[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 12]
[Senate]
[Pages 16707-16708]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[[Page 16707]]

                          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.
  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.

[[Page 16708]]

  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.
       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.

                          ____________________