White Paper: Options for Managing the Land Protection Component of the PRRIP

Home Browse Search

Land Entity White Paper November 30, 1999 Responsiveness to "good neighbor" issues — Landowners and local communities are concerned that actions on Program lands be planned and carried out taking into account the practices of neighboring landowners. They are also concerned that the Program and/or Land Entity will have expectations regarding neighboring landowners' future 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 are viewed locally as pests, and potential restrictions on adjacent land use.2 Local landowners also have concerns about recreational access by neighbors (primarily for hunting), and the potential for widespread public access for bird watching that could spill over onto their lands and create liability issues for them. Interviews suggest that other Program participants agree that, as much as possible while meeting land protection objectives, hunting, grazing and even row crops in areas outside the river channel will continue to take place. This has not become formal policy of the Cooperative Agreement, however, leaving considerable uncertainty as to whether it will come to pass. In addition, concerns were raised that, contrary to the "willing buyer /willing seller" philosophy, 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 to improve and diversify the local economy through the infusion of Program funds, though there is great skepticism in the local community as to whether this investment will be beneficial or detrimental. "Good neighbor" issues will ultimately be addressed through implementation policies, but uncertainty as to how they will be resolved in a Program makes them strong factors in how some participants view the selection of a Land Entity, its governance structure, and its relationship to the Governance Committee and other Program committees. Fairness to Landowners — Under the proposed Program, transactions with landowners must be carried out on a willing buyer /willing seller basis. Fairness also 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 Specifically, potential neighbors are concerned that the provisions of the Noxious Weed Control Act, Neb. Rev. Stat. Sec. 2- 945.01 et seq., be followed, and that weeds likely to be classified as "noxious" in the future, such as purple loosestrife, be checked from spreading from Program lands. There are also concerns that prairie dogs will be encouraged 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 et seq. 3 The concern is that a farmer whose neighbors had provided land to the Program would be stopped from (1) farming as in the past because now his operations were disturbing use of the habitat, or (2) developing his land by changing farming practices, putting up new buildings, leasing hunting blinds, etc. The Nebraska Right to Farm Act, Neb. Rev. Stat. Sec. 24403, offers some protection 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 expectations of the people in zoning proceedings. If the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or others were to try to use section 10 of the Endangered Species Act and argue that farmers were now "taking" species or critical habitat, Nebraska's statutes would offer little help (though other defenses may be available). Local interests are looking for assurances that neighboring Program lands will not result in agencies acting separately and apart from the Program to limit activities and secure habitat protection from farmers who are not willing sellers or lessors.