O’NEILL — I have read the installments printed in the Norfolk Daily News regarding the proposal by Larry Wewel, also of O’Neill, to create a new national park on the Niobrara River.

My family has lived and owned land in the proposed park area since the 1960s. The Niobrara is truly a beautiful, unique and largely undiscovered area of Nebraska. It is also mostly privately owned, many local residents make their living and homes there. The vast majority of landowners are excellent caretakers of the Niobrara valley and always have been. Many of us from the area like it that way, want it to remain that way and absolutely oppose any half-baked idea of forming a new national park in the Niobrara river basin.

In 1991 the Niobrara River was designated a National Wild and Scenic River to be administered by the Niobrara River Council jointly with the National Park Service. That designation already protects the Niobrara River and surrounding land from overdevelopment and environmental concerns. At that time a national park designation was also considered and found to be economically and environmentally unsound.

The National Scenic River designation already protects the Niobrara river basin, and in my opinion that is enough. I don’t care to turn the area into another Yellowstone Park or Grand Canyon Park.

While some with opinions opposed to Mr. Wewel’s idea were presented, not a single landowner who lives and makes their living solely from agriculture in the Niobrara River Valley were quoted. That is highly disappointing and a disservice to them by the Norfolk Daily News. The majority of land in the proposed park area is privately owned, something the man acknowledges. While the dream may be admirable, the reality and the front end economic cost is ludicrous. Under the assumption it would take at least an average cost of $1,000 per acre to acquire the private land from “willing” landowners, that cost is $175 million. I don’t believe either the State of Nebraska or the federal government has that much “extra” money nor should they borrow it.

Mr. Wewel seems to imply in one of his quotes that the land should be given to the federal government. I would be all for that as soon as they can run the USPS in the black. Absent direct government funding, he would need to raise the $175 million privately, which I find doubtful. Perhaps he also plans to donate his livelihood and home to the cause; that would be impressive.

Has anyone considered what local and county governments in the affected area will do to offset local property taxes lost once the land is owned by the federal government? I did not see that issue addressed in his proposal. The local property taxes on our land averages $5 per acre annually. That means approximately $875,000 in property taxes annually would be taken from local government budgets.

While certainly some local economic benefit may result in new taxation, I doubt it would ever replace $875,000 of annual property taxes lost.

I hope the Norfolk Daily News will give as much space consideration to the “locals” who disagree with Mr. Wewel as you have given to him. I would be happy to give you more installments.

ED NORTH

Tags

In other news

Future working relationships? — Bert Eisenbraun

NORFOLK — I do not know any of the current mayoral candidates, but I noted that one candidate has an on-going heated public debate with Norfolk city personnel and city board members. I wonder, if elected, would this heated discourse be good thing? In my opinion, no.

Solution is within — Randy Rothchild

HOUSTON, Texas — I had to chuckle when I read the recent letter from a reader expressing concern that the old fellas playing pitch at the senior center were “forced to sit on metal chairs for up to three hours.”