As the owners of the Shuswap North Okanagan Rail Trail prepare to celebrate the completion of a pilot section of the trail in Enderby, farmers are raising concerns about future access to their properties.
The Regional District of North Okanagan (RDNO), Columbia Shuswap Regional District (CSRD) and Splatsin are the Rail Trail owners. After completing a two-kilometre section of the trail in Enderby (for which there will be a grand opening on Friday), the owners plan to construct 51 kilometres of trail between Sicamous and Armstrong.
However, some farmers on Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) land abutting the rail corridor are concerned that access to their property could one day be cut off once the trail is built.
Jeanette Netzel says her Armstrong property on ALR land would be “landlocked” by the trail once it’s completed. She told The Morning Star she has door-knocked in her area and has heard concerns from farmers about property access relating to the trail.
Netzel’s chief concern is that the Rail Trail owners are seeking to provide permits to property owners along the future trail, but said she and others believe easements should be granted instead, because easements are permanent.
“An easement is registered on title. A permit is a permission slip based on a bylaw that can be changed,” Netzel said.
A total of 35 kilometres of the rail trail runs through the ALR, and Netzel argues that permits arising out of a bylaw are an “unreasonable reduction of the historical rights afforded to properties adjacent to railways.”
The grand opening of the pilot section of the trail in Enderby is taking place at 10 a.m. Friday, May 10, and Netzel said some farmers will be making a demonstration at the event, bringing their tractors as well as an “information fact sheet” containing the concerns farm property owners have.
“For 123 years farmers have crossed (the railway corridor) without the necessity of a permit, yet there are no registered easements along the 51 km of tract,” reads the brochure the farmers will hand out Friday.
However, Ian Wilson, general manager of strategic and community services with the RDNO, assured that access to farms along the Rail Trail will be maintained.
“Agricultural properties requiring access across the rail trail lands will never be denied access, regardless of whether a permit is in place or not,” Wilson said. “The permits provide an additional level of assurance. All crossings — plus any additional crossings which are found during construction — will be incorporated in the construction of the rail trail regardless. Funding has been secured for this as part of the rail trail construction scheduled to begin.”
He said the permits do not expire, remain in effect even if property ownership changes, and “provide more security than (the property owners) ever had with CP railway crossing agreements.
Wilson said when the owners purchased the former rail trail lands, they inherited any existing agreements or easements attached to the properties.
“This did not include any easements for farm crossings, but the owners are aware of about 22 existing farm crossings,” Wilson said.
He added that initially, crossing agreements were offered, but some farmers had concerns with these agreements. Crossing permits (modelled after driveway permits from the Ministry of Transportation) were developed to address issues brought forward by farmers in the area.
Wilson said permits were decided upon in part because they offer “greater flexibility” for the landowner and the trail owners. They also save public tax dollars, he said, because permanent easements come with survey and legal fees.
“We have currently issued permits for 16 of the 22 farm crossings,” Wilson said.
In addition to permits, the RDNO and CSRD boards passed policies that agricultural access will be provided, as well as bylaws that recognize the right to access, Wilson said.
But Netzel and other farmers are concerned that permits could be cancelled in the future, and say easements were promised in the past. Furthermore, Netzel said the rail trail owners are required to have a signed agreement with property owners before construction of the rail trail.
A total of 171 ALR properties adjacent to the rail trail have been identified, but Wilson said not all of them require a signed agreement.
The current issue is whether the 22 known vehicle crossing locations should be easements rather than existing permits, Wilson said.
This is the issue that is currently before the Agricultural Land Commission (ALC), and the rail trail owners are currently awaiting the ALC’s final decision.
“The owners feel that we have taken all reasonable steps to address the concerns that were raised and to help ensure that the trail does not create negative impacts on agriculture,” Wilson said.
“On previous ALC applications for recreational trails, including the Okanagan Rail Trail, the owners have been required to address concerns from nearby farms, but have not been mandated to provide signed agreement from all landowners.”
The Morning Star reached out to the ALC to ask if it has approved construction of the rail trail.
READ MORE: Construction begins on Shuswap North Okanagan Rail Trail