Crackpots prevail: Feds rescind White River Blueway designat

[Roger]

[quote="Yarbrough"]What is so wrong with the White that international assistance is needed?/quote]

Give us some reliable sources that says international assistance would have been used in this project? And Ms. Burlsworth is not to be considered a reliable source.

[Yarbrough]

It's a UN idea of how the people of Madison county should act.

[hollohead]

Ask the Buffalo River how that federal 'protection' is working out.

[Cowper]

From http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter1.shtml" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Purposes of the United Nations are:

1.To maintain international peace and security...

2.To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;

3.To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems...

4.To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.

I'm sorry, but even if the idea of a Blueway does happen to be consistent with some words or stated principles as found in some UN document, I don't find that that makes a convincing argument for automatically being against it. Unless you're equally willing to sign up against world peace, friendly relations among nations, self-determination of peoples, etc.

And if I could ask the Buffalo River how the federal protection was working out, what would she say? I think she'd tell me about her sisters the Spring River and the lower Little Red Rivers were faring, where land has been sub-divided and sub-divided again. She would remind me of my boyhood days floating along the Buffalo, and seeing trees bull-dozed out of the field and over into the river, and more private cabins beginning to spring up near the river. And she would say "thank you".

If you google enough, you'll find some of my words from years gone by, where I expressed my own concerns about the rough-shod way in which the Buffalo River land was acquired using unnecessarily heavy-handed techniques. This very "discussion" is part of the backlash from those mistakes. And I acknowledge that some land owners do care for the land as well as or better than any Federal bureaucracy, but that doesn't change the fact that other land owners do not, and the river is impacted by both types of landowners, so yes, consistency and some form of central guidance is needed if you want to protect the resource. But the fact that there is some bad, does not undo all the good. It's just not that simple or that black-and-white.

[SteveGabbard]

http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multiling ... umentid=52" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Blueway designation is linked to UN Agenda 21 which promotes environmental responsibility and covers several areas, not just riparian corridors. Opponents consider it a land grab by the Gov'ts involved and an erosion of individual property rights (pun intended). It seems that their number one argument is that with the designation there will be more restrictions on what they can do with the land they own along the corridor, especially farmers.

Ask the North Fork of the Saline how it's working out since being named an Extraordinary Resource Waterbody. It does not appear that than designation can prevent someone from draining a mud pit directly into the river as well as completely denuding a hay field that floods during heavy rains. Apparently you can do these things and get no more than a slap on the wrist from a state agency.

http://www.adeq.state.ar.us/home/pdssql ... Nbr=015150" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Cadron Boy]

Bingo! Money always comes with strings. And any project using federal funds -- and the Blueway would be no exception -- must comply with the full spectrum of regulatory barrage to assure compliance with NEPA. Anyone tell you different -- they be lying!

And this certainly isn't the end of the White River. So far just about anything the government has had to do with the White River has been an ecological disaster -- from damning its tributaries, dredging its riverbed, exploiting its fisheries -- including introducing foreign fauna and flora, and pumping it and its aquifers dry. Some might argue it might be best if the government simply keeps its hands off the White River.

Moreover why is "Blueway" designation critical to the attainment of conservation funding? If all these conservational endeavors are so important you wouldn't think they'd all hinge on whether the White River attains "Blueway" status. There is nothing that is keeping each and every one of us from offering a helping hand and it shouldn't have to take a government program to bring together a bunch of "stakeholders".

Lastly, I was amused to watch Huckabee's show applauding the upheavel and heave ho of the proposed designation by our elected representatives -- it wasn't well founded - very skimpy on the facts -- but it was fairly persuasive nevertheless. It's all about the "spin" and this one spun out of control early in the game.

[Half Ton]

Lesson here be:
(1)Don't call 26 partners diverse and inclusive when you need many more for this type of program to work out in AR and MO
(2) don't make who is the number 2 blueway in the country a race/contest, if the folks that did this weren't in such a rush there would have been more time to gain buy-in and replace DC lingo.
(3) don't ever think not asking people for their input ahead of time is a good idea when trying to promote a Washington, D.C. Program. Even if they don't participate you can always say they were included if you invite them at least.
(4) don't ever think poorly wordsmithed DC jargon is good lingo for AR. The program really is not described well at the federal level as to not raise local concerns like we're observed.
(5) don't ever forget to include folk from the upper part of the watershed when filling out forms and applying from the lower part. I saw lots of upset WQ pros when this program was announced because they were not included. Heck, if they were upset - you know the secure AR people are going to be.
(6) gotta use the watershed approach to get buy in always to best accomplish WQ protection for a watershed.

