Not worth the risk

Impractical to keep old bridge

The Friends of the Historic White River Bridge in Clarendon want the old White River Bridge and its western approaches saved. While we sympathize with this desire, we must ask ourselves if it is practical. They have recently decided, after disregarding opportunities to engage in early planning processes, and wrongly convinced by outside influences that the old bridge is the one and only key to economic rebirth in Clarendon.

The Cache River National Wildlife Refuge is in total support of finding ways to help improve economic growth for Clarendon and other gateway communities surrounding the refuges, but it is bound by legal agreements, created over 10 years of negotiations, that mandate that the old bridge and other infrastructure must be removed, and the wetlands of the refuge be restored to their natural state.

The bridge friends have filed several lawsuits against the Cache River National Wildlife Refuge and Arkansas Department of Transportation attempting to delay demolition of the old bridge and attached structures. These agencies are now forced to defend their compliance with law, at great cost to taxpayers.

After the most recent hearing, Feb.27, in Judge Chris Piazza’s 6th Circuit court, Monty Baugh of the Arkansas attorney general’s office told the judge, as paraphrased by the Democrat-Gazette, “The Monroe County plaintiffs’ emotional attachment to the old bridge does not give them any legal right to intervene in a perfectly legal arrangement between federal and state authorities that requires that the old bridge be demolished.”

“The taxpayers got a new bridge out of this deal and part of the deal is that we … turn it back into wetlands,” Baugh said. A legal ruling on the lawsuit will be issued in 90 days.

The bridge friends’ plan for the city of Clarendon is to accept ownership of the old bridge and use money already allotted for demolition to restore the bridge. In order to receive this money, the bridge friends and the city must first pay for restoration expenses. Then and only then can they apply for reimbursement. The bridge friends’ plan states that they have a commitment for a line of credit to use until they are reimbursed. If that line of credit can’t meet expenses for any reason, the city of Clarendon is on the hook to pay the difference. Does the city have the means to provide several million dollars if this occurs?

The bridge friends’ plan states “that the city (Clarendon) will maintain the western approach (and the bridge main span and eastern approach) as other streets in the city and provide police, litter control/pickup and related activities.” So, in addition to restoration and maintenance costs, funding will be needed for the bridge to be accessible to law enforcement vehicles, emergency personnel and sanitation and maintenance workers.

The bridge must improve safety infrastructure to prevent falls, meet handicapped requirements and plan for keeping trash and debris out of the river and refuge.

These are serious issues for cities like Memphis and Little Rock, let alone a small town like Clarendon. Can the city provide and maintain these services, or will taxes be raised to meet these obligations?

Other considerations include serious liability issues surrounding the bridge. What will be the costs of insuring an 87-yearold bridge with possibly unknown structural problems? How will the city be protected against lawsuits or damages caused by the bridge? Who will pay for regular mandatory U.S. Coast Guard inspection of the bridge piers in the White River? In addition, how will new bridge uses affect the current uses of the area? Will visitors to the bridge want the refuge area around the old bridge/highway closed to hunting or shooting?

The bridge friends’ plan says the friends would maintain, at its cost and expense, property insurance on the bridge with $500 million limits, and that they would be responsible for routine, ongoing maintenance necessary above ordinary street maintenance by the city and will maintain an endowment for that purpose and for other operating expenses. An important fact to remember is that if this bridge friends “endowment” fails to be kept adequately funded, then the full cost of maintenance/repairs/services will fall upon the city of Clarendon. The refuge could also become an unwilling victim because nearly two miles of the old infrastructure would remain on refuge property, making it financially liable for demolition and removal of the structures.

This problem could bankrupt the city, leaving responsibility for the bridge to taxpayers. Can the citizens of Clarendon afford the risks?