[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 134 (Tuesday, October 24, 2000)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1890-E1891]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               THE MISSOURI RIVER RESTORATION ACT OF 2000

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. JOHN R. THUNE

                            of south dakota

                    in the house of representatives

                       Tuesday, October 24, 2000

  Mr. THUNE. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing a bill of great 
significance to the State of South Dakota as well as the entire Nation. 
The Missouri River Restoration Act of 2000 is an effort to provide 
solutions and action to a serious problem facing the Missouri River and 
all things near the river in South Dakota. That problem is the 
incredible build-up of sediment in the river and the effect that these 
accumulations have on water quality and all things that depend upon the 
river. Sedimentation and its effects are very real. According to 
studies conducted through the Corps of Engineers, tributaries of the 
Missouri River and erosion along its own shorelines result in millions 
of tons of sediment being dumped into the river each year. This action 
forms deltas in the riverbed that can push the boundaries of the river 
beyond its banks.
  The river's action is a reaction to a number of factors. It is 
responding to its relatively new course as directed by a series of dams 
built in the 1950s and 1960s. The construction of the various dams on 
the Missouri has created a series of reservoirs, which has modified the 
flows and continually changed the river from within, reshaping its 
banks and shores. Years ago, resulting sediment would have flowed down 
the river, some of it settling along the way and much of it making its 
way all the way to the Gulf of Mexico. With the dams and the modified 
flows, sedimentation problems surfaced. That is the case today, and the 
impact of these changes is becoming more dramatic by the day. Does that 
mean the Fort Peck, Garrison, Oahe, Big Bend, Ft. Randall, and Gavins 
Point Dams never should have been built? To suggest so would deny the 
many benefits these six structures have reaped. It is through these 
dams that clean, low-cost hydroelectric power is generated for rural 
and urban areas across the Northern Plains. The reservoirs created 
through the dams have also provided tremendous opportunities for 
recreation, which itself has turned into an $80 million industry; 
municipal, industrial and rural water supply; irrigation for 
agricultural production; navigation; and, of course, flood control.
  But the rapid accumulation of silt in the bed of the reservoirs in 
South Dakota threatens each of those functions. In fact, Congress 
already has responded in part to some of the immediate impacts. As a 
result of flooding caused by a combination of factors, including a rise 
in the pool levels, Congress authorized a flood mitigation program for 
property owners in the Pierre and Fort Pierre, South Dakota area. As a 
result, the property owners in Pierre and Fort Pierre can take some 
comfort in knowing a project is underway. Yet that project provides 
little comfort to other communities and landowners that wonder when the 
waters of the river will reach them. It also does not address the 
future impacts to the other purposes of the system, such as hydropower 
generation and recreation. In sum, that mitigation effort addresses an 
acute situation in what is a larger, chronic problem.
  I have maintained in my time in Congress that we must push the U.S. 
Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and all other involved parties to look 
beyond the immediate problems toward long-term solutions. In an attempt 
to break the cycle of studies, a provision was included at my request 
in the Water Resources Development Act of 1999. The new law directs the 
Corps to finalize studies and analysis of the problem of sedimentation 
in Lake Sharpe near Pierre and Fort Pierce and recommend how to stem 
the flow of sediment in order to prevent encroachment by the river and 
destruction of the river.
  The preliminary findings are quite compelling. The report indicates 
the following. Sediment will continue to build in the river in the 
Pierre/Ft. Pierre area if no action is taken. Sedimentation will result 
in increased water surface level of over 2 feet in the next 50 years, 
which could lead to additional groundwater flooding. No one approach 
will solve the problem and each approach appears to have significant, 
though not unreconcilable environmental hurdles. Action will require 
direction from Congress. In other words, the problem is real, there is 
no silver bullet answer, and Congress must decide how to proceed.
  I have said before it is time for us to move beyond the study phase 
to the action phase. And with the preliminary findings from this 
report, the time is ripe to move toward a solution. The legislation I 
am introducing today, the Missouri River Restoration Act of 2000 would 
move us down the path toward action. The bill would give state, tribal, 
and local leaders the power to play an active rule in the development 
of a long term solution to the sedimentation and related problems in 
South Dakota's stretch of the Missouri. The bill gives maximum control 
to the leaders closest to the people they serve; holds the Corps and 
other Federal agencies ultimately responsible for its river management 
decisions; provides the funds to make necessary improvements; and joins 
stakeholders together for the common good of the Missouri River's 
future.
  Specifically, the bill would create a governing board, known as the 
Trust. That board would be comprised of 14 members appointed by the 
Governor of South Dakota and nine members representing the American 
Indian tribes in South Dakota. From that board would be selected an 
Executive Committee that would consider more routine business of the 
Trust. The Trust and the Executive Committee would produce a plan to 
carry out projects directed at reducing sediment and at addressing the 
impacts of sedimentation. To fund these activities, the bill 
establishes a $300 million trust fund that would collect interest off 
investments made in interest-bearing obligations of the United States 
or U.S. guaranteed obligations. After 11 years, the interest earned off 
these investments then would be available to the Trust for projects 
included in the plan.
  Another important component of the bill continues current obligations 
of the Corps. In April of 2000, I held a town meeting in Pierre, SD, 
for the public to hear from the Corps some of their preliminary 
findings to the causes and impacts of sedimentation. At that meeting, 
residents questioned the Corps as to why it was not taking action to 
reduce sedimentation. The
  Finally, the bill authorizes $10 million to be appropriated for 
fiscal years 2001 through 2010. Should Congress agree with this need, 
then funds would be available for the Trust as the Trust Fund earns 
interest.
  To some here in Congress, this may seem like an ambitious proposal. 
And perhaps it is. But I can tell you that it is a goal that must be 
pursued. The Corps has clearly identified the cause and effects of 
sedimentation. The Corps also is shedding light on the costs associated 
with the clean-up effort. One solution, dredging, is estimated to cost 
nearly $20 million a year. That's just for the Pierre-Fort Pierre area. 
That figure does not include projects that must be undertaken in other 
parts of the system, such as in the Springfield or Yankton areas. The 
people who live, work, and recreate in those areas along the river and 
its tributaries will tell you this would be money well spent. The 
Missouri River is one of the most important features of South Dakota 
and of our

[[Page E1891]]

entire nation. But the river has been altered. Left unchecked it will 
continue to cause destructive erosion, flood lands, impede recreation, 
and affect water quality. The resource must be tended to in order for 
it to continue to be the lifeline it has been.
  The challenge is before us. In order to get there, we must all work 
together. The Missouri River Restoration Act of 2000 will facilitate 
the cooperation needed to tackle this problem. Together I am confident 
that we can make sure the Missouri River continues to be the Mighty Mo.

                          ____________________