[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 8]
[House]
[Pages 11048-11049]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



CHANGES IN MANAGEMENT OF MISSOURI RIVER WILL LEAD TO FLOODING, ECONOMIC 
          DEVASTATION, AND UNSAFE ENVIRONMENT FOR COMMUNITIES

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Hulshof) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. HULSHOF. Mr. Speaker, as a Nation, we are fond of looking back 
over our country's relatively short history and commemorating 
noteworthy events. For instance, in a few short years, in 2004, our 
country will be celebrating the bicentennial anniversary of the Lewis 
and Clark expedition. Some will take that opportunity and look back 
with nostalgia and wistfully wish that we could turn the clock back and 
restore the great Missouri River to its natural condition of 200 years 
ago.
  Indeed, Mr. Speaker, some strong political activists, including the 
newly minted Senate majority leader, have been forcefully advocating 
for a change in the management of the Missouri River. These individuals 
or entities are pushing legislation insisting on manipulating higher 
water flows in the spring months, called a spring rise, and lower flows 
in the late summer. Now, environmentalists claim that such a controlled 
flood is necessary to accommodate two endangered and one threatened 
species.
  Those from the Upper Missouri River Basin, like the senior Senator 
from South Dakota, support this plan because it would help the 
multimillion dollar recreation industry. Members of this alliance have 
been reassuring Missourians all along that a controlled flood in the 
springtime will be no big deal, that somehow our concerns on the lower 
river basin are inconsequential or invalid.
  Well, Mr. Speaker, this arrogance is not just limited to interest 
groups outside of Washington. I contacted a high-level government 
official in mid-May regarding continued concerns about flooding, about 
economic devastation, and constituent safety. The reply I got from this 
government official: ``A spring rise will only result in some 
inconvenience.''
  Well, apparently in the minds of some, the habitat of two birds and 
one fish take precedence over the homes of 22,500 families who live 
alongside the Missouri River Basin.
  I want to tell my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, what has happened over the 
last 2\1/2\ weeks. On June 1, the Missouri River was at 13 feet, which 
is normal. Due to heavy rainfall up-river on June the 8, 7 days later, 
the river stage was at an astounding 29 feet. That is a 16 foot rise in 
elevation a week. Now, for those of us unfamiliar with river towns or 
river terminology, flood stage is when a channel is full and damage 
begins to occur. So in these short 7 days, the Missouri River went from 
normal levels to 8 feet above flood stage.
  Now, fortunately not a lot of damage occurred because there is 
adequate structural flood protection that is built to withstand flows 
under the current management plan. But I shudder to think what would 
have happened if the proposed controlled flood plan had been in effect, 
because once the decision is made on the up-river to release water from 
those up-river reservoirs, it cannot be stopped, and it takes 8 to 10 
days to finally get down to the point of the confluence at St. Louis. 
That man-made spring rise, coupled with the heavy rainfall we saw 
during this 7-day period provided by Mother Nature, would have been, in 
my estimation, economically devastating and potentially life-
threatening.
  While the up-river recreation industry would have been congratulating 
themselves, shaking hands and heading off to the bank, Missourians 
would have been consoling themselves, holding hands, stranded on top of 
their rooftops.
  To those who would have us return to the romantic times of 1804, let 
me say that Missouri scientists and biologists from our own State 
Department of Natural Resources believe that a spring rise in the flow 
of the Missouri River would not improve the habitat restoration of the 
pallid sturgeon, of the least tern, and the piping plover. In fact, 
according to the Army Corps of Engineers, the cost to accommodate these 
three species through changing the management of the Missouri River 
system would be $1 billion over 20 years. We are already helping 
species restoration through effective and less costly mitigation 
efforts.
  In addition, if low-summer flows, the second component of this plan 
were instituted, commercial navigation would be severely interrupted 
not only in the Missouri River, but on the lower Mississippi River 
region, and hydroelectric power generation would be lost.
  Mr. Speaker, the vast majority of Members of this House in Congress 
have agreed with Missourians on this

[[Page 11049]]

issue. In fact, they have been overwhelmingly with us over the past 5 
years. In fact, I see my friend from Iowa here and I applaud his 
efforts today in the House Agricultural Committee on Appropriations 
which included an amendment that would restrict funding for the Fish 
and Wildlife Service if such spring rise and split navigation zones 
were implemented.
  I want to tell all of my colleagues in this House, Mr. Speaker, how 
deeply that we Missourians appreciate the support, especially because 
of recent developments in the Senate, and that we may need their 
undaunted courage in the very near future.

                          ____________________