Editorial: Big Muddy Shrinking, As Humans Are Called To Account

The Big Muddy went into the drought stage before, and as history reveals, it pulled out of it. Times got gritty for water users, but eventually Mother Nature loosed her grip, and things returned to normal—that is if things can ever be normal on the Missouri River.

During the last seven years, drought has prevented water managers from doing their jobs well; at least that is the stated conclusion of Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer. According to Schweitzer, Missouri could pay for “poor water management decisions.” Continued drought will put a world of hurt on a lot of people.

Water wars of old drove angry men to gun racks. Some who were able hoarded water, while livestock downstream sometimes died. In the West, life centered on livestock. Men got hostile when their cattle were threatened.

Today’s water wars are just as serious. There are more uses for water, and there are more stakeholders. Just as in the past there are players who believe their needs are greater than the needs of others. We haven’t drawn six-shooters yet, but we have used the courts to discredit each other.

Schweitzer wrote in the March 14 St. Louis Post-Dispatch, “Missouri officials have been adamant in their support of navigation from the beginning, but betting on navigation as a means of keeping water flowing downstream to your state is risky. So instead of having built up a ‘savings account’ of water in upstream reservoirs to support drinking water and power production through the dry years, Missouri officials effectively have spent your savings account by draining the reservoirs for largely nonexistent barge traffic. In short, these officials have lost a risky bet.” Schweitzer said if officials had all agreed since 1999, five additional years of conserved water could have been added to basin reservoirs.

As a trade publication serving the barge and towing industry, we cannot deny being pleased when management decisions went our way. However, other elements of this water war need to be acknowledged.

The danger of drinking water shortages was not the key thrust by major critics. It was the environment. Newspaper headlines were grabbed year after year by environmental issues like saving the interior least terns and piping plovers, which environmental organizations like American Rivers drove home repeatedly. The goal of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service was, almost exclusively, to save endangered species, among them the pallid sturgeon. The need to preserve water for other purposes was not sufficiently publicized

It became quite clear that, for many, increasing the numbers of endangered species ranked far and above the livelihood of people. This portrayal was, in reality, like crying wolf. Yes, the towing companies fought for water; but if stakeholders had focused on dangers to humankind instead of on the species, perhaps the pathway to agreement might have been less strewn with obstacles.

That Missouri River water aids navigation on the Mississippi is true. That the widespread benefits of water transportation are not understood clearly is true. For example, having checked with power station officials in Iowa, Corps spokesman John LaRandeau discovered that the construction of the 795-megawatt power station at Council Bluffs, Iowa, could not have been accomplished without river transportation. A company spokesman said that cargoes shipped and yet to be shipped in connection with the station are valued at more than $100 million. Because of river transport, the company was able to build a station with almost 200 megawatts more capacity than otherwise would have been possible. This added capacity, he said, adds a value of some $60 million a year in the lower basin.

But in the aggregate, the problems that occur with other stakeholders are equally large and cannot be ignored.

As we look back, we see that different reasons for controlling water flows in a certain way were put forward at different times. At times management was to be skewed to save the northern pike spawn in South Dakota. At other times it was to save the walleyed pike there. As for protecting endangered species, we hope that learned men will conclude that no increase in terns, plovers, pallid sturgeon, et al, will have sufficient positive impact to counteract this highly questionable use of water. For even when water is plentiful, skewing it this way and that to save endangered species can cause myriad problems.

Now we’re told that the scarcity of water may force river cities to spend millions to upgrade water intakes just to reach water. Power plants will have to reduce production if cooling water is not available. What about water for irrigation? There are other problems. The U.S. Engineers may be required to spend money to extend boat ramps. Meanwhile, states that are expected to have good fishing are trying to attract anglers, while others stakeholders are accusing them of spreading rumors.

There is no snow in the mountains to melt and refill the reservoirs. In 1996–97, the Lake Oahe area in South Dakota recovered quickly from its low water levels because the area got more than 70 inches of snow. Some say it will take two years like that to fill Oahe again.

Schweitzer’s article in the Post was directed at Missouri officials. The question is what happens now?

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.)