when a municipality condemns a conservation easement pursuant to 30-A M.R.S. §
3101.
The Office of the Attorney General takes seriously its role in the proper administration of
conservation easements. Thank you for your interest in this matter and please feel free to be in
touch with additional questions.
Sincerely,
Lauren E. Parker
Assistant Attorney General
cc: Stephen E. Langsdorf, Esq.
Sigmund D. Schutz, Esq.
William S. Kelly, Esq.
Scott W. Boak, Chief, Natural Resources Division
Linda Conti, Chief, Consumer Protection Bureau