12/12/2023 
Opinion Piece by Carson Merkwan

Clay County Commissioner Geoffrey Gray-Lobe is spear heading a grant application to obtain $250,000 of federal money for a feasibility study on how to make a simplistic "straight-shot riverside trail".  The proposed FLAP (Federal Lands Access Program) grant application was passed by the county commissioners of both Yankton and Clay County after gaining support by Vermillion's city council.  The commission has attempted  to apply for grants in support of a bike trail in the recent past, but the applications were denied by the organizations funding the grants. This suggests that those organizations did not support this.  Based on the recent history of the commission, this is not a topic that is going to stop anytime soon, and it is time for property owners to make it clear they do not support this.  

This FLAP grant could fund a study that will focus on the dots and green lines on the map (figure 1) which will be submitted as the proposed area of study.  The bike path could go anywhere within ten miles of the green line, as these are areas of interest.  This information was obtained from Documents presented to the Vermillion City Council meeting on 12/4/23.  The commissioners' request for the city's support with the proposed maps and application starts on page 60 of the meeting minutes.  This map was created by the Clay County Commissioners pushing for this study after public meetings with individually invited organizations who supported the grant like Friends of the Missouri National Recreational River, Yankton Thrive, VCDC, and the South Dakota Kayak Association.  Little to no outreach was made to property owners and no public notices were placed in the paper.  Public visuals and audio usually supplied for the Clay County Commissioner meeting have been absent from the Clay County Youtube Channel since September.  Commissioner Gray-Lobe defended his action of only inviting supporters, because he said he is applying for a grant.  Any opposition would increase the odds of the grant failing, which is why he only sought out supporting views.

Commissioner Gray-Lobe is pushing the idea that there does not need to be any concern from land owners as this is merely a feasibility study.  He also believes there should be no opposition as this grant is supported with federal funding.  He has sought support for the application from the county commissioners of both Yankton and Clay counties and the Vermillion City Council; namely Rich Holland, Lindsay Jennewein, Steve Ward, Travis Letellier, and Katherine Price who all voted in favor of a letter of city council approval.  Mike Murra, Brian Humphrey, and Mayor Jon Cole of the Vermillion City Council voted against a letter of support because they were concerned that the grant application should remain a county issue and eluded to the concerned citizens that spoke out against the study both before and during the meeting. Summarizing the concerned citizens, who were land owners, they said it could amount to a $250,000 sales pitch that they will potentially have to fight at a later date.  Rich Holland's response to his opposed council members was that he wants to see the study, if only to allow the land owners an opportunity to voice their opinions. David Thiesse of the Clay County Commissioners seconded that thought, but added that he is against the bike path even though he voted in favor of the study. He is optimistic land owners will be able to address their concerns and assures that the $250,000 bike path study will collect those honest opinions.  He only approved it because it adds a condition that land owners must be notified and asked for comments.  Travis Mockler seems to share a similar opinion from reading the minutes, but did not reply to phone calls or emails. 

In an email correspondence with Clay County Commissioner, Betty Smith, she said she has high hopes for the bike trail and cited both the Appalachian and Ice Age Trails as inspiration.  The Appalachian Trail  coincidentally used eminent domain over 400 times and the Ice Age Trail used complicated easements and purchased private property and was recently named a national park.  Commissioner Smith stressed that even though the study doesn't exclude those methods, she does not support eminent domain.  Commissioner Gray-Lobe expanded that idea but also stated that right of ways are public property that private land owners are currently using.  He includes right of ways to be used in the study which will increase water access and trail access points through private property depending on the location of the current roads.  This will potentially increase traffic and may lead to increased trespassing, littering, and vandalism. To be clear, while the commissioners have said they will not pursue forcible easements or eminent domain, they are unwilling to include banning it in the language of the feasibility study application even though when asked to pursue this, the grant had not yet been submitted.  When asked if a future commissioner could later attempt eminent domain, the answer is yes, all options are on the table. 

