Our editorial today gives belated props to those — including blogger Ben Huie — who are working to add new access points on the Arkansas River from west of Hutchinson through Wichita to Oxford. Organizers say the plan isn’t solely for canoeists, kayakers and fishermen. Some of the access points could be parklike places for people to hike, camp or just watch the river flow. As the editorial notes: “If we want people to discover and appreciate Kansas, we’ve got to provide access to it. This river plan is a great start.”
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Regular on Let immigrants run
- SolDevVB on Let immigrants run
- Monkeyhawk on Let immigrants run
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- okobserver on Let immigrants run
- littlejohn on Open thread 11/23
- donndublin on Open thread 11/23
- okobserver on Let immigrants run
- okobserver on Let immigrants run
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/23
24 Comments
I think it’s a great plan. I attending a Visoneering Meeting on this back in 2005 and the people behind this were very passionate.
We also need to clean the river up too. Possibly dredge the sandbars in places (controversial).
I once thought of an organization that would help clean the river called CARP *Clean Arkansas River Project*. Kind of fits. ;)
Yes it is a great idea, I use to live in Sterling Ks. even though the waters do not run deep there. It was a great place to camp and picnic. The river is so beautiful before reaching Hutchinson.
I’d like to see that happen in many rivers, not just the Arkansas.
P_Mom, there is a problem with your comment. As pointed out by the editorial, there are only three “navigable rivers” in Kansas, the Arkansas being one of them. If a stream or river is not navigable, the same is “owned” by the adjoining landowners, whose property lines run to the middle of the water course. Thus, public access to these flowing waters may be, and often is, limited by the landowners, which is their right.
With that said, for the navigable rivers of the state, I agree that the proposal for the Arkansas River (with which I heartily agree) put forth by the group Ben is associated with should be expanded to cover those rivers, too.
I would really enjoy camping and canoeing the Arkansas River. I totally support this.
What’s that smell?
Well that’s just wrong VT (not that you’re wrong, but I think it sucks).
You mean to tell me if I want to canoe in my local river, I could be charged with trespassing if I am in the canoe as it passes through their property?
We’ve done it, I just didn’t know you could get in trouble for it.
Yes, P-Mom, that’s what I’m telling you.
Well howsabout organizing a blog meetup around a river clean up?
P-mom – the Ark is actually late on the list for this. The Kaw has been there for some time now. And VT is correct; under KS law a non-navigable stream is private property.
JR – there will be river cleanups in the weeks before River Fastival. I think the Ark River Coalition will do from Riverside Hospital to the Keeper; Sierra from Keeper to Kallogg; and the South Wichita Revitalization group from Kellogg to Pawnee.
Visit http://www.arkriver.org for more information.
I think Montana takes another view of the river access. I believe Landowners are required to allow access to the rivers. You can drive around and see little roads going down to the rivers all over the state. Last time I visited some even have porta pottys that are picked up on a scheduled pump out.
And the idea that the rivers are private property needs to cease.
Other states are moving toward the idea that all game belongs to the people, not the land owner since the wild game moves and is transient.
Screw private property. Level the playing field. Power to the people.
Peace out
Russell
PMom,
I know several who have floated the Ninnescah and nobody said a word.
Rox – I think the key is that the landowners allowed it on the Ninescah. That was their choice. However, since it is not considered ‘navigable’ they can revoke that at any time. That is where the Ark is different – the waterway is considered public.
Ben, RD, Vaughn Tolle, et al: Regarding the Ninnescah Rivers (north and south branches) — the south branch pops out of the ground west of Pratt in a kind of mini-wetlands area. It then runs east of Pratt where it feeds the ponds at the historic Pratt Fish Hatchery. Then runs east past Cunningham to Kingman and on south side of Cheney, Garden Plain and Goddard. Somewhere south of Garden Plain, the south branch of the Ninnescah must join with the north branch of the Ninnescah (via Lake Cheney) to run on southeast of Wichita towards the Arkansas River.
