Farm Bureau Offers Advice To Make NHA Designation A Blessing, Not A Curse

By Tammy Gray-Searles
   The proposal to create a National Heritage Area out of more than 23,000 square miles in Northeastern Arizona and New Mexico has raised concerns among members of the Arizona Farm Bureau.
   Two of the major concerns brought forth include private property rights and local control. According to an opinion piece written by Yuma County Farm Bureau Board member Harold Maxwell, there is evidence that other heritage areas have negatively impacted private property rights.
   “Local governments find themselves in a difficult situation: either adopt the new land use plans and put local property owners at risk, or reject the land use plan and put their federal funding at risk,” Maxwell wrote. “This is not just idle conjecture. The Wheeling National Heritage Area, Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor, Essex National Heritage Area, Erie Canalway National Heritage Corridor, and the Journey Through Hallowed Ground National Heritage Area are just a few examples of where local zoning was changed to accommodate the management plan and those changes did negatively impact local land owners’ property rights.”
   The Farm Bureau contends that the language that prohibits the use of eminent domain or federal funding in order to acquire land for a National Heritage Area offers only limited protection. According to Max-well, while eminent domain or federal funding cannot be used, private matching funds and zoning ordinances can be used to obtain private land.
   “This is not an insignificant problem,” according to Maxwell.
   “Heritage areas on average receive $8 in matching funds for every $1 that is provided under the Heritage Area Act. Far and away the majority of the funds generated by a heritage area are eligible to purchase private property, or issue conservation or historical easements.
   “This is of particular significance in Arizona, as only 13 percent of our land is privately owned. Any acquisition that removes land from the tax rolls has the potential for a huge negative impact on the amount of property tax collected for our local communities.
   “Even a more serious issue is the potential of a heritage area to acquire land and then donate the land to the National Park Service. This is what happened with the Shenandoah Valley Battlefield Foundation. The Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historical Park as it is now known was created in 2003 by using a combination of donated lands and conservation easements. Though National Heritage Areas do not impose direct restrictions on property, this is not the case for the National Park Service.”
   Maxwell also points out that he believes the findings of a March 2004 Governmental Accounting Office (GAO) study indicating that heritage areas had no effect on private property values or use is flawed. He notes that the report was published prior to problems that arose with the Yuma Crossing National Heritage Area, that only groups and not individual property owners were surveyed, and that it did not take long-term land use into consideration.
   “It is also evident that the GAO was only concerned about the immediate impact of the bill and not the consequences from the land use planning that was encouraged by the National Heritage Areas,” Maxwell noted. “When one reviews the literature looking for cases where National Heritage Areas have influenced local zoning ordinances, it becomes apparent even to the casual observer that National Heritage Areas can and do have the ability to affect property rights.”
   As for local control, Maxwell points out that it is impossible for anyone to have local control over a 23,000 square-mile area that includes parts of four states, seven Native American tribes and 27 counties.
   Maxwell and the Farm Bureau suggest that if the communities wish to proceed with a National Heritage Area designation that they seek their own smaller, local designation.
   “Yuma learned that local control is critical,” wrote Maxwell. “When issues arose it was relatively easy to convince our county board of supervisors and the Yuma County Council to pass resolutions protecting our citizens.”
   He also suggests that if the heritage designation proceeds, language should be included that would pro-hibit the heritage area from using any funds, not just federal funds, to purchase private property or ease-ments.
   “This would ensure that private property stays on the tax rolls and is not retired. It also would ensure that land is not donated by the heritage area to create a new or expanded National Park,” Maxwell wrote.
   Heritage Programs Coordinator for the Center for Desert Archaeology Linda Marie Golier responded in writing to some of the Farm Bureau’s concerns.
   According to Gollier, a management plan for the heritage area will be created, but it will be for promot-ing goals such as tourism and education, and will not include land use.
   “An important first point raised in the Farm Bureau letter is that establishment of a National Heritage Area will impose an area management plan,” Gollier wrote. “This term ‘management plan’ requires further explanation.
   “It is a legal requirement that a management plan be prepared during the initial years of a new heritage area. The purpose of that plan is to outline a clear set of publicly supported goals and to identify specific ways to achieve those goals. Thus, this is a strategic plan, and it is definitely not a land management plan.
   “It is a fact that National Heritage Areas do not affect private property rights and do not have land management authority that makes this such an appropriate approach for the Little Colorado River Valley.
   “The goals of a heritage area are to promote heritage tourism, cultural education, and respect for natural and cultural resources. Designation as a National Heritage Area provides an additional revenue source and partnership opportunities to achieve those goals. A heritage area designation is not a zoning tool and has no authority over land management or development.”
   Gollier went on to note that three Navajo tribal chapters have passed resolutions of support for the designation, that land ownership and management authority would not change with the designation, and that no new regulations or restrictions would be placed on archaeological sites or mineral or water rights.
   As for zoning issues, Gollier noted, “By law, many heritage areas are specifically restricted from having planning and zoning authority, and the Little Colorado River Valley National Heritage Area will include this provision in its draft legislation. Therefore, cities and counties will continue to manage their communities through the same means they always have.”
   Two more local meetings on the heritage area proposal are scheduled in Winslow and Snowflake. The meeting in Winslow is scheduled at 6:30 p.m. on Wednesday, April 9, at the Northland Pioneer College campus, located at 1400 East Third Street, Room 102. The meeting in Snowflake is scheduled at 5 p.m. on Thursday, April 10, at Cocina de Eva restaurant, located at 201 N. Main St. The meetings are open house, and the public is invited to come anytime during a two-hour period.