Florida Statute 570.71 | Lawyer Caselaw & Research

The 2024 Florida Statutes

Title XXXV
AGRICULTURE, HORTICULTURE, AND ANIMAL INDUSTRY

Chapter 570
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND CONSUMER SERVICES

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 570.71

570.71 Conservation easements and agreements.—

(1) The department, on behalf of the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund, may allocate moneys to acquire perpetual, less-than-fee interest in land, to enter into agricultural protection agreements, and to enter into resource conservation agreements for the following public purposes:

(a) Promotion and improvement of wildlife habitat;

(b) Protection and enhancement of water bodies, aquifer recharge areas, wetlands, and watersheds;

(d) Protection of agricultural lands threatened by conversion to other uses.

(2) To achieve the purposes of this section, the department may accept applications for project proposals that:

(a) Purchase conservation easements, as defined in s. 704.06.

(b) Purchase rural-lands-protection easements pursuant to this section.

(d) Fund agricultural protection agreements pursuant to this section.

(3) Rural-lands-protection easements shall be a perpetual right or interest in agricultural land which is appropriate to retain such land in predominantly its current state and to prevent the subdivision and conversion of such land into other uses. This right or interest in property shall prohibit only the following:

(a) Construction or placing of buildings, roads, billboards or other advertising, utilities, or structures, except those structures and unpaved roads necessary for the agricultural operations on the land or structures necessary for other activities allowed under the easement, and except for linear facilities described in s. 704.06(11);

(b) Subdivision of the property;

(d) Activities that affect the natural hydrology of the land or that detrimentally affect water conservation, erosion control, soil conservation, or fish or wildlife habitat, except those required for environmental restoration; federal, state, or local government regulatory programs; or best management practices.

(4) Resource conservation agreements will be contracts for services which provide annual payments to landowners for services that actively improve habitat and water restoration or conservation on their lands over and above that which is already required by law or which provide recreational opportunities. They will be for a term of not less than 5 years and not more than 10 years. Property owners will become eligible to enter into a resource conservation agreement only upon entering into a conservation easement or rural lands protection easement.

(5) Agricultural protection agreements shall be for terms of 30 years and will provide payments to landowners having significant natural areas on their land. Public access and public recreational opportunities may be negotiated at the request of the landowner.

(a) For the length of the agreement, the landowner shall agree to prohibit:

1. Construction or placing of buildings, roads, billboards or other advertising, utilities, or structures, except those structures and unpaved roads necessary for the agricultural operations on the land or structures necessary for other activities allowed under the easement, and except for linear facilities described in s. 704.06(11);

2. Subdivision of the property;

3. Dumping or placing of trash, waste, or offensive materials; and

4. Activities that affect the natural hydrology of the land, or that detrimentally affect water conservation, erosion control, soil conservation, or fish or wildlife habitat.

(b) As part of the agricultural protection agreement, the parties shall agree that the state shall have a right to buy a conservation easement or rural land protection easement at the end of the 30-year term. If the landowner tenders the easement for the purchase and the state does not timely exercise its right to buy the easement, the landowner shall be released from the agricultural agreement. The purchase price of the easement shall be established in the agreement and shall be based on the value of the easement at the time the agreement is entered into, plus a reasonable escalator multiplied by the number of full calendar years following the date of the commencement of the agreement. The landowner may transfer or sell the property before the expiration of the 30-year term, but only if the property is sold subject to the agreement and the buyer becomes the successor in interest to the agricultural protection agreement. Upon mutual consent of the parties, a landowner may enter into a perpetual easement at any time during the term of an agricultural protection agreement.

(6) Payment for conservation easements and rural land protection easements shall be a lump-sum payment at the time the easement is entered into.

(7) Landowners entering into an agricultural protection agreement may receive up to 50 percent of the purchase price at the time the agreement is entered into, and remaining payments on the balance shall be equal annual payments over the term of the agreement.

(8) Payments for the resource conservation agreements shall be equal annual payments over the term of the agreement.

