University of Montana ScholarWorks at University of Montana Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers Graduate School 2001 River recreation policy for Kansas Brian A. Sweatland The University of Montana Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Recommended Citation Sweatland, Brian A., "River recreation policy for Kansas" (2001). Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers. 3451. https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd/3451 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at ScholarWorks at University of Montana. It has been accepted for inclusion in Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at University of Montana. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Maureen and Mike MANSFIELD LIBRARY The University of Montana Permission is granted by the author to reproduce this material in its entirety, provided that this material is used for scholarly purposes and is properly cited in published works and reports. ♦♦Please check "Yes" or "No" and provide signature** Yes, I grant permission No, I do not grant permission Author's Signature: Date: ^ \ Any copying for commercial purposes or financial gain may be undertaken only with the author's explicit consent. MSThesisVMansfield Library Permission A RIVER RECREATION POLICY FOR KANSAS by Brian A. Sweatland B.A. Kansas State University, Manhattan, 1994 presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science The University of Montana M ay 2001 Approved by: Chairperson Dean, Graduate School Date UMI Number: EP36040 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. UMI OisMitation PuMiahing UMI EP36040 Published by ProQuest LLC (2012). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author. Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code Pro.(^^sf ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106- 1346 Sweatland, Brian A. M.S., May 2001 Recreation Resource Management A River Recreation Policy for Kansas Director; Perry J. Brown The focus of this paper is to determine if an effective and efficient river recreation policy could be developed for the State of Kansas. Currently, Kansas offers limited recreational opportunities to the public. A river recreation policy is explored as a potential solution to the recreation supply shortfall based upon the unique social, political, legal, and recreational nature of the issue. The relevant social, political, economic, and legal subjects are analyzed within the context of a river recreation policy. The outcome of this analysis is considered within a political process framework in the form of a generalized model of government action. The model serves to guide action toward the successful initiation of a state river recreation policy. It is recommended that a limited pilot project be developed to demonstrate the feasibility of a river recreation program in the state. CONTENTS CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................... 1 The Problem 1 Advocated Solution: River Recreation 4 Objective: River Recreation as Public Policy 8 Organization 11 2. THE KANSAS LANDSCAPE............................................................ 14 3. KANSAS R I V E R S ............................................................................... 25 Kansas River Assessments 27 Assessment Method: The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum 34 4. DEMAND FOR OUTDOOR RECREATION ................................ 38 5. WATER LAW IN KANSAS ................................................................. 45 Origins of Modem Water Law 47 Water Law in America 49 Water Law in Kansas 54 Water Law across the Nation 58 6. LANDOWNER ATTITUDES SHAPING PUBLIC ACCESS DECISIONS............................................................ 67 Attitudes and Values of Landowners 68 Kansas Landowner Attitudes 77 111 7. THE CONSEQUENCES OF RIVER RECREATION ............................. 80 Benefits of Recreation Participation 81 The Economics of Recreation 83 Resource Degradation 92 Private Property Problems 95 8. DESIGNING A RIVER RECREATION POLICY: A GENERAL MODEL FOR GOVERNMENT ACTION . 98 The Model 98 Policy Tools 102 Incentive Programs 107 A Plan of Action 112 Concluding Remarks 114 BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................................................................ 116 APPENDIX ....................................................................................................... 129 National Rivers Inventory 129 IV CONTENTS Figures 1. Annual Precipitation Rates Across K ansas ................................................... 18 2. Generalized Physiographic Map of K ansas ................................................... 22 3. W aterways Map o f K a n s a s ............................................................................... 29 4. Statewide Participation Rates in K an sas ........................................................ 40 Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION Occasionally, while visiting one of Kansas’ urban centers, or a college town such as Lawrence, the observant individual will see a most unique bumper sticker. The message on the sticker is straightforward: “Decriminalize Canoeing in Kansas.” It is a simple statement, the sticker sponsored by a local chapter of the Sierra Club, and is likely soon forgotten to the distractions of a busy day. But the political message expressed by these four words is not so meaningless that it should go completely ignored. Indeed, besides providing an accurate account of the public’s rights to most state rivers, the message is describing a very real public problem in the State of Kansas. The Problem Kansas is a state of 52,510,720 acres, 46 million acres of which are involved in some form of agriculture (USDA, 1997). It is a rural state, with a majority of its roughly 2.7 million residents living in the eastern third of the state. Kansas is also a private property state: Approximately 97 percent of the landbase is in private ownership. Finally, Kansas is an isolated state, geographically located in the center of the continental United States, far away from either coast or national neighbor, and surrounded by states that share common cultural values, economic interests, and political dispositions. None of this is necessarily a problem until one considers these factors in conjunction with the public’s desire to participate in recreational opportunities in natural settings. For the recreating public, this set of circumstances is a serious concern. Nationally, Kansas ranks 49‘^ in the percentage of public property, with only three percent of the total landbase under some form of public ownership. Federal, municipal, and local governments control 2.4 percent of the property base, while .6 percent is under the management of the Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks (KDWP, 1991). Kansas as a state has 423,536 acres in federal ownership (Cody, 1995). The state has established 24 state parks totaling 32,000 acres, but yet, according to the KDWP, only one-third of the publicly owned three percent of Kansas land is available for public recreational use (1998, p. 16). The result is a meager .14 recreation acres per capita (KDWP, 1991). This situation is further compounded by the geographic location of the state in relation to the geographic distribution of the nation’s public lands. Kansans must travel great distances if they wish to enjoy the benefits of the vast federal recreation estate. For the recreating public, living in a state both dominated by private property and isolated from the nation’s public lands is a serious public policy problem. It is a public policy problem precisely because the government has failed to provide adequate opportunities for nature-based recreational activities. The rational behind government provision of outdoor recreation opportunities is that outdoor recreation is widely recognized as a public good. A fundamental problem with the marketplace is that often a market actor’s consumption or production decisions will affect the welfare of others. These overflow effects are externalities, and they may either be positive or negative. In the case of positive externalities, benefits accrue to another’s welfare due to the actions of a market actor (Stokey and Zeckhauser, 1978). The market actor, however, will fail to purchase the optimal amount of the good in question because the actor is incapable of internalizing these external economies. Under a positive externality scenario, an actor will purchase a good, even if some of the benefits flow to others, because the good produces mostly private gains. However, at some point, the external benefits of the good become so public that the actor receives too small a share of the total benefit to justify purchase of the good. Stokey and Zeckhauser described public goods as the limit of a continuum where external effects are no longer of a limited nature, but accrue to all of society (p. 305). At this point the good will no longer be provided without collective action. The provision