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

[Al Agnew]

3 hours ago, jdmidwest said:

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.

And now Echo Bluff is a gem of the state parks and gets more visitation than nearly any of the other parks, thus bringing more money into Shannon County and the state.  And that does not answer any of my questions above.  

 

[Al Agnew]

3 hours ago, jdmidwest said:

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.

Nope, the federal easement takes precedent over the state, unless the state can make a deal with them...I did the research.  Whether or not it is or was fair for the McGibneys to have part of their land in an easement, that has exactly zero bearing on them bringing a lawsuit against the state concerning land they do not own.  And by the way, it's the National Forest Service, not the National Park Service.  The Eleven Point is administered entirely differently than the Current and Jacks Fork.  The Park Service actually owns most of the land along those two streams, not just an easement.  To see what the dangers of having just an easement that does not prohibit agricultural activities can mean, check out the upper Eleven Point below Thomasville, which is under the easement, but which has fords crossing it and cattle grazing right down to water's edge in places, because one big landowner up there does the bare minimum of what they are required to do to take care of the riparian corridor.

[Mark]

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't the 1/4 mile easement only extend from Greer to just above Riverton? The Eleven Point SP is below Riverton. I'm not understanding that - is there an easement preventing development along the entire river? There are houses and cabins on the river on the lower Eleven Point.

Also I don't believe the DNR have stated their long term plans. At this point, I thought it was only to add campsites well off the river for hunters.

I'm on the fence on the development. I love that their is no development on most of the upper river, and none on the middle section. I do think it is a underused asset for a low income county. There's no where for full service RV use. I realize Greer CG had electric but  meth heads  keeps destroying for wiring. One nice RV/tent campground with electric/water/restroom/showers below Riverton I would think would bring revenue to the county.

I do get the feeling that the majority of locals want to keep it just like it is now, and I'm fine with that too. It is one of MO's most beautiful, primitive areas, and one of MO's best kept secrets.

[Mark]

8 minutes ago, Al Agnew said:

Nope, the federal easement takes precedent over the state, unless the state can make a deal with them...I did the research.  Whether or not it is or was fair for the McGibneys to have part of their land in an easement, that has exactly zero bearing on them bringing a lawsuit against the state concerning land they do not own.  And by the way, it's the National Forest Service, not the National Park Service.  The Eleven Point is administered entirely differently than the Current and Jacks Fork.  The Park Service actually owns most of the land along those two streams, not just an easement.  To see what the dangers of having just an easement that does not prohibit agricultural activities can mean, check out the upper Eleven Point below Thomasville, which is under the easement, but which has fords crossing it and cattle grazing right down to water's edge in places, because one big landowner up there does the bare minimum of what they are required to do to take care of the riparian corridor.

Yep, cattle were IN the river the only time I floated from Thomasville. No fences on either side. I'm sure it's a daily occurrence.

[Al Agnew]

10 hours ago, fishinwrench said:

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

Every one of them in the legislature, apparently.  How many times have we heard that Missouri has too much public land, that lands should be turned back into private hands, that private property rights should take precedence over anything else?  How many times has the legislature tried to cut out the sales tax for the Conservation Department, justifying it in part by saying that they shouldn't be buying up land?  Something like 4% of the state is in public lands, and that's too much for them?  The Farm Bureau, which has the Republicans in their pockets, is automatically against any land going into public ownership, because the bigwigs running it have bigwig friends that want to make money on it.  Proof is in the pudding.  I'd bet that if it was put to a vote of the people, all the people of the state, they would vote to keep this land in the park system.  But like a number of other issues, the legislature would still go the other way.  It has become like a religion...if you are conservative, you are against any more public land, or any control of private land; it's in the conservative bible.  I'd also bet there are a lot of people (voters) who consider themselves conservatives but like the idea of public lands, but once you become a legislator, apparently you have to follow the conservative bible.  And since there is a very strong anti-government streak in much or rural Missouri, the legislators don't pay a price for being against the government owning more land.

