[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 12]
[Senate]
[Page 16747]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



         IT IS TIME TO UPDATE THE MISSOURI RIVER MASTER MANUAL

  Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, I am pleased to take this opportunity to 
join my colleagues to discuss the issue of how the Missouri River 
should be managed by the Corps of Engineers and to address the remarks 
made earlier this week by my friends and colleagues from Missouri, 
Senators Bond and Ashcroft. This issue has come before the Senate 
because some of my colleagues from states downstream on the Missouri 
River are attempting to politicize the management of the River.
  They are trying to politicize this issue by adding a rider to the 
Energy and Water Appropriations bill to prevent the Corps of Engineers 
from changing the 40 year old Master Manual that sets the management 
policy of the River.
  Let me assure you and the rest of my colleagues that after 40 years, 
the management of the Missouri River is in serious need of an update to 
reflect the current realities of the River. As the discussion--and 
sometimes, heated debate--continues with respect to the Missouri River 
and its various uses, the Army Corps of Engineers has proposed a 
revision of the Master Manual which governs how the River is managed.
  I was among those who first called for a revision of the Master 
Manual because I firmly believed then, as I do now, that over the 
years, we in the Upper Basin states have lived with an unfortunate lack 
of parity under the current management practices on the Missouri River. 
It is no secret that we continue to suffer from an upstream vs. 
downstream conflict of interest on Missouri River uses. For example, 
traditionally, navigation has been emphasized on the Missouri River, to 
the detriment of river ecosystems and recreational uses. I recognize 
that navigation activities often support midwestern agriculture, 
however the navigation industry has been declining since it peaked in 
the late 1970's. It is no longer appropriate to grossly favor 
navigation above other uses of the river.
  Those of us from the upstream states have been working for more than 
10 years to get the Corps of Engineers to finally make changes in the 
40 year old Master Manual for the Missouri River.
  After more than 40 years, the time has come for the management of the 
Missouri River to reflect the current economic realities of a $90 
million annual recreation impact upstream, versus a $7 million annual 
navigation impact downstream. The Corps has been managing the Missouri 
River for navigation for far too long and it is time to finally bring 
the Master Manual into line with current economic realities.
  As I stated earlier, the process to review and update the Master 
Manual began more than 10 years ago, in 1989, in response to concerns 
regarding the operation of the main stem dams, mainly during drought 
periods. A draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) was published in 
September 1994 and was followed by a public comment period. In response 
to numerous comments, the Corps agreed to prepare a Revised DEIS.
  After years of revisions and updates that have dragged this process 
out to ridiculous lengths, the Corps finally came forward with 
alternatives to the current Master Manual, including the ``split 
season'' alternative, which I strongly support, along with my 
colleagues from the Upper Basin states. Those of us from the States in 
the Upper Basin are determined to work aggressively for the interests 
of our region. For decades our states have made many significantly 
sacrifices which have benefited people living further south along the 
Missouri River.
  Now is the time to finally bring an outdated and unfair management 
plan for the Missouri River up to date with modern economic realities.

                          ____________________