You are here

Bid In Congress To Have Ozark National Scenic Riverways Given To State Of Missouri

Share
Alternate Text
Will Congress go along with a plan to give the Ozark National Scenic Riverways to the state of Missouri?/Marty Koch

Is Congress in the mood to return units of the National Park System back to the states in which they are located? An indication could come Tuesday, when a U.S. House of Representatives Committee considers legislation that calls for Ozark National Scenic Riverways to be given to the state of Missouri.

The legislation is the darling of Rep. Jason Smith, a Republican who doesn't want the National Park Service to implement a management plan that would bring an end to some 65 miles of illegal horse trails in the park and place limits on the horsepower of motorboats that use the Current and Jacks Fork rivers that flow through the Riverways.

In his legislation, H.R. 4020, which was introduced to Congress back in February and is scheduled to come up for discussion Tuesday before the House Subcommittee on Public Land and Environmental Regulation, Mr. Smith argues that the proposed management plan would "prevent members of the public from accessing the lands that compose the park." To accomplish the transfer, the Republican wants the federal government to pay all costs associated with it.

Mr. Smith also provides an avenue for the federal government to reacquire the Riverways: if the state of Missouri ever attempted to sell portions of it, or if the state managed the Riverway in a way other than how its been managed under the Park Service.

Perhaps to cover his bets in case the committee fails to report the bill out to the House floor, Rep. Smith has another measure for the committee's consideration. H.R. 4182, if passed, would essentially prohibit the Park Service from implementing the General Management Plan now under consideration.

Proponents say the structure of the preferred alternative in the draft General Management Plan is long overdue and necessary to prevent further degradation of the 134 miles of the Jacks Fork and Current rivers that course through the rumpled, cave-studded, spring-gushing countryside of southern Missouri's Ozark Mountains.

Opponents, including Rep. Smith, counter that the approach would convert "the vast majority of the park to a natural area where evidence of human use is minimal." From his perspective, the Republican maintains the park's preferred alternative would be devastating to area economies and continue what he sees as efforts by the Park Service to limit access to the forests and rivers within the National Riverways.

The preferred alternative does state the Park Service's intention to gain control over motorized watercraft on the rivers, in part by increasing the percentage of river corridor open only to non-motorized watercraft (ie., canoes or kayaks). And the proposal aims to better manage camping on gravel bars by restricting to designated campsites where visitors could drive their vehicles.

The preferred alternative also would create "river management zoning," under which efforts to better manage motorized and non-motorized river use would be instituted. Under the plan, 34 percent of the Current and Jacks Fork rivers would be restricted to non-motorized craft, 14 percent would be open to motorized and non-motorized during the high season that falls between March 15 and Labor Day, and 52 percent would be open to both motorized and non-motorized traffic year-round.

Comments

that very broad statement doesn't provide any "details" at all.

My point was that was all the details there are.  There is no hidden "frying pork" and no strawman "other purposes".


ec, if you believe politicians never have any hidden agendas or "strawmen," you're a lot more trusting than I am :-)

With tongue only slightly in cheek, I'd suggest this bill should be renamed the "Real Estate Lawyers and Land Surveyors Stimulus Act."

Among the bill's provisions: 

‘‘SEC. 9. Not later than one year after the date of  the enactment of this section, the Secretary shall convey  to the State of Missouri, for no consideration, all right,  title, and interest of the United States in and to all Federal land, facilities, and any other assets associated with  the Ozark National Scenic Riverways... "

How many individual transactions were involved in acquiring the land now included in the Riverways? Probably hundreds. Would the transfer of "all right, title and interest" of that property to a new owner  require new entries in courthouse records for all of those individual parcels of land? Perhaps a legal description of or reference to each of those individual parcels by deed book and page number would suffice—which, of course, requires someone to verify that information for each individual parcel.

Were there any conditions attached to the NPS acquisition of their "interest" in any of this land? No one will know unless a qualified person researches every deed involved in creation of the Riverway. If some of the land was donated to the NPS, would that donation be valid if the NPS no longer "owns" the land? Would the donor dispute the transfer in court? Resolving those legal questions could take years, and could be one of many ongoing "costs of conveyance" of the property.

How about a boundary survey? Given the disputes about land use that have occurred in this park along the boundary, it would be imprudent for the state to accept all this land without a current survey and physical marking of the boundary...at federal expense, of course.

Accomplish all of the above in a year, as required by the bill? Good luck ...and you'd better be prepared to spend some serious money.

