White Paper: Option for Land Protection Component

Home Browse Search

F.and Entity White Paper November 30, 1999 Responsiveness to "good neighLor" usues - Landorvners and local communities are concerned that actiuns on Program lands be planned and camed out taking inta account the practices of neighboring landowners. They are also concerned that the Program and/or I.and Entity will have expectations regarding neighboring landovmers' futwe land use practices. This seems to be essentially a question of whether the Program will be a "good neighbor." Some concerns relate to the potential impacts of weed management, introduction of new animal species that aze viewed Iocally as pests, and potential restrictions an adjacent land use.Z Local landflwners also have concems about recreational access by neighbors (primarily for hunting), and the patential far widespread public access fvr bird watching that could spill over onto their lands and create liabilzty issues for them. Interviews suggest that other Prog?ram participants agree that, as much as passible while meeting land protection objectives, hunting, grazing and even raw crops in areas outside the river channel wiil continue to take place. This has not become formal policy of the Cooperative Agreement, however,leaving eonsiderable uncertainty as to whether it will come to pass. In addition, concerns were raised that, contrary to the "willing buyerlwilling seller" philasophy, there could be an effort to create a"buffer" on private property adjacent to Program lands.3 Other participants suggest that Program lands will be "good neighbors" because of the potential ta improve and diversify the local ecanomy through the infusion of Program funds, thflugh there is great skepticism in the local community as to whether this investment will be beneficial or detrimentai. "Goad neighbor" issues will ultimately be addressed through implementation policies, but uncertainty as to haw they will be resolved in a Program makes them strong factors in how some participants view the selection of a Land Entity, its govemance structure, and its relationship to the Governance Committee anci other Program cammittees. Fairness to Landowners - Under the proposed Program, transactions with landowners must be carried out on a willing buyer/willing seller basis. Fairness alsa suggests that landowners should understand the implication of alternatives and be competently represented. Some participants believe fairness may suggest some uniformity in pricing. This may be impractical as each landowner's situation (the time frame, the type and 2 Specificaliy, potential neighhars are concerned that the pravisions of the Noxious Weed Control Act, Neb. Rev_ Stat. Sec. 2-945.01 et seq., be followed, and that weeds iikely to be classified as "noxious" in the fixture, such as purple loosestrife, be checked from spreading from Program lands. There are also cancerns that prairie dogs will be enoouraged and will spread, creating hazardous and unusable ground for grazing. For many years prairie dogs were listed as pests to be eradicated under Neb. Rev. Stat. Sec. 2-1066 er seq. 3 The concem is that x farmer whose neighbors had provided land to the Pragram would be stopped fram (i) fanning as in the past because now his operatians were disturbing use of the habitat, or (2) developing his land by changing farming practices, putting up new buildings, leasing hunting blinds, ete. The Nebraska Right to Farm Act, Neb. Rev. Stat. Sec. 2-4403, offers some protaciion to farmers continuing existing practices, but not for new uses. Flansburgh v. Coffev, 370 NW2d 127 (1985). This statute also only can offer protection in nuisance suits or as an expression of the view and expactations af the people in zoning proceedings. If the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or others were to try #o use section 10 of the Endangered Species Act and argue that farmers were now "taking" species or criticaf habitat, Nebraska's statntes would offer little help (though othtr defenses may be availab[e). i.ocal interests are looking for assucances that neighboring Program lands wiU noi result in agencies acting separately and apart from the Program to limit activities and secure habitat protection from farmers who are nat wiiEing sellers or lessors.