Holt County supervisors table decision on permanent easement

A decision on a perpetual easement for the Graham Crowe Ranch, LLC, in northeastern Holt County, will be revisited at 10:30 a.m., during a March 16 meeting of the Holt County Supervisors.

Supervisor Don Butterfield, of Atkinson, made a motion to table a decision, Feb. 28, following a public hearing which lasted more than 90 minutes.

"I need to have a little time to mull this over," Butterfield said.

Chairman Bill Tielke said it's unfair to make a quick decision.

"Don, I'll agree with you. This is more information than I can handle. I wrote down a lot of information," Tielke said.

Supervisor Scott Keyes seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. Supervisor Doug Frahm was absent.

Public comment will not be heard on the easement during the March 16 meeting

Landowners Les and Jan Graham own ranch land they want to place in a perpetual conservation easement through the Nebraska Land Trust, a non-profit organization "dedicated to the mission of protecting agricultural, historical and natural resources on land in Nebraska."

A perpetual conservation easement would keep the Graham's property as working ranchland and the couple would continue to pay property tax rates on Holt County grassland.

Dave Sands, director of the Nebraska Land Trust, said conservation easements can be designed several different ways.

"We design our conservation easements to be in concert with a working farm or ranch. We want to keep productive ag lands growing crops and cattle."

Sands said threats exist on farm and ranch land, especially along rivers, where developers want to divide land into parcels, pushing out farmers and ranchers.

If granted, the Grahams will be able to remove errant cedar trees, build brush piles or burn it, in order to keep the ranchland working, according to Sands.

Omaha attorney David Domina said the origins of this type of perpetual easement began with the 1985 farm bill. In 2008 and 2018, major amendments were made.

"I think it's a non-political process," Domina said. "The Nebraska legislature had an implementation role in implementing federal law. That's where Nebraska Statute 76-2,112 comes in."

"Language (in the easement) says if the Nebraska Land Trust dried up and withered away, the easement wouldn't be orphaned. The Department of Agriculture would take the easement," Sands said. "It doesn't change the (language of) the easement."

Nebraska Land Trust has an established endowment, with stewardship funds available for monitoring.

"We've taken every step to be a nationally-accredited land trust," Sands said.

Supervisor Don Butterfield asked if the ranch borders a portion of a waterway with a wild and scenic designation.

The Niobrara River borders the Graham property, but a perpetual conservation easement would echo the goals of the scenic river, according to Domina.

"Even though the corridor is upstream, part of the wild and scenic river idea is to preserve the appearance of the river. Preserving the ranch would be consistent with that designation."

The ranch also sits adjacent to the Redbird Wildlife Management Area. The easement would be consistent with the state use.

Domina said the county's comprehensive plan lists objectives and three appear to apply to the Graham easement.

"The first objective is to maintain agriculture as the primary economic function in the county. This is key to the ranch. Provide a pattern of compatible land uses is another. This is up in the northeast area of the county that isn't broken, in this area, by irrigation, hasn't been broken by a plow. It's going to stay that way under the easement."

Another objective in the county's comprehensive plan, according to Domina, is "to preserve and protect streams, wooded areas and natural drainage areas."

"In your comprehensive plan, you have one full Page devoted to the Redbird site ... It seems these three reasons are all supportive of your voting in favor of it," Domina said.

The easement would limit where building on the Graham property can occur.

Domina said it's an interesting issue.

"I wondered if you, as a board, could require a conditional use permit to go with this ... The idea is to make sure there is control with what you have in your current rules to build things in rural areas and not something else."

The easement would also limit crop cultivation to wildlife food plots.

"That may be important in Holt County," Domina said. "This will never use water. It has to be a ranch."

If the easement were declared to an end, by an agreement of all parties and consent of the government, an 18% tax surcharge will be assessed to the property owner.

Sands said language in the easement would not allow for the parcel to be subdivided into a parcel smaller than would be a viable agriculture property in Holt County.

"It can be divided. There's no guarantee it will stay in one big bunch," Butterfield said.

The median size of farms in the county, as determined by the U.S.D.A. Agriculture Statistic Survey, would determine if the land could be divided at some point, according to Domina.

A couple Holt County residents spoke against the easement.

Grace Coleman questioned if the easement would become part of the proposed 30x30 program.

Larry Wewel said he opposes perpetual easement.

"The board here has an opportunity to go on record today or in the future as being opposed to that land grab or easements," he said.

Whether a perpetual easement may become part of the 30x30 program is unclear.

Keyes asked Holt County Attorney Brett Kelly if it could be counted.

Kelly said, "When people say 30x30, it is one line out of an executive order by President Biden. There's no 30x30 program director. No 30x30 office, like the ATF or FBI. It's not necessarily a program but an idea, as I understand it."

The bottom line: it is open to interpretation, if the 30x30 program ever comes to fruition.

Kelly told supervisors state statute 76-2,112 outlines the procedure for approving or denying an easement.

The attorney said, according to state statute, the easement application can be denied for three reasons: if it's inconsistent with the comprehensive plan; inconsistent with any national, state, regional or local program furthering conservation or preservation or unconsistent with any known proposal by a government body for use of that land.

"Practically, I can only see one that applies," Kelly said. The only thing I see you hang your hat on is if it is inconsistent with the county's comprehensive plan."