ARRC Homepage

Since the beginning of these issues, Echubby Lake Hunting Club (ELHC) has used all possible venues to get what they wanted. Another play on the public to achieve buy what they want with political influence and donations.
They have used political power in Washington and throughout the U.S. to acheive their goal. It is rewarding to know, even though the L.R. Corp lost the case in Federal Court, that for 4 years, ARRC has defended the publics right of access to the extent of forcing ELHC to use groups such as Farm Bureau, many government agencies, Congressman Marion Berry, Rep. Benny Petrus, the U.S. Dept. of Justice, the U.S. Corp of Engineers in Washington, and an Environmentalist in Washington named Lance Wood who doesn't have a clue what is really going on due to his being uneducated in this field of expertise, and any other political influence that led to the decision. Farm Bureau is ranked #17 of the top 25 lobbyist in Washington. Now that we have all that out of the way let me tell you a story. A couple of years ago we dug up alot of things that probably should have been left alone. One that comes to mind is when we found out that most of the landowners inside the levy of the Arkansas River had been paying Title Insurance on their property. Alot of this property is inundated with water coverage. Now I may be wrong, but I think it may be against the law to sell Title Insurance on land under the water (especially where the land beneath the water possibly belongs to the State). Wow! can you imagine what would happen if this got out? Hmmmmmm. ARRC has been called "Radicals", "Trouble makers", and numerous other things, but I can assure you that we only say the truth and there are some who cant listen to that without getting upset. If you are one of those, we invite you to check back soon as this website will be updated regularly to keep the public informed of changes in issues. Oh one more thing. If you go to the mouth of Echubby Chute, you will see the new road crossing that has been built. You are no longer able to access these backwaters thanks to the Washington U.S. Army Corp and compliments of your Congressman and other political figures. In that case Summary Judgement was granted to ELHC so now they can block the publics access. Now we come to another question. What happens to the law suit ELHC filed against ARRC and all John Does that had a public meeting when this first started four years ago? This case was won by ELHC in a Summary Judgement hearing also, and after an appeal by ARRC, it was remanded back to Lincoln County Circuit Court for trial. Can you believe we are still waiting for a court date??? But one day will have our day in court and it will be up to a Lincoln County Jury to decide the fate of ELHC. If we win this case, it doesnt matter how many Corp permits they have for road crossings, they will have to build them so the public has access! And we dont mean a 6' pipe that has been the standard. We want U.S. Coastguard regulations in place here. The size required is that of which will accommodate boats that would "normally frequent the area". I dont think a 22 ft. bassboat will go through a 6 ft. pipe! As you may well see, we are not through with this case as many may speculate. There are othere areas along the Arkansas River that need attention on issues and it is our intentions to deal with these issues. Check our webpage frequently for facts as they come in. ARRC ARRC is funded with donations and fundraisers only. " WE NEED YOUR SUPPORT "
Please help us preserve the publics right to keep our natural resourses for our children to enjoy as we
have in the past. We need your dollars to help with attorney fees. Email us if you have questions at
arrc@seark.net

