CPR has done it again!

[edbaker]

Just when I thought CPR could possibly do no more damage to farmers than it already has, I've been proven wrong. Recently, they have "gifted" 1,618 km of abandoned rail line to the trans Canada trail foundation for use not just to hikers, but to motorcycles,four wheelers, snowmobiles,horses,etc. etc. In exchange, they have abdicated responsibility for reclamation of the rail beds,municipal and county taxes, and are receiving $13,000,000.00 in tax credit from the federal government. I am just one of many farmers whose land is unfortunately in the path of this "wonderful project" which,by the way has already recieved 7.7 million of tax payers dollars for development. None of the adjacent land owners were given a chance to purchase this property, or were even notified of the change of title. I personally will lose over 20 acres of grazing land which will be cut off by this trail,my neighbor will have it within 20 yards of his house,through the middle of his barnyard! Further down the line, others will lose access to their only water supplies, as well as large portions of their pastures, etc. Anyone we've spoken to involved with this project seems not to be interested whatsoever in our concerns. Is anyone else encountering this problem,or found a solution? At the present rate of rail line abandonment, if you live near a railway,don't be surprised to soon be awakened at2:00 a.m. by snowmobiles tearing through your front yard. If anyone has any ideas or similar problems please e-mail me or call 1-780-879-3760

[edbaker]

It appears this is issue is being quietly ignored, but many farm groups and organizations who could speak up. Last week an article about this issue ran in an local rural newspaper. Many are unaware of what is happening. Thank you for taking the time to post this. What are the thoughts of other producers? Are you aware this is happening? What steps can rural Albertans take to voice their concern over this issue?

[edbaker]

I asked around Alberta Agriculture for responses and information related to your concern. Got the following responses so far: First from representatives of AFRD on an provincial interdepartmental committee that addresses recreational trails: The issue of CPR's recent gifting of lines to the Trans Canada Trail Foundation (represented in Alberta by a non-profint group, Alberta TrailNet) has been the subject of some controversy and has been brought up for discussion in the Legislature. Alberta TrailNet and Alberta Community Development (the department responsible for recreational trail coordination in the province) are working with local groups and municipalities to address the issues of privacy, liability, and damage to adjacent private land that have been raised by local landowners and MLAs. There is also a public consultation process being developed. If anyone needs more information to address specific questions, either we can provide it or refer to Community Development. Related to the message from the landowner on WTHK, I guess I would have questions about how the landowners dealt with the severing of their land by a railroad (which was likely in place when they bought the land). The right of way is privately owned, not part of the adjacent title, and CP has no legal obligation to sell to any one party unless the line was acquired by expropriation (not common). Second response: There was a story in the Western Producer about a group, I think in Manitoba, that wanted the rail line left so they could use it for the Cross Canada Trail thing. The urgency, as I seen it in the story, was that the railroad was removing the bridges first, all along the line. They already had a contract for the removal. The bridges were key importance for the whole trail idea. If they were going to leave the bed the way it was they had to make a quick decision, at least thats how the story read. I'm not sure how this fellows neighbor got a barn on the RXR right of way but I'm sure things could be worked out. I do agree with the concerns of late night skidooing etc, but it may be easier for police to regulate things on a fenced right of way vs across fields etc. I know there's the regular concerns for weeds and maintenance also. I'm also assuming the rail and ties etc would still be removed before any public access is allowed. Over all it seems like a good trade off, the RXR saves money from clean up and reclamation and the public gets a high, very flat access for hiking and recreation. Only my opinions of course.

[edbaker]

Thankyou for your interest in this problem. In reading your response it became obvious I should have clarified a few points in my original letter. Firstly, I should say that we are finally getting some positive response from our local county councilors, as well as the local community as a whole, although nothing from our MLA or MP[big surprise,huh?] Also an interview was conducted with a local newspaper this past weekend. Everyone else along the rail line we contacted was completely surprised by this as well. It seems if they hadn't slipped up and printed their plans in the local newsletter the first we'd have known about this would be when the cats and graders came ploughing through. Also, I should clarify that this line has been abandoned since 1930, and has had no tracks since that time, and most of the original fence has long since fallen into disrepair. Most of the adjacent landowners have rolled up the fences and picked up most of the junk,as it was a hazard to livestock. Also, it has been grazed to cut down on the fire hazard from buildup of dead grass. This adjacent land was bought with the justifiable assumption it would never be used again for trains or anything else. As well, it was never, at any time, offered for sale to farmers. As far as fences go, the law was apparently changed in 1996 to make the farmers completely responsible for building and maintaining fence along the right of way. This would cost each of us several thousand dollars per quarter section I dont think any of us are opposed to the idea of a public trail, but when it will be used by a couple of special interest groups at taxpayers expense, and was aquired by such devious means,[call it what you like, I call it expropriation.] it does nothing but further alienate urban from rural people. Also, how the heck did these people get a reclamation certificate? No oil company could ever get away with that! I will appreciate any further comment, from either side.

