ARMSTRONG – The 50-kilometre planned Shuswap North Okanagan rail trail from Sicamous to Armstrong remains contentious, with a conflict between landowners and regional districts over the wording and scope of easements being turned over to the Agricultural Land Commission (ALC).
The rail trail is an initiative of the Regional District of the North Okanagan (RDNO), the Columbia Shuswap Regional District (CSRD) and the Splatsin First Nation.
Most of the route, 35 kilometres, runs through the ALR, meaning that construction needs approval from the ALC.
In February 2021, the ALC conditionally approved the trail, provided that landowners confirm that “appropriate steps to identify and resolve issues of concern or conflict” are taken.
Armstrong landowners Ken and Jeanette Netzel argue that the partners behind the rail trail have failed to take these steps. They have formed a group of nine landowners with property adjacent to or on both sides of the trail who want to ensure “fair and reasonable access” to their properties.
The group was unhappy with an initial offer from the regional districts to grant landowners crossing “permits,” which they argue are essentially permission slips that could one day be cancelled.
The landowners explain that adding registered easements to their property titles would permanently secure access to their lands for their families.
In July 2024, the Netzels received a letter from the rail trail ownership group offering the option of an easement but were concerned by language which described the offer as “a registered easement option for agriculture operations.”
Jeanette Netzel says this falls short of the mark since a farm is about much more than just food production and cultivation: “Our farmland is our home; it’s where our children are raised … We live on this land.”
Netzel worries that an easement specifically designated for agricultural activities would not encompass all of the many non-agricultural activities that take place on a family farm. She wonders whether landowners could cross the trail with a gravel truck to replenish a driveway, transport RVs and campers, or cross for the purpose of building a secondary home for their offspring.
“We’re not being offered an easement for use and enjoyment of our land; we’re being offered an easement under the condition that it’s for agriculture,” she says.
This is the crux of the issue for Netzel. While their group of landowners does not oppose the idea of a multi-use path, they want to ensure that access to their land is secured for both agricultural and non-agricultural purposes alike.
Public amenity
Ian Wilson, general manager of strategic and community services for the RDNO, argues that the group of landowners is seeking an easement that would “greatly expand the property rights on the public property, beyond just driveway access” to include such things as landscaping, fencing and farm stands.
Wilson says that the regional districts support agriculture but want to protect the trail as a public amenity.
In December 2024, RDNO and CSRD, the two regional districts involved in the rail trail, requested that the ALC reconsider its condition that approval be subject to confirmation from landowners that the districts had taken appropriate steps to resolve conflicts. In a letter sent through their lawyers, the regional districts argued that this condition grants “unfettered veto rights” to a “handful of landowners.”
Netzel disputes the statement that there are a “handful” of property owners who have conflicts with the rail trail ownership. While her group numbers nine, she says several other landowners along the trail share their concerns despite not being part of the group.
Through their own lawyers, the group of landowners asked the ALC to stand firm on its original decision.
In January of this year, Spallumcheen mayor Christine Fraser sent a letter to the ALC in support of landowners, writing that her council “does not support the development of the rail trail in Spallumcheen until the rights of our agricultural property owners are respected and not excluded from the process”.
The issue remains unresolved until the ALC releases its decision. For now, everyone involved is in a state of limbo.
“I really want, and I really pray, that the ALC sticks with their conditions,” says Netzel.
All content on this website is copyrighted, and cannot be republished or reproduced without permission.
Bringing mental wellness forward