"If we don't correct the ill-advised plan pushed at downstream states by the last administration, landowners along the Missouri River in Iowa will see their property flooded and their livelihoods put at risk. Even many conservationists disagree that the plan promoted by the Fish and Wildlife Service isn't the best way to protect endangered species on the river," Grassley said.
The amendment introduced by Sen. Kit Bond and cosponsored by Grassley would let the Army Corps of Engineers propose alternatives to achieve the same environmental goals "without the same ruinous effects on the homes, farms and businesses along the River," Grassley said. The amendment also requires public input on flood control and river transportation. Grassley said fair-minded management of the Missouri River is critical to the quality of life along the River, the environment, and farmers needing a competitive alternative to railroads for shipping grain.
A copy of Grassley's floor statement on the Bond/Carnahan/Grassley/Harkin amendment follows here:
Mr. President, I strongly urge my colleagues to support the Bond amendment to the energy and water appropriations bill. This amendment would allow the Secretary of the Army to propose alternatives to the decision mandated by the last administration which will unquestionably increase flood risk and limit barge travel on the lower Missouri and Mississippi Rivers.
If we don't correct the ill-informed position that was shoved down our throats last year by the previous administration, landowners in Iowa along the Missouri River will face the threat of increased flooding. Thanks to a few of my colleagues that have obviously never been over to Fremont, Mills, Pottawattamie, Harrison, or Monona counties in Iowa, just to name a few, we have let an issue that was decided for political gain put lives and livelihoods at risk.
This is not a new issue. Provisions to limit significant changes in flow had been placed in five previous appropriations bills by my distinguished colleague from Missouri, Senator Bond. Each of these bills had been signed into law by the last administration, except for the legislation last year. Last year a few members let special interest groups drive the agenda and place my constituents in harm's way. It was not acceptable then and it's not acceptable now.
Senator Bond's amendment would allow the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to propose alternatives to achieve species recovery other than those specifically prescribed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service plan to increase releases of water from Missouri River dams in the spring. The opposition championed the Fish and Wildlife Service's position last year which will eventually result in significant flooding downstream given the heavy rains that are usually experienced in my, and other downstream states during that time.
Last year our opposition described their position as a "slight revision" to increase spring flows, known as "spring rise" once every three years. They emphasized, "not every year, but once every three." When they emphasized that point I guess I'm wondering whether that somehow makes it better or excusable to risk the lives and the livelihood of Iowans and other Americans living on the Missouri once out of every three years instead of every year.
This issue is exactly what is wrong with our representative government. How many times have we heard about special interests having too much influence and the decisions that are being made not representing the majority. Well here is my casebook example. How many Americans would view increasing the flow of the river to scour sandbars more important than protecting life and livelihood. There might be a few, and I realize as hard as this is to believe, there were 45 in the Senate last year. But if we could let the American people vote, I bet they would feel protecting Americans is more important than scouring sandbars.
The opposition's approach is a terribly risky scheme. 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 destruction. There are many small communities along the Missouri River in Iowa. Why should they face increased risk for flooding and its devastation? They shouldn't.
Equally unacceptable is the low-flow summer release schedule. A so-called split navigation season would be catastrophic to the transportation of Iowa grain. In effect, the Missouri River will be shut-down to barge traffic during a good portion of the summer. It will also have a disastrous effect on the transportation of steel to Iowa steel mills, construction materials and farm inputs such as fertilizer along the Missouri.
Opponents of common sense argue 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 so there would be little need to scour the sandbars. Further, it is in dispute among biologists whether or not a flood can create the necessary habitat for sturgeon.
This is why it is important to allow the Secretary to propose alternatives to achieve the same goals without the same deadly, ruinous side effects.
One thing I do know for sure is that loss of barge traffic would deliver the western part of America's grain belt into the monopolistic hands of the railroads. Without question, grain transportation prices would drastically increase with disastrous results to 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 has estimated that barge competition reduces rail rates along the Missouri by $75-200 million annually.
If a drought hits during the split navigation season, there will be even less water flowing along the Missouri unless we make this necessary change. Low flow will also significantly inhibit navigation along the Mississippi River. We cannot let this happen.
Less water flowing in the late summer will also affect hydroelectric rates. Decreased flow means less power generation and higher electric rates for Iowans who depend upon this power source. This is not the time to be increasing the price of energy. In my opinion the last Administration already accomplished increasing energy costs to the breaking point for consumers, now it's time to start bringing those rates down.
The Corn Growers summed it up best last year when they stated, "an intentional spring rise is an unwarranted, unscientific assault on farmers and citizens throughout the Missouri River Basin." Unfortunately the past Administration felt sandbars were more important then citizens. Let's fix this. I urge my colleagues to support the Bond amendment. Vote for common sense.