[edbaker]

In the May 17/99 issue of Central Alberta LIFE newspaper there is an article about Regional Trail in Works. It speaks about connecting Red Deer to Slyvan Lake. It mentions that public hearings in Sylvan Lake, Innisfail, Delburne, Pine Lake and Lacombe have disclosed property owners concerns about safety and liability. Deb Comfort, the Central Alberta Regional Trail Society coordinator at 403-309-8500 mentions that under the Property Owner's Liability Act, landowners could be liable for accidents that occur on property not posted with "no tresspassing" signs. Comfort said the act will probably need to be changed before the trail project can proceed. A public meeting is being held on the Trail Project at Festival Hall in Red Deer on June 17/99 reported the article. Call 403-309-8500 for more information on the meeting.

[edbaker]

Hi, I can sypathize with some of your concerns but something does bewilder me. Why is this thing such a surprise to everyone? I have known about the initiative to build the Trans-Canada Trail for almost a decade, and it seemed pretty evident from the outset what the implications were going to be and where they had a high probability of impact. I am currently involved with a Canadian Farm Business Management Council project that is trying to address some of the issues around Farm-Community conflict and would really appreciate your insight to this question and the issues of this particular case. Regards, Keith Duhaime P.Ag.

[edbaker]

Hi, and once again I'd like to thank everyone who responded for your interest! Firstly, to answer Kieth's question, yes, I have been aware of the Trans Canada Trail for some time, however I was under the assumption the trail would be aquired by legitimate means through negotiations with landowners, whereby some flexibility would exist as to location, etc. Secondly, the trail itself, according to any media coverage I had seen, was to run east-west through southern Alberta, with one north-south line through Calgary, Red deer, Edmonton, and beyond. Not being within 100 miles of any of these routes, I was under the [mistaken] assumption we would not be affected. The line running through our property begins at Alliance [2 miles northwest of us] and ends at Coronation [47km. to the southeast] Not continuing further at either end, nobody forsaw any possibility or reason for such a trail. According to some of my research, CPR obtained much of their right of way property through expropriation from original landowners, and what was negotiated and bought exchanged hands for something on the order of 28 cents an acre. They got away with this, in large part, for"the common good" as they would provide local rail service. Our particular line was completed in 1930, and was subsequently removed later the same year, having never carried a single commercial rail car. How ironic that we should be slapped in the face with this 70 years later! I think it would only be decent to at least offer this line for sale to the ones who have dealt with the mess they have left behind and looked after this land all this time, especially considering the obtrusive nature of this project. We are currently pursuing every legal and political avenue we can think of regarding this matter. Progress is painfully slow thus far, especially considering the busy time of year, but any opinions or comments are greatly appreciated. Once again, thankyou all very much for your input.

[edbaker]

Thanks Paul, for your clear, considered and informative comments on this topic. You and the people responding to your comments have helped us to better understand this important issue. Ted Darling (Farm Management Forum moderator)

[brian]

I am also one of these people how have a rail line runing right through my pasture,and am conserned about what will happen to the right-away. What i did is frenced off booth ends,because the exsicting CPR fence is so poor that it would not hold cattle any more,and i can,t keep my herd in.This means that they will have to came to me and satisfy my consernes with the fences and liability with the corrador.

[brian]

Lorne's concerns are justified,as the law has apparently been changed in 1996 making us entirely responsible for fencing on rights of way. Dont expect Alberta trail net to come to you to address your concerns regarding fencing or liability. When contacted, the trail net representative indicated they had no plans to build any fences, and in fact discouraged farmers from doing so.[No doubt so they can freely roam off the trail at will.] When asked about the possibility of injury from a protective cow with a calf, he said farmers should get rid of any cows that are agressive or hire herders! The ridiculousness of these statements further shows the ignorance, as well as arrogance, of this group. I have been reading some legal material regarding rights of way that seems to indicate there may be a clause in Alberta law requiring a right of way to be returned to the adjacent property owner when it is no longer being used for it's original purpose. Anybody else know anything of this? Also, how about adverse posession? If anybody is more familiar than myself with these laws, your advise would be appreciated. Thanks for your letter, Lorne, and please keep me posted!

