Mr. President: I strongly urge my colleagues to support Section 103 of the Energy and Water Appropriations bill. This section would prohibit changes to management of the Missouri River which would unquestionably increase flood risk on the lower Missouri and Mississippi Rivers. If this section is dropped from the bill, landowners in Iowa along the Missouri River will face the threat of increased flooding. Farmers and other river barge users would face increased transportation costs in getting their grain and other goods to market. Both of these outcomes are unacceptable to a majority of Iowans.
There is nothing new in this bill language. It has been placed in four previous appropriations bills by my distinguished colleague from Missouri, Senator Bond. Each of these bills has been signed into law by this President. The measure would prohibit the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers from implementing a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service plan to increase releases of water from Missouri River dams in the spring. The Daschle amendment could result in significant flooding downstream given the heavy rains that are usually experienced in my, and other downstream states during that time.
We must keep in mind that it takes eight days for water to travel from Gavins Point to the mouth of the Missouri. Unanticipated downstream storms can make a "controlled release" a deadly flood inflicting a widespread physical and human cataclysm. There are many small communities along the Missouri River in Iowa. Why should they face an increased potential risk for flooding and its devastation? They shouldn't.
Equally unacceptable is the low-flow summer release schedule proposed by the Clinton-Gore administration's Fish and Wildlife Service. A so-called split navigation season would be catastrophic to the transportation of Iowa grain to the marketplace. In effect, the Missouri River would be shut-down to barge traffic during a good portion of the summer. It would also have a disastrous effect on the transportation of steel to Iowa steel mills located along the Missouri, construction materials and farm inputs such as fertilizer.
Opponents of Section 103 will advance an argument that a spring flood is necessary for species protection under the Endangered Species Act, and that grain and other goods can be transported to market by railroad. I do not accept that argument. I believe that there is significant difference of opinion whether or not a spring flood will benefit pallid sturgeon, the interior least tern or the piping plover. In fact, the Corps has demonstrated that it can successfully create nesting habitat for the birds through mechanical means. Further, it is in dispute among biologists whether or not a flood can create the necessary habitat for the sturgeon.
I would further point out that the Fish and Wildlife Service has yet to designate "critical habitat" for the pallid sturgeon as required by the Endangered Species Act.
Loss of barge traffic would deliver the western part of America's great grain belt into the monopolistic hands of the railroads. Without question, grain transportation prices would drastically increase with disastrous results on farm income.
Every farmer in Iowa knows that the balance in grain transportation is competition between barges and railroads. This competition keeps both means of transportation honest. This competition keeps transportation prices down and helps to give the Iowa farmer a better financial return on the sale of his grain. This competition helps to make the grain transportation system in America the most efficient and cost effective in the world. It is crucial in keeping American grain competitively priced in the world market. The Corps itself estimates that barge competition reduces rail rates along the Missouri by $75-200 million annually.
Further, if a drought hits during the split navigation season, there would be even less water flowing along the Missouri. This would greatly inhibit navigation along the Mississippi River. We cannot let this happen.
Less water flowing in the late summer would also affect hydroelectric rates. The decreased flows would mean less power generation and higher electric rates for Iowans who depend upon this power source.
I agree with the National Corn Growers and their statement that, "an intentional spring rise is an unwarranted, unscientific assault on farmers and citizens throughout the Missouri River Basin." I urge my colleagues to support Section 103.