[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 100 (Thursday, July 27, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7782-S7784]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
MISSOURI RIVER DAMS
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, this week my friend and colleague,
Senator Bond, came to the floor to explain why he is seeking to stop
much needed changes in the operation of the dams on the Missouri River
which is so important to the culture and economy not only in my State
but so many others.
For the past 10 years, the Army Corps of Engineers has been working
to update the decades-old management policies for the Missouri River.
That effort, conducted by scientists and professional river managers,
is approaching fruition. This year the Fish and Wildlife Service has
told the Corps that changes need to take place to restore this
magnificent river to biological health and so that we may prevent the
extinction of three endangered species. By doing so, we will not only
bring environmental benefits to the river but also enhance the
recreational use of the river, both upstream and, I might emphasize,
downstream. Bringing about these needed management changes will mean
the environment, public relations, and health of the river will all be
winners.
But now my colleague from Missouri has inserted a rider, an anti-
environmental measure, in the energy and water bill that would stop the
Corps from changing the management of the river. I understand why my
colleague from Missouri has done this. He is trying to protect the
interests of the State. However, in the process, he would sacrifice a
much larger upstream fish, wildlife, and recreation industry. I simply
cannot let that go uncontested. Hence, we have been embroiled for now
several days in a disagreement that I had hoped could be resolved.
Six major dams have been constructed on the Missouri River which have
forever changed its flow and character.
[[Page S7783]]
Since the last earthen dam was built in the early 1960's, we have
witnessed the decline of fish and wildlife along the river.
This has resulted largely from the management policies that were
developed in 1960 for operating the dams, and which favor the tiny $7
million downstream barge industry. These policies are established in
what is known as the Missouri River Master Water Control Manual, often
called the ``Master Manual.''
It has been four decades since the Master Manual was significantly
updated.
Therein lies the problem. The existing Master Manual, which is
grounded in principles relevant to conditions in the 1960's, favors the
barge industry, which prefers constant, level flows throughout the
spring, summer, and fall.
But times and conditions have changed over 40 years. That is why the
Master Manual is being revised.
Over the years, outdated management policies have caused fish species
to decline, as the natural high spring flows that signal fish species
to spawn have disappeared. They have led to the endangerment of bird
species that rely on exposed sandbars to nest in the summertime. The
corps often submerges those critical sandbars in its effort to provide
sufficient flows for the barges.
That is why both the Missouri River Natural Resources Committee and
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service agree that the Master Manual must be
revised to manage the flow of the river in a much more natural way.
High spring flows, known as the ``spring rise'' need to be restored.
At the same time, the summer flows must be reduced to allow the
endangered terns and plovers to nest. This is known as the ``split
season.''
In combination with the spring rise, the split season and the spring
rise will help to restore the health of the river and recover these
endangered species.
In addition to the serious environmental problems and cause by the
current Master Manual, current management policies also harm public
recreation. In times of drought, Missouri River reservoirs of the
Dakotas and Montana drop as low that boat ramps are left high and dry,
and a $90 million per year recreation industry is sacrified for a $67
million per year barge industry.
The split season and spring rise will ensure that more water remains
in the reservoirs in the summer, providing greater recreational
opportunities for the public.
This Master Manual revision process has been underway since 1990,
following a 1989 lawsuit the corps of the State of South Dakota. Again
that has been a science-driver process, not a political one.
No one who has followed this issue will be surprised by the
recommendation of the Fish and Wildlife service, or can argue this is
issue has not been studied evaluated thoroughly. Once the consultation
between the corps and the Fish and Wildlife Service is completed this
year, the Corps will produce a revised draft environmental impact
statement (EIS) and provide the public with 6 months to comment on it.
At the end of that stage, the corps will provide a final EIS. That
document will be reviewed by Corps staff in Washington, DC, a record of
decision will be issued, and the Master Manual will be revised.
That is the process set out of Federal law.
The question before the Senate on the Energy and Water Appropriations
bill is whether we are going to cut off that Master manual revision
process with this rider because some don't like the answers the process
is revealing. If we do so, we will allow the river to continue its slow
decline that inevitably will lead to the extinction of these and
perhaps other species.
Some have stated that this rider has been included in past
appropriations bills, and therefore we should continue to include it in
the FY2001 Energy and Water Appropriations bill.
But members should know that this rider was irrelevant in past years,
because the corps was not close to revising the Master Manual and
because the corps had not engaged in consultation with the Fish and
Wildlife Service to determine what management changes are necessary to
protect endangered species.
Since no changes to the Master Manual were planned in past years, the
effect of the rider was at most symbolic, reflecting the opposition of
some along the river to changing the status quo.
This year, for the first time, the debate over this rider has
meaning.