The Arkansas River Rights Committee was established in April, 2001. The committee was formed after numerous events which included the blocking of waters along the Arkansas River at Pendleton that have been used by the public to fish and recreate for many years. Inside the levy lay an area known for years as Turner-Neal Hunting Club. The land belonged to Chicago Mill and Lumber who had it leased to the deer camp. In 2000, Chicago Mill decided to sell the land in sections. The sections were: South Bend on the north side, Turner-Neal in the center, Diamond Point on the east, and Echubby Lake on the south. Our issues were first sited when Echubby Lake Hunting Club placed a road crossing at the mouth of Echubby Chute. This was the entrance directly from the river to two lakes, Echuby Chute (a.k.a. mud lake) and Echubby Lake (a.k.a. Massey Old River). After several fishermen began to complain about the access being blocked, we formed a group of spokespersons and made the trip to Little Rock and met with the U.S. Corp of Engineers. At the meeting, we discussed several issues at hand. They told us we needed to produce alot of information on the area before we could procede. We returned to Dumas and after several agreed we should fight for our rights, we formed A.R.R.C..
We began having meetings and discussing the issues at hand. We were determined to make our intentions noticed. Our goal was to preserve the pubics given right to access areas along the Arkansas River that were given to us by our forfathers. We began our cause with one goal, to preserve these rights through the rights given to us by Congress. Prior to the construction of the lock and dam projects, Congress met and declared that " All waters that are created by water resource projects in this United States, will be for the public to recreate and enjoy "! Prior to the water resource projects, public meetings were held to inform the public of the benefits of the projects. One of these was that they would have more watered areas to fish and hunt as it would make wildlife more abundant. With this in mind, we decided that we must fight for the publics rights or the rich and politically powerful will control our natural resources. When the split took place at Turner-Neal, many of the old time members were forced out because they could not afford to financially keep their membership. Only the people with money could afford $100,000 plus to get in a deer camp. So, the very people that backed them up to keep the public out are no longer in the clubs. The rich and political have pushed them out! This entire case has been a power push with money or political favors for those who donated to certain campaigns. It's like they say in Washington, " Follow the money ". Our trek has lasted for 4 long years and A.R.R.C. has devoted many hours to confronting and answering issues in this case. The Corp has been very helpful in that they have upheld the laws of the United States in denying Echubby permits to block public access to these backwaters. The very fact that Congress declared these waters are open for public use when the water project was completed, is not just a mere statement. How can a court, judicial committee, Congressman, or even the President of the United States change what Congress declared! They Can't! ( or so we thought ).
There have been two seperated court cases in progress since this began.
The first was when Echubby Lake Hunting Club filed a suit in Lincoln County Circuit Court against ARRC, the president of ARRC, and all JOHN DOE'S that claimed at a public meeting they could enter the deer camps land by water legally. This suit is in two parts. It is for QUIET TITLE and GIVING THE PUBLIC PERMISSION TO USE COALPILE AREA OF THE RIVER. First of all, quiet title should not be awarded due to the fact you can enter from the Arkansas River most any time of the year. Second, if they, the landowners, give the public permission to fish Coalpile, they can turn around and close it the next day if they wish. Echubby asked for a summary judgement hearing in this case and the judge ( who I might add was brought out of retirement to hear the case ) found in favor of Echubby Lake. We appealled the decision in which the appeals court stated that the decision should not have been made due to the many circumstances involved in the case and that it should be heard by a trial court. They remanded and overturned the appeal back to Lincoln County Circuit Court for a trial. We are still waiting for a trial date on this case. A.R.R.C. had not needed an attorney until they filed this suit on us. We then began fundraisers and accepted donations in order to pay attorneys fees. We are still in a constant battle to raise money for these fees. Dumas Bass Club recently had a bass tournament named " Save Coalpile " to raise money for A.R.R.C.
The second case is Echubby Lake Hunting Club files suit of the U.S. Corp of Engineers, Little Rock District. The club first built road crossings without 404 permits issued by the Corp. The Corp ordered the obstructions removed. the club did not comply and filed an appeal to the Corps District Office. The District Office agreed with the Little Rock Corp findings and denyed the permit application. Echubby Lake Hunting Club then filed a law suit in Federal District Court on the U.S. Corp of Engineers.
This all brings us where we are today, after 4 years of confronting these issues in dispute with Echubby Hunting Club. The hunting club has used every means possible to undermine the publics interest in the watered areas along the Arkansas River. Many political figures have used their power to try to change the course of the case. One really powerful group known as "Farm Bureau Insurance Federation" has endorsed the club going against the public's right to access these backwaters. Farm Bureau is ranked 17th of the 25 most powerful political figures in Washington. Political influence from Washington D.C. to Dumas, Arkansas has been thrown at the public since the beginning of the case's. Recently, the Corp and ELHC both agreed to a Summary Judgement hearing in U.S. District Court. At this hearing, Echubby Lake Hunting Clubs attorney was joined by two Farm Bureau attorneys who recently wrote an Amicus Brief for this case in favor of the club and against the public's right to access. The judge, Honorable James Moody, found in favor of the hunting club. Basically he stated that there was no commercial use of the area and therefore the area would not be used commercially. His decision came after the hearing in which an attorney from the U.S. Attorney Generals represented the Corp. During the hearing, the judge asked the U.S. attorney several times if "navigational servitude" was an issue in this case. She said it was not. We believe that indeed it was and the door was open for addressing the issue since the area is indeed within the ' navigational servitude of the Arkansas River. This is what "navigational servitude" really means. In it's true definition, we have every right to use the water covered areas that are accessible from the main channel of the Arkansas River.

* What is the "Federal Navigational Servitude"? *
The legal definition:

The navigational servitude is the right of free public use of waters that are capable of supporting navigation in their natural condition. Kaiser Aetna v. United States, 444 U.S. at 164, 175 (1979); United States v. Cress, 243 U.S. 316, 321 (1917) ("the public right is to be measured by the capacity of the stream for valuable public use in its natural condition"); Boone, 944 F.2d at 1495 ("A waterway may be subject to the navigational servitude if it is navigable in fact in its natural state."); Owen .v United States, 851 F.2d 1404, 1412 - 1416 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (en banc) (recognizing that the navigational servitude was limited to the bed of navigable stream, and holding that servitude is not a "blanket exception" to the takings clause). The servitude has also been described as the power of the government to escape liability for damage occurring below the mean high-water mark when it undertakes actions to improve or protect navigation in naturally navigable waterways. United States v. Winstar Corp., 518 U.S. 839, 879 n.23 (1996); Owen, 851 F.2d at 1412 (no compensation for consequences of activities to improve navigation within the boundaries of a water body subject to the navigational servitude).

