Bismarck Tribune - North Dakota News - Missouri should back down

Missouri should back down

Mar 31, 2008 - 04:05:04 CDT

By TERRY FLECK
Bismarck

Missouri Gov. Matt Blunt seems to be acting like the Chicken Little of the Missouri River. Blunt is asking for an independent review of the use of the Missouri River, a step we ask all the other Missouri River Basin states to block.

However, Blunt's request for an independent review comes from his desire to control the Missouri River, a river that serves 10 states and millions of people. It's the lifeblood of hundreds of communities. It's not Missouri's River, it's the Missouri River.

Blunt is calling for the review because he wants to block the river from providing catastrophic drought relief to North Dakota's Red River valley communities.

Or should precious Missouri River water be used to float barges for a dying navigation industry in Missouri?

Let's look back. More than 50 years ago, the U.S. Congress established the Flood Control Act. It took land from farmers and families to provide dams and reservoirs in Montana, North Dakota and South Dakota to benefit the entire region. In exchange for giving up this prime river bottom land, the government said the system would provide irrigation, flood control, recreation and a high quality, reliable municipal water supply to serve millions of people.

North Dakota and Montana have been battered by nearly eight years of drought. Water intakes that serve entire communities went dry, forcing residents to haul water to survive. Despite the wasting of water downstream to float a handful of barges, the upper basin states have persevered and hoped and prayed for better days. Today, we try to prepare for catastrophic drought that will undoubtedly revisit the Red River Basin.

Lake Sakakawea users are willing to share what amounts to about an inch off the reservoir to make sure our fellow North Dakotans are provided for.

I believe we must use the Missouri River system to meet the needs of as many people as possible - that's people, not barges.

Blunt said earlier this year: "... the federal government is taking from Missourians water that would otherwise flow past Kansas City, Jefferson City and St. Louis."

"Flow past" is the key phrase. North Dakota gave up 500,000 acres of prime river bottom land that is permanently lost in exchange for promises made by the federal government. Even during severe drought, an ample supply of water still flows past Missouri cities. The promise to upper basin states included irrigation, flood control, hydropower, recreation and critical municipal water supply for our future.

Only a fraction of those benefits have been realized, while we supply Missouri's residents with large amounts of hydropower, critical flood control and navigation, which amounts to hundreds of millions of dollars in benefits.

As North Dakota prepares for the future, the Friends of Lake Sakakawea supports the Red River Valley project. The project allows for water to flow from the Missouri River to the communities in the Red River Valley if, and only if, there is a severe drought. The Missouri should be used to support people and communities, not for Missouri's decaying barge industry to stay afloat for six to eight months of the year.

Our organization prides itself on not making knee-jerk responses to uses of our great lake. We believe that by sharing the lake with communities, with people in need, we are doing exactly what the 1944 Flood Control Act was meant to accomplish.

The upper basin states have graciously accepted our fate of a devastating drought over the past eight years, but not anymore.

The Friends of Lake Sakakawea is calling for an independent review of the 1944 Flood Control Act and its current plan for implementation. We ask that Missouri back down on its attempt to block the Red River Valley project.

Join North Dakotans and other states in saying, "It's not Missouri's River." We hope you'll join us in seeking all the benefits that Congress laid out more than 50 years ago.

And ask Blunt: When are people going to become more important than barges? Gov. Blunt, your sky is not falling.

(Terry Fleck of Bismarck is chairman of the Friends of Lake Sakakawea. - Editor)

News > Opinion

Printer friendly version Missouri should back down

Comments

Drew wrote on Jul 24, 2008 10:36 AM:

" As a pushboat pilot, the amount of money saved in fuel costs shippin' by barge will make it a economically sound for the companies that use the river for shipping. Put more water downstream so we ship our goods. With gas at four dolars a gallon and diesel at nearly five and a half dolars. Takin' more trucks off the road will reduce the demand for diesel it will drop the price of fuel down overall making it a win for us in the transportation industry, I dont think people should comment unless they understand we all have to eat and live. "

Political Expediency wrote on Apr 3, 2008 3:45 PM:

" I live in Missouri as well... and I have no problem with the movement of grain and fertilizer and asphalt by barge. The problem is that the true costs of this commerce you are so proud of are not reflected in the pricing. It's subsidized transportation. And that's government at its worst... interfering with the real market and the true value of goods and services. I say more power to the barge industry but they can mark their own river channel. And they can take whatever water is available beyond a normal pool range in the dakotas. And if the business can't survive on that, it's just not viable. "

WOW wrote on Apr 1, 2008 5:48 PM:

" Wow. Living in Missouri, I can't say that I've given Bismark two seconds of thought in the past ten years. Pure oversight on my part. Now that my curiosity is piqued, I really do want to visit. Anyway, good for you Bismarckians for standing up for your river. Since your state govt. is the biggest employer in your state (coming in at half the workforce of just one of our local hospitals), I'm sure you have a difficult time appreciating the needs of commerce that some of your neighbors to the south find important. As a former govt. worker myself, I understand how that type of group think can happen what with all the govt. holidays and watching the clock till quitin time. But we needs some water down here and that's just the way it is. Does LA have a right to stop the river that flows from San Fran? I think not. Stop with all the dam talk. I'll see ya when I get up there. "

Independent Conservative wrote on Mar 31, 2008 2:09 PM:

