Members of the Eco Justice and Environs, First Nation Student Advisory Board, and Wetlands Preservation Organization held a demonstration in front of Strong Hall Nov. 2. The protesters chanted "Don't Pave," in hopes to derail the use of the 20 acre Baker Wetlands for the South Lawrence Trafficway.
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Video
Wetland protest
Protesters from KU and Haskell University stood in front of Strong hall to voice their disapproval of the South Lawrence Traffic way that would be located on a section of the Baker Wetlands
Demonstrators challenged the University’s neutral position on the Baker Wetlands debate Monday. Forty students and locals gathered on the Strong Hall Lawn and chanted, marched with signs and gathered petition signatures on both sides of Jayhawk Boulevard.
Jason Hering, Hutchinson senior and president of the student environmental group Eco-Justice, said the goal of the demonstration was to draw attention to the 20 acres of wetlands controlled by the University and to prevent the construction of the proposed South Lawrence Trafficway.
The trafficway was most recently projected to be a six-lane highway with a 12-foot sound barrier that would cross through the Baker Wetlands, which span 640 total acres south of 31st Street.
Fifteen-year-old text declared neutralilty
Jason Hering, Hutchinson senior, discovered a forgotten document at the Spencer Research Library last week that shed light, for him, on the University’s continued stance on the Wetlands.
After deciding two weeks ago to demonstrate along with local groups, Hering, who is also president of the student environmental group Eco-Justice, decided to search for any text in the research library that mentioned the words “Wetlands” or “Trafficway.” He found a document called the “Resolution on the Trafficway and the Haskell Indian Nations University.”
This unassuming fifteen-year old text, which he found by consulting the library card catalog with help from library staff, recorded a declaration made by the University Council in 1994. The declaration was approved by a voice vote on April 14 of that year.
The document he found reads, “The University Council hereby declares that the University of Kansas should disassociate itself from any official endorsements for or against the South Lawrence Trafficway, express or implied, that have been made in the past. The University of Kansas endorses and supports the Haskell Indian Nations University in its effort to build the best Indian educational institute in the country.”
The University Council was renamed the University Senate in 2005, and contains representatives of four constituent senates: the Faculty Senate, the Student Senate, the Unclassified Senate, and the University Support Staff Senate.
Campus environmental groups collaborated with local groups, some based at Haskell Indian Nations University, to stage the demonstration. Hering said the groups wanted the University to appoint one person responsible for the fate of the 20 acres it controls.
“I don’t understand why no one person has responsibility over that section,” Hering said. “It’s just a mystery.”
Demonstrators included members of student environmental groups Eco-Justice, KU Environs and local interest group Save the Wakarusa Wetlands, as well as the Wetlands Preservation Organization and the First Nations Student Association, both based at Haskell Indian Nations University.
Mike Caren, director of the local group Save the Wakarusa Wetlands, said the groups wanted the University to support them in their fight to stop construction of the South Lawrence Trafficway.
Lynn Bretz, communications director for the University, said the proposed highway has been hotly debated for nearly 20 years. The most recent proposal for the trafficway would intersect the University-controlled area and cut through the remainder of the wetlands.
During this time, the University has maintained control of the contested 20 acres but had not made any plans for it. The University’s deed dictates that the land must be used “for public benefit,” and demonstrators cite this as an argument for sponsoring research of the wildlife-rich habitat.
Bretz said both the demonstrators and proponents of the South Lawrence Trafficway had legitimate arguments that their causes would benefit the public. The University has taken a neutral stance through the years and refused to support either side.
“KU has consistently taken the position that it will not give anyone the land for construction of the SLT,” she said. “If the state of Kansas decides it needs the land for that purpose then it would have to obtain the land through the power of eminent domain.”
Eminent domain is a legal procedure that allows the government to forcefully acquire privately owned land.
At the same time, she said the University could not give the 20 acres back to Haskell Indian Nations University, as some activists have proposed. The government appropriated the majority of the Baker Wetlands from Haskell in the 1950s, called the land “surplus,” and distributed it to local public institutions, including the University. But Bretz said that if control of the land were transferred away from the University, under terms of deed, the federal government could reclaim control of it.