A week or so I drove from Wichita southwest to Harper on Highway K-42. That highway crosses both the combined Ninnescah River and the Chikaskia River, both relatively free and always flowing streams. It appeared to me both streams are flowing more water than the Arkansas River does in the Hutchinson to Wichita section.
Personally, I don’t think the Arkansas River is flowing enough water to support a canoe with passengers. If so it would be a lot of work.
Speaking of the Ninnescah River (south branch) — Highway 54 crosses it several times between Kingman and Cunningham. I believe that 20 miles must be among the more attractive drives in Kansas. Somewhere along there is a gravel road turning north and passing across a low concrete bridge without side rails. At that point, the Ninnescah is clear and rapid, looking for all the world like a clear mountain stream. Along that stretch of Ninnescah River bottomland along Highway 54 are a lot of wetlands/marsh lands which probably supplies a lot of additional water to the Ninnescah.
In my opinion, all of these beautiful Kansas rivers/streams are threatened by the lowering of the ancient Ogallala aquifer, which lowering is being hastened by construction of ethanol manufacturing plants. I was told the existing ethanol plant in Colwich uses the equivalent water of 4,000 residences, directly out of Lake Cheney. Lake Cheney furnishes about 1/2 of Wichita’s drinking water. This will be tragically increased by the proposed new ethanol plant in Colwich. Other ethanol plants are proposed for Pratt and Dodge City and I don’t know where else.
Its amazing that Governor Sebelius and Congressman Tiahrt are praising construction of ethanol plants in Kansas. What’s wrong with these politicians — do they really think Kansans are willing to trade off clean drinking/bathing water for alternative energy supplies? Are Sebelius and Tiahrt really that far out of touch with what’s going on in Kansas and the real world?
Ben Huie: In years past, newspapers such as the Wichita EAGLE/BEACON and the Kansas City TIMES/STAR would send out investigative reporters to research and write semi-scholarly newspaper articles about important statewide issues. Unfortunately because of economics and competition, those days are unfortunately apparently over.
If a subject ever needed a thorough examination, it is the water situation in the Arkansas River basin. Historically, the Santa Fe Trail paralleled the Arkansas River and wagon trains reported difficulties crossing it.
Now, friends in Dodge City tell me the Arkansas River bed has been absolutely dry for years and is used by off-road vehicles for racing. That dry line is moving northeastward from Dodge City. I don’t know where it is presently, presumably somewhere near Kinsley.
There are technical people in Kansas who have studied these rivers for many years. We need to unleash the best minds on this situation.
I’m not an expert but I have wondered if a forestry project such as windbreaks should be planted along the Arkansas River using OAK TREES TO REPLACE THE ELM TREES AND COTTONWOOD TREES THAT ARE NOW PREVALENT ALONG THE BANKS. Establish hiking trails along the Arkansas River and perhaps a series of dams to create holding lakes. Put a moratorium on building ethanol plants in Kansas. Ditto on new coal or natural gas fired power plants.Develop a real serious electrical power conservation plan for Kansas,county by county. Vote out politicians that get in the way.
I made the trip from Wichita to Oxford a number of times in the family canoe, along with my parents and friends. It’s one of the few truly beautiful parts of Kansas!We canoed many other rivers and lakes too, in Kansas and Missouri and Arkansas. Quite a way to see the waters and the land around them. We never had any trouble from the farmers, but the idea that landowners could stop us hurts.Of course, we were polite and never left the river or the land worse than we found it. If everybody did that, maybe this wouldn’t be an issue.
Jed – Oxford is a key player in this program as are Hutch and S Hutch. I think your approach “we were polite and never left the river or the land worse than we found it” is key – it is what I was taught hunting in Pennsylvania. Treat the landowners with respect and they will reciprocate.
In the case of the River I think there may be another benefit: as more of ‘us’ use the river (all carrying cell phones these days) we will report any vandalism we see.
