Senator Dan Lederman (R-16/Dakota Dunes) is hollering about outsiders taking away South Dakotans' and Nebraskans' property rights. No, he's not finally getting his property-rights ducks in a row and protesting TransCanada's use of eminent domain to seize land for its Keystone pipelines. Heck no—junketing Lederman loves putting Canadian oil profits over local land rights.

Senator Lederman is actually opposing a federal conservation plan, the Niobrara Confluence and Ponca Bluffs Conservation Area:

Our Federal Government is threatening to take 90,000 acres of privately held property in South Dakota and Nebraska under the Land Protection Plan (LPP) for the Niobrara Confluence and Ponca Bluffs Conservation Area.  You only have until September 30, 2013 to voice your opinion about this threat to private property rights.

I encourage you to read about the Niobrara Confluence and Ponca Bluffs Conservation Area, http://www.parkplanning.nps.gov/projectHome.cfm?projectID=40350, which impacts private property owners in southeast South Dakota and northeast Nebraska.  Viable agricultural land is threatened in this area.  Taxable private property is threatened in this area [Senator Dan Lederman, "Proposed Federal Land Grab Threatens Private Property Rights," blog, 2013.09.15].

Senator Lederman must be reading a different Niobrara Confluence and Ponce Bluffs Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Land Protection plan from the one I'm reading. There is no threat to private property rights, viable agricultural land, or taxable private property. Here's what's actually happening:

The National Park Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service are proposing three alternatives to acquire conservation easements on or outright purchase 5% to 15% of land in the project area along the Missouri River between Pickstown and Sioux City. (The proposed easement-purchase ratio would be 4 to 1.) The feds' preferred plan is 10%: 80,000 acres in the Niobrara Confluence upstream of the Gavins Point Dam, and 60,000 acres in Ponca Bluffs downstream of Gavins Point. The plan speaks unvaryingly of working with willing landowners. Because Senator Lederman apparently missed it, I'll write it big:

This plan is designed to work in partnership with willing landowners only.

[National Park Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Draft EIS: Niobrara Confluence and Ponca Bluffs Conservation Areas, March 2013]

If that's not clear enough, check out this flow chart of the feds' acquisition process:

Land acquisition process for the proposed Niobrara Confluence and Ponca Bluffs Conservation Areas, Nebraska and South Dakota.

Land acquisition process for the proposed Niobrara Confluence and Ponca Bluffs Conservation Areas, Nebraska and South Dakota. DEIS NC/PBCA, March 2013, p. 168

See that little arrow and octagon to the left of "Offer to landowner acceptable"? "No" means no; "End" means end. The flow chart goes no further. Contrary to the false fears Senator Lederman stokes in his comment section, there's no threat to condemn the property. Nowhere does the plan force anyone to surrender property rights.

The government will pay landowners to maintain grasses, forbs, low shrubs, and trees on the conservation easements with these restrictions:

  • Haying, mowing, and seed harvesting for any reason will not occur before July 15 in any calendar year.
  • Grassland, wildlife habitat, or other natural features will not be altered by digging, plowing, disking, or otherwise destroying the vegetative cover, and no agricultural crop production can occur on the habitat areas delineated.
  • Draining, filling, and leveling of wetlands will be prohibited.
  • Altering and stabilizing the riverbank and shoreline will be prohibited.
  • Livestock confinement facilities such as feedlots will be prohibited [Draft EIS: NC/PBCA, March 2013].

The owners can still graze the land freely. They still pay taxes and control noxious weeds. Don't like those conditions? Don't sell. Uncle Sam will take its conservation business elsewhere.

This conservation plan protects species while boosting local tourism and economic activity. It never threatens to take landowners to court to eminent domain their land, unlike TransCanada, which strongarmed landowners all along its pipeline routes with the threat of using the American court system to take American land for private foreign profit.

Senator Lederman has been silent about the property rights of South Dakota and Nebraska landowners facing the very real threat to their property rights from Canadian tar sands pipelines. But he is making stuff up to rouse opposition to a sensible and voluntary federal conservation plan.