t the present time, four states, two Indian tribes and, only recently American Rivers, are suing the U.S Army Corps of Engineers. Three of the states and American Rivers have filed lawsuits that will hurt or completely destroy navigation on the Missouri River. In 2002, lawsuits brought by South Dakota, North Dakota, Montana, together with the USF&WS, cost the navigation industry between $7 million and $8 million, depending on whose numbers you use. This means that the cost of doing business on the Missouri River in 2002 was raised by that amount.

Everyone realizes that if the annual cost of doing business remains the same as in 2002, there will be no navigation on the Missouri River. The question then becomes “WHY” did the navigation industry get hit so hard in 2002? The answer is easy; it is because they concluded [that] they couldn’t afford the cost of fighting their adversaries. That conclusion cost over $7 million. 

For the sake of conversation, what is 3 percent of $7,000,000? It is $210,000, a figure that this industry can afford. Litigation is always expensive unless your opponent doesn’t fight back.

Our adversaries have been riding around light boat long enough; lets see how they do pushing a tow. How do we do this? Who foots the bill? Everyone sits back and hopes their ox won’t get gored; but if the radical environmentalists succeed in shutting navigation down on the Missouri River, the barge lines, the shippers, the farmer, the power companies, municipal water, and many more will suffer. 

Now we arrive at the concept “cost of doing business.” Litigation costs on the Missouri River are a “cost of doing business.” The “cost of doing business” is passed on to the customer in this kind of situation, just like fuel costs are being passed on. This industry, by necessity, must use the court system to defend its interests; it can no longer say, “We can’t afford it.” If they do, it doesn’t just mean they will sit on the bench for a game or two. It means they will forfeit all games on the Missouri River in the foreseeable future to USF&WS and radical environmentalists.

Will that be the end of it, not by a “DAM SITE” (pun intended), the radical environmentalists will just move on to the next river. It isn’t a question of pay me now or pay me later; it’s pay me now, or there is no later.

Ed. note: Printed with permission of the author, Capt. Bill Beacom. This article is also published in the February issue of the Waterways Journal.