If this program is to ever, ever, possibly go again a much better effort that is more well thought out than what was carried out needs to occur. I know when people are excited they sometimes don't think about others, but rather steamroll ahead (I have never done this-ever ) Shoot, I know several folk from several agencies that were not aware of the program at all - and their own agency folk filled out the paperwork and never spread the word. Not a good thing.

This is I why I advocate being inclusive of all stakeholder groups from the get go, not casting stones at your foe, or alienating them - when you need their buy-in to accomplish a goal.

Like or not, agree with their outlook or not, you have to work with and engage your nemesis sometimes to accomplish your watershed protection goals- This might be the overarching watershed theme for AR this year.

0.02$

John

[hollohead]

I agree Cooper, but I also think the Buffalo would say, 'you took my friends and made them my enemies, and you gave me a caretaker who doesn't have a connection with the locals and who treats visitors as criminals'. You reap what you sow, and the Feds have sown a bunch of bad feelings. Two examples; conversation with Billy Dirst of Harrison, successful, educated, progressive. Family had huge land holdings at Rush purchased by the park, still has very bitter feelings about the way his family was treated by the feds, tells me " because of the way it was handled, I'll never get over it". In a conversation with a Mr. Cash at Cane Branch Cr., Mr. Cash related to me that his family owned 160 acres in Woolum that was taken from them for what he called pennies on the dollar. His words, " my parents hated the park, I hate the park, my children hate the park, and their children will hate the park". He sees nothing good that has come from it. I am so glad it was created, but because of the way it was done, it makes it harder for anything else to be accomplished.

[Cadron Boy]

Wow -- I have never heard it put as: " I also think the Buffalo would say, 'you took my friends and made them my enemies, and you gave me a caretaker who doesn't have a connection with the locals and who treats visitors as criminals'". Well said -- and having lived on Clabber Creek within walking distance of the Buffalo during my youth I can't help but agree.

John offers a good 2 cents as well -- "I advocate being inclusive of all stakeholder groups from the get go, not casting stones at your foe, or alienating them - when you need their buy-in to accomplish a goal".

[Cadron Boy]

Not only did those “backward paranoid hillbilly crackpots” prevail – they kicked butt! On Wednesday (yesterday) Barrack Hussein Obama put the entire Bluewater program on hold. Seems they found out folks living within the White Water watershed weren’t too keen on having federal, state and local agencies plus some 26 or more “stakeholders” coordinating conservation practices throughout the White River watershed. Perhaps these folks simply didn’t want to face a barrage of regulatory agencies that would be given further incentive to regulate. Perhaps they saw how this plays out and what happen at C&H Hog farm – where despite the fact the farm lies outside the national park, despite the fact they complied with all ADEQ and EPA regulations, despite the fact they poured their heart, soul and money into the project consistent with best management practices that they faced immense persecution, harrassment and ridicule when outside stakeholders (many even living outside the state) and government agencies got involved.

Moreover -- look at just how much private property what would have been subjected to "federal assistance" had this gone through -- The Buffalo River National Park encompasses 95,000+ acres (all public land) with the Buffalo River watershed encompassing 860,000 acres -- this is a lot of ground covering a ground and a lot of farms and private holdings -- but the Buffalo watershed is very small in comparison to the White River watershed which encompasses nearly 18,000,000 acres. Giving this information -- can you imagine the amount of litigation and regulatory oversight that would have occurred with passage of the BlueWater designation? I can see why farmers and landowners within the White were against placing themselves, their property and heritage at risk of lawsuits and regulatory oversight by “stakeholders” and a multitude of government agencies.

I also found it interesting to read in today’s Democrat Gazette the reason why at least two mayors (Clarendon and Augusta) were disappointed with the loss of BlueWater designation – and I quote directly from the paper – “we were really looking forward to all the tax dollars from tourism”. So it appears some local governments looked at BlueWater designation to simply augment their tax receipts – yes, these poor folks lost out on being able to generate more tax revenue -- and we know who ends up paying those taxes. It seems conservation wasn’t even on their minds – for them, it was all about filling their coffers.

They also stated that they “had already gotten calls from canoeists wanting to float the river because of the federal designation”. Come now? I just don’t think that a major criteria that influences which rivers we float is based on “BlueWater designation”. I personally don’t think there is a single paddler among us that are making plans to float the Connecticut River, the nation’s only Bluewater stream simply because of said designation. Moreover if the benefits are local in nature – whether increased tax receipts or increased conservation efforts – then it should be the local communities that should step up to the bat – we don’t need federal assistance to promote and support projects with local consequences.

Anyway – Barrack Hussein Obama's decision goes to show that a few vocal people committed to a given cause can still have an impact in controlling the growth of government programs.

[Shark Attack]

Thanks CB! I had stayed out of this discussion, but am glad you got involved.