AMENDMENT
NO. 1013 – TEXT JULY 18, 2001
SA 1013. Mr. BOND (for himself, Mrs. CARNAHAN, Mr. GRASSLEY,
and Mr. HARKIN) proposed an amendment to the bill (H.R. 2311
, making appropriations for energy and water development for
the fiscal year ending September 30, 2002, and for other
purposes; as follows:
On page 11, at the end of line 16, add the following
``During consideration of revisions to the manual in fiscal
year 2002, the Secretary may consider and propose
alternatives for achieving species recovery other than the
alternatives specifically
prescribed by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service in
the biological opinion of the Service. The Secretary shall
consider the views of other Federal agencies, non-Federal
agencies, and individuals to ensure that other
congressionally
authorized purposes are maintained.''.
AMENDMENT NO.
1013 – TESTIMONY
Mr.
BOND
Mr. President, now that our distinguished majority leader is
here, I send to the desk an amendment on behalf of myself,
Senators CARNAHAN, GRASSLEY, and HARKIN,
and ask for its immediate consideration.
The
PRESIDING OFFICER
The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Missouri [Mr. BOND], for himself,
Mrs. CARNAHAN, Mr. Grassley, and Mr. Harkin, proposes an
amendment numbered 1013.
Mr.
BOND
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the
amendment be dispensed with.
The
PRESIDING OFFICER
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To impose additional conditions on the
consideration of revisions to the Missouri River Master
Water Control Manual)
On page 11, at the end of line 16, add the following:
``During consideration of revisions to the manual in fiscal
year 2002, the Secretary may consider and propose
alternatives for achieving species recovery other than the
alternatives specifically
prescribed by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service in
the biological opinion of the Service. The Secretary shall
consider the views of other Federal agencies, non-Federal
agencies, and individuals to ensure that other
congressionally
authorized purposes are maintained.''.
Mr.
BOND
Mr. President, this is part of a continuing effort to
prevent the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service from advancing
what we believe is a very ill-conceived directive to
increase springtime releases of water from Missouri River
upstream
dams in an experiment to see if a controlled flood may
improve the breeding habit of the pallid sturgeon.
House language was added to prevent implementation of the
``controlled flood'' during consideration in the House
Committee on Appropriations. The majority leader has entered
an amendment, which we appreciate, in this bill which says
no decision on final disposition of the Missouri River
manual should be made this year. I thank him for that. That
is one step in the right direction.
This, however, goes beyond and makes clear there is a
broader policy involved. Rather than let the Fish and
Wildlife Service dictate national priorities to the
Congress, the administration, the States, and the people, I
believe the elected
officials in Congress need to weigh in to protect human
safety, property, and jobs. In sum, we ought to be able to
do several things at once.
The authorizing legislation for the dams and other
structures on the Missouri River says that they should be to
prevent floods, to enhance transportation, provide
hydropower, and to facilitate recreation. Subsequent to
those enacting statutes, the
Endangered Species Act was adopted with the hope that we
would stop the disappearance of endangered species and help
recover them. My purpose here today, along with my
bipartisan colleagues, is to assure that the multiple uses
of the Missouri River may be pursued.
As so many of my colleagues, I was a great fan of the work
by Stephen Ambrose, ``Undaunted Courage.'' I had a
great-great-grandfather who was one of the laborers who
pulled the boats up the Missouri River. I find it
fascinating. It was truly a remarkable chapter in our
Nation's history.
That chapter has come and gone and people have moved in and
live and farm by the river. They are dependent upon the
river for water supply, water disposal, hydropower,
transportation, and, yes, in the upstream States, for
recreation.
While we have had continuing discussions throughout my
career serving the State of Missouri over the proper uses of
the river water between upstream and downstrem States, I
continue to assure my colleagues in the upstream States that
if there
are things we can do to help improve the recreational
aspects of the impoundments on the river above the dams, I
would be more than happy to do so.
This amendment--very short, very simple--says, simply put,
that the Secretary, meaning the Secretary of the Army, who
is the ultimate responsible official, may consider and
propose alternatives for achieving species recovery other
than the
alternatives specifically prescribed by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service in the biological opinion of the Service.
In other words, they have already proposed one thing,
controlled spring floods. The Secretary may also propose
other alternatives. This doesn't say that he has to; it says
that he can do it. He may do it. It mandates that the
Secretary shall consider the views of other Federal
agencies, non-Federal agencies, and individuals to ensure
that other congressionally authorized purposes are
maintained.
This amendment simply says, we enacted a number of different
objectives for the Missouri River. Mr. Secretary, when you
select an option, you have to take into consideration all of
these specific congressionally authorized objectives.
I believe--and it makes a great deal of sense--that the
Federal Government should prevent floods, not cause them. It
should be providing more safe and efficient transportation
options, not monopolies for railroads. It should not be
curtailing energy production from an environmentally clean
source of energy, water power, during peak summer periods of
demand during an energy crisis.
People in our State of Missouri
cannot believe that we need to have this debate. They cannot
believe that the Endangered Species Act does not have enough
flexibility in it to permit human safety and economic
security to be considered. They cannot believe that their
needs are necessarily subordinate to what the Fish and
Wildlife Service said is the only way the pallid sturgeon
can be saved.
Unfortunately, what the Fish and Wildlife Service says
goes. And then to add insult to
injury, after imposing their plan on the Corps of Engineers,
the Corps of Engineers has to put the States and the
citizens through the hoax--I say hoax
advisedly--of a public comment period that is irrelevant to
the Fish and Wildlife Service that has, in the past,
demonstrated it will use its dictatorial power under the
Endangered Species Act not just to put people out of
business and increase damage to private property but to
threaten human safety of urban and rural communities where
there will be greater risk of flood and flood damage.
This amendment on behalf of my colleagues gives the Corps of
Engineers the opportunity to propose alternative species
recovery measures that help fish and don't hurt people. It
requires the continuation of public input and directs that
the Corps preserve the other authorized purposes for the
Missouri River.
The current Fish and Wildlife Service proposal, which they
offered as a dictate to the Corps of Engineers last July,
saying you have 7 days to implement this plan that will
flood Missouri and downstream States in the spring, is not
some new proposal that just needs a little public sunlight
to be fashioned into something that is sensible.
It represents the ``my way or the highway'' approach to
regulatory enforcement and the reincarnation of what has
previously been rejected by the people and the States
involved.
A spring rise and low flow period
was proposed by Fish and Wildlife through the Corps of
Engineers in 1994. It was subjected to 6 months of public
comment, and it was ridiculed
at public forums from Omaha to Kansas City to St. Louis to
Memphis to Quincy to New Orleans to Onawa, IA, and
elsewhere. This is what the
people of the heartland of America said about the spring
rise. I have a bad hand, and I can only lift a third of the
transcripts at a time, but these are the comments that the
Corps of Engineers received in 1994. Guess what. They didn't
think much of the plan then for spring rise.
President Clinton's Secretary of Agriculture and his
Secretary of Transportation criticized the plan in writing.
The plan was then shelved by the Clinton administration
because of public opinion. They had their public comment.
People did weigh in, and they said this is a disaster. The
Clinton administration withdrew it.
However, that plan was subsequently resurrected by the Fish
and Wildlife Service, using the force of the so-called
consultation process sufficient to impose its will on the
people in the States.
In other words, the Fish and Wildlife Service failed to
convince the public and the States of the wisdom of their
plan, as represented by these comments, so they decided to
force their plan by putting a gun to the head of the Corps.