If a waterway is navigable in its natural state, and is thus burdened by a navigational servitude, an owner of submerged property holds bare title and nothing more, and the Corps may make use of the waterway and alter structures in it without condemnation and just compensation, even if it deprives the owner of all use of the water or the structures. See, e.g., United States v. Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma, 480 U.S. 700 (1987); Good v. United States, 39 Fed. Cl. 81 (1997). This "no compensation" rule for naturally navigable waterways was articulated in United States v. Rands, 389 U.S. 121 (1967):

The Commerce Clause confers a unique position upon the Government in connection with navigable waters....[t]hey are the public property of the nation, and subject to all the requisite legislation by Congress. This power to regulate navigation confers upon the United States a "dominant servitude," which extends to the entire stream and the stream bed below the ordinary high-water mark. The proper exercise of this power is not an invasion of any private property rights in the stream or the lands underlying it, for the damage sustained does not result from taking property from riparian owners within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment but from the lawful exercise of a power to which the interests of riparian owners have always been subject.

Id. at 122-123. The rationale for the rule is that naturally navigable waterways, as "great navigable streams" and highways of interstate commerce, are incapable of private ownership. In terms of Lucas, the navigational servitude is a restriction on owners that is inherent in the title of naturally riparian and submerged land.

However, the foregoing rule does not apply in the case of waterways made navigable by private effort. In those instances where a landowner creates navigable water by dredging private fast land, the navigational servitude does not attach to the newly created waterway unless the government pays compensation. Kaiser Aetna, 444 U.S. at 172, 175 (navigational servitude is not a "blanket exception" to the takings clause whenever Congress exercises its Commerce Clause authority to promote navigation, and private navigable waters remain private even when directly connected to the Pacific Ocean); Vaughn v. Vermillion, 444 U.S., 206, 208-209 (1979) (navigable waterways artificially constructed on private property and connected to public waterways remain private); Dardar v. Lafourche Realty Co., 985 F.2d 824, 833 (5th Cir. 1993) (artificial navigable waterways are not subject to federal navigational servitude); Boone, 944 F.2d at 1495 (navigable lagoon connected to the Pacific Ocean was not burdened by servitude because it was made navigable by private effort); United States v. Lamastus & Assoc., Inc., 785 F.2d 1349, 1352 (5th Cir. 1986) (Coast Guard could regulate private navigable water and require removal of negligently sunk craft, but regulation does not extend to allowing public access absent condemnation). Thus, neither the present condition of a waterway, nor its present use, is dispositive of whether it is burdened by a federal navigational servitude.

Absent the navigational servitude, the government cannot escape its obligations to compensate private property owners, when it physically invades or over-regulates private property for navigational purposes. See, e.g., Marks v. United States, 34 Fed. Cl. 387, 403 (1994) ("Thus upon determination of Congress to improve or preserve navigation, the navigational servitude defines the appropriate boundaries within which the United States can assert its power to supersede private ownership interest without creating an obligation to pay just compensation. . . ."); Laney v. United States, 661 F.2d 145, 149 (Ct. Cl. 1981) (there is "no special mystique in exercise of the navigational servitude that permits uncompensated takings when compensation would be required in other contexts."). Condemnation proceedings and payment of just compensation are required once the right of exclusive use of private waters is taken, regardless of their present navigability.

We have spoken with the Corp as to the appeal process on the case. They say they don't know whether to appeal this case or go to another case that may be more important. Seems that after spending 4 years on this case, why would any party not want to appeal until all appeals are exhausted for the final decision. This is a very big case and needs to be addressed by a jury trial. Maybe it isn't apparent that this is a very, very important case as it may set precident over the entire United States. So here we are at a very important point in the case. Echubby Lake Hunting Club feels they have won and indeed they have if the Corp doesn't appeal the case. But all they have won is the right to build a road crossing in navigable waters. That's all, and no more!
The case against A.R.R.C. Inc. and the public is waiting a court date in Lincoln County, AR. This is a case not about road crossings or permits. This is a case to decide whether the public has gained a perscriptive right to enter these areas by water and on the water. This is an all together different type case and will be decided by a jury in Lincoln County. Either way, the public will have its day in court!
Maybe the public will win, maybe justice will prevail, maybe the rich and political will reticule and undermine the public as they have done in these cases, or maybe even win. There are alot of MAYBE's . Maybe our children should find other forms of recreation and quit fishing? Maybe the State of Arkansas should put a fence down both sides of the Arkansas River Channel and make it unlawful to fish outside the fence, or maybe the public should pay more attention to who they vote for in coming elections.