(9) Easements purchased pursuant to this act may not prevent landowners from transferring the remaining fee value with the easement.

(10) The department, in consultation with the Department of Environmental Protection, the water management districts, the Department of Commerce, and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, shall adopt rules that establish an application process; a process and criteria for setting priorities for use of funds consistent with the purposes specified in subsection (1) and giving preference to ranch and timber lands managed using sustainable practices, lands in imminent danger of development or degradation, or lands within the Florida wildlife corridor as defined in s. 259.1055(4); an appraisal process; and a process for title review and compliance and approval of the rules by the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund.

(11) If a landowner objects to having his or her property included in any lists or maps developed to implement this act, the department shall remove the property from any such lists or maps upon receipt of the landowner’s written request to do so.

(12) The department may use appropriated funds from the following sources to implement this section:

(a) State funds;

(b) Federal funds;

(d) Nongovernmental organizations; or

(e) Private individuals.

Any such funds provided, other than from the Land Acquisition Trust Fund, shall be deposited into the Incidental Trust Fund within the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services and used for the purposes of this section, including administrative and operating expenses related to appraisals, mapping, title process, personnel, and other real estate expenses.

(13) No more than 10 percent of any funds made available to implement this act shall be expended for resource conservation agreements and agricultural protection agreements.

(14) Notwithstanding any other law or rule, the department shall submit a purchase agreement authorized by this section to the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund for approval only if the purchase price exceeds $5 million.

History.—s. 63, ch. 2001-279; s. 5, ch. 2002-4; s. 48, ch. 2002-295; s. 113, ch. 2005-2; s. 425, ch. 2011-142; s. 99, ch. 2014-150; s. 81, ch. 2015-229; s. 21, ch. 2023-154; s. 17, ch. 2023-169; s. 228, ch. 2024-6.

F.S. 570.71 on Google Scholar

F.S. 570.71 on Casetext

Amendments to 570.71

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 570.71

Level: Degree
Misdemeanor/Felony: First/Second/Third

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 570.71.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases Citing Statute 570.71

Total Results: 20

JEANNETTE NEALY v. STATE OF FLORIDA

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2024-06-07

Snippet: Stat. (2019); Sepulveda v. State, 909 So. 2d 568, 570-71 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (“With respect to the timeliness

LUKE BEGONJA, ROBERT F. PRINCE, AND KENT M. MCCAIN v. WYNDHAM VACATION RESORTS, INC., WYNDHAM VACATION OWNERSHIP, INC., AND WYNDHAM VACATION MANAGEMENT, INC.

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2023-11-17

Snippet: Enters. v. Tommy Constantine Racing, 185 So. 3d 566, 570–71 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016) (“One proper reason for denying

Michael Shane Bargo v. State of Florida

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 2021-06-24

Snippet: occurring after the murder occurred. Id. at 570-71. - 29 -

MICHAEL CANO and TAMARA CONCHITA WARD v. IN RE: MIRDZA MUSA KALNINS CANO

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2021-05-19

Snippet: vacate the default”), and Sender, 757 So. 2d at 570–71 (reversing default final judgment where the violation

EDMUND ACCARDI v. REGIONS BANK

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2020-12-09

Snippet: collecting on a federal money judgment. Id. at 570–71. The court held that post-judgment discovery was

Firstservice Residential Fla., Inc. v. Rodriguez

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2018-12-07

Citation: 261 So. 3d 674

Snippet: for CSFB Heat 2006-7 v. Tranumn, 247 So.3d 567, 570-71 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018) ; Hernando HMA, LLC v. Erwin

Firstservice Residential Fla., Inc. v. Rodriguez

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2018-12-07

Citation: 261 So. 3d 674

Snippet: for CSFB Heat 2006-7 v. Tranumn, 247 So.3d 567, 570-71 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018) ; Hernando HMA, LLC v. Erwin

