Northwest Arkansas Democrat-Gazette
Fund the bridge
War Eagle Bridge restoration worth investment
The Benton County Quorum Court has been known, once or twice, to kick the proverbial can down the road. Faced with decisions they would really rather not make or, more specifically, money that they would rather not spend, these justices of the peace have been known to procrastinate.
It’s an approach that says “We’ll cross that bridge when we can’t otherwise avoid it.”
The justices of the peace on the Quorum Court, however, can’t afford to avoid one particular bridge, the renowned War Eagle Bridge that’s provided a crossing of a creek by the same name since 1907. The Parker truss bridge is a beloved structure locally and holds a rightful place on the National Register of Historic Places.
But what else built in 1907 is still functioning today? Beyond a few buildings here and there, not much.
And the War Eagle Bridge, it certainly can be argued, isn’t functioning. The county spent more than $ 640,000 on repairs in 2010, but by 2013, state inspections showed critical deficiencies and structural problems for the type of traffic the bridge carries. County officials posted a weight limit of 3 tons, which eliminates a lot of vehicle types. Today’s pickups can weigh more than that, particularly if they’re carrying a load.
The truth is, the War Eagle Bridge is not made for the 21st century or the transportation needs of the county’s population. But that’s its charm, too. It’s a portal to the past, especially given its location next to a rebuilt and working grain mill and its role at the center of the huge crafts fairs that draw thousands to Benton County. War Eagle Bridge isn’t just a bridge; it’s an icon of American history.
That helps explain why discussion of its future raised such a ruckus. Anyone focused on safe transportation would have to say investing in a new, modern bridge makes the most sense. War Eagle Bridge is about a lot more than just transportation, though. People don’t get emotional about modern, utilitarian bridges. But this bridge brings a smile.
And so it is that county officials are practically giddy at a new report that estimates a little more than $1 million could get the old bridge up to snuff for traffic weighing as much as 15 tons, and the fix could last as long as 20 years. So the question must be asked and answered: Is it worth the equivalent of $50,000 a year to keep that historic bridge functioning? It is. Perhaps what makes such a proposal attractive to the Quorum Court is it gets a political hot potato off its plate, “solving” the problems as best it can and shifting any decision involving demolition to a day when none of the current elected officials are likely to still be in office.
County leaders, like County Judge Bob Clinard, are right to practice a healthy bit of skepticism. That 2010 expenditure clearly didn’t achieve what anyone intended, and it’s important that any money spent in 2016 have a realistic chance of extending the life and capacity of War Eagle Bridge for the full 20 years.
But let’s not kick this particular can too far down the road, even if the old bridge can be revived. Today’s county leaders need to develop a plan for a crossing of the creek that will, eventually, be necessary. A plan to shore up War Eagle Bridge shouldn’t be viewed as a final solution. Indeed, if county leaders wait 19 ½ years to develop a new plan, this million-dollar retrofit will have been wasted money and time.
•••
Barry Moehring, the justice of the peace who will challenge Clinard in the GOP primary for Benton County judge come March, seems to have gotten a little flustered when he read about the new War Eagle Bridge study results in the Northwest Arkansas Democrat-Gazette.
On the day this newspaper reported information about the study to its readers, Moehring sent Clinard a note: “Now that the initial report from Great River Engineering on the War Eagle Bridge has been received and extensively reported on in this morning’s newspaper I respectfully request that you release it to the general public (particularly the residents in the War Eagle area), the media at-large and the remaining members of the Quorum Court who have not had the opportunity to review it.”
The email, copied to nearly three dozen people, sounded as though Moehring was criticizing Clinard, as though Clinard had been keeping the study locked away from prying eyes.
Here’s this newspaper’s secret for uncovering the information: The reporter asked for it.
That’s one of the great parts of being an Arkansas citizen: Every one of us is empowered by the Arkansas General Assembly to request and receive public documents. That’s a right protected by the state’s Freedom of Information Act.
The report was available to the public. It was available to Moehring. It was available to every justice of the peace in the county. Our reporter simply did his job by staying aware and asking for it.
Sometimes, when you want to stay informed, it takes effort.
The county judge followed the law in releasing the report to someone requesting it, and our reporter asked for it so he could keep his readers informed about a matter of public policy. Let’s not pretend a candidate rode to the rescue in obtaining its public release.
The Freedom of Information Act keeps public records open for inspection, but says nothing about spoon-feeding.