These are notes from the Army Corps of Engineers hearing on the 
management of the Missouri River in Council Bluffs on Tuesday.  Here’s some 
background for those of you who have been involved in other issues.

The US Fish and Wildlife Service has suggested that the Corps of Engineers 
provide a spring rise and summer decline in river levels on the Missouri in 
order to benefit the ecosystem which has degraded to the point that three 
species are listed on the threatened and endangered lists - the Piping 
Plover, the Least Tern, and a large, slow growing fish, the Pallid 
Sturgeon.  The only Pallid Sturgeon that are being found in the river are 
older, which indicates that they have stopped spawning.  The spring rise 
would flood adjacent lands, and also provide a temperature change in the 
water which they believe will trigger spawning and provide the habitat the 
fish will need in order to grow to maturity.

The hearing began with a video that gave basic information about the 
Missouri, it’s past management and  the impacts of the various options 
being considered.

The Missouri River is the second longest river in the nation.  In the 1850s 
it was used for drinking water.  Because the population was small flooding 
was not a problem.  As the population grew flooding became a problem and 
after the dustbowl and the depression that accompanied it, the first dam 
was installed in 1933.  An economic revival of the area followed and five 
more dams were installed in 1944.  The last dam became operational in 1967.

The management plans were designed for flood control and to mitigate 
drought.  In April the water was released and in March reservoirs were 
empty and ready for the spring flows.  The flows were adjusted for 
hydropower, water supply, habitat, and recreation.  In 1994 a new 
alternative for managing the river was proposed by the US Fish and Wildlife 
Service and the discussion of change began.  This hearing was the last in 
the series.

The option we were authorized to support was GP 2021, the one that reflects 
the greatest change of all the options that were suggested by the US Fish 
and Wildlife Service.  This option would provide the best habitat for the 
Piping Plover and Least Tern.

Besides providing better habitat for the ecosystem, this option would also 
provide the greatest area for the potential spawning of the sturgeon, 
although it was stated that there was no data to support the benefit to the 
pallid sturgeon. The Corps estimates that GP2010 would provide increased 
benefits for hydropower generation.  It would also impact water 
supply,  navigation, groundwater levels, interior drainage, flood control , 
allow for the potential erosion of historic sites, and change the kinds of 
recreational opportunities available on the river.

It was stated that the Corps of Engineers is a project proponent.  That 
sounds on paper like they are a proponent of change, but that was not my 
impression having talked to corps personnel or as I sat there 
listening.  They want to know if their information is inaccurate or 
incomplete. Comments can continue to be made until February 28th at 
[log in to unmask]

It was apparent in the comments expressed by the opposition, that it will 
be very difficult for any change to be implemented.  Zoning has not taken 
the value of floodplain to a community into account, and in the absence of 
capable leadership in this area, communities have continued to expand in 
ways that jeopardize their very survival when there are both low and high 
flows on the river.
The Corps called on legislators and officials first.  The mayors of Council 
Bluffs and Omaha were both concerned about water supply.  Earlier I had 
talked to a water supply man, who told me the water can move across the 
channel away from their intake pipes during low flows.  The mayors were 
also concerned about basement flooding, damage to their economic 
development projects along the river and to riverboats. Both cities have 
new power plants that need river water to cool  them (possibly coal burning 
plants?).  Marinas could dry up and there are concerns as well about the 
aesthetic appearance of the river in the months of lower flow.

Two other mayors sent representatives opposing change as did Hubert Houser 
of Carson, Iowa of the Iowa Senate and  representatives of Boards of 
Supervisors of Freemont, Harrison, Mills, and Pottawatamie Counties in Iowa.

Patty Judge of the Iowa Department spoke, as an elected official opposing 
change. The official Iowa comments were to be filed later.

Drainage Districts also opposed change in the flow.  These included Burt 
County Drainage District in Nebraska and the Iowa Drainage Ditch Association.

The representative of the Iowa Corn Growers Association questioned whether 
the species were endangered and suggested that they stock the Pallid 
Sturgeon in the river like they do the Walleye. He said the National 
Academy of Sciences had called for a moratorium on changes in the flow 
until it was better understood.

Changes were also opposed by the Nebraska Chapter of the Associated 
Contractors of America, the River-Craft Union, the gambling giant Harrah’s, 
and the Coalition to Protect the Mo River, a group of agricultural, 
navigational, industrial and business interests.  Their speaker said the 
flow change will flood bird habitat during mating season.

In opposing changes the Nebraska Farm Bureau representative quoted an email 
he had received that morning from a farmer who was crying as he typed out 
his email.  It showed a picture of a whole family living in constant dread 
of flooding.

  Lynn Munch, Vice President of an association  representing barge 
operators, said that federal law has been broken.  The recommendations are 
fuzzy and she questioned whether scientific facts or political beliefs were 
being proposed.  She said the Pallid Sturgeon can’t breed because they 
can’t find each other.

These changes would increase the cost of barge transportation and eliminate 
barge traffic on the Missouri River. She said the change in flows would 
have negative impacts on the Gulf of Mexico.
Negative impacts on gulf with change in flows

The most entertaining speaker of the evening was Bill Beacom, a barge 
captain.  He said the pallid sturgeon goes up into the chutes to spawn and 
that the piping plover never successfully used the Missouri River until the 
dams were installed.  He said the spring rise will be a disaster and 
questioned whether the natural hydrograh would be natural, that the spring 
flows would carry no carbon, no peat, no sediment.  He compared this spring 
flow to a bowl of water being called beef stew.

