Editorial: A Different Look At The Missouri River

Environmentalists are thrilled to death, no doubt, with the announcement in December that estimates of barge-hauled cargo for the Missouri River dropped to less than 200,000 tons for the first time since 1951. They will try to use that figure as ammunition to convince the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers that water-transportation considerations related to the Big Muddy should be eliminated from the operating plan.

The announcement begs another look at Missouri River flooding and drought. To say the least, there have been a lot of both over the decades.

Though the upper Missouri basin is mired in an elongated drought, we see no need for action to change the plan. Instead, we think the need (or lack of it) for water transportation and river conditions will guide the towing industry. It stands to reason that if there is to be no profit, there will be no towing.

It is true that Corps cargo predictions, as often perceived by the public, may not always be accurate. Sometimes making such predictions is about as risky as betting on the lottery. Nevertheless, forecasts do not always have to come true for a river project to become beneficial. For many years critics groused about the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway and said that the Corps erred grossly in traffic forecasting. Traffic did not reach expected goals. Yet, the benefits derived from the construction of the Tenn-Tom, especially as far as the region’s economy is concerned, probably shocked those same critics. Project planners in the region were not disappointed in the results. Plus, the Tenn-Tom turned into a world-class fishery.

To change the Missouri River operating plan in any manner that would take transportation out of the running officially would be a grand mistake. It would be a monumental error to rule that water releases to ensure navigation on the lower Missouri (even when reasonable) would no longer be authorized. The feds cannot, as far as we know, actually ban transportation on any river. So towing companies would continue during droughts to struggle for survival just as they do now. When the drought ends and water flows freely again, they will attempt to restore barge transportation. That’s free enterprise.

On the other hand, there is another governor of what will or will not be. None of us can say for sure what will develop in the way of water transportation needs in the future. Needs do not simply materialize overnight. When it comes to this kind of need, it is often the result of years of planning. Barge company A might inform a company located near the river that it can transport its products at a much cheaper rate. Or a manufacturer might decide to locate a plant near the river so that water transportation, and thus cheaper rates, will be available. Or, yet another possibility, a company in need of product may tell a supplier that it is willing to sign a contract if the company can negotiate for less costly barge transportation. The possibilities are endless. So, to say that the need for water transport on the Missouri is permanently out of the picture is not only foolish, it would doubtless be wrong. Look at the way container-on-barge movements are growing. They don’t just happen. It takes planning.

Those who have operated towboats on the Missouri have gone through pure hell over the years as far as the environment is concerned. It doesn’t matter to transportation opponents that fertilizer, for example, is vital to regions above Sioux City, Iowa, the head of navigation. Over the past eight or so years due to drought and interruptions in water releases due to environmental challenges, the cargo totals of the towing industry have declined. The less expensive movements of fertilizer by barge have dried up.

Not surprisingly—and we will not bore readers with a detailed rundown—the Missouri River has had a history of floods and droughts over the millennia. This drought will end.

Greenland, once green and named accordingly, is now ice covered; but the ice is melting and environmentalists are having conniptions. During one of its green periods, humans populated it. Over the millennia it has been intermittently green and ice-covered.

Left to nature, the Missouri will manipulate its own future. The main stem reservoirs, constructed with a good purpose in mind, may be the root of some problems, but to worry about the least tern and the piping plover to the degree that we might manipulate the river to suit their needs is ridiculous. Studies show that prior to the impoundments, these birds seldom nested there. They did nest there, however during severe droughts in 1804–05, 1810s, 1860s, 1930s and 1950s. According to one report, “In non-drought years, the Missouri River was not available for nesting until August, which explains why the birds that migrated in May chose other locations for nesting.” They are adaptable, perhaps more so than we are.

We believe there is simply no logical reason to manipulate the river flow for species, endangered or otherwise. Controlling the flow to accommodate the needs of human stakeholders is challenge enough, and it should be left to the Corps.

The Waterways Journal encourages letters to the editor.
Have something on your mind?
Send letters to: jshoulberg@waterwaysjournal.net.
(Please indicate whether or not your letter is intended for publication.)