If the Fish and Wildlife Service
cared about the views of the States and the public opinion
of those who live in and around the basin and depend upon
the Missouri River, we would not be here today. There
is very little hope that they would care
about next year's comments than they care about the comments
people took pains to make in 1994 because they simply don't
have to. The Fish and Wildlife Service gets to do what it
wants because while they are required to allow public
comment, they are not required to listen. And I guarantee
you, when it comes to this plan, they have not listened.
This process, as previously orchestrated, is more rigged
than a WWF championship match. But for my citizens, the
price of admission is the cost of losing a planning season,
a levee, an export opportunity, a flood, and maybe even the
loss of a life.
Some may tell you that the Government can control this
proposed flood. I know they wish that were the case. But
wishes are not going to provide accurate weather forecasts
in the temperamental heartland spring. Unless someone in the
Corps can
forecast weather accurately 5 to 10 days to 2 weeks in
advance, there will be accidents, people will be hurt, and
it will be because the U.S. Government decided to risk their
safety for an experiment. When the Government releases
pulses of water
from the dams, that water can't be brought back; it is not
retrievable. It takes 5 days to get to Kansas City, 10 days
to get to St. Louis, and further down the river, even
longer.
On average, the river never floods. In the real world,
though, it isn't the averages that hurt us but the extremes.
I understand that a lot of people have drowned in lakes that
average only 3 feet deep. With downstream tributary flow, we
already have a natural ``spring rise'' every time it rains,
and when that happens, a ``pulse'' released days before is a
tragic gift courtesy of the Federal Government.
Just 6 weeks ago, following a series of low pressure systems
in the basin, in less than 5 days gauging stations in
Missouri went from below normal stage to flood stage. Right
in the heart of our State, in Herman, MO, the stream flow
increased from 85,000 cubic feet per second to 250,000 cubic
feet per second in 5 days. That is almost a threefold
increase in the amount of water coming down that river.
Now, neither the people of Herman nor the Corps of Engineers
expected this dramatic tripling of the flows, but it shows
the danger of intentionally increasing those flows during
the spring season, and it shows what people in our State
already know:
We already have a spring rise. It is natural and it is
dangerous. If the pallid sturgeon really liked spring rises,
they would be coming out our ears. After the floods, we
should have had little pallid sturgeons all over the place.
The second part of the Fish and
Wildlife plan is an artificially low summer flow, which
inverts the historical natural hydrograph. For those who may
be a little concerned about the terms, that means the river
``ain't'' flowing like it used to flow before dams.
The natural hydrograph is to have more water in the summer
during the snowmelts in the upper basin. This natural
pattern would be turned on its head if you had the releases
in the spring and then low flows during the summer. It
starves the hydropower generators of capacity during peak
periods of energy demand, driving up the rates for
customers, driving up the rates for Native American tribes
and other citizens in rural areas.
According to data from the Western Area Power
Administration, ``Risk analysis including river thermal
powerplants: Both capacity and energy losses increase
exponentially as the summer flow decreases in July.''
That means that when you cut the waterflow during the summer
in peak cooling seasons, you get much greater than a
straight line loss in capacity and energy production. The
line doesn't go down like this; it goes up like that. That
is what happens to power production when you reduce summer
flows.
The plan does call for continued production of energy, just
not when people need it. The middle part of the summer is
when air-conditioning rates are the highest and when there
is the greatest drain on electricity. Unless we no longer
care about clean energy options, then we should not be
taking deliberate steps to increase the cost of power.
Additionally, let me point out for our southern neighbors
that low summer flows provide inadequate water to continue
water commerce on the Missouri River and during very low
water periods on the Mississippi River. During the drought
years, up to 65 percent of the flow in the Mississippi River
below St. Louis comes from the Missouri River.
Water commerce is important for another reason. One
medium-sized 15-barge tow can carry the same amount of
grain--usually going to the export markets--as 870 trucks.
This one medium-sized tow is much better for safety, clean
air, fuel efficiency, highway congestion, and the
competitiveness of our shippers in the international
marketplace than putting 870 trucks on the highway through
congested metropolitan areas. Water commerce for our
farmers, shippers, and exporters is a necessary insurance
policy against high rates that occur when the absence of
competition leaves shippers to the mercy of transportation
monopolies. A key assumption of some is that freight
carriers don't raise rates when they face no competition.
That is a nice wish, but it is not a realistic assumption.
Other forms of transportation do raise rates when
competition is not present. According to the Tennessee
Valley Authority, which did a study, higher shipping costs
would add up to as much as $200 million annually to farmers
and other shippers in Missouri, South Dakota, and all the
States in between, not including the Lower Mississippi River
States. A shipper from the Omaha, NE, region told my office
that he secures railroad rates of less than $25 per ton when
they go up to Sioux City, where the river provides
competition, but when he ships up to Sioux Falls, where the
river doesn't go, where river transportation is not
available, then rates double.
I am pleased and proud to say there are many ongoing
programs and practices to improve Missouri River habitat. I
have listened to the discussions that relate to this matter
over the years, and there is some presumption that only the
Federal
Government should do something about it. That is false.
There is that overtone, since Missouri strongly opposes the
Federal Fish and Wildlife plan--on a bipartisan basis, I
might add--we aren't as dedicated to fish and wildlife as
some of our friends in the Dakotas, or Montana maybe.
Well, Mr. President, no State in the basin dedicates as much
money as Missouri does to fish and wildlife conservation
measures. Most States just take payments from the
Pittman-Robertson and the Wallop-Breaux and licensing
revenue. Some States have appropriations from their general
fund.
The citizens of Missouri have imposed upon themselves by
referendum a State sales tax for conservation. That has
enabled Missouri to spend as much as California on fish and
wildlife. This year that total will be $140 million.
Our State conservation tax has enabled Missouri to spend
twice as much as Florida, 11 times more than Massachusetts,
11 times more than Vermont, 9 times more than Nevada, and 3
times more than Illinois.
According to the latest data from the Wildlife Conservation
Fund of America, Missouri spends roughly 50 percent more on
fish and wildlife than the Dakotas and Montana combined.
Missouri spends 5 times more than South Dakota on fish and
wildlife, and 10 times more than North Dakota.
Almost all States raise money from hunting and fishing
licenses and all States get Federal money. If you go beyond
those sources, the difference between what Missouri citizens
have set aside for fish and wildlife compared to our
upstream
neighbors, the numbers are staggering. In the latest years,
the figures available to me, Missouri dedicated 60 times
more from State taxes in the general fund than South Dakota,
for example.
I will not say anything beyond this except that Missouri
citizens are doing their part, and certainly we encourage
other States to follow the constructive example that
Missouri has set.
What have we done? What have we done for wildlife habitat?
What have we done to conserve species, to preserve and help
restore endangered species? Our Department of Conservation
has acquired 72 properties in the Missouri River flood plain
totaling almost 45,000 acres. Senator Harkin of Iowa and I
and others have requested funding for a number of ongoing
habitat projects, and while two are funded in this bill, one
was not funded.
We have authorized and we have begun funding for a
60,000-acre flood plain refuge between St. Louis and Kansas
City. We authorize an addition of 100,000 acres of land
acquisition in the lower basin to restore habitat, with
almost 13,700 acres
already acquired.
I have been pleased to work with American Rivers and
Missouri farm groups to authorize habitat restoration on the
river, to create sandbars, islands, and side channels. These
are the natural structures that support and facilitate
species such as the pallid sturgeon.
