In Colorado, the push has been on for years to have Colorado National Monument redesignated as Colorado National Park. A similar movement has been simmering at Golden Gate National Recreation Area in California, been mentioned at Cedar Breaks National Monument in Utah, and actually succeeded at the newly named Pinnacles National Park in California.
All in the name of boosting tourism and boosting economies.
But in Missouri, a brash congressman believes tourism, economic activity, and recreational access would best be served by turning Ozark National Scenic Riverways into Ozark "State" Scenic Riverways, or something similar.
Rep. Jason Smith fears access to the National Riverways in his congressional district, Missouri's 8th, would be harmed by a National Park Service management plan that would do away with 65 miles of unauthorized horse trails (while adding 35 miles of new trails to the currently approved 23 miles) and place some limits on motorboat usage, among other things.
The Republican last week introduced an amendment, which the House adopted, to prevent the Park Service from tinkering with motorboat regs (a move that could acually backfire on him, as it would require the Park Service to stop ignoring the 60 horsepower engines on some boats and enforce the 40 HP limit already on the books) and now has introduced legislation to transfer the National Riverways to state control.
The congressman claims his action comes as a "direct response to constituent concerns.” Others closer to Missouri politics claim he's just grandstanding to his Tea Party followers.
Missouri's governor, a Democrat, has endorsed the Park Service's preferred management plan for the National Riverways ("(The plan) provides the best course for continued and future enjoyment of this treasure," Gov. Jay Nixon wrote Interior Secretary Sally Jewell), though his lieutenant governor, a Republican, has opposed it. The St. Louis Post-Dispatch also has backed the Park Service.
Congressman Smith is taking an extreme position, one that, if Congress ever agreed with it, could do more harm than good for his constituents. While politicians and residents of other states see the high economic value that is carried by having a unit of the National Park System in their states, the Republican believes knocking the National Riverways down in stature would bring benefits.
"How so?" is the question of the day.
Would a Rocky Mountain "State" Park have the same cachet as a Rocky Mountain National Park? Would Shenandoah "State" Park carry the same drawing power as Shenandoah National Park (a good question, in light of efforts by some in Virginia to effect that name change)?
Would allowing the landscape around the National Riverways to be ground up by ATVs, letting high E.Coli loads in the rivers continue, and letting horsemen carve their own trails, be a recreational draw that benefits local businesses?
Regardless of whether Rep. Smith's "decommissioning" legislation gains traction in the Senate, his campaign against the Park Service already likely has done damage to tourism and economic activity along the National Riverways. Wire service stories from coast-to-coast and op-ed pieces readily visible via Google Alerts have hung out the story for all to see.
While national park visitors seek out clean waters, beautiful sceneries, and wonderful experiences, learning about the E.coli problems on the Jacks Fork and Current rivers, the 65 miles of unauthorized horse trails, canoes being overturned by rowdy individuals, and the pickup trucks parked in mid-stream can't be appealing.
Should Congress should call the congressman's bluff? Decommission Ozark National Scenic Riverways and hand it back to Missouri? And then let the state figure out how to cover the $6.4 million the Park Service now spends annually to manage the unit, its 125 employees, or the roughly $7.5 million the agency intends to spend on restoration and rehabilitation projects at Big Springs and Alley Mill?
The fact that the state already has its own funding problems likley wouldn't be helped by assuming the $32 million in deferred maintenance at Ozark National Scenic Riverways. Missouri also would find itself responsible for about 160 miles of roads, not to mention the unauthorized horse trails.
"The loss of revenue combined with the increase in operational costs if the National Riverways was just another state park would be staggering," Lynn McClure, Midwest Region director for the National Parks Conservation Association, told a Missouri legislative committee earlier this week. "The State of Missouri has debt of more than $47 billion right now, which works out to roughly $7,900 state debt for each and every citizen in the state. At a time when all state legislators are concerned about reducing debt, conveying the Ozark National Scenic Riverways to the state of Missouri would achieve exactly the opposite."
And the resulting loss of a park system unit such as Ozark National Scenic Riverways would be not only to Missouri, but to the entire nation.
