[font=Verdana]A court cleared the way Monday for demolition of a historic railroad bridge in Boonville that some hoped would become part of the state's popular [/font][font=Verdana]Katy[/font][font=Verdana] [/font][font=Verdana]Trail[/font][font=Verdana].

The ruling, handed down in Cole County Circuit Court, said that the state lacks sufficient ownership rights to the bridge to preserve it.

The decision is the result of a suit brought by Attorney General Jay Nixon's office against the state's Department of Natural Resources in an attempt to save the abandoned bridge. Union Pacific Corp., the bridge's owner, wants to tear it down and recycle the steel to build a new rail bridge near [/font][font=Verdana]Jefferson City[/font][font=Verdana]. [/font]

[font=Verdana] [/font]

[font=Verdana]Despite Monday's ruling, demolition of the bridge is unlikely to begin anytime soon because Nixon's office plans to appeal the decision, spokesman Scott Holste said.

The attorney general's suit centers on a 1987 "rails-to-trails" contract between the state of [/font][font=Verdana]Missouri[/font][font=Verdana] and the bridge's owner, Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad Co., now part of Union Pacific Co.

In the agreement, which created the 225-mile [/font][font=Verdana]Katy[/font][font=Verdana] [/font][font=Verdana]Trail[/font][font=Verdana] hiking trail out of an abandoned rail line, the railroad maintained possession of the bridge but agreed to make it available to the state for future trail use.

To run a trail across the bridge, the state would have had to assume legal liability for anything that happened on the bridge, the contract said. The trail now detours around the bridge.

Monday's decision centered on whether this contract gave the state a legal right to stop Union Pacific from its demolition plans.

Attorneys for Nixon said the railroad had an obligation to make it available because the trail system is still being developed, and the bridge could be added later. But attorneys for Union Pacific and DNR countered that the railroad still has primary ownership of the bridge, and thus final say over what happens to it.

Judge Byron Kinder, in issuing his ruling, said the state didn't have adequate rights to prevent demolition because it never activated the clause that let it use the bridge in exchange for accepting liability.

"I think that if the state had a use for this bridge they would have used it in the last 18 years," Kinder said.

Looming behind the debate is the legal question of whether losing the Boonville bridge could endanger the entire trail, which runs from [/font][font=Verdana]St. Charles[/font][font=Verdana] to western [/font][font=Verdana]Missouri[/font][font=Verdana] and has about 350,000 visitors a year.

Under the federal rails-to-trails law, it must be possible to convert a trail system back into railroad lines if the need arises.

If, however, a link is missing, as it would be without the Boonville bridge, it would be hard to argue that the trails could be turned back into tracks and the system could lose the legal status that allows it to exist.

It's unknown whether this possibility is real because nothing like it has been tested in court.

The brouhaha over the Boonville bridge started two years ago when the town learned that the bridge might be torn down.

Soon after, the director of the Department of Natural Resources under then-Gov. Bob Holden attempted to intervene by writing a letter to Union Pacific declaring that the state was ready to accept liability and use it for trails.

But when the Governor's Mansion changed hands, the Natural Resources department under Gov. Matt Blunt reversed the earlier decision, granting Union Pacific the right to demolish the 1932 bridge.

Boonville, pop. 8,200, would have nothing of it. The rustic [/font][font=Verdana]Missouri River[/font][font=Verdana] town - full of historic buildings and bed and breakfast inns - saw the bridge as a key to increasing tourism, and promptly ramped up its effort to save the bridge.

"If the bridge comes down it would be a great loss for Boonville and the [/font][font=Verdana]Katy[/font][font=Verdana] [/font][font=Verdana]Trail[/font][font=Verdana]," said Dale Reesman, a Boonville resident and lawyer representing the city.

Rallies were held. Letters were written to lawmakers. And then, last May, Nixon stood at the foot of the bridge, vowing the legal fight that played out Monday.

The attorney general's involvement has added a political twist to the debate.

Nixon, a Democrat, is challenging Blunt, a Republican, for the Governor's Mansion in 2008.[/font][font=Verdana][/font]