[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 117 (Friday, August 2, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9469-S9471]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      MISSOURI WATER RAID OF 1996

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, in the past 2 years, the House of 
Representatives has made some good decisions, but I must say they have 
also made some rather questionable ones that is, from the two 
Government shutdowns not too long ago to the attempted cuts in school 
lunches, Medicare, and college loans. I think it has left a lot of us 
not only in the Senate but across the country shaking our heads. But 
the great water raid they pulled off under

[[Page S9470]]

Speaker Gingrich's leadership last Tuesday may be the worst decision 
yet.
  Let me sum up the water raid very simply. The House, operating under 
a procedure that allowed no vote in the Chamber, passed a water 
resources development bill that takes 30 days' worth of water out of 
Montana, out of Wyoming and the Dakotas and sends it downstream.
  This was done to give bargeowners downstream 1 month's worth of extra 
navigation, bypassing the Army Corps of Engineers, putting scientific 
and environmental analysis in the trash basket, and ignoring basic 
economics.
  For many years--in fact, ever since Fort Peck Dam went up 60 years 
ago--the Army Corps of Engineers has discriminated in favor of 
downstream navigation and against the far more economically valuable 
recreation and tourism industry upstream. They have done it by draining 
water out of the Upper Basin States, leaving farmers and dockowners 
high and dry.
  Only in the last 3 years has the Army Corps of Engineers finally 
begun to make decisions on sound science and good economics rather than 
special interest pleading. They have limited the navigation season and 
allowed higher pool levels in our upper reservoirs, and that is good. I 
hasten to say that the system is still grossly biased against our part 
of the country. I think the corps need to do better, but we have made 
some progress.
  That was up until last Tuesday, when the House decided to take an 
extreme step backward and steal 1 month's worth of water from us. That 
is the water we drink. It is the water farmers use to grow their crops. 
It is the water ranchers need for their stock. It is the water 
families, tourists, and sportsmen use for fishing, swimming, and 
rafting. It is our water. And the House has used a rigged procedure--
what my colleague, Pat Williams, called a midnight slam dunk--to take 
it away.
  This great water raid, I might hasten to add, is not a done deal--far 
from it. The Senate, acting with considerably more fairness, much more 
clear thinking, did nothing of the kind. In the overall bill that is 
now headed to the conference committee, we will iron out the 
differences between the good bill we passed here--and to use a 
charitable term--flawed bill passed in the House.
  There is a good chance that the conference committee will strip out 
this water raid provision. As ranking member of the Environment and 
Public Works Committee and a member of the conference, I will do all I 
can to assure that we take it out. And I, certainly, will strenuously 
oppose any conference agreement that contains the water raid.
  But I must tell my colleagues that if worse comes to worst, I want to 
put all of them on notice that there could well be a full discussion of 
all the ramifications of the Missouri River issue. It is very 
complicated. It requires a lot of background and a lot of study.
  So to prepare the Senate fully, I may read aloud the entire Army 
Corps' ``Master Water Control Manual.'' This was published in July 
1994, and it gives the corps present view of the optimal way to manage 
the Missouri River.
  This manual, even in its present form, is inadequate and unfair to 
the Upper Basin States--that is, Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, and 
South Dakota. But it is a crucial document if one hopes to first 
understand the genesis and present state of the Missouri River debate 
and, second, to grasp what management changes we need. That is why I 
will most likely read the entire manual to the Senate.
  Now, for the curious who may be listening in on this little 
discussion, I must say that the manual comes in nine parts. I will just 
read off the entire front cover to let Senators know what the manual 
contains and to give them a little preview.
  Volume 1: ``Alternatives Evaluation Report.''
  Volume 2: ``Reservoir Regulation Studies: Long-Range Study Manual.''
  Volume 3A: ``Low-Flow Studies: Gavins Point Dam to St. Louis, 
Missouri.''
  Volume 3B: ``Low-Flow Studies: Gavins Point Dam to St. Louis, 
Missouri,'' including Appendix A on ``Ice Impacts'' and Appendix B on 
``Water Quality Impacts.''
  Volume 4: ``Hydraulic Studies: Upstream from Gavins Point Dam.''
