Planned rise leads to rising concerns
By Megan Cooper

What some may call a "water war" is a battle that has been fought since the late 1980s over the Missouri River.

From 1988 to 1992, an extended drought reduced water levels in the three largest Missouri River reservoirs—bodies of water that are important for the economies of states from the river’s headwaters in Montana to South Dakota, where the Missouri is essentially one slender and long lake. Amidst the drought, the Army Corps of Engineers began to review its water management. By 1993, the federal agency had reviewed it’s master manual—a handbook on river management— and drafted a new environmental impact statement. The statement listed a spring rise (controlled flood) as a management alternative. The new plan led to a clash between protecting endangered species and preserving navigation and agriculture along the Missouri River.

Three endangered/threatened species brought the Corps back to the Master Manual in 2006: an ancient fish called the pallid sturgeon and two birds, the interior least tern and the piping plover. Helping the pallid sturgeon spawn is the motivation behind the spring pulse, while still keeping the interior least tern and the piping plover’s nests from being debilitated.

Originally, there were to be two spring rises, one in March and one in May. According to the Army Corps of Engineers, the March rise was specifically designed to move the pallid sturgeon up river and prepare their bodies for a different climate. The May rise is intended to trigger the fish to spawn.

On March 1, 2006, the Corps released a statement that said reservoir levels were too low to have a March pulse. If levels increased enough by May, they would continue as planned with the May pulse, but if not, the spring pulse would be delayed until 2007.

For Bill Jackson, this was one small step in a long battle. Jackson, like many other Missouri farmers, depends on the river for a lot of things. Jackson farms 1,800 acres along the Missouri River and also serves as manager for AGRIServices of Brunswick. Barge transportation is a big part of his business as it imports phosphate from the Mississippi River and exports corn, soybeans and soft red winter wheat to New Orleans. Jackson said he depends on the navigation season to save on transportation costs.

“The market in central Missouri is based on river, rail and trucks. If you take away a third of the market opportunities, there will be a decrease in grain prices and an increase in truck and rail prices,” Jackson said.

On his farm, Jackson said a spring rise would increase the direct threat of Missouri River flooding and lead to decreases in interior draining. He also said financing crops would be tougher because lenders aren’t as happy to lend money with the USDA Risk Management Agency questionable on flood insurance.

Becky Davis, USDA regional director of risk management, said they have been working with the Corps on the limitations of the project. Davis said the Corps provided USDA with a written response, saying they didn’t expect there to be any crop damage from the spring rise itself.

“We don’t expect there to be any flooding or crop damage,” Davis said. “In the off chance of flooding from rainfall after the spring rise itself, that’s what we couldn’t cover.”

Many opponents of the spring rise blame it on unsound science from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services.

“I don’t believe there is any science that supports or justifies what they are doing with the pallid sturgeon with the spring rise,” said Randy Asbury, the executive director of the Coalition to Protect the Missouri River.

Asbury said farm fields in flood plains are low. When rain causes the river to rise, fields collect water through seepage. With the spring rise, floodgates that drain water from fields could be shut if river levels get high enough to stop water from draining in the fields. He said this could hinder planting or kill crops and could occur even before excessive rainfall occurs.

“It’s a grand experiment and the laboratories are farms all along the Missouri River,” said Dan Cassidy, chief administrative officer of the Missouri Farm Bureau.

Cassidy said he believes the Corps has proposed too much water in the spring and not enough in the summer.

“Commercial navigation season is very important and we can’t cut down on the time we can use the river,” Cassidy said.

However, Jody Farhat, power production leader for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, said what they have proposed for the spring rise is well within the flow limits and that they don’t believe there to be any problems with flooding or interior drainage.

According to Farhat, timing, duration and magnitude depend upon reservoir storage and mountain run-off. Right now the Corps is proposing a pulse that’s 9,500 cubic feet per second above what is needed for minimum navigation. The water will be at peak release for 2 days, dropping to 6,000 cubic feet per second on the first day and 3,500 cubic feet per second on the second day.

Farhat said that because of droughts, the Corps is running on minimum service navigation flows, reducing the water flows to 6,000 cubic feet per second. In reality, she said the spring rise is a very small increase above full-service navigation flows.

“I see it as only 3,500 cubic feet per second over where we’d like to be,” Farhat remarked. “It’s less than we’d get out of a normal springtime rain event.

“We can’t say no flooding would occur coincident with spring rise, but spring rise itself would never cause a flood,” Farhat said. “We’re not talking about a man-made flood; we’re talking about a few days of higher releases.”

If water levels do rise enough for a May pulse, it is expected to take place between May 1 and 19. Navigation season begins April 1 and ends Dec. 1.

“There will be very little impact on anyone because the spring rise is so small and short in duration,” Farhat said. “If we didn’t announce it, no one would notice.”

Opponents of the rise still believe there are other opportunities with fewer implications for Missouri farmers.

“I believe that establishing a management scheme that minimizes risks to farmers and honors the Corps’ central flood control mission must be our priority,” Congressman Ike Skelton (D-MO) said. “These spring rises are bad news for Midwestern agriculture and other river interests.”

“The value to fish habitat is dubious while its risk to people is very real,” Senator Christopher Bond (R-MO) said. “We will not stop in our efforts to retire this dangerous notion.”

Missouri River rise and insurance

In February, USDA’s Risk Management Agency addressed the impact of Missouri River spring water releases by the U.S. Corps of Engineers.

According to the agency, “Crop insurance payments are made on production losses that are due to acts of nature, such as weather events including drought, hurricane, freeze, disease and excess moisture. The release of water by USACE is due to the requirements of federal law and not an act of nature. Therefore, in the unlikely situation that there are any losses clearly attributable to such releases, those losses cannot be covered under federal crop insurance policies. However, any losses attributable to natural occurrences such as adverse weather will be covered.”

In a release, the RMA said that irrespective of spring rise water releases by the Corps, any crops insured with a federal crop insurance policy that suffer losses attributable to natural causes will be covered in accordance with the terms of the policy.

The RMA claimed it had confidence in the Corps’ flexibility to administer spring rise releases with a strong consideration of flooding potential—and that the USDA does not anticipate that there will be any losses attributable solely to the releases.

In further clarification, the RMA release stated, “Another important point to consider is that there has been at least one occasion in which the Corps was required to release water into the Missouri River system due to excess moisture and the need to mitigate the effects of such excess moisture. In such instances in which USACE releases were due to a covered cause of loss, any crop damage caused by the release was covered under the federal crop insurance program.”