This year, the corps finally has reached the point in the process
where it is consulting with the Fish and Wildlife Service and is
learning officially that it must implement a spring rise and split
season to avoid driving these endangered species to extinction.
This year, the corps finally has a schedule to complete the process
of revising the manual in the foreseeable future.
Having learned without question that certain management changes need
to take place to restore the health of the river, Congress must decide
whether to override the requirements of the Endangered Species Act and
condemn the fish and wildlife of the river to a slow death, or to face
the truth and give the river new life.
The answer is clear. The Corps of Engineers and the Fish and Wildlife
Service should be allowed to continue to work together under the very
Federal laws and processes that Congress has enacted, so that the corps
can revise this outdated Master Manual and improve the management and
health of the Missouri River.
This is a job for the technical experts of those agencies to
complete, in compliance with established procedures, and including an
opportunity for substantial public comment and input. Congress should
not substitute its political judgment for this process and thereby
condemn this once-magnificent river to a slow death.
It is my hope that my colleagues will allow the established process
to move forward, let the public have its say, and take the steps that
we know are necessary to recover this once-impressive and biologically-
fertile river. This anti environmental rider must be removed.
Mr. President, I have now been given assurances by the White House
that the President will veto this bill if this rider is included. Given
that assurance and given the importance of protecting the integrity of
the established process for improving the management of the Missouri
River, I have agreed to allow this legislation to move forward, which
is why we had the vote this afternoon. I will continue to work with my
friend, the Senator from Missouri, and I will continue to appreciate
the assurances I have been given by the White House that they will veto
this legislation were it to come to their desk with the President's
knowledge that this legislation includes the rider. I will certainly
work to assure that we can sustain the veto when it comes back. That is
essential. It is important to not only South Dakota and North Dakota,
the upper regions of the Missouri River, but it is important to our
country.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter dated July 26,
2000, from the Governor of South Dakota, William Janklow, be printed in
the Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
State of South Dakota,
Pierre, SD, July 26, 2000.
Hon. Peter Domenici,
Hon. Harry Reid,
U.S. Senate, Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development,
Senate Committee on Appropriations, Washington, DC.
Dear Senators Domenici and Reid: It has come to my
attention that Missouri's Senators Bond and Ashcroft are
attempting to block needed changes in the operation of the
Missouri River. Senator Bond has attached a provision to H.R.
4733, the FY2001 Energy and Water Development Appropriations
Act. The intended effect of the provision is to prohibit any
funds being made available to be used to revise the Missouri
River Master Control Manual, if the revision is for the
purpose of providing for an increase in the springtime water
release programs during the spring heavy rainfall and snow
melt period in states that have rivers draining into the
Missouri River below the Gavins Point Dam.
This provision is an attempt to override the work of the
eight states that are members of the Missouri River Basin
Association (MRBA). After a long and arduous process, the
MRBA arrived at a consensus plan which seven of the eight
basin states could support. However, Missouri was the lone
state that did not sign on to the MRBA plan. They choose to
mount a political battle to protect their status quo related
to water flows.
Missouri and every other state must understand that no
state is an island.
[[Page S7784]]
Interestingly, while the Missouri River reservoirs brought
many benefits to the downstream states, navigation never
developed to its original expectations. And, while no one
even mentioned recreation as one of the benefits back in
1944, it exploded as an industry on the upper basin mainstem
reservoirs. In fact, the Corps of Engineers' 1998 Revised
Preliminary Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the
Missouri River Master Water Control Manual credits recreation
with $84.6 million in annual benefits while navigation
creates a mere $6.9 million in annual benefits.
As you can see, we are at a crossroads today. The Corps
continues to operate the reservoirs with an outdated Master
Control Manual. Some of the original purposes of the Pick-
Sloan Plan, like hydropower and flood control, are still
valid today. However, the manual does not adequately address
the conflict between navigation and recreation. Navigation
takes water to support a barge channel and during times of
dry years and water shortages the upper basin recreation
industry suffers terribly. To keep a full navigation channel
below Sioux City, Iowa, our reservoirs are drained and our
boat docks left high and dry. An $84.6 million industry that
offers recreational benefits to hundreds of thousands of
people is held hostage by the $6.9 million barge industry.
Getting to this point in the Master Manual revision has
been a long and arduous trail. Basin stakeholders have held
countless meetings, thousands of hours have gone into
evaluating the different options, and, in a spirit of
compromise, we have agreed to allow the process to work. Too
much effort has been spent to derail it now. To allow Senator
Bond's provision would sound a death knell to a difficult
consensus process, disregard sound biological and
hydrological science, and place the whole Master Manual
review process back into a political free-for-all pitting the
upper-basin-states against the lower basin states. I urge you
to remove Senator Bond's provision in your committee.
Sincerely,
William J. Janklow.
____________________