I regret to say this administration, as the last
administration, requested no funds to start the project, and
the subcommittee this year did no new starts, so a consensus
approach is lying in state. We have financed over 21,740
acres of wetland
easements from the Wetlands Reserve Program in Missouri.
Missouri is very active with the Conservation Reserve
Program, and farmers are signing up for filter strips along
waterways to reduce runoff.
We are working in Missouri on an agro-forestry flood plain
initiative and have demonstrated tree systems that take out
nearly three-quarters of the phosphorous and nitrogen so it
does not reach the waterways while providing excellent bird
habitat.
According to our Department of Natural Resources, river
engineering efforts on the Mississippi River have paid big
dividends for endangered species. For example, at river mile
84 on the Upper Mississippi River, the Corps has created
hard points in the river to separate a sandbar from the bank
to create a nesting island for the federally endangered
least tern. In addition, larval sturgeon have been collected
in the resultant side channel.
Four islands around mile 100 on the Upper Mississippi were
created by modifying existing navigational structures
without interfering with water transport. Islands have
flourished even through the flood of 1993.
At river mile 40 on the Upper Mississippi, the Corps has
established critical off-channel connectivity essential as
over wintering and rearing habitat for many Mississippi
River fishes.
We know there are better approaches that do not hurt people,
and that is where the focus has been in Missouri, and that
is where the focus should be in Washington. The sooner we
table the plan that is risky, untested, and dangerous, the
sooner we can get to the plans that are tested and broadly
supported.
Our bipartisan amendment is supported by members across the
country: the National Waterways Alliance, National Corn
Growers Association, American Soybean Association, American
Farm Bureau Federation, National Association of Wheat
Growers, National Council of Farmer Cooperatives,
Agricultural Retailers Association, National Grain and Feed
Association, and others.
The Fish and Wildlife Service plan
has been opposed strongly by the Southern Governors
Association which issued another resolution
opposing it early this year. The Fish and Wildlife plan is
opposed strongly by our current Governor, Governor Holden,
and his Department of Natural Resources which is just as
knowledgeable and just as committed to the protection of the
river they live on as the Federal field representatives who
live in other regions and States.
I say to all the Senators on the Mississippi River that
objections were raised to the Fish and Wildlife Service plan
in a recent letter to the President signed by nine
Mississippi River Governors. These Governors include
Governor Patton from
Kentucky, Governor Sundquist from Tennessee, Governor Foster
from Louisiana, Governor Musgrove from Mississippi, Governor
Ryan from Illinois, Governor Huckabee from Arkansas,
Governor McCallum from Wisconsin, and Governor
Holden from Missouri.
This plan is opposed on a bipartisan basis by elected
officials, by our late Governor Carnahan, by mayors,
farmers, and the people all along the Missouri River.
Our amendment seeks to add some balance in the
decisionmaking process and attempts to permit the
administration to do what is right to find ways to address
species recovery that do not harm people, that do not harm
property, that do not interfere
with the other legitimate multiple uses of the Missouri
River.
I strongly urge my colleagues to adopt this bipartisan
amendment. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
The
PRESIDING OFFICER
The Senator from South Dakota.
Mr.
DASCHLE
Mr. President, I compliment the Senator from Missouri. He
clearly feels as passionate about this issue as I do, and
he, like I, has tried to find common ground. I have no
objection to the amendment that Senator Bond is proposing
this
afternoon.
What he is saying through this amendment is that in addition
to the proposal made by Fish and Wildlife, there ought to be
consideration of other issues, other opportunities to
address the problem. I have said that from the beginning.
I will support this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to
support it as well. I also urge my colleagues to endorse
this position as the bill proceeds through conference. This
is a position that I think will clearly show unanimity on
both sides of the aisle and, as a result, I hope we can
maintain this position rather than the very negative
approach adopted by the House.
I am hopeful as we go into conference that Senator Bond will
support the position that he and I now have adopted as a
Senate position.
While I am in agreement on the amendment, we are in vast
disagreement about the issue. I feel compelled to address
some of the questions raised by the distinguished Senator
from Missouri.
First of all, it is important to remember, most importantly
perhaps, it is important to remember that this
goes beyond just the pallid sturgeon. Obviously, the pallid
sturgeon is an endangered species, and we can argue all
afternoon about the relevance of the pallid sturgeon to the
master manual debate, but in my view, this is about more
than an endangered species. This debate is about an
endangered river. This
debate and the master manual is about whether or not we can
save an endangered river.
This is not about an endangered species. This debate is
about an endangered river. This debate and the master manual
is about whether or not we can save an endangered river.
The distinguished Senator mentioned the organization
American Rivers. The American Rivers organization has now
listed for the second year in a row the Missouri River as
the most endangered river in America. It doesn't get any
worse than that.
We talked about the Federal Government's commitments and
regulatory approach. Citizens of South Dakota know a lot
about commitments and regulatory approach. We were told if
we gave up hundreds of thousands of acres of land to build
four
dams to help downstream States, we would benefit. We would
have irrigation projects, and we would have water projects,
and we would have an array of special consideration given
the new jeopardy within which we find ourselves as a result
of
the dams' construction.
The first things to go, of course, were all the irrigation
projects. We don't have any in South Dakota. That is done.
The second thing to go, of course, was the quality of life
for people who lived along the river. We had to move
communities. That is done. We have moved them.
Unfortunately, because the master manual is now so out of
date, we are drowning communities all along the river as we
speak.
The Senator from Missouri talks about his concern for spring
rise and floods. We are getting that every year. We have
already authorized the construction of new homes for 200
homeowners in Pierre, SD. We will have to commit $35 million
to move homeowners because we flooded them out because the
master manual isn't working.
So don't talk to us about spring rise. Don't talk to us
about flooding. Don't talk to us about sacrifice. We know
sacrifice. We know the problem because we are living in it
every single day.
Yes, this is about pallid sturgeons. But this is about a lot
of South Dakotans who are living on the river who were told
they were safe, who were told they had been given
commitments, who were told they would get irrigation
projects, who were told
they would get all kinds of benefits which we have not seen.
This is about an endangered river. It is about a master
manual written 50 years ago when times were a lot different.
It is about a recognition that every once in a while,
perhaps at least every two generations, we ought to look at
a master manual
and whether it is working or not and come to a conclusion
about rewriting it so people are not flooded out.
This has been an effort 10 years in the making. In spite of
all the assertions made by the Fish and Wildlife and the
Corps of Engineers and others that the spring rise proposal
provides 99 percent of the flood control we have today, that
is not good
enough for some of our people. In spite of the fact they
tell us in any single year there would be high water, there
would be no spring rise, we would not authorize it, that is
not good enough for some people.
The distinguished Senator from Missouri mentioned a hero of
mine, Steve Ambrose. I don't know of anybody who knows more
about that river than he does. He has walked virtually every
mile of it. He knows it backwards and forwards. He knows
its history, he knows its splendor. He knows the river like
no one knows the river. He has been very complimentary about
the efforts made to protect it now. I will not speak for
him, but I will say this. Were he here, I think he would
express the same
concern about how endangered this river is, as I just have.
Steve Ambrose is not the only one. The Senator from Missouri
was talking about all the indignation, talking about all
those who came out in opposition, and he mentioned quite a
list of people. I could go on, too, with lists of
organizations, lists of Governors on a bipartisan basis. I
think perhaps the most important is the letter we received
on May 21 from the Missouri River Natural Resources
Committee. The Missouri River Natural Resources
Committee is made up of people up and down
the river, but especially people in the lower regions of the
river. Here is what the Missouri River Natural Resources
Committee has to say. I will read one sentence, and I ask
unanimous consent the letter be printed in the RECORD at the
end of my remarks.