" To lutefisk: so what if anyone thinks with a fishing rod? Mike R makes the case why it is better. In addition, I'm thinking of cities like New Town, Garrison and Fort Yates whose pumps sat high and dry when the need for quality drinking went unmet. The concerns on this issue are more than just being about recreation. I'm for economic prosperity but the numbers attendant to these bargers do not add up that way. And who cares about bargers when upstreamers' faucets have nothing coming out? "

Mike R wrote on Mar 31, 2008 1:03 PM:

" letefisk: It isn't that we are thinking with our fishing rods. We are looking at the bigger picture - total dollars brought in (total benefit) vs. total amount spent for that revunue. The amount of money spent on barge traffic is outrageous and it is the most subsidised program in the US. The cost outweighs the benefit 100 times over. The dollars brought into ND and SD by fishermen are real dollars. They are not subsidised. That is real economic impact that doesn't cost the taxpayers a fortune to maintain. Why should we as taxpayers pay to keep the barge industry alive when it is the most expensive form of transportation known to man? Sure it benefits the barge industry, only because they don't pay one red cent of the costs associated with it. You and I and everyone else pays the cost for them while they collect the profit. What is the cost of not letting water out of the dam? Do the comparisons for yourself and then tell me who has the narrow point of view. "

lutefisk wrote on Mar 31, 2008 12:24 PM:

" What a narrow point of view. Everyone is too busy thinking with their fishing rods. Just because an industry seems outdated to you, doesn't mean it doesn't bring benefits to the region that uses it. I love the outdoors as much as anyone, but business and industry are always going to win out over recreation. People in the Bismarck area really have a warped view on water and land management. If the whole state is in CRP and every decision is made for fishing, than there won't be much of ND left. "

BILL G-A-R-R wrote on Mar 31, 2008 11:27 AM:

" This Corp of Engineers is not part of the federal government.They have cost the Dakotas and Montana billions of dollars in recreational fishing and sport. I thought this barge traffic went away with the zeppelin. When will they stop? "

Political expediency wrote on Mar 31, 2008 11:08 AM:

" If the barge industry, which currently pays NOTHING to use the Missouri River, was forced to pay the true costs of the channelization and navigation program in place, then the cost of shipping via barge would be too high for anyone to afford. It's ridiculous to maintain the argument that barge shipping is so efficient and inexpensive. The true costs aren't reflected. There should be a price levied per ton on the Missouri River that reflects these costs. There are stats on tonnage. This is not difficult math. "

warmachine wrote on Mar 31, 2008 10:39 AM:

" blunt definition : having a dull edge or end; not sharp. Let that be the first thought whenever he makes ANY river comments. Alas......... "

Rusty Shakelford wrote on Mar 31, 2008 8:09 AM:

" Devels Lake has an over abudance of water. Let Cass county get it from there.
After all we did spend millions on the out let. "

Independent Conservative wrote on Mar 31, 2008 8:01 AM:

" Political Expediency, you've hit the nail on the head: the upper basin states have been, are and will continue to be thrown under the wheels of the political bus. Missouri has a lot more electoral college votes than MT, ND and SD combined. Barges? Barges? We don't need no stinking barges! We need our fair share of the water, inasmuch as, after filling the lakes, what comes in is all that goes through our dams. "

Independent Conservative wrote on Mar 31, 2008 7:57 AM:

" To Water: such as the southeast US? A place where the climate is predispositioned to copious amounts of precipitation, yet they've been enduring one the worst droughts on record? The grasslands aren't desert; granted, we're no Pacific Coast Range, enough water falls in the upper Missouri basin for us to thrive by. What stinks is that what gets stored gets sent south for a dwindling transport industry instead of being utilized here for drinking. I hear you about complaining concerning water and moving if we don't like it, but sometimes ol' Ma Nature's spigot gets turned off. Up here, the rub is that a dying barge industry gets to compete disproportionately for a share of something that should serve the thirsty and a much more significant industry- recreation. "

Political expediency wrote on Mar 31, 2008 7:21 AM:

" It's gonna take a newspaper... maybe this one? To do the research needed to show that the barge industry is hugely subsidized and what those real costs are. How much does it cost to have the Coast Guard set and maintain navigation buoys each season? How much does it cost for the Corps of Engineers to construct wing dikes to create a navigation channel? How much is it costing the Dakotas? I promise that Matt Blunt isn't looking at these numbers. He's looking at the politics of the farmers in Missouri. "

water wrote on Mar 31, 2008 6:43 AM:

" If you live somewhere thathas a potential for running out of water and that scares you move to where there is water. I don't agree with the pipeline. If people in Cass county are worried move to Bismarck. I am as tired of the Imperial cASS attitude as I am of the Mighty Missouri attitude. Enough spending on altering nature. People don't live in the dessert for a reason. "

ok wrote on Mar 31, 2008 5:20 AM:

" If you have been watching the news lately. You will see that there is alot of flooding going on in the southern states. So why should the dam even be sending water down south. Is not the dam there to help stop flooding. As we all know you can not get flood insurance. Insurance companies believe that flooding is an act of god. does Blunt not know about the flooding? Is there something about the name Blunt. We have a Sandy Blunt in North Dakota. And look a teh mess he made. Blunt shut up and looki at the big picture. "

Post Your Own Comment

All online comments are limited to 350 words total.
Comments are reviewed for taste, tone and language before posting.
Some comments may be used in the Tribune's print edition.
We value and respect your privacy, but The Bismarck Tribune might
disclose certain information to governmental entities if served with subpoena.