History of ORT and SNORT fiasco explained

Inside scoop on rail trails

Photo: J.P. Squire

The Regional District of North Okanagan fenced off a traditional access to part of Eleven Bar Ranch, located north of Kekuli Bay Provincial Park. It’s what is called a “hooked property” with ALR on both sides of the Okanagan Rail Trail.

Let's subtitle this column as A Tale of Two Rail Trails.

With apologies to Tale of Two Cities, the saga of the Okanagan Rail Trail, or ORT, and Shuswap North Okanagan Rail Trail, or SNORT, is different than English author Charles Dickens comparing London and Paris in 1859 during the French Revolution. The rail trail saga is perplexing, at times unbelievable, but has a stunning revelation like the original Tale.

First: The discontinued CP Rail line between Kelowna and Coldstream was acquired for the ORT in 2017 by the City of Kelowna, District of Lake Country, Regional District of North Okanagan, District of Coldstream and Okanagan Indian Band.

Since the first three had 26 properties in the Agricultural Land Reserve, they asked the B.C. Agricultural Land Commission for permission to convert the rail line into a 50-kilometre trail.

On Sept. 19, 2018, ALC Okanagan panel chair Gerald Zimmermann and member Jim Johnson agreed and required: “Registration of easements for landowners in the ALR that must cross the Trail to access property.”

The three trail owners objected to granting easements, but on June 14, 2019, Zimmermann and Johnson ruled in favour of easements, not “crossing agreements.” One would think the three partners would then inform affected ALR owners of the decision and process for obtaining easements.

So the sheriff submitted three freedom of information requests for correspondence with affected farmers on their right to easements, if they were told no easements would be granted or if access agreements would be available as an alternative.

City of Kelowna response: no correspondence. The city had negotiated a March 7, 2019, memorandum of understanding for up to four “access agreements” with Eldorado Ranch. But no correspondence on easements since then? The Bennett family wants easements.

District of Lake Country response: no correspondence. One farmer told the sheriff his family with several trail crossings wanted easements but was denied.

RDNO response: no correspondence. However, another FOI request on Aug. 18 asked for a copy of a Nov. 21, 2023, letter between RDNO and 11 ALR property owners denying an easement for Eleven Bar Ranch. RDNO said it could not be provided due to “solicitor client privilege,” then switched its excuse to protection of the owners’ privacy. A copy of the letter has everything blacked out but the RDNO official’s signature. So there is at least one. Farmers are aware of another similar RDNO message. So there are two.

The ranch says RDNO blocked off two traditional accesses and created a new steeper access with a sharp left turn where it wanted the driveway.

Photo: J.P. Squire

The owners of Eleven Bar Ranch say the Regional District of North Okanagan fenced two traditional accesses across the Okanagan Rail Trail and created a new steeper driveway, with a sharp left turn, where it wanted the access.

In an open letter to the ALC, copied to 50 elected officials from Kelowna to Sicamous, the sheriff suggested an investigation. No response.

Second: RDNO and Columbia Shuswap Regional District purchased 43 kilometres of the 1890s CP Rail line for $6.5 million in 2018 for the 50-kilometre SNORT. Earlier, Splatsin of the Secwepemc First Nation had purchased another seven kilometres.

The proposed trail involved 35 kilometres of ALR (46 properties) in the North Okanagan so RDNO applied to the ALC for permission. North Okanagan farmers asked for the same easements as required for the ORT.

On Feb. 24, 2021, Zimmermann and new panel member Joe Deuling used new all-encompassing wording: A report must be submitted prior to construction with confirmation from ALR landowners that includes signatures saying trail owners identified and resolved issues of concern or conflict.

Nearly five years later, in December 2024, RDNO expressed surprise at the “signatures” requirement, argued it didn’t understand that part and requested reconsideration. Unbelievable since a number of lawyers were involved. No one noticed “signatures?”

Now the pressure was on. A Splatsin crew started work on 14.3 kilometres south of Sicamous, opened that trail in July, and was then to move to the next 27.8 kilometres through the ALR to Enderby. Unbelievably, the ALC panel bought the misunderstanding excuse, then completely reversed course in its stunning Oct. 28 decision.

While noting its 2018-19 ORT decisions and a 2019 ALC workshop on the trail application process—all of them requiring easements—Deuling, now Okanagan panel chair, and new member Erin Carlson unbelievably admitted: “Over the past number of years, it has not been the ALC’s practice to impose such a condition (requiring easements).” No longer practising what it preached?

The ALC had seven years since 2018 to tell North Okanagan farmers they wouldn’t get its support for easements. So farmers and local governments spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on lawyers and local government staff time on the easement dispute. RDNO and CSRD only admit to spending $50,000 in legal fees arguing against easements, according to another FOI request.

Now whether it’s access agreements or easements will be up to the two sides to negotiate, said the Okanagan panel. It advised farmers and local governments if they couldn't agree on controversial wording in a proposed easement—finally provided by local governments in June—they should get the B.C. Supreme Court to decide, which would require even more legal fees and staff time. If access is denied, complain to the ALC, said the panel. Farmers’ response: been there, done that, ignored.

Within weeks of the ALC decision, one farmer says RDNO is already trying to block his ALR driveway across SNORT. Sound familiar?

UPDATE: Farmers just appealed the Okanagan panel’s decision to the ALC’s executive committee. So reiterate the ALC farm protection mandate or ignore a track record?

This article is written by or on behalf of an outsourced columnist and does not necessarily reflect the views of Castanet.