SHARONIT AMAR SELIGSOHN v. JACOB SELIGSOHN

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2018-11-28

Citation: 259 So. 3d 874

Snippet: 1956); Carter’s Adm’rs v. Carter, 20 Fla. 558, 570–71 (Fla. 1884)). Former Wife argues the court erred

Sterling Breeze Owners' Association, Inc. v. New Sterling Resorts, LLC and Sterling Breeze, LLC

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2018-09-05

Citation: 255 So. 3d 434

Snippet: Towers Homeowners Ass’n v. Jones, 231 So. 3d 566, 570-71 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017) (relying on the definition

Florida Dept. of Children & Families, et.al. v. A.R. and R.L., Parents

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2018-08-03

Citation: 253 So. 3d 1158

Snippet: of Health & Rehab. Servs., 577 So. 2d 565, 570-71 (Fla. 1991). As stated by the Florida Supreme

D.S., the Father v. Department of Children And Families

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2015-04-22

Citation: 164 So. 3d 29, 2015 WL 1810315

Snippet: Dep’t of Health & Rehab. Sevs., 577 So.2d 565, 570-71 (Fla.1991). A finding of least restrictive means

Henry v. State

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 2013-10-31

Citation: 125 So. 3d 745, 38 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 773, 2013 WL 5878896, 2013 Fla. LEXIS 2351

Snippet: ineffective in this regard. Henry, 937 So.2d at 570-71. We also noted that the issue of Henry’s waiver

Washington National Insurance v. Ruderman

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 2013-07-03

Citation: 117 So. 3d 943, 38 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 511, 2013 WL 3333059, 2013 Fla. LEXIS 1388

Snippet: also Stuyvesant Ins. Co. v. Butler, 314 So.2d 567, 570-71 (Fla.1975) (approving reliance on extrinsic evidence

Van Poyck v. State

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 2013-06-06

Citation: 116 So. 3d 347, 2013 WL 2436644

Snippet: life sentence. Ventura v. State, 794 So.2d 553, 570-71 (Fla.2001): see also Jones v. State, 591 So.2d

Haridopolos v. Citizens for Strong Schools, Inc.

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2011-11-23

Citation: 81 So. 3d 465, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 18738, 2011 WL 7637788

Snippet: 317-19, 655 N.E.2d 661, 666-76, 631 N.Y.S.2d 565, 570-71 (1995); Claremont School District v. Governor,

Haridopolos v. Citizens for Strong Schools, Inc.

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2011-11-23

Citation: 78 So. 3d 605, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 21380, 2011 WL 5865963

Snippet: 317-19, 655 N.E.2d 661, 666-76, 631 N.Y.S.2d 565, 570-71 (1995); Claremont School District v. Governor,

State v. Stang

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 2010-07-08

Citation: 41 So. 3d 206, 35 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 448, 2010 Fla. LEXIS 1117, 2010 WL 2682255

Snippet: respectfully dissent. . See Stang v. State, 24 So.3d 566, 570-71 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (“Under these circumstances

Curd v. Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 2010-06-17

Citation: 39 So. 3d 1216, 40 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. Law Inst.) 20172, 2010 A.M.C. 2211, 35 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 341, 71 ERC (BNA) 1005, 2010 Fla. LEXIS 944, 2010 WL 2400384

Snippet: Hurricane-Related Sand Loss, 38 Stetson L.Rev. 541, 570-71 (2009) (“Sales tax revenues, parking fees, fines

McKenzie v. State

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 2010-01-07

Citation: 29 So. 3d 272, 35 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 7, 2010 Fla. LEXIS 6, 2010 WL 26526

Snippet: this case. See Snelgrove v. State, 921 So.2d 560, 570-71 (Fla.2005); Pangburn v. State, 661 So.2d 1182,

Vargas v. Enterprise Leasing Co.

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2008-10-31

Citation: 993 So. 2d 614, 2008 WL 4756388

Snippet: vehicles. See Fischer v. Alessandrini, 907 So.2d 569, 570-71 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (recognizing that section 324