[Al Agnew]

7 minutes ago, Mark said:

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't the 1/4 mile easement only extend from Greer to just above Riverton? The Eleven Point SP is below Riverton. I'm not understanding that - is there an easement preventing development along the entire river? There are houses and cabins on the river on the lower Eleven Point.

Also I don't believe the DNR have stated their long term plans. At this point, I thought it was only to add campsites well off the river for hunters.

I'm on the fence on the development. I love that their is no development on most of the upper river, and none on the middle section. I do think it is a underused asset for a low income county. There's no where for full service RV use. I realize Greer CG had electric but  meth heads  keeps destroying for wiring. One nice RV/tent campground with electric/water/restroom/showers below Riverton I would think would bring revenue to the county.

I do get the feeling that the majority of locals want to keep it just like it is now, and I'm fine with that too. It is one of MO's most beautiful, primitive areas, and one of MO's best kept secrets.

The majority of locals probably does want to keep it the way it is now, but how realistic is that if it's in private ownership?  The next owner could come in, clear-cut everything outside the easement, and run cattle over the whole thing.  Or develop a 200 house subdivision with the easement being the common ground for the subdivision.  And Mark, the easement extends to to Highway 142.

[tjm]

If it's important to DNR it will go to higher courts, thing is courts are limited to the laws they can't make decisions based on emotions or public sentiment. If the law was misinterpreted at this court it will be fixed at the next level, if this Judge was right, then DNR was/is wrong. If the vast majority of the people of MO. disagreed with the legislature, those guys wouldn't be there so that argument is bunk.

As I read the article the judgement only pertains to the 600+A, that still leaves a bunch of land for DNR to so what they want with. If they do like they did here, that means they will stop you from accessing the creek  through  it and make a few thousand acres into a 30 minute hiking trail, so yeah it might not ever be developed.

[jdmidwest]

12 hours ago, timinmo said:

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. 

Nothing in this should have anything to do with political parties, both sides have tried to ruin that river for lead mining, or other personal gain.  Its the one wild river that has been returning to more of a natural state all of my life.

A big State Park would bring more tourists to the area and ruin the best thing about it.  Going there to get away from people.

The upper river is a mess above Cane Bluff, those cows are nasty.  And the creek running in below Cane Bluff from the north has issues on it too.  But the part from there down  142 has been pretty protected from cattle farms.  Some runoff comes in from Fredrick Creek, but not as bad as above.

This is the part of the article that seems to be the basis of the decision  "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. " .  I am thinking there is a missing piece of the pie.  What I see from this article, the State had a trial in August that opened the easement up in their favor.  

Other local landowners don't have this option and this part seems to support that theory "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. "

 

[jdmidwest]

9 hours ago, Al Agnew said:

The majority of locals probably does want to keep it the way it is now, but how realistic is that if it's in private ownership?  The next owner could come in, clear-cut everything outside the easement, and run cattle over the whole thing.  Or develop a 200 house subdivision with the easement being the common ground for the subdivision.  And Mark, the easement extends to to Highway 142.

I don't have a problem with the State buying the farm.  Had it been a private owner, we probably would have no recourse to what happened to the development.  But this was bought with our tax dollars and the people should have a say in its development.  Make it a MDC area or anything with low impact as far as development.  I would never like to see an eyesore like Echo Bluff there.  Might as well drive to St Louis and visit Forest Park for the wilderness experience.

[Al Agnew]

29 minutes ago, jdmidwest said:

I don't have a problem with the State buying the farm.  Had it been a private owner, we probably would have no recourse to what happened to the development.  But this was bought with our tax dollars and the people should have a say in its development.  Make it a MDC area or anything with low impact as far as development.  I would never like to see an eyesore like Echo Bluff there.  Might as well drive to St Louis and visit Forest Park for the wilderness experience.

I agree with you there.  But there is no evidence that the state planned to do some kind of big development like Echo Bluff.  In fact, what I read previous to this bit of news is that they planned nothing more than a campground and hiking trails.  Yes, the people should have a say in how it would be developed, but that's ALL the people, not just the people of Oregon County who were against it and the Republicans in the legislature.