Stop Proposed Riverways Transfer To State

[Phil Lilley]

Conservation Federation of Missouri

March 10, 2014 - The House Budget Committee this Wednesday is considering a proposed appropriation of $6 million from "surplus revenue fund" and whatever else is needed from the Park Sales Tax for operation and maintenance of the Ozark National Scenic Riverways (ONSR) in the event this national park is transferred to the state, as requested in other bills currently under consideration in the Missouri General Assembly and the U.S. Congress.

Transfer of the Riverways to the state makes no sense. It would mean the loss of some $8 million in annual federal expenditures in the Riverways region and saddle the state park system with equivalent annual expenses and an additional $32 million backlog in deferred maintenance. Surplus funds may be available this year, but they will not likely be available in subsequent years, resulting in a massive drain on state park funds with devastating consequences to other units of the state park system.

Call or email your state representative and senator and especially members of the House Budget Committee (see list below) by noon Wednesday to ask them to strike the Riverways from the state park budget (HB2006HCS,p20) and vote against any bills advocating transfer. It is time to stop this senseless talk of transfer to the state.

For more information, see the attached news article and consider the following:

• Missourians, like all Americans, overwhelmingly support their national parks, as demonstrated by 95 percent approval ratings in recent surveys; we are proud to have such a national treasure as the Riverways in Missouri and appreciate that it is operated at no cost to the state.

• The designation as a national park annually attracts 1.3-1.5 million people from across America seeking out Ozark National Scenic Riverways for family vacations.

• The national park provides a substantial economic boost, estimated at $65 million annually, for south central Missouri communities and small businesses catering to lodging, canoe rental, food service, groceries, and gas. Nearly 90 percent of this comes from non-local visitors attracted to this famous national river. Operated by the state this amount would likely be much less.

• Transfer to the state would leave Missouri taxpayers saddled with substantial new expenses each year. The ONSR operating budget and special project funds total some $8 million per year, and the park has a $32 million backlog in deferred maintenance.

• Missouri State Parks is still struggling with the loss of about twenty percent of its staff during the recent economic downturn, the park sales tax is inadequate to rebuild staff capacity, and the system is saddled with a backlog of nearly $400 million in deferred maintenance and other priority infrastructure projects. It would be greatly stressed by management responsibility for the Riverways and its other units would inevitably suffer.

• The National Park Service has operated the Riverways for nearly fifty years and its proposed new management plan is intended to provide additional staff and funds to deal in a reasonable and balanced way with problems that have developed there in recent years. It deserves our support to make the Ozark National Scenic Riverways the very best it can be.

House Budget Committee Members:
Stream, Rick <http://www.house.mo.gov/member.aspx?district=90&year=2014> , Chair
Flanigan, Tom <http://www.house.mo.gov/member.aspx?district=163&year=2014> , Vice Chair
Allen, Sue <http://www.house.mo.gov/member.aspx?district=100&year=2014>
Burlison, Eric <http://www.house.mo.gov/member.aspx?district=133&year=2014>
Elmer, Kevin <http://www.house.mo.gov/member.aspx?district=139&year=2014>
Fitzpatrick, Scott <http://www.house.mo.gov/member.aspx?district=158&year=2014>
Grisamore, Jeff <http://www.house.mo.gov/member.aspx?district=34&year=2014>
Guernsey, Casey <http://www.house.mo.gov/member.aspx?district=2&year=2014>
Haefner, Marsha <http://www.house.mo.gov/member.aspx?district=95&year=2014>
Hough, Lincoln <http://www.house.mo.gov/member.aspx?district=135&year=2014>
Keeney, Shelley <http://www.house.mo.gov/member.aspx?district=145&year=2014>
Kelly, Chris <http://www.house.mo.gov/member.aspx?district=45&year=2014>
Kirkton, Jeanne <http://www.house.mo.gov/member.aspx?district=91&year=2014>
Korman, Bart <http://www.house.mo.gov/member.aspx?district=42&year=2014>
LaFaver, Jeremy <http://www.house.mo.gov/member.aspx?district=25&year=2014>
Lair, Mike <http://www.house.mo.gov/member.aspx?district=7&year=2014>
May, Karla <http://www.house.mo.gov/member.aspx?district=84&year=2014>
McCann Beatty, Gail <http://www.house.mo.gov/member.aspx?district=26&year=2014>
McManus, Kevin <http://www.house.mo.gov/member.aspx?district=36&year=2014>
Messenger, Jeffrey <http://www.house.mo.gov/member.aspx?district=130&year=2014>
Montecillo, Genise <http://www.house.mo.gov/member.aspx?district=92&year=2014>
Parkinson, Mark <http://www.house.mo.gov/member.aspx?district=105&year=2014>
Redmon, Craig <http://www.house.mo.gov/member.aspx?district=4&year=2014>
Rizzo, John <http://www.house.mo.gov/member.aspx?district=19&year=2014>
Ross, Robert <http://www.house.mo.gov/member.aspx?district=142&year=2014>
Rowden, Caleb <http://www.house.mo.gov/member.aspx?district=44&year=2014>
Schatz, Dave <http://www.house.mo.gov/member.aspx?district=61&year=2014>
Schupp, Jill <http://www.house.mo.gov/member.aspx?district=88&year=2014>
Thomson, Mike <http://www.house.mo.gov/member.aspx?district=1&year=2014>
Webber, Stephen <http://www.house.mo.gov/member.aspx?district=46&year=2014>

List of State Representatives: http://www.house.mo.gov/member.aspx

State Senators-Legislator Lookup: http://www.senate.mo.gov/

Link to newspaper article: Columbia Tribune Article

[jdmidwest]

Why?