The
PRESIDING OFFICER
Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See Exhibit No. 1.)
Mr. DASCHLE
"The MRNRC
supports the recommendations contained in the Biological
Opinion as biologically sound and scientifically
justified.''
There you have it, perhaps the most authoritative
organization on river management dealing with the Missouri
River. This sentence is underlined: ``This plan is
biologically sound and scientifically justified.''
I feel this as passionately as the distinguished Senator
from Missouri. What happens when two people who feel as
passionately as we both do, with polar opposite positions,
come to the floor on a bill of this import, on an issue of
this
import? What I did early in the year--and I thank my very
professional staff, Peter Hanson, and others, and my
colleague, Senator Johnson, for his admirable work on the
committee in working with us, and perhaps most importantly,
my chairman
on this subcommittee, HARRY REID. I thank them all for their
extraordinary efforts to work with us to try to find some
common ground.
Basically, what is in the bill is simply an amendment that
says: Look, let's continue to look at this; let's see if we
can find the common ground, with the depth of feeling we
recognize on both sides. Let's not do any damage, but let's
keep working.
That is what is in the bill. Let's not make any conclusions,
let's not insert that somehow the States have to comply
prematurely. We already have invested 10 years. What is
another year? Let's keep working.
That is what is in the bill.
What the Senator from Missouri is saying is let's also
ensure that there are other options that we look at. I have
no objection to that. That is why I support this amendment.
If we pass this legislation, we will look at other options,
we will not take any specific action right now, but we will
not deny, as the House did, the right to continue to move
forward. I hope we can all agree this is a legitimate,
balanced approach.
I also hope people recognize this: If we don't solve it, the
Fish and Wildlife and the Corps don't solve us, there is
only one other recourse: The courts of the United States
will solve this. This will be tied up in the courts, and we
will see litigation for a long time to come, and it will be
North v. South in a new context. I don't want to see that.
I want to see a resolution to this problem. I want to see
some understanding of the science that has gone into the
solution to this problem. I want to see a recognition that
there is pain on both sides of this problem. I want to see
us not continuing to
kick the ball down the field but coming to grips with it,
finishing it, and moving on.
This master manual is now older than I am. The river has
changed a lot, as I have, over the last 50 years. I think it
is time to update it. Probably time to update, me, too. This
river is a lot more important than I am. This river provides
a lot more livelihood to people in South Dakota than I do.
This river is dying, and we need to save it.
Exhibit
No. 1
MISSOURI RIVER NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE,
Missouri
Valley, IA, May 21, 2001.
Secretary GALE NORTON,
Department of the Interior,
Washington, DC.
DEAR MS. NORTON: I am writing to express the position of the
Missouri River Natural Resources Committee (MRNRC)
concerning the biological and scientific merits of the
November 30, 2000, final Biological Opinion of the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service on the Operation of the Missouri River
Main Stem Reservoir System, Operation and Maintenance of the
Missouri River Bank Stabilization and Navigation Project,
and Operation of the Kansas Reservoir System. By way of
introduction, the MRNRC is an organization of appointed,
professional biologists representing the seven main stem
Missouri River Basin state fish and wildlife management
agencies. Our agencies have statutory responsibilities for
management and stewardship of river fish and wildlife
resources held in trust for the public. We were established
in 1987 to promote and
facilitate the conservation and enhancement of river fish
and wildlife recognizing that river management must
encompass the system as a whole and cannot focus only on the
interests of one state or agency. Besides an Executive Board
of state
representatives, we also have three technical sections--Fish
Technical Section, Tern and Plover Section, and Wildlife
Section--consisting of river field biologists and managers
which advise the Board on river science, management, and
technical matters.
The MRNRC supports the recommendations contained in the
Biological Opinion as biologically sound and scientifically
justified. Implementation of these recommendations will not
only benefit the federally-listed pallid sturgeon, interior
least tern and piping plover, but also many other river and
reservoir fish and wildlife for which our agencies have
responsibility and jurisdiction, including river fish
species which have declined in many river reaches since
development of the system. A sustainable river ecosystem
requires restoring as much as possible those hydrological
functions and river and floodplain habitat features under
which native river fish and wildlife evolved. The scientific
community is increasingly recommending restoration of
natural flow patterns or some semblance of them to conserve
native river biota and river ecosystem integrity (Richter et
al., 1998; Galat et al., 1998). The Opinion takes the first,
adaptive management step toward accomplishing this task
while recognizing that the river has been drastically
modified and must continue to meet other human needs for
power generation, water supply, recreation, flood control,
and commercial navigation.
The Opinion contains most of the operating and habitat
rehabilitation objectives contained in an alternative
submitted by the MRNRC in August, 1999, for the Corps of
Engineers' Missouri River Master Manual Environmental Impact
Statement Review and Study and in a white paper we developed
in 1997 (Restoration of Missouri River Ecosystem Functions
and Habitats). These objectives include higher spawning flow
releases from Fort Peck and Gavins Point Dams in the spring,
warmer water releases from Fort Peck Dam through the spring
and summer, lower flows below Gavins Point Dam in the
summer, unbalancing of reservoir storage (annual rotation of
high, stable, and lower reservoir storage levels among the
big three reservoirs), restoration of shallow water aquatic
habitat in the channelized river reaches, and restoration of
emergent sandbar habitat in least tern and piping plover
nesting areas, all of which have been advocated for many
years by the MRNRC.
The MRNRC also commented on and supported the draft
Biological Opinion. A copy of that letter is enclosed. The
final Opinion is responsive to our comments on the draft. We
are especially pleased to see the commitment to include our
agencies
in the Agency Coordination Team process for fine-tuning and
implementing management actions identified in the Opinion. I
am also enclosing a copy of the 1997 white paper and a
brochure which explains the function of the MRNRC. I hope
this
letter and accompanying materials clarify the views of
professional biologists responsible for Missouri River fish
and wildlife. Please do not hesitate to contact me
(712-336-1714) if we can be of further help in this regard.
Sincerely,
Thomas Gengerke,
MRNRC Chair,
Iowa Department of Natural Resources.
The PRESIDING
OFFICER
The Senator from
Nevada.
Mr. REID
If the Senator from
Missouri will yield for a brief statement.
While the leader is here, I want to say this is legislation
that is best. The provision in the bill could have been a
benchmark for a lot of confusion and derision, but the
staffs involved, because of all the concern for the river,
sat down and did something constructive. I, personally, as
well as Senator DOMENICI, appreciate this very much. This
avoids a contentious fight. Because of the good heads of the
staff and the wisdom of the Senators involved, we have
resolved a very contentious issue. Senator Domenici and I
are very thankful.
The PRESIDING
OFFICER
The Senator from
Missouri.
Mrs. CARNAHAN
Mr. President, I thank
my colleague for that eloquent and enthusiastic support for
a solution to the problem we have worked on for so many
years. I love the opportunity to work with him in being able
to find that solution.
Today, I want to speak about an issue that is important to
the people of Missouri. As you see, my State lies at the
confluence of these two great rivers, the Missouri and the
Mississippi. The rise and the fall of these rivers has a
tremendous
effect on Missouri, on its agriculture and recreation and
environment and economy.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has proposed to shift the
flow of the Missouri River so that more water passes through
our State in the spring and less in the summer. It is called
the spring rise. If this proposal goes into effect, it could
have devastating consequences, including increased
likelihood of flooding and the shutdown of the barge
industry on the Missouri.
