NWA EDITORIAL | A proposal to change the federal designation of the Buffalo River deserves attention, explanation, clarity
Why change national river’s federal designation? by NWA Democrat-Gazette | October 13, 2023 at 4:00 a.m.
The battle that resulted in federal protection of the Buffalo National River raged for more than a decade. It remains perhaps the ultimate victory for conservation in Arkansas history.
It was a fight that riled property owners near the river, attracted U.S. Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas to float the river and speak out for preservation and contributed significantly to the election of the first Arkansas Republican in Congress since Reconstruction.
Today, the National Park Service manages the lower 135 miles of the 151-mile waterway, the portion designated by Congress in 1972 as the nation's first national river. Now, a new question arises: Should the Buffalo be designated as a national park preserve?
When Arkansans, or fortunate visitors to our beautiful state, float among the massive bluffs, boulders and otherwise rugged terrain surrounding the Buffalo River, they witness few clues of the battles that have raged over the river's future since the 1950s. The clues are what's not there, namely dams built by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Today, a canoe or kayak trip, thanks to the conservation efforts of the 1960s, delivers a fleeting connection to what life was like before Arkansas was Arkansas. Paddlers who allow themselves to slow down can find solace, even inspiration, in the densely wooded, craggy valley where time is measured by sunrises, sunsets and changes of seasons more than by any man-made timepiece. Rather than an escape from anything, time spent at the Buffalo National River is more of journey toward renewal of the human spirit. The river reminds us that nature can outperform any product of human origins.
The decade preceding Congress' declaration involved intense campaigns over a river first documented as the "Buffalo Fork of the White River" in Zebulon M. Pike's Arkansas explorations between 1806 and 1807. Even as Arkansas' population grew as part of the nation's westward settlements, the Ozarks' rugged and often inhospitable terrain -- perhaps no more so than in the Buffalo's watershed -- largely left this natural oasis as it had been before a new nation's inhabitants learned of its existence.
Arkansas recognized the area's value, opening Buffalo State Park in 1940 as recreational travel became more popular.
In the middle of the 20th century, however, a national push for economic development, job creation, flood control and power generation inspired enthusiasm for dams on many of the nation's rivers. The idea of damming the Buffalo had been around for decades, but became more serious when the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers proposed building one. World War II helped to stall such projects, but, by 1954, the Corps was back with a plan for two dams. Perhaps incomprehensible today, proposals for dams had some popularity back then as local residents and state officials viewed them as progress. National politics, including some vetoes of bills by President Dwight D. Eisenhower, delayed that "progress."
In 1961, though, Rep. James W. Trimble of Arkansas' 3rd Congressional District introduced legislation to support dam construction on the Buffalo River. According to National Park Service documentation, his proposal led conservationists to form the Arkansas Nature Conservancy, the Ozarks Society and other groups to save the river from damming and to create a national park there to protect it for future generations. Landowners near the river were among the most vocal opponents of a federal designation. National media attention came to the effort to prevent the Buffalo's damming. The fight raged until Lyndon Johnson's administration supported preservation of the Buffalo River and then-Gov. Orval Faubus decided to resist the Corps' effort and support a national river designation.
Perhaps any remaining zeal for dams faded when Republican John Paul Hammerschmidt of Harrison defeated Trimble's 1966 reelection effort in which Trimble staunchly supported dam construction. Momentum for a national river designation grew. Hammerschmidt and Sen. J. William Fulbright of Fayetteville pushed legislation in 1967 to protect the river. Other priorities, such as the war in Vietnam, prevented adoption until 1972. The Buffalo National River became a reality.
It is with that history -- and that's the much abbreviated telling -- that one must evaluate talk of a new designation for the Buffalo River. This newspaper reported a week ago on discussions to designate the river and the federal lands around it as the Buffalo National Park Preserve.
It's just talk, so far, according to U.S. Rep. Bruce Westerman, whose congressional district includes Newton County and part of the Buffalo River.
"There's kind of a lot of buzz about it," said Westerman. "But there's not any process taking place in Congress to draft legislation or move a bill about it because I realize it's something that needs to be handled carefully and get people's input so that if anything's done, it's done the right way."
How did this "buzz" get started? Marshall Mayor Kevin Elliott said it started four or five months ago, died down, then "went like wildfire" in September when an Iowa-based company began polling people in the area about the possibility. Flyers for the polling says it was done at the direction of the Coalition for Buffalo River National Park Preserve, whatever that is. The poll results showed 64% of respondents favored the new designation.
Westerman said some of the people he'd discussed the matter with included Gov. Sarah Sanders and Tom and Steuart Walton, sons of Jim Walton and grandsons of Walmart founder Sam Walton and his wife, Helen. Tom and Steuart Walton have been active in building up the state's national standing in cycling and other outdoor recreation.
Not everyone welcomes the interest in a national park designation. State Sen. Missy Irvin of Mountain View says many residents maintain "raw feelings" of resentment about the 1972 designation, saying the economic benefits of establishing the national river never met promises made in the 1970s. Others say an air of secrecy over the pursuit is foreboding.
So far, the identified benefits of a national park designation is a prediction it would bring more visitors and access to more federal funding. The "preserve" designation would supposedly protect hunting and fishing access to the Buffalo lands.
Others wonder how many more visitors the Buffalo River needs or can withstand. It already gets 1.3 million every year.
Is a new battle for the Buffalo under way? Someone is clearly advocating the national park designation, ostensibly to make it more marketable. Is that needed?
Protecting the river and its natural surroundings should be priority No. 1. Anyone advocating for a change in its federal designation has a lot of explaining to do. As hard fought as the 1960s battle to preserve the Buffalo was, it makes sense that any proposal to change the designation would be met with some suspicion.
A lot of details must be forthcoming. Attracting more people isn't, in and of itself, enough of a reason to make the change.
And if you're an influential advocate for the change, step out and speak up. Nobody should be left guessing who's behind this move and why. Among Arkansans, it's no surprise that lobbying for a major change in the Buffalo River's status is tantamount to nudging the University of Arkansas trustees to drop the Razorbacks as the mascot.
Is it any wonder the public's gut response is "don't mess with it?"