Of further concern is the existing bike trails in Clay and Yankton Counties.  Both counties are still dealing with the headaches of a washed out bike trail from over a decade ago, which were even mentioned in the same city council meeting this grant application was approved (notes posted in figure 2).  The poor conditions of the current bike paths has even been a topic on Vermillion "Talk of the Town" Facebook group (an example in figure 3).  If the entirety of the green line was to be utilized for the bike path, it could represent another 80+ miles of bike path that realistically would not be properly manageable by our local authorities.  The national average for a typical bike path cost $230,000 a mile to construct a few years ago.  This proposed project could cost over $20,000,000 just to construct.  This could easily be much more when you add other project management costs, inflation, access locations, security, and land purchases. Considering we do not have the discipline or funds to maintain our current paths, expansion of the bike path 10-100 fold of what we current have seems wildly irresponsible.   Residents do not need a $250,000 study to show that the final bike path would be an almost impossible cost to the county.  Commissioner Gray-Lobe mentions that he is optimistic for the study to come back with that many miles.

Commissioner Richard Hammond suggested the $250,000 is "free money", so the residents should be happy to receive the grant.  The arguement that federal funds are free makes me very concerned that our politicians are unaware of our national debt problem.  Federal funds do not equal free money that our local politicians can use just to hear land owners' opinions.  I especially dislike the misuse, because this study could potentially look more like a "sales pitch" affecting dozens of miles of land from Clay and Yankton county residents.  I worry that land owners will have a tough time arguing against the result of the study's outcome if they are unhappy because they certainly will not get a "free" $250,000 dollar grant to support their arguments.  

According to the map that was presented, the green line appears to go through private property involving residents of both Clay and Yankton counties.  If their recommendations for the study are not to include private land, then they need to redraw the map prior to submission for a FLAP grant.  Another suitable compromise would be to include language in the application that is binding when addressing the use of nonconsensual right of ways, easements, and eminent domain.  And yes, easements can be leveraged by threatening right of ways and other tactics.  It is possible all of the statements our commissioners gave on public record about respect for private property are lip service, because Commissioner Gray-Lobe refuses to include any protective language in his application.   According to this map, Commissioner Gray-Lobe is asking the federal government to  look at people's private lands in both Yankton and Clay counties.  Commissioner Smith also uses language calling the proposed study "a move beyond a straight shot river side trail".  These actions and statements should not put you at ease.  If they get approval for the feasibility study, David Thiesse says they must contact every land owner within ten miles of the trail for their opinions.  However, this does not protect private land owners from the government by using creative ways of obtaining land or by gaining public support against land owners.

I have spoken with other landowners and the only one aware that the counties were applying for this grant was under the impression it was not going to involve private property.  This outlays a problem with stakeholder communication between private land owners and our commissioners. We need to inform land owners of this study and Commissioner Gray-Lobe needs to either change the wording to protect private land owners or remove the application.  Private land owners have safety concerns that includes increased trespassing which can leading vandalism, thievery, poaching, and littering on private property.  Then there is the obvious loss of privacy.  People may also take issue if a bike path through their property will affect their future rights to build or affect their water access for crops and livestock.  Another concern is if this goes through private property, a bike path will likely take away from current wildlife habitats and impact the wildlife negatively.  Even access to sandbars may negatively affect the endangered Piping Plover population or the protected Bald Eagles.

When I first heard about this, along with a few land owners, I was under the impression that the commission may want to extend the shoulders on our current oil roads, which I am not against studying.  However, this current map is concerning because it does not follow the oil roads, but it follows a straight line through private property.  Pair that with the "the straight-shot riverside trail" language and the comments provided by the commissioners, the idea that private property will be respected becomes very questionable. There has been very little outreach to current land owners while going through with the feasibility study grant application.  No communication to private land owners was attempted, citing expense, but the commissioner pushing the grant did reach out to groups to write letters of support.  They could find the time and money to obtain letters of support, however could not find the time to contact landowners that are documented in the county.  Commissioner Gray-Lobe cites that part of the purpose of the study it to then obtain discussion with land owners.  Strange how one has time to find letters of support but cannot be bothered to discuss the same issue with private land owners before the green line was placed over their property.  Most land owners, for better or worse,  may not pay attention to the meetings and this will catch them off guard.  The Clay County Commissioner meeting videos have not been updated in months to watch (which average only about 30 views per meeting) and no notice was placed in a public paper. This has not been done in a proactive manner.  I reached out to other property owners to see what their thoughts were, and many of them were not even aware this was happening and were very concerned.  Why are we spending $250,000 of federal money to ask landowners what they think of their property rights when all it takes is a letter or a phone call? Again, remember Commissioner Gray-Lobe could find the time and money to find letters of support and to email supporters of his meeting.  When asked if he would redraw the map to include existing public roads or to include language that excluded eminent domain, forcible easements, and right of ways that increase public access through private property, Commissioner Gray Lobe refused.  No one, including this writer, is against permissible easements or agreed upon right of ways.  I am not against using public roads.  I would like to work together to find a solution that protects both private property rights and endangered wildlife, while still making a bike path and hiking trail a possibility.  He still has three days to make changes from the timing of this article.    