The energy and water appropriations bill being considered by
the Senate contains language that would prohibit the Army
Corps of Engineers from expediting the schedule to finalize
revisions to the master manual that governs water flow on
the
Missouri River. In effect, this provision would ensure that
the decision regarding the flow of the river would not be
made until 2003.
While I welcome that language as a temporary stop gap for
Missouri, it is not enough to protect Missourians or other
downstream States, for without additional action by
Congress, it is virtually certain that the Corps of
Engineers will adopt the Fish and Wildlife Service's
recommendation for spring rise. That is a condition that
will do great harm to Missouri and other users of the
Missouri and Mississippi Rivers.
The Bond-Carnahan amendment strengthens the bill to provide
greater protections for Missourians. It would allow the
Corps to propose alternatives to assist the recovery of
endangered species, but it would not preclude the Corps from
adopting the Fish and Wildlife Service's proposal for spring
rise.
Just 8 years ago, Missourians faced one of the worst floods
in their history. The water crested almost 50 feet over the
normal level. Entire neighborhoods were washed away and
damage estimates ran into the billions. This year, we saw
communities up and down the river battling against
floodwaters once again.
I cannot believe that a government agency would contemplate
an action that would put Missourians and residents of other
downstream States at risk of even more flooding.
The proposal is to release huge amounts of water from Gavins
Point, SD, in the spring when the risk of flooding is
already high. It takes 10 to 11 days for water from Gavins
Point to reach St. Louis. What would happen if we received
an unexpected
heavy rainfall after the water had been released from Gavins
Point? The answer is simple. Missourians would face a severe
flood. Even the Corps admits that would be the case. That is
an unacceptable risk.
The change would also damage the region's economy. The barge
industry contributes as much as $200 million to our economy
and would be severely hurt by the low river levels that
would occur in the summer. The economic benefits to upstream
users, approximately $65 to $85 million, pales in
comparison.
We must also factor in the value of barge traffic on the
Mississippi River. The proposed low summer flow would bring
barge traffic to a near halt for at least 2 months during
the summer at that area known as the bottleneck region of
the
Mississippi River. This is the portion of the river that
stretches just south of the confluence of the Missouri and
Mississippi Rivers, to Cairo, IL. The bottleneck needs the
higher Missouri River flow to sustain barge traffic.
The disruption caused by this proposal would jeopardize 100
million tons of Mississippi River barge traffic which
generates $12 to $15 billion in annual revenue.
Finally, there is no reason to believe that the Fish and
Wildlife Service proposal will do anything to help
endangered species. The Service claims that its recommended
plan will benefit the pallid sturgeon below Gavins Point,
but it provides no supporting evidence that any of the
claimed benefits will be realized. In fact, the Service
admits, in its own Biological Opinion, that enormous gaps
exist in our knowledge of the needs of the pallid sturgeon.
Furthermore, the Biological Opinion
notes that commercial harvesting of sturgeon is allowed in
five States.
If that is the case, I would think it would be more
appropriate for the Service to halt the commercial
harvesting, rather than risk severe flood and shut down
barge traffic, all for unproven benefits to the sturgeon.
I am also not convinced that the Fish and Wildlife Service
plan will accomplish the goal of helping two bird species:
the interior least tern and the piping plover. In fact, many
experts believe that the higher reservoir levels upstream
resulting from
the Service's proposal could actually harm these birds and
their habitat at a critical point in the year. Fluctuations
in the river level could also greatly disrupt nesting
burdens below Gavins Dam. The Service's Biological Opinion
fails to address the consequences of these unnatural
changes.
There are better ways to ensure the continued healthy
existence of these species. After the pallid sturgeon was
added to the Federal endangered species list in 1990, the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service formed the pallid sturgeon
recovery team to
rebuild the fish's dwindling numbers. The Missouri
Department of Conservation joined this effort by working
with commercial fishermen to obtain several wild sturgeon
from the lower part of the Mississippi River. In 1992, the
Department
successfully spawned female pallid sturgeons, which has
since lead to the production of thousands of 10- to 12-inch
sturgeon for stocking. The pallid sturgeon had never been
spawned in captivity, but the Department developed certain
techniques to do
so. The fish were then released into the rivers.
Before the release, the Missouri Department of Conservation
tagged them for tracking purposes. They have since been
amazed at the number of reported sightings of the tagged
fish, which has surpassed anything they anticipated.
If we are dedicated to preserving these species, we can do
so through efforts such as those carried out in Missouri.
In recent years, this has become a partisan issue. It should
not be. Some say it is an environmental issue. It is not.
The environmental benefits of a spring rise are totally
unproven.
Some say it is an economic issue. It is not. On balance, it
would harm our economy. This is an issue of fairness. It is
not fair to expose Missourians and other downstream
residents to severe flooding, economic loss, and potential
environmental
destruction.
Our amendment, the Bond-Carnahan amendment, will ensure
fairness for everyone who shares these rivers. I urge its
adoption.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING
OFFICER
The Senator from South
Dakota.
Mr. JOHNSON
Mr. President, I
commend and applaud the work of Senator Carnahan and Senator
Bond on crafting this amendment. We have been at a gridlock
state on the master manual development now for many years.
Senator Carnahan's work to try to break that gridlock ought
to be applauded.
Last year, as many recall, this bill wound up being vetoed
by President Clinton over this very issue. For years it has
been an all-or-nothing struggle between upstream and
downstream States over the management of the Missouri River.
I think we may be moving ahead more constructively now,
thanks to a more thoughtful approach being taken in this
body.
The Missouri River is of utterly profound consequences to my
home State of South Dakota. It divides the State in two, an
East River and West River, as we say in South Dakota. It is
central to the economy of the State. It is the corridor by
which
settlers came to Dakota territory.
This Senator grew up on the Missouri River. My hometown is a
college town situated on a bluff overlooking the Missouri
River. Its welfare is of great concern to my State. It is of
great concern to me personally.
My colleague, Senator Daschle, noted that the Missouri River
has been referred to as ``America's most endangered river.''
I appreciate that could be the criteria you might happen to
choose to apply, but, nonetheless, the Missouri River has
gone through a great many changes from its pristine early
days--largely impounded at least in the upper stretches of
the river
behind huge earthen dams, channelized in other stretches,
and barge traffic.
In my home community of Vermilion, it remains as about as
close to what Lewis and Clark saw as any stretch that
remains. But that is only for a stretch of some 60 or 70
miles.
This river remains of enormous consequence. The management
of the river has always been a matter of great import. For
40 or 50 years now, the existing master manual--the rules
for the management of the river that guides the Corps of
Engineers--has been in place. When the Pick-Sloan plan was
implemented and these larger earthen dams were constructed,
they were constructed with multiple purposes--flood control
for South Dakota and for our downstream neighbors as well;
energy production; and they remain a great source of
hydroelectricity for our State and throughout the region;
recreation certainly; barge traffic; and drinking and
irrigation purposes.
The thought at the time was that these huge bodies of water
would be used for massive irrigation development through the
Dakotas, and that there would then, in turn, be a need for
reliable barge traffic to haul this amount of grain from the
heartland and the Dakotas downstream. For many reasons,
irrigation never happened--at least not on a large scale. We
have moved on from the irrigation that was envisioned.
