The Kansas City Star
www.kcstar.com

National debate expected to heat up over proposed changes for river

By MICHAEL MANSUR
August 22, 2000

The Democratic hopefuls for the White House may have just floated down the Mississippi, but national politics soon may focus on the Big Muddy, the Missouri.

In this season of political flurry, a national battle is shaping up over whether the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers must alter the Missouri River's flow to protect an endangered fish and two birds.

The latest development came Tuesday. Missouri Attorney General Jay Nixon filed a federal lawsuit against the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, saying the federal agency had failed to take a crucial step in saving the endangered species.

If the Fish and Wildlife Service had followed federal law, Nixon said, it might not be necessary to drastically alter the Missouri's current flow.

Fish and Wildlife recently told the Corps of Engineers that it must alter the Missouri's flow, allowing for bigger releases in spring and allowing shallower water in summer. The more natural flow would help restore the pallid sturgeon and two birds, the piping plover and interior least tern. But Missouri officials have fought this plan, saying it could increase flooding and harm the barge industry.

Nixon joined several other Missouri political leaders who have called for the Clinton administration to halt its effort to overturn the current operation of the Missouri.

Gov. Mel Carnahan, in a letter to President Clinton last week, asked that the service be directed to re-evaluate its push to alter the Missouri's flow.

Without any change, it would likely result in "an increase in the risk of flooding river communities and agricultural land will occur, and states along the river will suffer serious economic damage to their river-based transportation and agricultural industries," Carnahan wrote.

Sens. Kit Bond and John Ashcroft also have mounted a campaign to derail the Fish and Wildlife Service's effort. They wrote earlier this month to Vice President Al Gore, asking him to stop the plan.

Gore and running mate Joseph Lieberman used a float down the Mississippi this week to start their campaign for the White House.

The river battle pits downstream Missouri against most states upstream, which have long pushed for changes in the river's operation to fill reservoirs from Montana to South Dakota. Missouri politicians, however, have warned that giving up any water might lead to disastrous consequences, such as upstream states selling water in times of plenty instead of letting it flow to Missouri.

This battle may soon reach the Senate floor.

Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, of upstream South Dakota, in recent weeks has stalled Bond's effort to add legislative language that would preclude the corps from altering the Missouri's flow. A senate debate between the powerful senators could be coming after the Labor Day holiday.

Missouri politicians also say they have been left out of the evaluation of how the river should be operated. And they suspect the Fish and Wildlife Services' efforts are not based on proven scientific studies.

Nixon, in his lawsuit filed Tuesday, said the Fish and Wildlife Service had failed to conduct surveys of critical habitat on the Missouri, something the federal Endangered Species Act requires.

"Fish and Wildlife won't conduct the mandatory habitat survey to inform the public where these two species live and how to best save them," Nixon said. "At the same time, they are using these two species as a pretext to secretly put pressure on the corps to alter the flow of the river."

The Fish and Wildlife Service and environmental groups, however, have countered that the service's draft "Biological Opinion" is based on the best available scientific studies. The service sent the draft to the corps July 31.

The draft opinion's recommendations included restoring habitat for the fish and birds, especially shallow water areas and side channels; altering flows out of Fort Peck and Gavins Point dams, allowing for a rise in spring flow one year out of three and a reduced summer flow; adapting a new type of management that would allow for future alterations in the river's operation to benefit fish and wildlife.

A final biological opinion should be issued in September, wrote Ralph Morgenweck, the wildlife service's regional director, in a recent opinion piece sent to several Midwest newspapers.

The proposed changes, Morgenweck added, will not wreak floods and other problems on downstream Missouri users.

"Our recommended changes in river management will keep all the dams in place, help conserve fish and wildlife and allow farmers and river communities to continue to receive the benefits of flood protection, navigation and hydropower when the basin's citizens need them most," Morgenweck wrote.

The proposed flow changes probably would have little effect on the river's traditional uses, even on the barge industry that has said it cannot survive any change, said Chad Smith of American Rivers, a national river conservation group.

The Corps of Engineers data, assembled in its effort to develop a new operation plan for the Missouri, back up that position, Smith added.

Given such entrenched positions and the high stakes, it might not be surprising that the battle over the Missouri has attracted such national attention.

"This has elevated to a national issue," Smith said. "We're talking about the long-term health of the nation's longest and one of its most historically significant rivers. And we've got to decide whether to kill it or restore it."