[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 49 (Thursday, March 16, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4004-S4005]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                      MISSOURI RIVER MASTER MANUAL

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, last week, Senator Baucus introduced the 
Missouri River Water Control Equity Act. I have cosponsored that bill 
because all the analysis of the current master manual guidelines for 
managing the dams along the Missouri River that I have seen confirms 
that change in the corp's management of the river is long overdue.
  The assumptions about economic uses that drive the management of the 
river have not been seriously reexamined or revised in 50 years. In 
those 50 years, times and conditions have changed dramatically. But the 
management of the river has not kept pace.
  In 1992, the General Accounting Office noted that the master manual 
for operating the dams is outdated. GAO concluded that the corps has 
been managing the river based on ``assumptions about the amount of 
water needed for navigation and irrigation made in 1944 that are no 
longer valid.''
  According to GAO, ``the plan does not reflect the current economic 
conditions in the Missouri River Basin.''
  The Corps of Engineers, caught between the competing self-interest of 
the upstream and downstream States, has recommended only modest 
revisions in the master manual. In May 1994, the corps selected a 
``preferred alternative,'' which calls for shortening the navigation 
season by 1 month and a higher spring flow rate.
  Given the conditions that now exist along the Missouri River, these 
changes are clearly insufficient to equitably distribute the economic 
benefits of the river. For example, shortening the navigation season by 
only 1 month means that the concerns of the 
[[Page S4005]] navigation industry--which accounts for less than 1\1/2\ 
percent of the economic benefits of the river--will continue to drive 
management of the river for the foreseeable future.
  A recent review of the master manual revision by the Environmental 
Protection Agency found that more emphasis should be placed on 
recreation and less on navigation. EPA concluded that, ``The preferred 
alternative identified in the draft environmental impact statement is 
likely to result in little, if any, improvement to the Missouri River 
ecosystem.''
  Navigation is a declining $15 million industry. Recreation in the 
upstream States is a growing industry worth more than $50 million 
today. Continuing to give clear precedence to navigation cannot be 
justified.
  And while I am intrigued by the corps' proposal to increase the 
spring rise to more closely mimic natural flow conditions, I am 
concerned about possible impacts on bank erosion. The Missouri River 
has for years been plagued by bank erosion and siltation, which slowly 
but inexorably takes productive land from the shores and deposits it in 
the river, smothering fisheries and reducing
 the hydroelectric generating potential of the dams. It is critical 
that the corps develops and implements a systematic plan to reduce 
erosion along the river.

  Under current management conditions, the four upstream States, 
Montana, Wyoming, South Dakota, and North Dakota--States that 
sacrificed prime river bottom land for the construction of dams--
receive 32 percent of the benefits from the river. The four downstream 
States receive 68 percent of the economic benefits. To illustrate how 
minor are the corps' proposed changes to the master manual, under the 
referred alternative, downstream States continue to receive 68 percent 
of the economic benefits.
  Times have changed. Management must change with them. In the business 
world, management that fails to adjust to changing conditions does not 
survive. The corps should strive to better reconcile the management of 
the river with the economic conditions that exist today.
  Given the results of the GAO report, the corps' own evaluation, and 
the EPA review of that analysis, the proposed revisions in the master 
manual should have gone much farther. Greater consideration should have 
been given to increasing the permanent pool from its current level of 
18 million acre-feet. It is clear that there are significantly greater 
recreation and wildlife habitat benefits at higher permanent pool 
levels. Given the immense and growing economic value of recreation in 
the upstream States, the management priorities for the river need to 
change.
  I intend to do everything possible to encourage the corps to 
recognize the changes and trends in the use of the river and to develop 
more defensible management guidelines. The bill introduced last week is 
a first step. It focused a beam of light on this process and reveals 
the long-overdue changes that should be made.
  This process will be long and arduous. To succeed in achieving 
meaningful change, a great deal more education and discussion will be 
required. I hope that my colleagues will approach this issue with an 
open mind and allow their judgment to be guided by objective analysis 
of the conditions today, rather than by memories of what they were 50 
years ago.
  In the end, management policy for the river should be driven by facts 
and reason and a desire for equity. I am confident that if those are 
the criteria employed, more serious and defensible change will 
certainly result.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  I note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask that I may speak as in morning 
business for such time as I may consume.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.

                          ____________________