The Missouri River is used as a significant source of
drinking water. In the meantime, recreation, fish, and
wildlife purposes have become paramount on the Missouri
River. Although it is a far, far small industry than it was
originally thought, it is of no one's interest to
unnecessarily drive the barge industry out of existence. It
still plays an important role in a much smaller way than was
originally thought. But, nonetheless, it plays an important
role, and to the degree that we can preserve it, that is
well and good. But I think there is a very strong consensus
that the vision for the Missouri Valley that existed at the
time of the Pick-Sloan plan was envisioned and then
implemented is much changed.
This master manual no longer serves the interest and no
longer reflects the contemporary economic realities of the
Missouri River--certainly in the upstream reaches of the
river but downstream as well.
It is the responsibility of the Corps of Engineers to
proceed with the study, public input, and with the science
that goes into at long last a revamping of the master
manual. Up until now, we have been caught up in the question
of should we revise the
manual or should we not revise the manual.
Now, at least in this body, there is an agreement that, yes,
the manual should and needs to be revised. It should be done
in a careful manner. I am pleased that we have gotten over
that hurdle. That hurdle still remains in the other body,
the House of Representatives, but I think as the Senate
approaches this issue in a more thoughtful and wiser
fashion, it is important for the Corps to take the best
biological science available from the Fish and Wildlife
Service.
It is also important for the Corps to listen to those who
have concerns about flooding. It is important for the Corps
to listen to those concerned about energy production. Our
rural electrics, and public power in particular, have a
great concern about levels of energy production from these
hydrodams. This year more than most, we have had a lesser
amount of waterflow from the head waters of the Missouri
than in past years. In fact, our water levels are down this
year in any event regardless of the master manual. That
remains of concern.
We have endangered species. We have a great recreation and
wildlife industry on the Missouri River. Much of it has been
at risk because of the unreliability of the waterflows on
the river and the lack of consideration given to this huge
industry, the recreation and wildlife industry. In fact,
every dollar's worth far exceeds that of the barge industry
that has been there for so long.
We have concerns about erosion. We have concerns about the
supply of drinking water on the Missouri River. We have
concerns about the health of the Missouri River itself.
Steps need to be taken to restore this river to the grand
status that it
once had.
I am pleased we are taking this step today. This does not
mean that Fish and Wildlife's views will be ignored, or that
the ultimate plan developed by the Corps of Engineers will
be contrary to what the Fish and Wildlife Service wishes.
But it does suggest that there are other perspectives that
ought to be considered as well, and that the Corps will
proceed, that they will move forward finally, at last, with
the revision of the master manual--one that I hope will more
fully reflect the contemporary economic and environmental
realities of the Missouri River.
It is my hope again that as we proceed on with this
bill--again, my commendation to Senator Reid, our friend
from Nevada, and Senator Domenici, our friend from New
Mexico, who have done such great work on this bill as a
whole--we will proceed with an excellent piece of
legislation, so that when we reach a conference circumstance
with the other body, the views of the Senate on this
critical issue will, in fact, prevail.
I yield the floor.
Mr. HARKIN
Mr. President, the
Missouri River is a tremendous resource for the Midwest. It
is used for recreation and for transportation. It supplies
water for drinking, for irrigation, to cool power plants,
and it can, at times provide far too much
water resulting in flooding, hurting many farmers and
sometimes communities as a whole.
It is also the home for a wide variety of wildlife,
providing excellent hunting and fishing opportunities. It
has many beautiful views to be enjoyed by all. And it is the
habitat for a number of species that, unfortunately, appear
to be in very
serious difficulty, endangered.
I believe we have a responsibility to protect endangered and
threatened species, and I take that responsibility very
seriously. And, I take the needs of my constituents to
minimize flooding, to maximize the benefits of barge traffic
and to use the areas along the river for good hunting and
fishing very seriously as well.
The Corps of Engineers which manages the large dams on the
river is charged with a number of legislative purposes such
as navigation, flood control, recreation and environmental
remediation and enhancement. And, many of those
responsibilities
are in regular conflict. Doing more to promote one priority
can and regularly does hurt another priority. Few Members
are happy with the Corps in this balancing effort. I
understand lots of Corps officials are not happy with the
Corps either at times.
Under the Endangered Species Act, passed in the early 1970s
just before I became a member of Congress, we said that
saving endangered species was a top priority. And, I
strongly support that goal. It is often a difficult task. We
so often know so little and, at times, can be so very wrong.
But we should work in a determined manner to help species
that are endangered.
In this case, the Fish and Wildlife Service has issued a
biological opinion of what they think is the best course of
action. Is it the best path to take? Under the law, there is
a process that the Corps is supposed to follow in making the
determination of what they will do to move forward towards
saving the endangered species. It is a long process. But, as
the language already in the bill notes, under its timetable,
the Corps is more than a year away from coming to a final
``record of decision'' and then more months away from that
decision's implementation.
I believe that the Corps needs to very carefully consider
the input it gets during that time. Many, including the
state governments, learned professors, organizations
representing many sides, have a great deal of resources and
expertise. I feel
that the comment period is not supposed to be for show, or
to allow people to vent. I believe that it should be an
opportunity for people to not only forcefully note their
interest, but for those with the capability to propose
creative solutions, solutions that can both do more to help
the endangered species and more to maintain the historic
priorities of the Corps.
Do I know what that solution is? No. Is there such a
solution? I don't know.
I did propose increasing funding in this measure to increase
sandbars of benefit to birds and towards slow moving water
which I am told will help the endangered fish. And, the
committee placed a portion of that funding in the bill. But,
I am
certainly not sure that it will be effective. A Senator is
constantly listening to experts who may or may not be
correct.
I believe the Corps is responsible for truly sifting through
all of the ideas and taking the best and melding them, to do
what it can to find the best path. Some say the Fish and
Wildlife Service has already spoken--period. This is only
correct to a
point. Yes, they have spoken, but that does not mean that
they can't learn about new options and become aware of more
information that can, with an open mind, lead to different
alternatives.
Last year, I opposed Senator BOND's amendment because it
simply precluded under all circumstances one type of action
from being used that might help endangered species. I
understand his strong concerns about a spring rise that his
proposal of
last year was designed to prevent under all circumstances. I
certainly have considerable doubts about the logic of the
Fish and Wildlife Service's proposed spring rise. But,
frankly, I believe that the best path is not to
legislatively say: No, this option shall be excluded. The
best path is for knowledgeable parties to propose better
alternatives to be considered on their merits.
Frankly, I also was told that last year's amendment would
have quickly resulted in a strong lawsuit, with a likely
judgement that the restrictions on the Corps to implement a
spring rise would violate the Endangered Species Act. My
fear was that a
Federal judge, instead of the Corps would have replaced the
Corp of Engineers.
Today's amendment is a balanced one. Under the already
existing language of the bill, clearly, the process is not
going to come to a final judgement in the coming year. The
amendment adds to that reality, saying to the Corps: look at
the need of the endangered species, look at the many
purposes of the river. Listen to those who come to testify
and to provide meritorious input. And, put together some
options.
Ideally, the Corps will do just that. And, a year from now,
hopefully, something will be presented that provides for the
protection of the endangered species and the many benefits
that are derived from its flowing waters.
Mr. President, I am pleased that I was able to help develop
this language which has genuine balance.
Mr. BAUCUS
Mr. President, last
year, Mr. DASCHLE and I fought hard against efforts to halt
the progress of the new Missouri River Master Manual. As my
distinguished colleague from South Dakota pointed out both
last year and this year, the Missouri River is a river in
jeopardy and the manual is long overdue for a revision.
