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!