All of the above is secondary, of course, to the larger question of whether this transfer is a good idea, and previous debate on that topic in previous stories on this forum has confirmed that opinions  will vary :-)

 


First I'd like to ask about the profit comment. Im still trying to figure out who is making the profit?? Then I want to ask wher in the nps plan does anyone consider this a help to the people? I think a few of u hav missed JS's intentions. Those of u that think the nps is helping I urge u to come and use our land and enjoy cause if the nps has there way it will b taken from u!  To truly realize what is happening one needs to b truly informed! I've been here in this area that is up for discussion all my life, along with every gen of my family. Some wer born and raised on it. I hav fished and hunted on this land. I ask of u that don't understand, before u take this land from my family please get the facts. this land has been used as family enjoyment since the beginning. Along with the economic value that it brings to the towns around and jobs. We are NOT polluteing it!! We all want to keep enjoying it. So I ask how far will u allow the nps(govt) to dictate how we will use our land?!! I also ask if wer hurting the land then id like to see the facts. Don't take it from us, find ways to help us better it for our use. So our family's can keep using it for gens to come! Like gens before us did! Many like my family when used clean on this land everytime we use it. But I'm sure some of u don't kno that. How the locals clean whlie the ones trying to take from us r at the desk figureing new ways to do it. I say again, if u don't use our land then how can u make decisions on how we use it!! Let the state hav it. They surly can't do any worse than the nps!!!


ecbuck says: "What does this proposal have to do with making a profit?"

Profit is certainly a factor.

From a local (KOMU) article from back in April:

Bob Parker owns hundreds of acres in Shannon and Texas counties and leads the Ozark Property Rights Coalition. All of his land drains into the riverways. The riverways attract 1.3-1.5 million vistors each year and deliver a $65 million annual economic impact to the local economy. Parker said tourism is one of the few ways people can make it in his region. "We have a pretty tough economy here, we're pretty limited in what we have," Parker said. "Tourism is a part of that and agriculture is a huge part of that. But that'll continue to be restricted more and more I think as they continue to get more restrictions on the river." Parker said if NPS clamps down with a greater regulatory footprint it could make things harder on certain businesses.

Now, I'm not saying Mr. Parker's concerns are illegitimate. But if local business are pushing for the NPS to give up control of the river because they think governmental regulations are going to restrict their business, then obviously that's a profit motive. Whether that's good, bad, whether they're right, wrong, whatever. But it's certainly not accurate to suggest that profit concerns don't play a role in this discussion.

If the NPS restricts certain activities, certain businesses which profit off those activities will lose profits. That's obvious.

 


But it's certainly not accurate to suggest that profit concerns don't play a role in this discussion.

Mr Parker may indeed have that concern.   But Mr Parker isn't Rep Jason Smith and neither the language of the bill nor the Rep give any indication that the proposal is to protect Mr Parker's (or anyone elses) profits. In fact, it explicit states its purpose is to maintain public access. 


Jim,  You can come up with all the "if" scenerios you want and perhaps some of them are legitimate.  One scenerio that isn't an if is that the federal government would not have to pay the ongoing annual operating cost.   $6.5 mill can buy alot of deed recording fees and surveys. 


EC, Rep. Smith has in the past voiced his belief that tourism in the area would suffer under the Park Service's preferred management alternative. That's his profit motive.

How would the regional economy fare under the Park Service's proposal? That's no doubt hard to say. But if I had the option of paddling a river with e.coli loads, which the Jacks Fork River has had on occasion from heavy horse use, or one without, I know where I'd spend my tourism dollars.

/2011/05/updated-unenviable-list-ozark-national-scenic-riverways-ranked-among-10-most-endangered-rivers8147 


Smith has in the past voiced his belief that tourism in the area would suffer under the Park Service's preferred management alternative.

 

That may very well be.  But that is not the reason cited for the legislation

I know where I'd spend my tourism dollars.

Then I guess the "profit" is the NPS plan not Smiths.   


Add comment

CAPTCHA

This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.

The Essential RVing Guide

The Essential RVing Guide to the National Parks

The National Parks RVing Guide, aka the Essential RVing Guide To The National Parks, is the definitive guide for RVers seeking information on campgrounds in the National Park System where they can park their rigs. It's available for free for both iPhones and Android models.

This app is packed with RVing specific details on more than 250 campgrounds in more than 70 parks.

You'll also find stories about RVing in the parks, some tips if you've just recently turned into an RVer, and some planning suggestions. A bonus that wasn't in the previous eBook or PDF versions of this guide are feeds of Traveler content: you'll find our latest stories as well as our most recent podcasts just a click away.

So whether you have an iPhone or an Android, download this app and start exploring the campgrounds in the National Park System where you can park your rig.