A proposed National Heritage Area in Kansas and Nebraska is receiving backlash with critics calling it government overreach, an attack on their livelihoods and infringement on their private property rights.
The Kansas Nebraska Heritage Area Partnership (KHNA) was formed as a bi-state partnership of environmental, cultural and historical organizations and individuals to establish a National Heritage Area (NHA) within 49 counties between north central Kansas and south central Nebraska. The NHA would encompass 26 counties in Kansas and 23 counties in Nebraska and be roughly 35,000 square miles with a population of 650,000.
According to the partnership, the mission “is to connect communities and attractions, instill pride of place, and promote immersive experiences for residents and visitors to enhance appreciation for the region’s unique landscape and nationally significant cultural history.”
In 2016, The Willa Cather Foundation—a nonprofit dedicated to the author in Red Cloud, NE—partnered with the University of Nebraska-Lincoln (UNL) to brainstorm regional heritage tourism strategies. Kim Wilson, a landscape architecture professor at UNL, and her students looked at tangible and intangible assets and found 255 historical sites dotting the Kansas-Nebraska border.
A volunteer board was formed in 2017 to look at the feasibility of creating an NHA to bring tourists to the area. Shaley George, curator of the National Orphan Train Complex and a member of the KNHA board of directors, said the group identified “six nationally important themes to include the historical stories of settlement and migration, homesteading, land, Native Americans, rural and nature.”
What is an NHA?
Established by President Ronald Reagan in 1984, Reagan called NHAs “a new kind of national park” that combines heritage conservation, recreation and economic development. There are currently 55 NHAs in the U.S., including the Freedom Frontier NHA, which straddles the Kansas-Missouri border with 200 sites encompassing 41 counties.
NHAs are partnerships between the National Park Service (NPS), states, and local communities, in which the NPS supports state and local conservation through federal recognition, seed money, and technical assistance. Unlike lands within the NPS, which are federally owned and managed, lands within NHAs remain in state, local, private ownership, or a combination thereof control.
Laws establishing national heritage areas often contain provisions intended to address concerns about the potential loss of, or restrictions on the use of, private property resulting from NHA designation. For example, President Donald Trump in 2019 signed Public Law 116-9, which established the six newest NHAs and included various private property provisions.
These provisions stated that designation of the new NHAs would “not abridge the rights of any property owner; require any property owner to permit public access to the property; alter any land-use regulation; or diminish the authority of the state to manage fish and wildlife, including the regulation of fishing and hunting within the NHA.”
While past administrations have expressed that NHAs should be self-sufficient, NHAs are funded through annual appropriations laws for Interior, Environment, and related agencies. NHAs can use federal funds for many purposes, including staffing, planning, and executing projects. The 2021 appropriation for assistance to HMAs was $23.9 million—including $22.9 million for grantmaking and direct support and just over $1 million for administrative support.
30×30 connection
According to Wilson, what seemed “like a no-brainer” has turned into a proposal vilified by county commissions and private landowners in the proposed NHA.
While there has been opposition to the proposal since it was first presented, it was amplified when President Joe Biden announced his proposal to set aside 30 percent of lands by 2030. Echoing the fear of landowners and Republican lawmakers in the West, local opponents stated the NHA would amount to a land grab and deprive landowners of the ability to use their land.
“This has nothing to do with 30×30,” Wilson said to Colorado Newsline. “They globbed everything they could onto this. And it was just bad timing that 30×30 came out. And 30×30 is being misrepresented by this same group.”
The attention has resulted in 26 counties and their respective board of supervisors passing resolutions opposing the NHA. The resolutions state while they appreciate efforts to improve economic development, they “oppose blanket designations that put dissenting private landowners in the unreasonable position of having to ‘opt out’ of federally mandated boundaries.” The resolution also states the NHA invites interference in local affairs; influences local officials to pass zoning laws not needed and would deprive landowners of their ability to use and enjoy their property as they see fit.
Both the Kansas Livestock Association (KLA) and Nebraska Cattlemen’s Association stated they had received several inquiries regarding the NHA. Talia Goes, director of communications for Nebraska Cattlemen, told WLJ they do not have a position on the NHA. Goes said the policy team worked to get more clarity on the proposal and how it could affect landowners and has been in contact with their members on the topic.
KLA also stated that the association does not have a position on the matter.
“However, the association does have a policy supporting the state law that exempts agriculture from zoning, supports limiting the use of eminent domain and supports protecting private property rights on navigable waterways, among other private property right policies,” KLA said in a statement.
“At this time, it does not appear the proposed NHA violates these KLA policies, and no position has been taken by the association on the proposed NHA. KLA staff will continue to monitor this situation and answer member questions as they arise.”
Since the uproar at community events and the negative publicity, four board members for the nonprofit group have resigned. Wilson stated the group would be pausing as they regroup.
“This has really worn out the board and we don’t have the capacity to deal with this head on,” Wilson told Colorado Newsline. “So hopefully in the next six months—people won’t forget it, but maybe it won’t have the same front-page emphasis that it has right now.” — Charles Wallace, WLJ editor
