My opinions on this subject have nothing to do with that particular course- four iterations of which remain certified, albeit with two different names since the title sponsor (actually the owner of the event) was bought out in 2007.
If I remember correctly, part of the rationale for imposing the expiration date on certifications was to keep the course list manageable and current, and one of the reasons we no longer allow certifications to be extended is that we are skeptical regarding the ability of a course to remain unchanged for ten years or more.
If we know that the reason a course is being changed is that the old course can no longer be run as measured and certified, and that the condition is permanent (terminal?), there's no reason for that course to remain on the active list.
Selective use of the "replaces" field on the certificate allows this to be communicated from the certifier to the course registrar. Standard operating procedure would be to err on the side of caution- use the field only if you were doggoned sure that the old course could no longer be run as measured and certified, and if there were any doubt, you leave the field blank.
If we can execute this, we have a more accurate course list. If removing the course from the active list requires a separate communication from the certifier to the course registrar, then our certificate would be just fine without the "replaces" field.
It's true that some states will have more accurate course lists than others will. It's true that in some cases a new measurer won't know that a couse with the same name in the same place had previously been certtified. I don't see either as a reason not to put a sensible policy in place for those who want to contribute to making it work.