  Volume 5: ``Aggradation, Degradation and Water Quality Conditions.''
  Volume 6A: ``Economic Studies: Navigation Economics.''
  Volume 6B: ``Economic Studies: Water Supply Economics.''
  Volume 6C: ``Economic Studies: Recreation Economics.''
  Volume 6D: ``Economic Studies: Hydropower Economics, Flood Control 
Economics, and Mississippi River Economics.''
  Volume 6E: ``Economic Studies: Regional Economics.''
  Volume 7A: ``Environmental Studies: Reservoir Fisheries,'' including 
the main report along with Appendix A, ``Description of Resource,'' and 
Appendix B, ``Reservoir Fish, Reproduction Impact Methodology.''
  Volume 7B: ``Environmental Studies: Reservoir Fisheries,'' including 
Appendix C, ``Coldwater Habitat Model.''
  Volume 7C: ``Environmental Studies: Riverine Fisheries,'' including 
the main report, and Appendix A, ``Description of Resource.''
  Volume 7D: ``Environmental Studies: Riverine Fisheries,'' including 
Appendix B, ``Physical Habitat Analysis Upstream of Sioux City,'' and 
Appendix C, ``Physical Habitat Analysis Downstream of Sioux City.''
  Volume 7E: ``Environmental Studies: Riverine Fisheries,'' Appendix D, 
``Assessing Temperature Effects on Habitat.''
  Volume 7F: ``Environmental Studies: Wetland and Riparian,'' including 
the main report along with Appendix A, ``Field and Mapping Methods,'' 
and Appendix B, ``Plant and Wildlife Species List.''
  Volume 7G: ``Environmental Studies: Wetland and Riparian,'' including 
Appendix C, ``Fate of Wetland/Riparian Types,'' Appendix D, 
``Diversity,'' Appendix E, ``Backwater Analysis,'' and Appendix F, 
``Value Function Testing.''
  Volume 7H: ``Environmental Studies: Least Tern and Piping Plover, 
Historic Properties, and Mississippi River Environment.''
  Volume 8: ``Economic Impacts Model and Environmental Impacts Model.''
  And Volume 9: ``Socioeconomic Studies.''
  I know my colleagues must be wondering. They must be wondering, 
``That is an awful lot of volumes. If the water raid boils down to 
navigation and taking water from recreation uses, why doesn't the 
Senator from Montana just read Volume 6A and 6C on recreation and 
navigation?''
  Well, I might say that is the reasonable question. But I believe the 
water raid issue is so important--it is such a basic, fundamental 
question of fairness and justice--that each Senator probably deserves 
the chance to hear the issue in its full context and have the benefits 
of the entire context of this issue.
  So I decided it probably would be more fair and probably more prudent 
to read the entire manual than it would be, in essence, to cheat 
Senators by skipping straight to Volumes 6A and 6C and calling it a 
day.
  I might say I have with me just two of the volumes, 6A and 6C. These 
are the ones that go straight to the heart of matter. They are just two 
of the total of nine volumes. As I said, I do not want to be unfair to 
my colleagues. So I feel that they should have the benefit of the 
entire reading of the entire list of all of the volumes.
  Altogether, the manual runs to 21 bound volumes. If we add all of 
appendices, it comes down to 21, several thousand pages. And having 
finished the manual, I will then move on to the point of discussing the 
errors that I believe are contained in the master manual.
  I might tell Senators that this probably would take some time. But 
the conference will be done in September. And if it contains the water 
raid clause, I will have no alternative. I will be down here each and 
every day so they can have the benefit of the entire context of all the 
volumes so they can make a good decision on this issue. And I am pretty 
confident. I think I can get most of the standards in by September. I 
may need a couple of weeks in October to get Senators fully informed. 
But it is, I think, important that we have that.
  So I might say, Mr. President, in concluding, I thank my colleagues 
for allowing additional time. It is my fervent hope and strong 
intention that the water raid provision will be out before the 
conference ends, so that it will be in the Senate here and not taking

[[Page S9471]]

all of this time to learn the full issue, the ins and outs of it all. I 
do not look forward to reading it in its entirety, but I am taking this 
step, Mr. President, because it is very simple. This provision was put 
in totally unfairly, it is totally wrong, and in a procedure that is 
totally out of the question.
  I might remind Senators that water is our lifeblood in Montana. It 
does not rain very much west of the 100th meridian. We very much want 
to stand up for what we think is right. I want Senators to know this 
issue may come up. I thank my colleagues.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 20 
minutes as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the Senator speaking for 
20 minutes? Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________