Our forests, farmlands, water, air, and other natural resources belong to the people. Allowing them to be put into the hands of publicly traded entities allows them to be bought and sold to any national entity, including foreign ones who wish harm to America and Americans. This would be disastrous for our country. Placing a value on natural processes that are not based on traditional accounting principles is not in the best interest of the American people. Even our recreation areas in our forested lands throughout America would be in danger of being closed or regulated to the point of being unusable under this proposal. As stated by the State Treasurer of Utah, Marlo Oaks, "The proposed creation of Natural Asset Companies is one of the greatest threats to rural communities in the history of our country, Under the proposal, private interests, including foreign-controlled sovereign wealth funds, could use their capital to purchase or manage farmland, national and state parks, and other mineral-rich areas and stop essential economic activities like farming, grazing, and energy extraction." If you must get permission to use your land, you don’t really own the property. Not allowing the land owner/property owner to change the CE in the future without express permission from the holder of the easement is governmental control gone awry. We are not a communist country, but this feels very communistic in nature when you are no longer allowed to use your land as you need to or make changes to it as needed without permission. No one needs NAC as a parent. An article published by the National Center for Public Policy (NCPP) in 2008, found that twothirds of The Nature Conservancy’s budget was spent on purchasing conservation easements from landowners and then reselling these to government entities. In most cases the easement reduces the taxable value of the land, causing property taxes to go up for surrounding landowners, and the revenue to states and counties for public services to go down. Nebraska Department of Revenue found that the Federal Wetlands Reserve Easement devalued the land by 40%. Eliminating the “in-perpetuity” provision at the state and federal level would allow the next generation to decide if they want to continue with the conservation servitude on the land. There is a concept in property law that the “dead hand” should not control land beyond the grave, that the earth belongs to the living. A term no longer than 30 years would allow the current generation to place their land in a conservation servitude, giving the next generation the opportunity to change that path if they so choose. Policies can be adopted at the local, State and federal level to minimize the erosion of property rights and degradation of the land caused by conservation easements Some of these are: (1) Sunset conservation easements to a term of 30 years or less; (2) Create a buyback provision for landowners who hold easements that have been negatively impacted by the agreement; (3) Prohibit the purchase of easements in Counties where 15 percent or more of the lands within the County’s jurisdiction are already held in conservation easements, enrolled in conservation programs, are owned by federal, state or local governments, are otherwise non-taxable, or are a combination of these restrictions; and, (4) Amend the tax code allowing for income and estate tax deductions for easements that are 30 years or less. Farmers and Ranchers and other large land owners understand being good stewards of the land. We understand that we need to conserve the lands around us and keep them in good stead for future generations. Taking the rights of land owners away with overreaching governmental rules and policies that allow private entities to make decisions about the land does not mean that it is in good hands or good stewardship by them. Please reconsider this ruling for the good of our country and its lands.