Missouri ordered to sell parts of planned state park along Eleven Point River

[MOFishwater]

One of the best, most pristine areas I've floated in MO. Hope this won't alter the serenity or the landscape...

 

https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/missouri-ordered-to-sell-parts-of-planned-state-park-along-eleven-point-river/article_51144355-74b1-5d2f-a92b-34c317ba627e.html#tracking-source=home-the-latest

 

JEFFERSON CITY — An Oregon County circuit judge has ordered the state of Missouri to sell parts of a planned state park along the Eleven Point River in the southern part of the state.

The ruling by Circuit Judge Steven Privette, issued Tuesday, is a loss for the state and state parks boosters. Former Democratic Gov. Jay Nixon engineered the purchase of the roughly 4,200 acres in his second term.

 

Van and Elizabeth McGibney sued the state in 2017, arguing that roughly 625 acres of the planned park was located within a federal easement along the Eleven Point River.

 

At trial in August, the state argued the planned park wasn’t in conflict with the easement and that the easement may be modified in the future to allow public use, according to the judgement. 

 

The state also said the McGibneys lacked standing, but the judge said they did have standing as members of the public challenging use of public funds, and that the McGibneys were subject to the same easement as the Department of Natural Resources.

 

Privette on Tuesday ordered that the defendant “Department of Natural Resources is hereby directed to divest itself of ownership of those lands located within the bounds of the Wild and Scenic Easement.”

House Republicans have voted several times to force the sale of the property and many local officials had long slammed the purchase.

 

 

[tjm]

I would think this is assurance that the DNR won't screw that up by making it open to public use. Most parks modify the natural state of a place to make lawns and parking or camping/picnic sites.  Park invites overuse of an area and of course that means trashing it. I think you should be happy with this ruling, but only time will tell.

[MOFishwater]

Pretty vague article, hopefully you're right and it's a good thing. I haven't seen much about it but heard rumors it would be happening from a friend that just floated a couple weeks ago. Outfitter didnt seem confident it was beneficial but this is the first tidbit i've seen related to it.

[jdmidwest]

I know the McGibney's, fine folks.  I have not seen them in a long time.  I need to go by and thank them next time over for all of their good work.

Fitting end to the Nixon Folly. 

[Al Agnew]

4 hours ago, jdmidwest said:

I know the McGibney's, fine folks.  I have not seen them in a long time.  I need to go by and thank them next time over for all of their good work.

Fitting end to the Nixon Folly. 

Exactly why do you call this a folly?  It was the purchase of private land for a state park.  And exactly what was the McGibneys' stake in this, that they brought a lawsuit?

There is a lot people don't seem to understand about this.  First of all, the land within a quarter mile of the river is protected from DEVELOPMENT under a scenic easement purchased by the federal government under the National Wild and Scenic Rivers program.  BUT, "development" does not include agricultural activity, and the land under the easement can still be used for cattle grazing, with NO control over how much it is grazed or otherwise subject to agricultural activity.  Thus, if the land subject to the easement is sold back into private ownership, it will NOT have the same level of protection it would have under the state park system.  Keep in mind that the easement would be enforced no matter who owns it, unless the state makes a deal with the feds to allow river access through it.  I highly doubt that the feds would allow other development within the river corridor, including cabins and campgrounds.  BUT, also keep in mind that the easement only is in effect on between 600 and 700 acres. The rest of the land is outside the easement, and the total land area of the purchase is well over 4000 acres.  Now...either the land ONLY under the easement is forced to be sold, and presumably might be bought by somebody wanting to graze cattle on it or do other agricultural activities, OR the whole thing is forced to be sold, in which case way over 3000 acres of sensitive land within the Eleven Point watershed is going to be subject to development.  I bet it's highly likely that the legislature, now emboldened by this decision if it stands, will once again try to force the DNR to sell the whole thing.  And thus we all lose, except for whoever buys it and develops it.  This all started as simple revenge by the Republicans on Nixon, trying to embarrass him at the end of his term of office when it looked like he might run for the Senate or other national office, and also the Republican distaste for public lands in general.  

 

[fishinwrench]

Republicans have a distaste for public land?  All of them? Why is that?

[Gavin]

An Ozark County Judge? This will roll up the hill to a higher court, Our State legislature is a POS BTW. Farm Bureau bought and paid for. Do the McGibney’s want to go cafo pig/chicken farm or something? I don’t see any of their skin in the game, so no standing IMO.

[jdmidwest]

Nixon developed Echo Bluff, a monster park full of concrete and steel in the middle of nowhere at great taxpayer expense. The State Park system at the time was cash strapped and did not have funding to keep up what they already have. Echo Bluff came online and all of the operating expense of it added to the burden. Then he bought this parcel and a few others using monies that were probably meant for something else. Not sure, but I think they sold one of the other parcels after he left office.

[jdmidwest]

Not sure what the McGibney's stake in the matter is, says the own property near it.  Just reading the article, it looks like the State has plans of developing the easement area and feels like they have the power to over ride the Feds.  They were probably just trying to block it.  I am sure they have been blocked out of some of their land by the easement and are not able to develop any of it to make a private picnic area.

The easement prevents any development outside of what NPS does.  Any private structures along the easements have long returned to the earth slowly since it was created.

[timinmo]

This is just a political battle that has nothing to do with what is "right or wrong".  Unfortunately the whole thing has degenerated into party lines and what is good for the long term is cast aside by petty bickering.   Some people in that part of the state are still mad about the restrictions of the scenic rivers.  In the long term, as I see it, a few people will gain and the people of Missouri will lose.