Protecting Rural Landowners: Eminent Domain Reform in Kentucky

BCRP 07AUG2025 (Source: Legislative Research Commission)

Rolling hills and lush greenery define the rural landscape in Rush, Kentucky, with scattered farm buildings nestled amidst vibrant fields and clear blue skies. (Source)

On 24th of July in Frankfort, two Kentucky lawmakers— Rep. Ryan Bivens (R) of Hodgenville and Rep. T.J. Roberts (R) of Burlington—presented a bold proposal to overhaul the state’s eminent domain laws. Though their respective bills, House Bill 630 and House Bill 353, did not pass in the last session, their renewed focus on landowner rights is likely to resonate strongly with farmers and rural families across Northeastern Kentucky.

Their message is clear: it’s time to restore balance between public infrastructure needs and the private rights of those who live, work, and raise families on Kentucky soil.

A Long-Awaited Shift in Perspective

At the heart of Rep. Bivens’ House Bill 630 is a deeply personal view of farmland—not just as open space, but as an engine of economic and cultural stability. “We’ve got to start looking at agriculture not as an open piece of ground that we can put a blacktop of concrete over,” Bivens told the Interim Joint Committee on Judiciary. “We’ve got to think about what it does for the economy.”

Rep. Bivens (R) of Hodgenville addresses eminent domain implications. The discussion focused on the challenges stakeholders face when their land is subject to government acquisition for public use. (Source)

His bill aimed to protect land under agricultural conservation easements while also increasing transparency in the eminent domain process. Crucially, HB 630 proposed compensating landowners with 125% of the highest appraised value for property used for agriculture or conservation—an acknowledgment that traditional market appraisals often fail to reflect the true value of land that has been farmed for generations.

This point was driven home by Rebecca Steele, a farmer from Bourbon County, who testified about the uncertainty her family faced after learning their land could be seized. Her mother had invested over $400,000 into improving a dam and planned to turn part of their land into a wedding venue—until the threat of eminent domain halted everything. “Any improvements made to the property, we were not going to receive the value of that,” she said. The family had no choice but to stop investing in their land, unsure of whether they would be fairly compensated, or even informed, if the property was taken.

Making Eminent Domain a Last Resort

Rep. T.J. Roberts’ House Bill 353 complemented Bivens’ efforts with additional layers of protection. His bill sought to ban the use of eminent domain for private development, a practice that has sparked growing outrage since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2005 (in Kelo v. City of New London) that local governments could seize private property for economic development projects.

Roberts argued that the practice is still alive in Kentucky—and that it needs to stop. “We still have requirements that allow individuals to have their property taken and be given to other private entities,” he said. HB 353 would have required public hearings before any land seizure, along with proper notice and reasonable time for property owners to repair or maintain buildings labeled as “blighted.” The goal, Roberts explained, is to ensure that eminent domain is truly used as a last resort, not as a shortcut to bypass property owners for the sake of growth.

Local Concerns and the Path Ahead

Not everyone opposed the intent of the legislation. Rep. Nima Kulkarni, a Democrat from Louisville, said she agreed with the bills “conceptually,” but raised valid concerns about how they would apply in Kentucky’s unique legal and economic environment. Roberts acknowledged that his bill was based on legislation from other states but expressed openness to amending it to better suit Kentucky’s needs.

Meanwhile, Rep. Wade Williams (R) -Earlington, who works in economic development, voiced frustration with the idea that the government can take land for business interests. As someone who often negotiates directly with property owners, he emphasized that mutual agreement—not coercion—should be the standard.

To illustrate a more cooperative approach, Bivens gave an example: a utility company could coordinate with farmers and delay installing power lines until after harvest season, avoiding unnecessary damage to crops. In his words, “We don’t think about what impacts we leave behind—what those unintended consequences were.”

What This Means for Rural Kentucky

If either of these bills—or a future version—becomes law, the implications for rural communities in Northeastern Kentucky would be significant.

First, property owners would have stronger legal protection from sudden or unfair land seizures, particularly in cases where farmland might be targeted for roads, utilities, or industrial development.

Second, the proposed 125% compensation rule would provide more equitable financial recognition for land that often carries deep generational value and economic purpose.

Third, transparency reforms—such as required notice, grace periods, and public hearings—would give rural landowners a voice and a chance to respond, rather than being blindsided by legal or bureaucratic decisions.

At the same time, there is an important trade-off: tighter restrictions on eminent domain could slow some forms of economic development, particularly in rural counties hoping to attract businesses or infrastructure projects. But many rural Kentuckians would likely argue that such growth should not come at the expense of family farms and local sovereignty.

Conclusion

The conversation sparked by HB 630 and HB 353 represents more than a policy debate. It’s part of a broader reckoning with how Kentucky balances the demands of modern growth with the rights of those who have worked the land for generations.

For landowners in places like Boyd, Greenup, Carter, and Lawrence counties, these reforms offer hope—hope that the law might begin to respect the lived realities of rural people, who ask for nothing more than fairness, transparency, and the right to stay rooted where they are.

The 2026 legislative session begins in January. Whether these bills advance in their current form or are reshaped through negotiation, one thing is clear: the future of Kentucky’s rural landowners will be shaped by what lawmakers decide next.