 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
||||||
|
|||||||
 |
 |
Saving Our River Missourians scored an important victory last week in the fight to protect our Missouri River. The Army Corps of Engineers, which takes care of this important waterway, announced that it is going to have an honest look at different ways to preserve the river in the 21st century. The key to the honest look is the Corps of Engineers' rejection of the federal Fish and Wildlife Service's attempt to rig this review in favor of endangered species and against the safety and economic well-being of Missourians. Instead of pitting one against the other, I believe that modern science allows us to preserve the Missouri River for birds, fish and Missourians all at the same time. I believe the Fish and Wildlife Service's plan is too risky. It would endanger Missourians' lives by requiring extra flooding of the Missouri River in a bid to boost the river's ebb and flow. The aim is for the change in water-flow to put the endangered pallid sturgeon, the piping plover and least tern into better breeding moods. I certainly support the goal, but the science does not seem to support the Fish and Wildlife's preferred technique. Nor is the risk it presents to Missourians acceptable. That is why I have spent the last several months talking with experts and leaders at the U.S. Army � which controls the Corps of Engineers, and the U.S. Departments of Interior and other agencies. I shared with them my doubts about the wisdom of rigging the search for the best way to manage the Missouri River with this questionable U.S. Fish and Wildlife option. And after bringing this important issue to the attention of the U.S. Senate, my colleagues voted 100-0 to break the Fish and Wildlife Service's monopoly on Missouri River management. The Fish and Wildlife option will still be examined by the Corps of Engineers. But no longer will it carry the stamp of being the "preferred" option. It will now be looked at on an equal footing with the others. Because so many people depend upon the Missouri River, there will be a six-month period for the public to comment on the different options for managing the river. This input will help the Army Corps of Engineers decide how to balance all of the competing demands on the river. And I think "balance" is really the key word in this whole debate. The Missouri River is a natural resource that must be preserved for all to benefit and enjoy. And we have a special responsibility to only use the river in a way that helps protect, rather than hurt endangered species. Finding a solution that achieves these seemingly contradictory goals will be hard. But I think we owe it to the river and future generations to try. The Missouri River's fate is much more important than politics, which is why so many Missouri leaders, regardless of party, have stood with me on this issue. They include: the late Gov. Mel Carnahan, Mayor Barnes, Governor Holden, Senator Carnahan, Representatives Hulshof, Skelton, Graves, Gephardt, Emerson, Blunt and McCarthy. Countless other leaders representing rural and urban levee districts, exporters and other citizens from one end of Missouri to another have also helped. Our battle to save the Missouri River is more than a story about one important waterway. It really is a good lesson in how a community comes together peacefully to balance competing demands. The question that will always remain before us is how the river will continue to flow through our lives -- and those of our children. |
 |
   |