We need a more balanced management of this river system, a
balance that will, among other things, give more weight to
the use of the water for recreation upstream, at places like
Fort Peck reservoir in Montana. Under the current river
operations,
there are times when the lake has been drawn down so low
that boat ramps are a mile or more from the water's edge,
all to send water downstream to support the barge industry.
Recreation is vital to the eastern Montana economy and to
economies
of other upper Missouri states. It's time the Army Corps'
management practices reflected that reality.
This year, one of the worst water years in my State's
history, the problems started back in March and April. The
Corps told me their hands were tied by the old manual as to
how much they could protect lake levels at Ft. Peck and at
other upstream
Missouri reservoirs--in short, they had to keep letting
water out even though lake levels were dropping fast.
Which is why I applaud Senator Bond's decision to search for
compromise because we all want a solution to this problem.
We all want to make sure the river is managed in the best
way possible. Mr. Bond has come forward with an amendment
that will allow the Corps flexibility to work towards that
goal. Mr. Reid and Mr. Domenici agreed to language in the
Energy and Water bill that will make sure the Corps won't
accelerate this process, and that a decision on a new master
manual won't be
made until 2003. The Corps now has breathing room to do
what's right for the Missouri River, for upstream and
downstream interests and for fish and wildlife. After more
than 50 years, it's about time.
Mr. GRASSLEY
Mr. President, I
strongly urge my colleagues to support the
Bond-Carranhan-Grassley amendment to the energy and water
appropriations bill. This amendment will allow the Secretary
of the Army to propose alternatives to the decision mandated
by the last administration which will unquestionably
increase flood risk and limit barge travel on the lower
Missouri and Mississippi Rivers.
If we do not correct the ill-informed position that was
shoved down our throats last year by the previous
administration, landowners in Iowa along the Missouri River
will face the threat of increased flooding. Thanks to a few
of my colleagues
that have obviously never been over to Freemont, Mills,
Pottawattamie, Harrison, or Monona counties in Iowa, just to
name a few, we have let an issue that was decided for
political gain put lives and livelihoods at risk.
This is not a new issue. Provisions to limit significant
changes in flow had been placed in five previous
appropriations bills by my distinguished colleague from
Missouri, Senator BOND. Each of these bills had been signed
into law by the last
administration, except for the legislation last year. Last
year a few members let special interest groups drive the
agenda and place my constituents in harm's way. It was not
acceptable then and it is not acceptable now.
Senator BOND's amendment will allow the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers to propose alternatives to achieve species
recovery other than those specifically prescribed by the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service plan to increase releases of
water
from Missouri River dams in the spring. Majority Leader
DASCHLE championed the Fish and Wildlife Service's position
last year which will eventually result in significant
flooding downstream given the heavy rains that are usually
experienced in my, and other downstream states during that
time.
Last year our opposition described their position as a
``slight revision'' to increase spring flows, known as
"spring rise" once every three years. They
emphasized, "not every year, but once every
three". When they emphasized that point I guess I'm
wondering whether that somehow makes it better or excusable
to risk the lives and the livelihood of Iowans and other
Americans living on the Missouri once out of every three
years instead of every year.
This issue is exactly what is wrong with our representative
government. How many times have we heard about special
interests having too much influence and the decisions that
are being made not representing the majority. Well here is
my
casebook example.
How many Americans would view increasing the flow of the
river to scour sandbars more important than protecting life
and livelihood. There might be a few, and I realize as hard
as this is to believe, there were 45 in the Senate last
year. But if we could let the American people vote, I bet
they would feel protecting Americans is more important than
scouring sandbars.
The opposition's approach is a terribly risky scheme. Keep
in mind that it takes 8 days for water to travel from Gavins
Point to the mouth of the Missouri. Unanticipated downstream
storms can make a ``controlled release'' a deadly flood
inflicting a widespread destruction. There are many small
communities along the Missouri River in Iowa. Why should
they face increased risk for flooding and its devastation?
They should not.
Equally unacceptable is the low-flow summer release
schedule. A so-called split navigation season would be
catastrophic to the transportation of Iowa grain. In effect,
the Missouri River will be shut-down to barge traffic during
a good portion of the summer. It will also have a disastrous
effect on the transportation of steel to Iowa steel mills,
construction materials and farm inputs such as fertilizer
along the Missouri.
Opponents of common sense argue that a spring flood is
necessary for species protection under the Endangered
Species Act, and that grain and other goods can be
transported to market by railroad. I do not accept that
argument.
I believe that there is significant difference of opinion
whether or not a spring flood will benefit pallid sturgeon,
the interior least tern, or the piping plover. In fact, the
Corps has demonstrated that it can successfully create
nesting habitat for the birds through mechanical means so
there would be little need to scour the sandbars. Further,
it is in dispute among biologists whether or not a flood can
create the necessary habitat for sturgeon.
This is why it is important to allow the Secretary to
propose alternatives to achieve the same goals without the
same deadly, ruinous side effects.
One thing I do know for sure is that loss of barge traffic
would deliver the western part of America's grain belt into
the monopolistic hands of the railroads. Without question,
grain transportation prices would drastically increase with
disastrous
results to on farm income.
Every farmer in Iowa knows that the balance in grain
transportation is competition between barges and railroads.
This competition keeps both means of transportation honest.
This competition keeps transportation prices down and helps
to give
the Iowa farmer a better financial return on the sale of his
grain. This competition helps to make the grain
transportation system in America the most efficient and cost
effective in the world. It is crucial in keeping American
grain competitively
priced in the world market. The Corps itself has estimated
that barge competition reduces rail rates along the Missouri
by $75-$200 million annually.
If a drought hits during the split navigation season, there
will be even less water flowing along the Missouri unless we
make this necessary change. Low flow will also significantly
inhibit navigation along the Mississippi River. We cannot
let
this happen.
Less water flowing in the late summer will also affect
hydroelectric rates. Decreased flow means less power
generation and higher electric rates for Iowans who depend
upon this power source. This is not the time to be
increasing the price of
energy. In my opinion, the last administration already
accomplished increasing energy costs to the breaking point
for consumers, now it is time to start bringing those rates
down.
The corngrowers summed it up best last year when they
stated, ``an intentional spring rise is an unwarranted,
unscientific assault on farmers and citizens throughout the
Missouri River Basin. ``Unfortunately, the past
administration felt sandbars were more important than
citizens. Let's fix this. I urge my colleagues to support
the Bond-Carnahan-Grassley amendment. Vote for common sense.
The PRESIDING
OFFICER
The Senator from New
Mexico is recognized.
Mr. DOMENICI
Mr. President, I thank
you. I will be very brief.
I remind the Senate how important this Missouri River issue
is and was. First of all, I am very grateful to hear that it
is going to get resolved, which I understand to be the case.
I haven't seen the language yet, but obviously there are
very good
Senators who have a more genuine interest than this Senator.
So it will be right.
But last year, believe it or not, this entire bill that we
are talking about was put at risk because Senator Bond
sought to protect the river. An amendment passed, which I
supported, that made the entire energy and water bill
subject to that
amendment with reference to not moving ahead too fast with
the new ideas. It had a veto threat with it.
Believe it or not, since 1979, I think is the case, energy
and water types of appropriations bills had never been
vetoed. So we put at risk all the things that are needed in
this bill and said we would take it. If the President vetoes
it, we will find a
way to pass the bill one way or another.