Support Essential Coverage of Essential Places
Comments
Thanks for providing a link to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch editorial. (Jim, is this the piece you quoted from the other day?)
Would it really be a backfire? Has he indicated that he doesn't want that rule to be inforced. Has the NPS indicated it will continue to ignore the 40 HP limit if his bill doesn't pass but will inforce it if his bill does?
Others who are unidentified and provide no evidence of their claim.
So far, you have only identified legislation to prevent restrictions on boating. What is extreme about that?
Where does it say he supports that? Is that typical of other Missouri parks? Was that the case before or after the lands were siezed and turn into a National Park?
So its the State's fault that the NPS has a maintenance deficit?
Baloney. The State has debt of about $5 billion (2011) the rest is municipal debt supported by the local municipalities. That makes State debt about 2% of GDP.
http://www.electandrewkoenig.com/house-blog/11-how-does-missouris-debt-c...
US debt is about 3/4s of GDP.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-debt-now-about-73-of-gdp-cbo-says-20...
Hmmm 2% vs 75%. Who is it that has funding problems?
Speaking of Representative Smtih, I am reminded of Congressman Frank A. Barrett of Wyoming, who in 1943 successfully convinced Congress to abolish Jackson Hole National Monument. "It is unthinkable," Barrett complained, "that this hunters' paradise should be molested in any way." President Franklin D. Roosevelt then vetoed the bill. There is why we have a Representative Smith; we don't have a White House standing up for national parks. Sorry, fellow Democrats, but the truth always hurts.
All Mr. Obama would need to do is fly out to Missouri and run the river. Jimmy Carter did that in 1978 when there was talk of developing the Snake River in Idado. Interior Secretary Cecil Andrus got him on the river, and the Representative Smiths died away. Remember this in 2016 when Mrs. Clinton is on the stump. Who sold out Arkansas to the Tyson Food Company, as extensively reported in the "liberal" New York Times? Half of the rivers in the Ozarks were polluted by chicken blood and entrails.
Good editorial, Kurt, but let's face it. We get the government we deserve. We don't have any defenders of the national parks left in Washington. We have grandstanding politicians just chasing votes--and the money to secure them. Don't blame the Tea Party; blame "our" party, whatever party that might be. If I lived in Missouri, would my president back me? So far, he never has. Next up: 300,000 acres of our desert public lands scraped into oblivion for solar power plants. A couple of gas-fired power plants would match them all. It isn't easy being green when green itself stands just for development. If the Representative Smiths in this world are to come to their senses, it has to start with us.
Alfred, on that we can agree. Actually, most of your comment was on target.
It's hard to argue against that. I might, though, be inclined to amend it: "and don't understand." As someone who did a stint in politics and could see how so many members of the electorate are simply unable to integrate into their worldview (i.e. an ideology through which they have been constructed) an opposing viewpoint or fact, I'm not sure what they--or we--deserve. If one takes a random stroll through the Traveler, I think this phenomenon shows up in some of the more invidious exchanges.
justinh - Yes, the link to the editorial in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch and the Joplin Globe in the above story is the same one I referred to in a recent comment on another story on a related topic.
Ec - these editorials from papers on opposite sides of the state, along with the Governor of Missouri, are among the "others" who view Rep. Smith's actions as nothing more than "grandstanding to his Tea Party followers." Here's a quote from the editorials:
"On Feb. 7, the public comment period ended on the Park Service’s proposed management plan for the 134 miles of some of the most scenic and (at times) pristine stream-fed waterways in the country. There are those who make a living at treating the federal government as a bogeyman — people like Lt. Gov. Peter Kinder and U.S. Rep. Jason Smith, both Republicans — who suggest the Park Service should butt out. Never mind that the riverways wouldn’t be protected at all if not for the national park status bestowed upon the area by Congress in 1964. Mr. Kinder and Mr. Smith are just trolling for votes. They can and should be ignored."
Now we know who but we still lack the evidence. That is their opinion. But of course, they provide nothing that indicates that Smith and Kinder are not speaking exactly as they feel.
Of course we're talking about their opinion. This is about politics, and that's an area in which "evidence" is in short supply, and opinions are the name of the game :-)