[brian]

Keith D: I am interested in your work on resolving agricultural / community conflicts. Please contact me at gardner@telusplanet.net so we can discuss this. Rob

[edbaker]

We live between Olds and Three Hills and there is a great deal of concern in the Three Hills area about this same issue. From what I read in the Three Hills paper two main concerns are first the soil is contaminated along some of the abandoned lines and by giving it away the CPR is absolved of responsibility for clean up. The other concern is the liability issue for landowners surrounding the trails. If someone wanders off a trail and injures themselves it seems that the landowner may be liable. Based on the newspaper story there is going to be a public hearing on the matter.

[brian]

The CPR line through Acme, Linden, Torrington & Wimborne has be there since 1929. How have the landowners been able to work their land with the rails and trains running? If they had cattle, didn't they have fences to keep their cattle segregated from the trains? With the TrailNet system, I'm sure the landowner would still have fences. The trail users in the main are not interested in wandering off the trail (Railway ROW) unless there is something of special interest. The landowner would know of this special interest and should contact the TrailNet organization to work out a plan that would be a win win for all. Perhaps the special interest could be an additional revenue business for the landowner & family & community. The trial users are people who have had in their past a connection to the rural community and would like to for recreation, have a place where they can experience for a day or two something of their heritage. The TraiNet system offers them that. If you are a landowner, have children and possibly grandchildren that no longer live @ hame but somewhre that a rural outing is not easy to achieve, but if the TrailNet system was near your home, they would possibly opt to come home & use the TrailNet system rather than going to Banff, Waterton or some other area where trails are a popular part of the park. Those parks are becoming so heavly used, they are becoming a problem for people to enjoy their use due to overcrowding and restrictions as to their use. Each community, towns, landowners, community groups, businesses and citizens have their own say into how their section of the trail is to be used. If you wish to restrict the use to hiking and Mountain bikes only, you have the control to make it so. I encourage all persons who live in the community, own land, operate abusiness, or are a current user to all come togetherto form a workable plan that will benefit everyone. We have lost too much of our environment to use by they wild animals, forests for the birds and just natural areas for people to enjoy, that we must look at this as a sanctuary that is worth the effort to hold onto. Lets look at all sides of this before we loose something that we will never be able to replace & our childrens childrens will never be able to enjoy.

[brian]

In past experience with snowmobilers in rallies and such, they absolutely do NOT stay on posted trails, and very seldom even ask permission before staking trails and traversing private land. The anonimity they enjoy from being stangers in a sparsely populated area seems to breed a contemptuous disregard for anybody but themselves. As far as public recreation areas being in short supply, the fact is that about 70% of all land in Alberta is publicly owned, with free access to almost all of it. Regarding fences, trains, etc. CPR abandoned our line 70 years ago, and has done no maintenance nor have they made any attempt to clean it up since then. There have been several cases in the courts lately where farmers have been successfuly sued by "recreationists" for personal injury both with AND without permission granted for access. I just spoke with Faye Engler, secretary of Cosway adjacent landowners , about a meeting of all concerned parties to be held in Three hills Community centre at 7:30 pm june 21. I would encourage all farmers to attend whether you are directly affected or not, as this could set a very dangerous precedent! If anyone would like further information, Faye can be reached at 780 459 5141, or I can be contacted at 780 879 3760 or e-mail Faye <englerh@connect.ab.ca> Paul pvaj@telusplanet.net I am looking forward to meeting many of you there, and thankyou for your interest!

[brian]

Very good point Paul! I hope land owners from all over the province will take the time to attend the meeting in Three Hills on June 21. People do not realize that even though there may not be a trail planned for their area at this time, TrailNet has stated that they will be targeting public land holdings, abandoned rail lines, irrigation canals, utility easements, oil and gas pipelines, communication networks, and power transmission lines. Alberta TrailNet hope to have a provincial trail network of approximately 4500 km. at an estimated cost of $25 to $45 million. With plans like that any one could be affected and it is best to have some information on what is occuring in other parts of the province before it happens to you. Three Hills Community Hall 7:30 pm Monday June 21, 1999 Find out where your tax dollars are beening spent.