New River Plan Offers Many Pluses

Published Saturday / Omaha World Herald May 5, 2001
By Chad Smith
In response to a May 3 column 'American Rivers Organization Peddles Nonsense.' The writer is director of the Missouri River Field Office of American Rivers in Lincoln. On April 11, the organization named the Missouri River as the nation's most endangered river.
This summer, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will release for public review a new damoperation plan for the Missouri River, a decision that will have important consequences for river-front communities, fish and wildlife and the economy of the region. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recently released a final biological opinion on Missouri River dam operations that recommends changes incorporating modestly higher flows in the spring ("spring rise") and lower flows in the summer ("split navigation season"). These changes are designed to prevent the extinction of three endangered and threatened species but would also benefit all native Missouri River fish and wildlife.
In his May 3 column, Harold Andersen decries support of these recommendations as "nonsense" and touts several "taming-the-river benefits." Mr. Andersen's concerns relate to flood control, floodplain farming and Missouri River navigation. We agree these are important concerns that must be fully considered in the process of developing a new plan for operating the Missouri's six big dams. But the facts should help alleviate Mr. Andersen's unease.
First, according to the corps' analysis, the spring rise/split navigation season plan would provide 99 percent of the flood-control benefits provided by the current water-control plan. The Fish and Wildlife Service plan does not call for flow changes in the 25 percent lowest-flow years or the 10 percent highest-flow years. No spring rise would occur if the Missouri River below Gavins Point Dam is flooding or threatened by potential flooding.
Second, according to the corps' analysis, the combination of modestly higher flows in the spring and lower flows in the summer would result in a net benefit for floodplain farmers along the Missouri River. The corps reports that, compared to the status quo, floodplain farmers would experience about 4.5 percent fewer damages because of interior drainage problems and about 2 percent fewer damages because of groundwater problems.
Third, according to the corps and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Missouri River barges carry only 0.3 percent of all the grain harvested each year in Nebraska, Iowa, Kansas and Missouri combined. However, according to the corps, 80 percent of that traffic moves before July or after August. That process would be uninterrupted by the split navigation season. Plus, barge travel on the Mississippi River would benefit from a split season, according to the corps' analysis, as this plan would more consistently put water in the Mississippi River when barges on that river need it the most - in the fall and during droughts.
Also, Mr. Andersen mentions the need for habitat enhancement. We agree and look forward to our continued efforts with the corps, the Papio-Missouri River Natural Resources District and others toward that end.
But Missouri River fish and wildlife cannot be recovered by habitat restoration alone. As Nebraskans know, a good corn crop depends on the proper mix of both soil and water. The annual corn crop will not grow with only one or the other. The same goes for fish and wildlife. Missouri River species need the right mix of soil (habitat) and water (river flow) to grow, and selecting only one or the other would result in a failed crop.
In addition, the proposed changes would provide many other substantial economic benefits. Recreational opportunities on the lower river would be greatly increased. Exposed sandbars, new islands and shallower water, coupled with restored habitat, would make the lower Missouri River much more inviting and accessible for canoeing, camping, birding, angling, hunting and recreational boating. Sport fisheries and water-based recreation in the Dakotas and Montana would benefit as well. And, as recreation and tourism increase, new jobs would be created in riverside communities along the Missouri's length.
Status quo management of the Missouri River is outdated and not in the best economic or environmental interest of Nebraska. We do not propose or support returning the river to the condition encountered by the Lewis and Clark expedition in 1804. Rather, we propose making modest changes in Missouri River dam operations, restoring lost habitat and revitalizing riverfronts.
If we focus on the facts, we can do what's right for the river, its fish and wildlife and recreation, and at the same time do what's right for farmers and others living in the floodplain.
 

River Views Don't Wash

From: Paul J. Kielian, Omaha

Chad Smith's views ("New River Plan Offers Many Pluses," May 5 commentary) show the difference between academic studies and common sense.
It is doubtful that lower flows in the summer will improve recreation on the lower river. The river flow speed will still be too high to canoe or use small recreational vessels. Low flows will dry up most of the marinas on the river, thereby hurting recreational boating. Only expensive marina dredging would help overcome the low flows.
An economist may believe that a split navigation season is practical, but the barge owners cannot afford to tie up boats and lay off crews for several months and then start up again. More than likely, the two barge lines would quit the Missouri rather than take the economic losses. Just ask them. Ask any grain terminal operator if the rail rates will rise after the loss of the barge lines. The answer is: Yes.
The biological opinion does not have scientific certainty that the endangered species will be revived more than with the current habitat-restoration efforts. As far as many people who use the river are concerned, the old master manual has served us well. Chad Smith's pluses do not add up. Too many question marks.