JW – the dehydration of the River is a serious matter. We are hopeful that the CREP program being funded with the lawsuit money will help address that. Basically what we are hoping for is to remove land from irrigation. I’d like to see restoration of habitat and then allow landowners to buy hunting permits wholesale for re-sale. That might provide an economic incentive to protect the river and its surroundings.
Pmom, I know what you mean about it just not seeming right. I understand about property rights and all, but there are something’s that just seem they should not be the property of just one person. A river is one, to me it would be like claiming the sky, the air, the wind. The land I might be able to understand, you need roots. But a river is free and moving, you can dam it but the water is only held so long. It is nature and it can not be held for long before it feels like moving on.
Once I took my sons fishing off a bridge over a creek, but soon a pick-up came flying up and the man driving it said he owned the property on the North side and it was illegal to fish on his property. He owned the creek half way out. That seem so odd to me, I wanted to ask him how he knew we were not fishing in the other guys water? But I do not, than he would have been the one thinking someone had made a stupid statement. Oh I am sure there was a reason, duet ownership would stop one or the other from damming up the creek.
But then how do you decide that a gift from God only belongs to you? That something that was here long before you and most chances will be here long after you are gone. Belong solely to you? It will survive with out your help unless someone else decide that they have a right to change it. Ruin it, destroy it. Who has a right to make that decision when it belong not only to this generation but those that came before and will come long after they are gone. Something truly do not belong to us but to the world we share. I think we sometimes forget that, so caught up in one life we forget that we are here only a minute out of eternity.That something’s should be left to out live us, as it was meant to be.
Children, the sky, the land, the river, all are our investment in the future. our legacy for having spend that minute here. We lose any of them, our minutes was wasted and so was our investment, our future.
All Kansas has done by its statutes is codify the English common law with regard to riparian rights. Imagine, if you will, the river drying up; without the water, it is suitable for other uses. Who owns it? The answer became the adjoining landowner. Makes a bit of sense here, doesn’t it?
There are many other doctrines one might consider: accretion, avulsion, etc., which make sense when one considers the public purpose behind the same. I understand the desire to use the rivers for canoeing, etc. Perhaps if we, when we use them, followed the lead posted above to “leave it as good or better than we found it” as to trash, for example, the adjoining landowners would be more willing to allow us access to the same across their land.
Very good points VT. Lets look at an extreme – a very small ephemeral stream cutting across your back yard. Is it public? I think obviously not. So, as we get to larger streams at what point do we say “public”?
Back when I hunted in PA the assumption was land is open unless posted otherwise. They really harped on us to “leave it clean” so it doesn’t get posted next year. I bumped into a guy in the woods adjacent to a field one day – turns out it was his land I was hunting on. Got along fine – we saw him that night at a local ‘watering hole’ and picked up the tab for his table. I’m sure his land stayed open for us.
The idea with this program for the Ark is to have enough public access points that noboyd would need to use private land to access the river. For example, in Oxford the access is in a city park near their downtown. They hope that when we stop there we might decide to relax and see the town – maybe even spend some money. Then, we might even drive down sometime and spend some more.
This can and should be a win-win for both recreational users of the river and communities and businesses along the river.
…remembers never to run rapids in an aluminum canoe…
Rivers and streams belong to the people, period. It’s this extreme libertarian mindset that allows a few mean-spirited landowners (who don’t give a crap about “leaving it better than it was” when they allow their livestock to sh*t in the stream) that force the rest of us to do our paddling out of state.
The “property rights” nuts are also the same people who work to try to kill humane rail-trail projects. Nevermind that Kansas has the least amount of public lands in the United States…
I love the arkansas river a lot. I love to go down there and just hang out. It is quiet and it is right by Sterling, KS, where I live. I hope more people can see the beauty in it, and yes I agree with WriterDog, if it is a gift from GOD then who can own it!