The state seems to manage its other public lands pretty well. And they don't close them when someone throws a little temper tantrum.

The monies that go to the Feds now will stay instate instead of going to Washington to be distributed to all of the NPS.

Has there been a study that shows the amount the Feds get from the Riverways system?

[fishinwrench]

32 million. That's alot of "maintenance. What kind of "maintenance" does a river and some hillsides need?

I'm sure that I am being a dumbass here, but that question popped into my head and it won't leave without an answer.

[jdmidwest]

Currently they maintain most of the ramps and parks along the Current and Jacks Fork (Feds). And they have their own law enforcement division. All of the campground buildings, toilets, probably the ferry at Akers, the mill at Alley, road system within the area and parks.

Just think of all of the stuff they closed last fall.

But, they collect fees from floaters and campers. They profit from the sale of timber and land sales.

The Riverways is more about Missouri's Heritage than just being a big tourist playground. It should be managed by Missourians.

Next, we can take back the rivers dammed by the Corps of Engineers.

[tanvat]

Transfer of ONSR to the state of Missouri is really bad idea. First, the present state park system, as good as it is, presently has a funding

shortfall. Adding, at one fell swoop, 80,000 acres would require substantial new investements from the state that would likely not be forthcoming.

Second, look at whose idea this is. Its the brainchild - I use that term lightly - of the borderline militant ATV/jetboat/RV on the gravel bar crowd. Why do you think these folks are so gung ho for state management? To the extent these folks advocate more so-called local control,

it should be pointed out the evidence for the sucess of such control is completely lacking. A key reason why ONSR and a number of other

parks were created is precisely remedy the abuses inflicted by the local population. Good stewardship by locals is for the most part a myth, as there is very little actual evidence in the form of real-world examples that people can actually refrain from destroying the same land they profess to care so much about. If left to local control, the Current River would be like the Meramec or worse and the Jackson Hole valley in Grand Teton Park would be like Branson rather than perhaps the most beautiful place left in the lower 48.

Third, and most importantly, it would set a terrrible precedent for our National Park System. If a few wingnut local legislators can eliminate a national park, then our entire national park system - our national natural heritage - would be at grave risk. Although parks like Yellowstone, Glacier and the Utah desert parks are hugely popular literally the world over, I can tell you from direct experience that there remains a crazy, largely local contingent in each of those areas that want "state control" so they drill for gas in the redrock and ATV at will.

[awhuber]

Oh man wingnuts? Militants? The MDC is in for state control, hardly wingnuts. You guys are always talking about how screwed up the riverways recreation area has become. Who has managed it for the last 50 yrs?

[ScottK]

32 million. That's alot of "maintenance. What kind of "maintenance" does a river and some hillsides need?

I'm sure that I am being a dumbass here, but that question popped into my head and it won't leave without an answer.

It adds up quick when a screwdriver costs 500 bucks.

[ness]

My tummy tells me this isn't a great idea, but I don't think some of the arguments laid out by the CFM pass the smell test.

1.5 million people spending $65 million because it's a national park? Poof, it's gone if the state takes over?

$32 million in deferred maintenance the state would get saddled with? That's a lot of boat ramps and trash cans. But, I honestly have no idea what all they've got.

Not disagreeing, but the skeptic in me sees holes in this.

[Mark]

The biggest issue I see in this whole debate is that the regulations that were in place have not been followed by the locals. One side says "big government is wanting to close down local businesses and destroy our traditions by closing 65 miles of horse trails". What they fail to mention is the proposal calls for closing 65 miles of "unauthorized horse trails" - trails that should have never been allowed in the first place. One side say they want to close down accesses to the river and shut out people who have used the accesses for generations. Again, what they fail to mention is the proposal calls for shutting down "unauthorized accesses" that locals have made from private lands across the federally protected river banks, and have made their own private gravel bar with their own private access.

What part of "unauthorized" don't people understand? All those in favor of local control are too busy spreading half truths about "losing our rights", "big government interference", "our traditions", and "closing down our businesses" to get people all inflamed while ignoring the fact that at issue is "unauthorized horse trails" and "unauthorized accesses".

We wouldn't be having this debate if the locals would have been playing by the rules all along.

[tanvat]

awhuber, OK, so "militant" was a bit over the top. But the state control idea appears motivated

by the same folks who want the status quo or worse. Congressman Smith and the various "property

rights" groups in southern Mo. I think MDC or DNR could do a good job. My point is that the vocal

proponents of this idea are on the wrong side of nearly ever pressing managment issue facing the ONSR.

That, and this would be bad precedent nationally. But, thankfully, it most likely will not happen. Its mostly

political theatre for the - yep, you guessed it - winguts. Couldn't resist....