Court Opinion

ID: 7822891
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-09-07 18:00:23.388818+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:30:47.037967
License: Public Domain

Darrell Hickman, Justice, dissenting. This is a suit of vital public interest to all Arkansans. It concerns the Cache River and Bayou DeView and is still another attempt to alter the natural state of those streams and to destroy what little remains of the benefits they offer Arkansas as a habitat for wildlife. The drainage area affected is one of the prime locations in Arkansas for waterfowls; consequently, it is one of the best duck hunting areas in the state. The reasons for the proposed change is to make it possible for some landowners in the northern part of the basin to clear and cultivate their lands. This was clearly stated in a question by counsel for the district when he said: “But what we are trying to do is make it possible for a man that wants to clear his [land] can clear it. . . .” A preponderance of the evidence revealed that the proposal should be rejected for various reasons. Some landowners opposed it because of the estimated cost of $3,500,000, the vague plans by the district, the lack of approval by the Corps of Engineers, the Environmental Protection Agency and all other interested agencies, and because more questions were raised than were answered. Others simply felt that the Cache River needed to be left alone, that it did not need “improving;” yet others, more alert to the potential damages to the natural state of the area, envisioned the plan as draining the area and damaging the “wet” areas protected by the Environmental Protection Agency. One witness from Newport said that the plan would essentially dry up the Cache River in his area. John Eldridge, a resident of Woodruff County and a landowner on Bayou DéView and the Cache River, pointed out that the value of land in the area was greater in its natural state than cleared. He said: With the advent of duck hunting and fishing in that area the land from a purely economical standpoint has become more valuable, believe it or not, as wild land than cultivated land. I won’t get into the mechanics of that, but we are diametrically opposed, at least I am, and I think I am representing a number of people in my county to any sort of work being done on existing so-called channel. ####** I don’t own just wood land, I own some other cultivated land and my tract of wood lands means more to me really than my cultivated land and I suspect it is more valuable. So we just sort of wish that the project would go away and I realize it is not. The real issue was put in focus by the following question and the answer given by Eldridge: Q. I said you and those who are in your position are demanding that your duck hunting rights be preserved at the expense of the others who are being flooded and don’t use them for duck hunting; is that true? A. I look at it a little bit different. They have got clear land and infringe upon our rights to keep it like it is to be perfectly frank with you, so it sort of depends on whose ox is gored. And we feel like our ox has been gored because we are taking it as God made it and we would like to keep it that way. The only real evidence in support of the district was the testimony by its engineer. He emphasized in his written report that “[t]his program will not and is not intended to be a flood control project. ” Yet the main thrust of his testimony was that “we will increase the water runoff some fifty to sixty percent; two: we will have a navigable stream where fishermen and you and your sons can get into a boat and you might be able to motorize yourself up Cache River to Grubbs or thereabouts. ” That is flood control. He said there would be no dredging, but, according to him, there might be some removal of sandbars. The operation was primarily intended to remove three large log jams or blockages in the river. It is undisputed that the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission, which is a landowner in the area, has not consented to the proposal; neither has the Corps of Engineers nor the Soil and Conservation Agency. In fact no agency involved in the long history of the Cache River has consented to this proposal. However, there are inferences that there also may be no real obj ections by these agencies to the proposal. Only one landowner testified in favor of the proposal. Yet the trial court was convinced the project should be approved. It said: It is the opinion of the Court that the modified and limited plan not to change the channel, not to increase the depth, but merely to remove those blockages and obstructions along the existing water route is a reasonable plan. It is a plan which will, in the Court’s humble opinion, improve, enhance and benefit the vast majority affected within the area. The majority addresses mostly the legal aspects of this case and has fairly set forth the questions raised. I cannot disagree that it appears that the appellee has not been as diligent as it could have been in pursuing its case. However, in a case of public interest, we are not bound by the usual rules of appellate procedure. Arkansas State Nurses Association v. Arkansas State Medical Board, 283 Ark. 366, 677 S.W.2d 293 (1984). If there was ever a case of public interest, it is this one; not only are a million acres of Arkansas land affected by this decision but also at issue is what will be preserved of the natural state of the Cache River and Bayou DeView. The evidence is persuasive that little benefit will be gained by the proposal. When the interest of all the landowners along the Cache River and Bayou De View are considered, together with the interests of those who enjoy these rivers, it is not even a close question. Those streams ought not to be sacrificed for a few crops on land that is not naturally suitable for cultivation. Ironically, those landowners who seek to use this land as they see fit, by controlling flooding, want someone else to pay for changing the river. There is, of course, more at stake than just the narrow interests of some landowners and duck hunters. Essentially, Arkansas’ future is at stake because the quality of life here will determine our future. The distinction Arkansas has to offer its residents and visitors is its streams and forests. If those are destroyed, we will lose our most valuable natural asset. Besides the narrow interests of the parties, we have an obligation to consider the irreparable effects of our decision on our state. The treasure of those streams is a legitimate consideration which must weigh in the outcome of this case. Moreover the appellants have raised a legal question with merit regarding the authority of the district to make such a proposal. Ark. Stat. Ann. § 21-1026 (Supp. 1983) extends the powers of the district to include the powers of a drainage district created under the general drainage district laws of this state, such as the power to alter the original plans. However, this extension of powers is limited to the sole purpose of completing the improvements provided for in the original plan enacted by Congress and drafted by the Corps of Engineers. The proposed changes are in opposition to the Corps’ plan. The Corps’ plan was to channelize the river and streams, changing the channel and increasing the depth. The proposed changes are to clear the waterways of obstacles. The proposal presented here is clearly contrary to the Corps’ plan. Therefore, the proposed changes are not for the purpose of completing the Corps’ plan, but„to alter the natural state of the district, and, as such, are not authorized under Ark. Stat. Ann. § 21-1026 (Supp. 1983). I would reverse the judgment. Hays, J., joins in this dissent.