Political Situation

We interviewed representatives from all of the relevant agencies described in Chapter 1.4, in order to assess the political outlook of the agencies and of the population at large. A complete list of interview subjects appears in Appendix H. We summarize the politics of the region in four categories, and recommend policy responses to the political implications of each.

Anti-Government Orientation

The federal government is viewed as intrusive and insensitive to local needs. This orientation is common among agricultural communities, which are traditionally strongly independent and strongly against government involvement in their economic activities.

The National Park Service recognizes this orientation. Based on that recognition, the NPS has not exercised its full authority to purchase acreage within the designate park, which had boundaries drawn with the intention of minimizing land acquisition. Despite that, local residents resent that the NPS claimed the BNR by eminent domain, even though fair market value was paid for all acreage, and populated sections were left to private use. USFS land purchases are often described similarly as landowners having "sold out" under duress.

As statistical evidence of the anti-government orientation, refer to Table A-14, "Persons Below the Poverty Level." In Newton and Searcy Counties, a person is two-and-a-half times more likely to be in poverty than the average US citizen. Table A-15, "Persons Accepting AFDC," indicates the number of persons in each county who accept AFDC payments (the primary federal welfare program, Aid to Families with Dependent Children). In the BNR watershed, despite the significantly higher level of poverty, AFDC participation is lower than across Arkansas and across the US. The AFDC acceptance rate is most strikingly lower in the two rural counties: people in poverty in Newton County are on welfare at one-half the statewide rate and one-third the national rate; people in poverty in Searcy County are on welfare at one-third the statewide rate and one-quarter the national rate. Some of the difference in welfare acceptance is due to less children in the three-county area (Table A-2 indicates that the BNR population is older than average), and some of the difference may be due to a lack of knowledge of the entitlement program. But the large scale of the difference in acceptance rates indicates that the people in the region prefer to avoid welfare, and by inference, prefer to avoid government programs in general. Regardless of the policy options undertaken, we recommend avoiding federal government involvement. Implementing a policy by voluntary means will be seen as less intrusive, and more positive, by local residents, and hence will be more successful in the long term than government programs.

Recommendation 5.1: Use Voluntary Means.

Recommendations & incentives for voluntary compliance are superior to government regulations & enforcement, because local residents will resist non-voluntary measures.

We offer the following anecdotal evidence of the anti-government orientation. Regarding rural communities in general, "nowhere is command-and-control environmental regulation resisted more vehemently, and less likely to succeed, than in the agricultural sector." Regarding the relationship of the government to local residents, "the feeling is, 'We've been betrayed,'" says a Searcy Co. historian. Regarding how local residents view government action, a DPC&E representative says that EPA oversight "is considered Communism." Regarding relations with outsiders in general, the historian says, "locals feel a real threat from outsiders," and feel "it's my land and no one can tell me what to do with it."

Pro-Agribusiness Orientation

Most of the State Representatives from the BNR watershed area are members of the Cattlemen's Association, or have enough acreage to consider themselves farmers or ranchers. That they get elected indicates that local residents consider their perspective to be representative -- i.e., a majority of the electorate has a pro-agribusiness viewpoint.

Recommendation 5.2: Include agribusiness representatives in decision-making.

Seek the endorsement and participation, in any policy option, from the Cattlemen's Association, the Chamber of Commerce, and other local business groups.

Agribusiness participation may weaken the environmental aspects of the policy chosen. But their participation will ensure that the (albeit weaker) policy is successfully implemented. "Get the Cattlemen's Association and the Farm Bureau onto the Watershed Council. Get them backing you and you'll win -- period," says a Searcy County Chamber of Commerce representative. By implication, without agribusiness backing, you'll lose -- period.

Anti-Environmentalist Orientation

Many local residents of the BNR watershed do not hold environmental groups in high regard (the Sierra Club even a derisive nickname -- "the Sahara Club"). As statistical evidence of the anti-environmentalist orientation, refer to Appendix G-3, "Percent of Expected Membership." The table indicates, for Arkansas and four nearby states, the ratio of the actual membership in environmental groups to the expected membership, if national membership were evenly distributed by population. Arkansas has 36% of their expected membership, which means that a typical US citizen is three times more likely to be a member of an environmental group as is the typical Arkansan.

Recommendation 5.3: Stress economic values over environmental.

Evaluate and publicize policies in terms of economic impact as well as pollution impact, and choose policies which affect both positively.

Our opinion is that the residents are not so much anti-environment as anti-environmentalist. Local residents are aware of the need for environmental stewardship: every group with whom we spoke described themselves as "good caretakers" or "stewards of the land." A Cattleman's Association representative says that cattle production is the "best soil conservation measure we have because it establishes grasses on erodible soil." The public may even agree with a conservationist ethic: local residents prefer "'keeping the river as it is' and 'not spoiling it with over-development'." Environmental goals are acceptable in concept, as long as they are achieved in conjunction with economic goals. Appeals to a balance between conservation and development would be taken more positively than appeals to environmental morality or environmental ethics. In any case, the connection of a policy with national environmental groups should be downplayed.

Burden-Sharing Orientation

People who reside in the BNR watershed are poorer than people who visit the BNR. Refer to Table A-13, "Per Capita Income." Residents in the BNR three-county region earn 22% less than the typical Arkansan, and 41% less than the typical American. Visitors to the BNR, even if they are just at average income levels, are wealthier than the local residents. The income disparity is greater among recreational visitors, considering that increased wealth allows for more recreational activity. Therefore, any policy which imposes a cost would be fairer if imposed on recreational visitors than if imposed on local residents. In economic terms, the distributional benefit is higher if wealth is transferred from visitors to residents.

Recommendation 5.4: Account for distributional impacts.

Arrange policies so that costs are imposed on recreational visitors and not on residents, because recreational visitors are wealthier on average than local residents.

Charging visitors for environmental improvements is fair because they are the direct beneficiaries of the improvements. Charging visitors is also fair because they come to the BNR voluntarily, whereas fees and taxes on local residents must be imposed by law. Charging visitors is most fair because the financial burden of supporting the BNR should be distributed as widely as possible among those who benefit from the BNR. "There's a heavy debt to having the river in your backyard," says one Chamber of Commerce representative. Local residents have already given up land, have had costs imposed on them from multiple levels of government, and have had their economic choices curtailed by numerous regulations. We should not ask them to bear more burden -- future burdens should be borne by others.