The reason I state that is because, obviously, the issue is
a very important one. It brought down this entire energy and
water appropriations bill.
Incidentally, we found a way to fix it. It became an issue.
I am hopeful that today it remains an issue, and that, with
this amendment which has been spoken to and about by those
who are Missouri River affected, we will end up with
something
that is really an achievement.
Last year, I wondered--it is a very important bill--whether
it was worth putting the entire bill at risk of a veto. My
good friend, Senator Bond, who is now joined by others--and
I compliment them all--told me: It is a worthwhile thing to
do,
Senator. I don't like putting your entire bill at risk--the
one I happened to have managed then; the one I am ranking
member of now--but I willingly did it, and I think that had
ultimately a bit to do with resolving this issue in a better
way. Because the Senate did find out it was a very serious
issue and that they would put it at risk, with a veto pen,
with reference to the issues between the river people and
the professional Federal bureaucracies and the
environmentalists. Hopefully, it has been worked out in an
amendment that will be agreed to today.
I compliment everybody who has worked on it. I can see the
fine hand of the majority leader. I can see other Senators
from the other side of the aisle who got together to do it.
I must, with all respect, compliment Senator KIT BOND for
not giving up
and for his tenaciousness last year in seeing to it that we,
as a Senate, understood that some of our Government people
were busy about changing things and that we ought to get
ourselves involved.
Normally, we would not like to get involved, but we did.
Today, perhaps, within an hour or so, we will end this issue
with a compromise, which will mean we will not have anyone
objecting, and everyone--whether they are so-called river
people
or environmental people or commerce interests--will all
agree that their Senators have done a yeoman's job.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING
OFFICER (Mr. JOHNSON)
The Chair recognizes
the Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. DORGAN
Mr. President, while I
understand the reason the amendment was put in the energy
and water bill, and understand the reason that there has
been discussion about a modification of it that the majority
leader says he will accept, nonetheless, let me say that I
would prefer that we not have this issue in this bill, that
the revision of the master manual on the management of the
Missouri River has been going on a long, long time--far too
long.
For 12 years the Corps of Engineers has been wrestling with
this issue of how to revise the master manual to manage the
Missouri River. For 12 years it has been ongoing. The root
of all of these amendments has been to try to continue to
stall.
Let me describe why this is an important issue from the
perspective of those of us who live in the upstream States.
We have a flood in the state of North Dakota--a flood that
came and stayed a manmade, permanent flood. It is the size
of the State of Rhode Island. It visited North Dakota in the
1950s.
Why did that happen? Because this Missouri River--this
wonderful 2,500 miles of wild and interesting river--was
causing a lot of problems for a lot of people in some
springs. On some occasions during the springtime, those
downstream reaches of the Missouri River would have an awful
flood. You could not play
softball in the parks of St. Louis in the spring because the
Missouri River had gone over its banks and caused
substantial flooding. It was true, for a substantial portion
of the Missouri River. And for flood control, and other
reasons, it was decided that there ought to be a plan to see
if they could harness, somehow, this river called the
Missouri River.
A man named Lewis Pick and a man named Glenn Sloan put
together a plan, as you might guess, called the Pick-Sloan
plan of the 1940s. As almost anyone who knows anything about
the river understands, the Pick-Sloan plan was a mechanism
by which they would harness the forces of the Missouri River
and create six main stem dams. One of those dams was in
North Dakota, at the time, the world's largest, earth-filled
dam. It
was dedicated by President Eisenhower. It flooded 500,000
acres of North Dakota land. It created a manmade, permanent
flood the size of Rhode Island in the middle of our State.
One might ask the question, Why would North Dakotans, in the
1950s, say: All right, you can do that. You can come to our
State and create a Rhode Island-sized flood? I will tell you
the answer to that. The answer to that was, the Pick-Sloan
plan was a plan that said: What we would like to do is
provide some benefits for everyone. Downstream, we provide
the benefits of flood control, the benefits of perhaps
achieving more stable navigation opportunities. Upstream,
you have the opportunity
to have a substantial shoreline for the recreation, fishing,
and tourism industries. And then, in addition, and more
importantly, what we will do for you upstream is to take
from this huge body of water the ability to move water
around your State,
something called Garrison Diversion. And by the way, you can
use that water to irrigate 1 million acres in your State.
So those were the costs and the benefits. Our cost? Our cost
was the one-half million acre flood that came and stayed
forever.
Now we have the cost. Take a plane and fly over it, and you
will find the cost. It is there. That big old body of water
is there. So we have a permanent flood. As a result of that
permanent flood, some of the folks downstream do not get
flooded in
the spring. And some of those wonderful cities downstream in
the springtime, late in the day, when the shafts of sunlight
come through the leaves or trees, they can gear up and play
a good softball game because there is no flooding. Good for
them. That
is their benefit. They have the benefits. We have the flood.
But we never got the rest of what was promised to us.
But in addition to all of that, the master manual by which
the river is managed was created in a way that said to the
Corps of Engineers, here are the things we want to do with
this river. And then the Corps of Engineers went about
managing to what
they thought was written in the master manual. And they have
always insisted, notwithstanding the fact that the
Government Accounting Office, and others, that have studied
this have said they are wrong, that the issues of recreation
and fishing and tourism--the industries that have spawned
upstream, the industries that have spawned in my State--are
somehow of lesser consequence to barge traffic and flood
control downstream.
So as a result of all of that, there has been discussion
about the need to revise the master manual. In 1989, we
began to have the Corps of Engineers work to revise the
master manual.
No one in America has ever accused the Corps of Engineers of
speeding, and I expect they never will. It is as slow and as
bureaucratic an organization as there is. But 12 years to
revise the master manual? Twelve years? I don't think so.
That is not
reasonable. Yet here we are today. We do not have a master
manual revision. And we have propositions that need to be
delayed further. There needs to be intervals that are
artificially created.
Let me say this about the states that are involved. We have
had a group called the Missouri River Basin
Association--eight States, all of which harbor the Missouri
River. All of these States are enriched by the presence of
the Missouri River.
These eight States together have tried to work on plans
about how one would manage the Missouri River and what kind
of a master manual plan one would develop.
Seven of the eight States have reached agreement. One has
not. Seven of the eight States have reached an agreement,
and one will not. Can anyone guess which State is outside of
the seven? The only State among the eight States that said,
no, we
will not agree? That is right, the state of Missouri.
Compromise is important. Compromise is an art. But it is not
just in this Senate Chamber. In the Missouri Basin
Association, there is not the ability to compromise on the
fundamental issue of how you rewrite the master manual with
respect to the Missouri River.
I have talked a little about the Rhode Island-sized flood
that came and stayed in my State. Let me talk for a moment
about this river.
Lewis and Clark went up that river. In the years 1804, 1805,
they took keelboats and went up that river. It is a
fascinating story. My colleague from South Dakota mentioned
just a bit of it, but the story is really quite remarkable.
Captain Lewis, Mr. Clark, and one of the world's great
expeditions--what a remarkable thing they did.
Thomas Jefferson actually, with an appropriation of $2,000
that was not disclosed, enlisted Captain Lewis to begin this
bold venture. He told them: When you get to St. Louis,
charge what you need for your venture and sign a requisition
to the
Federal Government, and we will pay for it. He purchased
keelboats. He purchased a whole series of things. In fact,
in St. Louis, he purchased 110 gallons of whiskey. Think of
what they would make of that today. Requ |
