An Act Requiring Legislative Approval Of The Department Of Energy And Environmental Protection's Eviction Of Farmers Conducting Farming On State-owned Property.
Summary
SB 72 would require that, for any lease of state-owned property for agricultural use entered into or renewed after the bill’s effective date, a farmer could not be evicted unless both chambers of the General Assembly approve the eviction by vote. The bill applies to leases involving either the Commissioner of Agriculture or the Commissioner of Energy and Environmental Protection, and it is framed as a protection for farmers who are lawfully farming on state land.
In practical terms, the bill would add a new legislative check on executive-branch decisions affecting agricultural tenants on state property. It would not broadly change private landlord-tenant law; instead, it would create a special rule for state land leases used for farming, limiting the ability of DEEP or Agriculture to remove a farmer without direct legislative approval. The measure would take effect immediately upon passage and would apply prospectively to leases entered into or renewed after that date.
Impact
The bill would amend state law by creating a new statutory requirement that eviction of a farmer from state-owned agricultural land cannot occur unless both the House and Senate approve it. This would constrain the discretion of the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection and the Commissioner of Agriculture in managing state land leases, and it would likely affect future lease negotiations, renewal terms, and enforcement actions involving farmers on public land. The bill does not appear to alter general eviction law outside this narrow state-property context.
Sentiment
The available record shows limited formal debate: there are no committee transcript excerpts and the only recorded action is a vote-to-draft tally with no yeas or nays recorded. Based on the bill text and its stated purpose, the measure appears to be motivated by a protective stance toward farmers using state land, suggesting generally supportive sentiment among its sponsors and proponents. However, the absence of recorded discussion makes it difficult to assess broader committee sentiment or opposition.
Contention
The main point of contention is institutional authority: the bill shifts final eviction authority from the relevant executive agencies to the full General Assembly, which could be seen as an unusual legislative override of administrative land-management decisions. Supporters are likely to emphasize protecting farmers from abrupt removal and preserving agricultural use of state land, while potential opponents may argue that requiring bicameral legislative approval could make routine lease enforcement slow, politicized, or impractical. Another possible concern is that the bill could limit the state’s flexibility in managing public property and responding to environmental, operational, or contractual issues.