Editorial: Big Muddy A Pandora's Box From One End To The Other

From the time that early steamboat owners were seeking government help to tame the wild Missouri River for safe navigation, to the time of the modern-day water wars, the river has been a hotbed of controversy—a Pandora's Box so to speak.

From our seat in the bleachers we mostly focus on water transportation and environmentalists, who insist the river no longer carries sufficient cargo to justify the present water management plan of the Corps of Engineers. Others, however, seated in a different section of the stadium, see things differently.

All of this is to say that even though the Corps released its water management plan in 2004, the scenario hasn't changed much. Various segments of riverbank society complain how they are suffering—or nature is suffering—at the hands of the Corps. This "bloody" river that once was (in their minds) so beautiful and pristine, really never was. Historical records show that thousands suffered when the Big Muddy and its tributaries ran wild. In some years, floods resulting from those wild rivers inundated lands clear to the Gulf.

No, the issues are not resolved. As this editorial is being written on February 1, the governors of Wyoming, Montana, North Dakota, Nebraska and Missouri are meeting in Sioux Falls, S.D., to discuss sharing the dwindling waters of the Missouri. As a Sioux Falls editorial writer pointed out, only the Corps has its hands on the spigot.

South Dakota Gov. Mike Rounds, in response to five years of drought, wants to hold more water in Lake Oahe and other upstream reservoirs this spring. He thinks the Corps' current plan would release too much water from the Dakotas and Montana this year. He proposes that the Corps delay the start of the navigation season from April to May this year.

The problems will not be easy to solve. Storage in the reservoirs of the Big Muddy ended 2004 at an all-time low of 35.2 million acre feet. According to the Corps, downstream barge traffic will be stopped if water levels in the six reservoirs drop below 31 million acre feet. The Corps says such a drop is feasible with another year of drought. So Gov. Rounds wants to lower water-release levels this year—which he thinks would help both the barge industry and the spawn of bait fish upstream—then increase the volume in 2006. That way he believes everyone benefits.

How bad is the drought? It was reported that while drought released its grip on most of the nation in 2004, it did not do so in Montana. The Billings (Mont.) Gazette reported that at its peak in 2002, drought covered 87 percent of the West. The National Climate Data Center said it was the second-most extensive drought in 105 years of record keeping.

In January 2004, reported the Gazette, two-thirds of the continental United States was in moderate to extreme drought. By the end of the year only 7 percent of the country was included as part of the drought area. Just 4 percent was listed in severe-to-extreme drought, including much of the Billings area. Today, south-central and central Montana remain in the extreme drought category, having moved from severe to extreme in January 2004. And where do we suppose the headwaters of the Missouri are?

Casual observers may believe that the problems of the Big Muddy should be easy to solve. And water users who are focusing on their own needs rather than the whole picture may believe the same. The Corps, which shoulders all the criticism (and few plaudits) for its decades of involvement, has a monumental challenge.

To us, it is navigation that gets our attention. Cities up and down the river are concerned about water intakes for municipal use, cooling for power plants, reservoir levels to accommodate fish spawn and shore-side businesses catering to anglers and other boating recreation. Farmers worry about irrigation. And then there is the never-ending issue of endangered species.

From the Corps' point of view, it must be like trying to solve the undecipherable trick questions put before beginning math students. Solutions do not come easily or cheaply; nor do we expect they come completely and lastingly. A new voice is always heard crying in the wilderness about how unsympathetic the Corps is to local problems. Yet, over the decades, flood control and water transportation have contributed billions to the country.

Among the latest Big Muddy challenges is the construction of sandbars to foster recovery of two bird species, interior least terns and piping plovers. (Those are the same species focused on by those trying to halt navigation on the river below Sioux City, Iowa.) A meeting was held in January at Bismarck, N.D., to discuss the Corps' plans to create more sandbars to accommodate the birds. Note: in the areas of Burleigh, Oliver, Morton, Mercer and McLean counties in North Dakota, the Corps plans to increase sandbar acreage from 12.5 acres per mile to 50 acres per mile.

This activity would produce a number of negatives for area residents. Among them would be limiting sandbar access, creating hazardous boating conditions, causing bank erosion and potential delta flooding, and jeopardizing municipal water intakes. Know what? They aren't even sure which sandbars the birds will decide to use. And they worry about how the project will impact other species that are part of the river. Making matters worse, North Dakota claims sovereignty over the river's sandbars.

We won't even get into matters involving endangered fish.

So if we think we have problems, consider the challenges faced by the Corps. From our point of view, the Corps, with more than 200 years of experience with rivers, has done an admirable job, despite the claims of naysayers.

How much easier the Corps' undertaking would be if satisfying environmentalists was not part of the equation!

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.)