The following article appeared in the February 14, 2005 issue of BITTS and BYTES,  a free weekly e-mail newsletter. It was written by Jack R. Simpson, owner of J.R. Simpson & Associates, Inc. and contributing editor to "The Waterways Journal". This editorial is being re-published with his permission.

I must admit that I am fairly well frustrated by obstructionists who are unable to hide their desire to halt Missouri River towing totally. Their criticism fairly bristles with vitriolic statements that reveal their lack of understanding regarding water transportation and our nation's need for a sound, reliable water transportation system. 

High on my list is the announced intention by environmentalists to improve the lot of interior least terns, piping plovers, pallid sturgeons, et al. And I wonder, if the population of these species were to be increased 10,000 fold, would that be enough to make them happy? I suspect they would just find another specie that is endangered and use that to achieve their end. To accomplish this end, according to them, the river has to be greatly changed-back to what they always refer to as pristine. Well, the Missouri has always been a mess. The difference is that back in the mid-1800s and beyond, the river was more of a meandering river. It flooded huge areas of land and no doubt provided much more area suitable for wildlife. But that was then and this is now. 

From the time of the great Indian wars, when steamboats dared the Missouri to take troops and supplies to Fort Benton, Mont., the river was wild and dangerous. Steamboats that drew only 12 inches or so of water could run the river almost any time of the year when there was no ice-not safely, but they could run it. Boats with deeper drafts were limited to deeper water. The late Joseph Mills Hanson, writing of the times, said, "The Missouri River habitually had two seasons of high water during the year; the first in April, occasioned by the melting snows and spring rains of the lower valley; the second in June, to which the breaking of winter in the Rock Mountains contributes, flooding the sources of the stream." He went on to say that if snow fall was light during the cold season, it prevented water from "attaining great height during either period." 

If is, of course, these two periods that are of considerable import during the ongoing Missouri River controversy. It is a nature thing, and during those days there wasn't one darn thing they could do about it, except tie up or run boats of shallower draft. 

The issue of reliable transportation was on the minds of steamboaters, shippers and consumers then just as it is now. A couple successful trips up the river could pay for an entire boat. Well, the flooding was one issue; it raised the issue of flood control. The importance of reliable transportation, the other major concern, ultimately became part and parcel to the package that gave the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers control over water management. 

We can't detail all of the floods and damage that resulted from rivers run wild, but two very severe floods (in 1927 and 1937) inundated land from Kansas City, Mo., to the Gulf, placing millions of acres under water. And so it was after the 1927 flood when the Corps and thousands of civilian relief workers were engaged in saving people, their personal belongings (including some livestock) from death and starvation (and drowning), President Franklin Delano Roosevelt began a fund raiser to collect some $16 million in money to help pay for the effort. The hat was passed at theaters all around the country, and, believe it or not, they raised the entire amount in short order. From this came a program to help people of Appalachia learn to plant gardens. Packages of seeds and instructions were distributed. It changed their way of life. 

So what to do about flood control? Can a country ignore the rampaging rivers and watch as billions in property is destroyed and people killed? 

The factor that environmentalists do not wish to consider is the growth of the world's population. While it may not have been smart at the time the "West was won," people in America did settle along the rivers. They built cities and farms there. If they had not, they might not have survived. If water transport had not been available to St. Louis and up the Missouri, it would have taken much longer to open up the West. But that is all history. Water is the staff of life. Today, the population is growing at a much faster pace. There came a time in the 1920s or so, as it relates to both flood control and reliable transportation, that the government decided to build dams on the Upper Mississippi. Then six huge main stem dams and reservoirs were built to allow control of Missouri River waters. It is the Corps task-certainly no easy one-to raise and lower reservoir levels, hopefully to make room for anticipated rainfalls, prevent flooding and to nurture transportation. Along the way it was decided to provide a better and deeper channel for transportation. 

Did it mess up some of the areas utilized by wildlife? Certainly it did! Did harvesting forests across America mess up wildlife habitat? Certainly it did! There was a time when the gigantic bison herds that roamed the valleys and plains of what is now Montana (then Dakota) provided life support for the Indians. Then, because of the great Indian wars and the expansions of the railroads, the white man intentionally decimated the bison herds to help starve out the Indians. Was it wrong to decimate those herds? Certainly. 

Is there anyone who thinks we need to revert back to where the bison herd numbers in the millions? How does one restore an entire river system? Or perhaps the word isn't restore. The only restoration environmentalists want is (at least that is their pronounced intention) to restore habitat for birds and fish. So if we do, what then? Years ago, it would have made sense not to give all the bottom land to the farmers, who built levees so they could grow and harvest on the fertile soil. Billions of dollars have been paid to people who eventually sold land that was almost free to them for fortunes. Yet today, price supports fill the pockets of many whose crops can't be sold at the expected price levels. Farmers are paid not to grow certain crops. During the fifties and sixties, main street lawyers and other well-heeled people bought out farms, put the land in the soil bank and sat collecting money for not growing crops. Money is the key. In the eighties everyone with a piggy bank and a coin in it bought barges, and soon the industry was in deep trouble. Remember the Biblical statement: "The love of money is the root of all evil"? Many of our great problems are caused by greed. 

I expect that I have let myself in for a lot of criticism for the way I feel. But let's get back to the Missouri River. Let's get back to the fact that cargo stats are down right now. So what? The population is growing. Transportation needs are increasing. In a few short years (by 2015 or 2020, they say) we will not be able to provide the transportation we need. If by then we have squandered the river by turning it into a wildlife refuge from Sioux City, Iowa (head of present day navigation) to the mouth on the Mississippi, what great benefit will have befallen us? What great benefit will come our way that is so great that it will make up for the loss of benefits that also will result? It is not survival of the towing industry that we should look at. It is the survival of the nation! To survive, the nation needs transportation. There is no land for railroads to expand. There is no way for railroads and trucking firms to expand their services other than to keep adding trains and trucks to already saturated rail lines and highway. 

Environmentally friendly water transportation is the answer to the nation's growing transportation needs. It will not stop the railroads and trucking lines from expanding, but it will slow down their growth. It will keep pollution-belching trucks off the highways to the tune of 870 trucks per 15-barge tow. It will increase safety. It will save natural resources. For figures on truck vs. towboat pollution, see figures distributed annually by the Maritime Administration. 

One needs only to look at the towing industry to see that mergers keep taking place, money shifts hands, some companies go out of business while others expand. But what we do not see is any great, friendly marriage and loyalty between companies and the rivermen who serve them. We do not hear, not often at least, from captains and other crew members who are so proud of the jobs they do, pushing products to the sea for export. Now, the picture is more one of contentiousness. And now, we are being challenged by South America, which wants to take over our export markets. 

The industry will survive. But even bigger than the Missouri River controversy is the unwillingness of the federal government to modernize and maintain the inland waterways, the abandoned transportation infrastructure that can be a godsend to our nation. That is the current problem with which we must deal. Our future depends on it. To allow the Upper Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway to remain in such sad shape is almost criminal. We are busy spending to the tune of $300 billion in the Iraq campaign. Just $6 billion or $7 billion annually would do wonders for our waterways. And if the environmentalists really are sincere about doing what is best for the environment and the people of this country, they would pour some of their millions into a campaign urging the government to get its priorities straight. They should be helping to keep air and water clean. 

We are never going to return to the past-although sometimes we wonder-but we must plan for the future. Shortsightedness can be fatal. Presently we are beginning to spend huge sums of money to do exactly as the environmentalists wish, without examining where it will lead us. But you can't get a buck to fix a river very easily. There's too little support.