The Missouri River Bank Stabilization Association also opposed 
changes.  Their representative told of a farmer who has lost an entire 
section of land on his farm since 1980.  He said, “We feel that if anyone 
puts that spring flow into effect they should go to jail.”  He talked about 
his concern that changes in flow would take down trees in  stretch that was 
pretty natural and leave nothing there but corn and soybeans. He doesn’t 
think that is responsible management and that provision should be made to 
protect the landowners along the rivers.

Paul Roady, Vice President of the Midwest Area River Coalition said the 
impact analysis is incomplete. He asked for depletion runs and his request 
was denied. He said he believes there are even greater impacts for 
stakeholders than has been documented.

David Burkholder of Consolidated Blenders Incorporated said his company 
wants to ship in June July and August, so the split season would not work 
for them. He thinks there are other ways to provide habitat on the Missouri 
River.

Another speaker said the changes would reduce power production when it is 
most valuable, that habitat would be lost along the shores of reservoirs 
and only 100 acres of tern and plover habitat would be created along the 
river. (Note: predation is a problem, which is why it is valuable to have 
habitat in the middle of a river where predators cannot disturb the birds 
when breeding.)

The manager of a marina talked about the debt his marina has incurred and 
said that annual maintenance alone would be prohibitive for him because of 
the sediment that would be created.

Several farmers were there to express their concerns. One said the high 
water would limit the growth of roots in the spring, and when water levels 
dropped in the summer the crops would dry out..  Concern was expressed 
about the possibility of rainfall coinciding with the release.  Another 
stated that this would raise water levels just when farmers are having 
drainage problems.  The use of chutes and backwaters could provide the 
needed habitat.  A representative of a family farm group said GP 2021 would 
destroy every farmer from Yankton to South Dakota. He said the endangered 
species probably are not endangered and that even one flood will make it 
hard for farmers to continue.  If the land is flooded in the spring it will 
continue to be wet.  This change would be experimenting with his income and 
taking away his paycheck.  One farmer mentioned the Sierra Club and said he 
is not threatening their livelihood but we are threatening his.

Steve Oltmans of the Papio River Natural Resources District in Missouri was 
the first supporter of change to speak.  He expressed support for MCP plans 
to improve habitat, urging them not to go further than 1528 because that 
would undermine power production, recreation, water for cooling and  power 
production. (Note: This option is the one that would most endanger 
historical sites by allowing erosion.)

A man speaking for a 150 mile area from The Platt to the Dixon County Line 
said that you have to have habitat before the changes would be beneficial 
to the targeted species.  He said that environmental and conservation 
interests should join hands and convince congress to put money in the 
Missouri River Conservation Act.  25% of the habitat could be restored in a 
reasonable time frame, and this could be accomplished by voluntary 
purchases.  After this has been done, the altered flows would be effectual 
and they would not have an impact on landowners.  Policies should be 
changed to restore the land and landowners should be 
compensated.  Compensation for landowners is not included in the current 
proposal.

Ion Worthman, the Conservation Chair of the Omaha, Nebraska Audubon Society 
was the first to speak in support of the “Flexible Flow” GP 2021.  This 
rather rude crowd gave her the worst treatment of the evening , groaning 
when she mentioned her affiliation and booing when she had finished. She 
expressed  concern that it was important to start with the higher flows and 
commended a 10 year plan as a step in the right direction.  She said the 
alternative will not give the corps the flexibility it needs to see that 
the project succeeds.  If this is delayed we could have another 12-14 years 
of debate.

Clyde Anderson of the Nebraska Chapter of the Sierra Club spoke in support 
of GP 2021, mentioning how those of us who use small boats welcome the 
lower flow.  He said the river is used quite a bit in the winter months and 
flows are lower then than what has been proposed for the summer months. He 
also mentioned that less than ½ of 1% of goods are shipped on the river.

Chad Smith of American Rivers spoke in favor of GP 2021.  He talked about 
the town of Bismark where paddle boats, power boats, and canoeists all 
enjoy the river.  He has seen more people on the river there than at Omaha 
or other locations on the river.  They have a marina there that adapts to 
the variable heights on the river.

Dave Sands of the Nebraska Audubon Society recommended the MRBA proposal

The National Wildlife Federation spokesperson from Nebraska said that we 
cannot rely solely on habitat restoration or flow change, the two have to 
go hand in hand.  He said it is important to think about the signal that is 
being sent.  If they refuse to make changes they are saying they don’t have 
to change the way they are doing things.  The biology becomes clearer every 
day.  If you fail to send a clear message that change is coming you will be 
sending the wrong message.  The river flows have to change and people need 
to start planning now.  The changes should start as soon as possible.  He 
is not asking them to return to 1804, just to do the bare minimum to keep 
these species from falling into extinction.

Susan Heathcote of the Iowa Environmental Council expressed her hope that 
there would be ways to compensate those who would bear the cost of this 
change.  She emphasized that the IEC does not want to cause harm to others, 
but that the entire ecosystem has been impacted.  She is concerned that 
what we do be science based.  Restoring the natural flow in the Missouri is 
key.  She hopes they would continue to review the results of the changes as 
the plan is implemented.

I gave comments on behalf of the Iowa Chapter of the Sierra Club in support 
of GP 2021.

Peggy Murdock

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
For SC email list T-and-C, send: GET TERMS-AND-CONDITIONS.CURRENT
to [log in to unmask]