White River A Blue Way. Not What You Think!

[Quillback]

Well if they've got a committee of 26 sponsors, with that many folks in a committee, I doubt they'll ever find agreement on anything that will do any harm. I'm not necessarily opposed to the whole thing, but if it's a committee that's being created to do nothing, what the heck is the purpose? Do we really need another layer of oversight?

[bfishn]

... Do we really need another layer of oversight?

If the commitee was chaired by new members, as an additional oversight body with legislative powers, you'd have a good point. In this case, it will be chaired by the very people that are already in the oversight business of the White River basin, allowing a shortcut to the de facto method of doing business. A perfect example of the de facto method's inefficiency is the decades' old fight between Arkansas and Oklahoma over water quality in the Illinois River watershed. A recent article describes the current status of that stalemate;

http://muskogeephoenix.com/local/x1999354920/SUNDAY-EXTRA-Ark-groups-tried-to-get-delay-in-river-standard

That battle has raged for years, given rise to (very expensive) interstate lawsuits, and stirred hate and discontent among families and neighbors on different sides of the state line. It didn't/doesn't have to be that way. Perhaps if all the players were represented by such a commitee and resources that the Blueway designation offers, and had to debate face to face instead of hiding behind their lawyers, this matter could have been resolved long ago. Perhaps not. My vote would be to give it a try though.

[Quillback]

If the commitee was chaired by new members, as an additional oversight body with legislative powers, you'd have a good point. In this case, it will be chaired by the very people that are already in the oversight business of the White River basin, allowing a shortcut to the de facto method of doing business. A perfect example of the de facto method's inefficiency is the decades' old fight between Arkansas and Oklahoma over water quality in the Illinois River watershed. A recent article describes the current status of that stalemate;

http://muskogeephoenix.com/local/x1999354920/SUNDAY-EXTRA-Ark-groups-tried-to-get-delay-in-river-standard

That battle has raged for years, given rise to (very expensive) interstate lawsuits, and stirred hate and discontent among families and neighbors on different sides of the state line. It didn't/doesn't have to be that way. Perhaps if all the players were represented by such a commitee and resources that the Blueway designation offers, and had to debate face to face instead of hiding behind their lawyers, this matter could have been resolved long ago. Perhaps not. My vote would be to give it a try though.

But do we see any issues like that on the White river system? I guess they could pop up, but I'm not a fan of creating bureaucracy just in case it's needed for something that doesn't exist. If we've got a problem, fine, get some folks together and work on it.

And I'd say it's more likely to have lawsuits when you have an additional layer of "sponsors" in the middle. More people to deal with, more signoffs needed - this is the perfect environment for litigation.

[bfishn]

There are always "issues" with a river system. The downstreamers are always either the victims or the beneficiaries of the actions of the upstreamers.

The recent dissent between MDC and AGFC over stocking stripers in Bull might have had different results had a third, fourth, and fifth party been in the room. Or maybe the same result, but with all parties on board.

We've got two agencies managing fish and game, another with the mandate of flood control, multiples drawing water for public use, and a host of others with interests in ecology, tourism, etc., etc, Doesn't it make sense for them to occasionally get together to see what the other players have to say about a planned action before they take that action?

[Greasy B]

We've got two agencies managing fish and game, another with the mandate of flood control, multiples drawing water for public use, and a host of others with interests in ecology, tourism, etc., etc, Doesn't it make sense for them to occasionally get together to see what the other players have to say about a planned action before they take that action?

It does indeed make sense but in this day and age many spend so much time listening to the media who tell them that people with differing opinions are advasaries that we have turned into advasaries. Truth of the matter is if left to reason for ourselves we all would find we have much more in common that not.

[Al Agnew]

I don't have the time right now to say what I want to say on all those comments...I will say it tomorrow sometime.

[Quillback]

There are always "issues" with a river system. The downstreamers are always either the victims or the beneficiaries of the actions of the upstreamers.

The recent dissent between MDC and AGFC over stocking stripers in Bull might have had different results had a third, fourth, and fifth party been in the room. Or maybe the same result, but with all parties on board.

We've got two agencies managing fish and game, another with the mandate of flood control, multiples drawing water for public use, and a host of others with interests in ecology, tourism, etc., etc, Doesn't it make sense for them to occasionally get together to see what the other players have to say about a planned action before they take that action?

Yes it does make sense to me to have the players discuss things. I think one big mistake made in this whole process was to draw a map showing boundaries. People within those boundaries see a potential for government interference or regulation. Would have been much better IMO to have left the boundary map out of this.

[skeeter]

Here is a link to what MO Lt. Governor Kinder sent yesterday to the Secretary of the Interior.

http://twileshare.com/aqpm

[Brian Sloss]

I tend to think this is all much ado about nothing.

[Al Agnew]

First of all, no, this isn't an Obama thing. The property rights people have been active and influential in the Ozarks forever, and especially since the Carter administration. With the Farm Bureau backing them, they ALWAYS oppose anything that could possibly, in any way, limit what they can do with private property. Never mind that a lot of what they've opposed in the past has been stuff where what one landowner does adversely affects everybody around him, or everybody downstream. I even had one of them tell me one time that "Well, that's what lawsuits are for. If what I do messes up somebody else, they got the right to sue me." Gee, wouldn't it be a little better to JUST NOT DO IT?

When you couple that with a lot of people who will ALWAYS, no matter what the administration and no matter how much it makes sense, oppose anything the federal government proposes because of the philosophical belief that the government should "stay out of people's lives", and who are quick to believe everything is a conspiracy to do them some kind of harm, you end up with what we have in the Ozarks--a wide open, do anything you want and don't worry about what it's doing to the land and waters attitude.

And yes, environmental groups have been known to stretch the truth as well. But this is ridiculous. There are no plans and no authority proposed to actually make rules and regulations, and to say or imply otherwise is simply lying and paranoia.

The beauty of this idea is that it gets the various agencies and interest groups talking with each other. And it should include landowner and property rights groups, too. There is seldom any coordination or cooperation among all these groups, and there isn't ANY entity that has only the welfare of the entire White River and its watershed as their "job". As far as whether the White River "needs" something like this and has the kind of problems that we should be worrying about...well, you can find lot of problems in the watershed, and there will be more and more severe problems in the future as development and population increases. It would be nice to be a little proactive about recognizing present and potential problems. And...the designation also has the benefit of simply making more people aware of how valuable this resource is.