What values and conflicts are created when a law prevents a landowner from doing what he wants with his land?
The original question was:
kansas a owner of a land plowed home to native grasses anual plants refuse to be told what to do with his lndwhat values, and conflict this create
I have tried to edit your question to make it clearer. I suggest that when you have long questions you should put the full question in the second box with a short summary in the main question box.
The major conflict at play in this scenario is between an individual's right to do as they wish with their own property and the state's right to make laws that will benefit the whole of society. The state believes that it is important to maintain some amount of natural environment. Perhaps this is for purposes of maintaining native species or perhaps it is for something more pragmatic like controlling erosion. Either way, it is something that the democratically elected state government believes is in the public interest.
On the other hand, you have the right of the landowner to do as he wishes with his property. This is a fundamental right that is protected by such things as the 5th Amendment ban on uncompensated "takings" by the government. There is a strong feeling among many conservative Americans that government policies about land use constitute illegal "takings."
This scenario presents one of the fundamental conflicts that arise in US society--the conflict between governmental attempts to protect the public interest on the one hand and individual rights on the other.