Although the University cannot simply give the land back to Haskell, Hering said it had the option of sponsoring research on the land through the Kansas Biological Survey. In this way, he said, the University could help the activists prevent the Kansas Department of Transportation from going forward with its proposed trafficway.
Millicent Pepion, a third-year Haskell student representing the Navajo Nation and president of the Wetlands Preservation Organization, took part in the demonstration. She said the fate of the 20 University-owned acres would be a decisive factor in whether or not the South Lawrence Trafficway would be built.
“We still want to use it for educational purposes,” she said. “We believe in it, we believe that it’s a sacred land, and we believe that it helps the environment.”
The groups gathered 1,373 signatures from both Haskell and the University, which they plan to present to the chancellor Wednesday.
— Edited by Nick Gerik
Mallot and Haworth Halls, two of the larger ...
1 comment
Lawrence Settles Lawrence graduate student “I like T-Pain ...
1 comment
Mallot and Haworth Halls, already two of the ...
1 comment
It was the symmetry of this sidewalk that ...
1 comment
Texting while driving is the cause of many ...
1 comment
Comments
sjschlag (anonymous) says...
They just set aside how many acres of new man-made wetlands to mitigate the construction of this road through 20 acres of man-made wetlands?
What about south of the river?
I'm sorry, but I'm really tired of having to fight traffic on 31st street and louisiana when I go to work. The new 59 highway will only increase the already heavy truck traffic on 31st. Don't get me started on 23rd street.
Build the SLT already. This road should have been built 20 years ago.
And all of you worried about development...do you really think that the evil developers are going to take over the wetlands?
November 3, 2009 at 11:22 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
delta77 (anonymous) says...
We need the SLT. There have got to be more worthy causes to protest for in Lawrence.
November 3, 2009 at 12:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Fugu (anonymous) says...
sjschlag,
People against the trafficway going through the wetlands are not against it going south of the river. In fact, several of the groups involved are litigants in a lawsuit because not enough attention was paid to the south of the river alignment. This road would have been built 20 years ago if they would have just put it south of the river.
"They just set aside how many acres of new man-made wetlands to mitigate the construction of this road through 20 acres of man-made wetlands?"
Did you notice that many of those protesters were Haskel students? Know why? Because those wetlands are sacred to many area natives. Mitigated wetlands do nothing for cultural importance of the that sacred area.
November 3, 2009 at 8:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
theunknowndebater (anonymous) says...
Seriously, I highly doubt a highway through the wetlands is going to destroy anyone's lives. We're not talking about plowing through the Dhali Lama's house here. Besides in states like North Dakota, the only way they can build roads, houses, farms, towns...etc is to cover up wetland area. This contested wet land area is so small it is almost a joke. Even though it is small, not all of it will be used to build the highway. There will still be some left, and wetlands can and have survived around highways before (exhibit: North Dakota!)
Regardless, life will go on. Hopefully the road is built. I'm sure the city of Lawrence hates having to pay for road repair because of all the traffic, and who here likes all the extra traffic?
November 4, 2009 at 1:06 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
rcb (anonymous) says...
"And all of you worried about development...do you really think that the evil developers are going to take over the wetlands? "
I don't know about evil, but short-sighted and self-centered, absolutely. Lawrence has fallen prey far to many times to development schemes that only benefit developers and construction companies and leave the city with poorly planned infrastructure. Just drive down 2nd street in North Lawrence and look at all of the ghost storefronts.
The SLT, whether south of the river or not, is just another instance of poor planning. Very few will take this route. Having been a delivery driver for a year who used 23rd St. several times daily for just about every route imaginable, I can think of zero times when the SLT would have been a reasonable route, even with the awful traffic. Sure, some truckers and folks that live or work in far south Lawrence may end up using the SLT, but not many will go that far out of the way to use this highway.
