Now is not the time to start undermining the trail's success. But that's just what Gov. Matt Blunt's administration is doing. The Department of Natural Resources has given away a key link in the trail, threatening its future and alienating the surviving philanthropist who made the rails-to-trails project happen.
The Katy Trail exists because of donated money and an obscure federal law that spells out what's called "railbanking." That's a fancy name for a relatively straight-forward process: Railroads can lend rights of way not in use to states and local communities for use as trails - provided the land remains available for future railroad use.
Now, with the governor's help, Union Pacific Railroad wants to make a withdrawal from the railbank. It wants to remove an old lift bridge over the Missouri River in Booneville, and recycle much of the steel to build a new bridge over the Osage River.
The railroad had tried unsuccessfully for years to give the bridge away; no takers. It will save millions of dollars by reusing the old bridge. But allowing it to do so is a disastrous gamble for the state. In order for the Katy Trail land to remain "railbanked," it must be connected to main rail lines. Loss of the Boonville Bridge means the Katy Trail would be officially connected to the main line in only two places. One of those tenuous connections, in St. Charles County, has recently been demolished.
Will demolition of that connection, along with the loss of the Boonville Bridge, mean the Katy Trail no longer meets minimum federal requirements for "railbanked" land? Would that force the trail to close? Or trigger an uprising among landowners who never wanted the trail built in the first place? At this point, no one knows with certainty.
Still, Pat Jones isn't taking any chances. The 80-year-old widow of Edward Jones, whose $2.2 million gift underwrote the transformation of the Katy Trail, asked permission last month to join a lawsuit against the state DNR over how it gave away the Boonville Bridge. The state's breaking faith with the Joneses isn't just a slap in the face to them; it's a cautionary tale for future philanthropists.
Contracts that created the Katy Trail permit changes to the bridge "so long as (the state's) right to utilize the premises for interim trail use is not adversely affected." It's hard to believe removing the bridge wouldn't interfere with the state's right to use it as a trail. Why do it, then, especially when the state takes all the risk and receives nothing for it?
Mr. Blunt should backtrack and instruct DNR Director Doyle Childers to re-open negotiations over the bridge. He must ensure that the Katy Trail has the strongest possible foundations.