I know this is a heated topic, but please stay polite and reach out to your elected officials.  If you don't want them to spend $250k of US money to develop a feasibility study that might turn into a sales pitch on how to take our private citizens' land, you need to email Carrie Krum and have her disperse your thoughts to the commissioners of your disappointment.  Her email is Carri.Crum@claycountysd.org.  You may call and email them individually as well.  At the very least, inform them that the current wording and map are problematic.    

If you email your concerns to the Yankton County Commissioners, they may also have the means to repeal this.  They may be more receptive as private property rights have been heavily discussed recently in Yankton County.
http://www.co.yankton.sd.us/custom/commission-yankton-county

You may also email the Vermillion City Council by sending an email to City Administrator John Prescott, and ask him to disperse your concerns to the council because they decided to put their opinion in on this as well.  His email is johnp@cityofvermillion.com.  Afterall, why make Rich Holland wait for the US to spend $250k for your opinion, when you can give it to him now free of charge?   If he thinks federal dollars are free, wait until he gets an even better deal from private property owners speaking up!  Oh wait, many already have and their recommendations are being ignored.  They state they had a public meeting but unfortunately this was a meeting that private property owners were not personally notified of and one that was not publicly announced in a resource accesible by everyone. 

 You can also reach out to organizations who accepted Geoffrey Gray-Lobe's request to support the grant application like Friends of the Missouri National Recreational River, Yankton Thrive, VCDC, and the South Dakota Kayak association.  Inform them of your opinion and politely ask them to revoke their support. 

Commissioner Smith has stated "I can assure you that there is no nefarious plan to take people’s property without their consent. The lines that you see on the map are not proposed trail lines; they are the Nebraska/South Dakota state line and the Yankton/Clay section lines. There are no proposed trail lines to date. Trails will not be proposed until public input is solicited and a feasibility study based on that input is complete. This was the understanding of all commissioners at the time the application was approved by both county commissions."

The green line is listed in the key as "Proposed Area of Focus" and in my opinion this represents a trail because it starts from Yankton, travels through Meckling, and ends near Vermillion following the river and also goes up to Spirit Mound via the river.  The black lines are separate and are listed as the project area.  I have lived in Southeast South Dakota a long time and this is not going to pass.  Commissioners Smith and Gary Lobe will likely continue stating it is the understanding of the commissioners that they will not proceed with eminent domain or forced easements, but unfortunately Commissioner Gray-Lobe will not support these statements when it counts and place it in the application.  The location of the green line, and the very description for the trail as "straight-shot riverside trail" suggests a different motive.  And that green line can move anywhere during the study, so if you think your land is safe because it does not touch it now, you might be wrong later. 

Commissioner Gray-Lobe responded via a phone call regarding this topic.  He put no notice in the paper regarding this grant application or an effort to reach land owners citing costs to the county.  But he admittedly did reach out to several organizations that he rightfully suspected would write letters of support. He sent out emails to likely supporters before his meeting of his proposed application.  I wonder how many of those emails went to land owners? There are no restrictions on eminent domain, right of way, or easements in the grant application, and while Commissioner Gray-Lobe expressed that he would not support eminent domain, he is very clear that he will support the use of right of ways which extend through every road and along every river suggesting those are already government property even though private land owners continue to pay taxes to the county for this land.  When this author asked him if he would make his application officially not support any nonconsensual right of way, aggressive easements, or eminent domain, he declined even though he had not yet submitted the application.  Let me be clear, he is not willing to amend his application, even though he still has time to do it. 

Despite my article opposing the grant application as it stands, I still have this question.  Is there room for compromise?  I think if the price was right, most Clay County residents could get behind fixing up current access points and bike paths.  I bet most would even consider adding impressive shoulders on some of our city and county roads.  This will likely still be expensive, however it will also respect private property.  Private property is an important part of American life and our citizens need to stand up in support.