The SLT would just pave the way to more large, cheap, poorly built apartment complexes and box stores on this side of town. These would, as history as showed time and time again int his town, draw businesses away from other areas, creating dead zones in other parts of town. Lawrence just does not have an industrial of commercial job market to keep growing the way developers and "pro-development" folks would like it to. In any case, is that really what we want? Johnson County is only 20 minutes away.
November 4, 2009 at 12:15 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sjschlag (anonymous) says...
rcb-
Given the current state of the economy (it's improving, but only slowly), and the whole slew of box stores and cheap apartment complexes just thrown up or slated to be slapped up in west Lawrence, I highly doubt there will be much of a push from the developers to fill in the swamp and put a 5th Dillons, 3rd Hy Vee, or another Exchange. The city has started to realize that we are starting to have problems with the glut of cheap housing in this town, and recently denied a permit to build another giant apartment complex over by the Legends on 24th street. Also, aside from the area at 31st and Iowa (which was developed before the western half of the SLT) there has been very little development caused directly by the SLT; most of the houses and boxes on the west side probably would have been built, SLT or not.
Again, I'd like to invite people to drive down 31st Street or Haskell Ave. around 4-5 PM. Those roads are a mess!
I'd be in favor of them building the road south of the river, but how far out of the way would that take the SLT? I know the city has planned to develop the area south of town in the coming years, but with so much flooding territory, is that really the best idea? Oh well, I just want them to build the dam(n) road already.
November 4, 2009 at 12:55 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Fugu (anonymous) says...
"I'd be in favor of them building the road south of the river, but how far out of the way would that take the SLT? I know the city has planned to develop the area south of town in the coming years, but with so much flooding territory, is that really the best idea? Oh well, I just want them to build the dam(n) road already."
The SLT trafficway was designed as a bypass around Lawrence. Routing traffic around Lawrence would alleviate truck and other 'non-stop' traffic within the city. A south of the river route serves that same purpose. It is a difference of 10 blocks (32nd st to 42nd st), however, it makes no difference as long as traffic is being routed around Lawrence.
I'm not quite sure why you think that this place frequently floods. That might have been the case before the 1970s, but now we have Clinton Reservoir. I guarantee you won't see any major flooding of the Wakarusa, unless of course either the Clinton dam breaks or water holding capacity is breached. Not likely.
I would invite you to consider that the wetlands as a sacred place to the area's many Native Americans and not simply as an obstruction causing you minor traffic inconveniences. I feel that a large percentage of people are similar to you. They see the SLT as critical but would likely have no qualms about moving it south of the river. If these same people gave some deference to the natives in this town and their spiritual beliefs, instead of simply saying 'build it!', they would be saying 'build it!.. but south of the river.' I would like to see more of that.
November 4, 2009 at 7:49 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Brandon_Minster (anonymous) says...
Those who say the SLT should run south of the Wakarusa are disingenuous in their suggestion. The goal is to so alter the project that the existing environment reports will no longer be valid. Then, when the new routing is studied, which will include two new river crossing, the project can be opposed because of the urban sprawl that will result from building a highway south of the river. Anytime an "environmental" group proposes bridging rivers and pushing highways further into farmland, you can tell there are some first-class shannanigans afoot.
November 4, 2009 at 8:58 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Fugu (anonymous) says...
Brandon_Minister,
Thanks for the slippery slope to nowhere. You shouldn't accuse people of being disingenuous when the premise of your argument relies on consulting your crystal ball of paranoia. When someone haphazardly misrepresenting a legitimate group of people and their concerns, yet claims others of being disingenuous, you know there are some shannanigans afoot.
Like I've said already, this is not just an environmental issue, but a social justice issue as well. Please look into the issue more before you say otherwise. If you actually knew the groups opposed to the SLT going through the wetlands as well as you claim, you would know that many of them are litigants in a lawsuit against KDOT for not properly looking into the 'south of the river' route. Why would they want KDOT to look more into the south of the river route? Oh that's right! So when KDOT starts to build it, they have something new to oppose.. of course!!
Give me a break..
November 4, 2009 at 9:56 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )