“Mr. Chairman, thank you for allowing me to testify. You will be pleased to know that this will be the most concise Missouri River remarks I have ever delivered.


There are few issues that are harder to sort out than water disputes. Many elements of this dispute are complex but the fundament political problem is quite simple. Mr. Chairman, you want the river managed to support your state’s needs and others want the river managed to support their state’s needs. In the middle are the folks in the Administration who have to find the correct balance.


This spring, in Missouri we saw 9 people die because of flash floodoing that occurred when rain in the basin raised the river from below normal to above flood state in less than 72 hours. This increase from 7 to 28 feet in 72 hours was without the 2-3 extra feet that the Fish and Wildlife Service says might make the pallid sturgeon feel more lovable.


Now, the Fish and Wildlife Service, in an incredible precedent, has shut down the lower Missouri River as an alternative to allowing the usual practice of letting the Corps move the “interior least tern” eggs that are resting on a small sandbar. The power of unelected bureaucrats may be convenient to some now, but giving the unelected absolute power is not what we were sent to do here.


For downstream Missouri and Mississippi River States, every proposed option is bad. What the Chairman insists that the Administration adopt is bad for Missouri, Iowa, Illinois, Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Tennessee to name a few. Geography may not be everyone’s strong suit so I remind everyone listening that the Missouri doesn’t end in space, it is connected to the Mississippi River which gets as much as two-thirds of its water from the Missouri.


While our DNR has a number of recommendations on habitat improvement, our DNR thinks proposed flow modification are poor economic and environmental policy. The Southern Governor’s Association opposes it. Ninety-nine waterways and levee districts have opposed this. All the major farm groups including Farm Bureau, Wheatgrowers, Congrowers, Soybean Association and others oppose it. Missouri farmers alone shipped nearly $1 billion in grain on our affected waterways.


In summary, I believe that government should protect people from flooding, not cause floods. It should produce more efficient transportation options, not railroad monopolies. The plans we oppose fail because the value to fish habitat is dubious while the risk to people is very real.


I appreciate that you want to keep lake levels stable and high but while this may be good for you, it is bad for all the downstream states and that was confirmed by testimony from Omaha to St. Louis to Memphis to New Orleans. I assure you that officials in Louisiana know their river reach better than you and me and the Northwest Division officials do.


With regard to the preposterous suggestion somehow that the new Administration is dragging its feet in not adopting the Dakota-preferred plan, let’s add some context. First, the previous Administration ducked the issue for all 8 years. In fact, as the Chairman knows, there was a “preferred alternative” back in 1994 that had a “spring rise” and a “low flow” and the Administration shelved the plan and sent the Corps back to the drawing board. I have the letter which announced in 1995 that they would come back with a draft in 1997 that we did not see until 2001.


At that time, Secretary of Transportation Pena and Deputy Secretary of Agriculture Rominger were very critical of the previous “spring flood” and “low flow” alternatives in 1995. These are Clinton Administration officials representing farmers and our transportation networks.


Second, the issues are further complicated because in October (10/29/01), the senior South Dakota Senator testified that, “I strongly support both the spring rise and split season” and then in April (4/24/02), “Calls on Bush Administration to Support Halt of Water Releases” to “stabilize water levels”. After this flip-flop, if I were the Administration, I would be sending out a search party for the real South Dakota position. Apparently they support a so-called “natural spring flood” but only if their lakes are at un-naturally at stable levels. So much for “natural hydrograph.”


Finally, what the Administration is, apparently, doing is what every Senator here voted to instruct them to do in P.L. 107-66 which is to “consider and propose alternatives for achieving species recovery other than the alternatives specifically prescribed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service” Further, that language directed “the Secretary....to ensure that other congressionally authorized purposes are maintained.” More further, the Senator from South Dakota had included language requiring that the Secretary not “accelerate the schedule to finalize the Record of Decision.” Again, we all voted for this and no one attempted to modify it.


So, it is obvious to me why this might take some extra time. First, it is more important that it be balanced and right than fast. It is an excruciatingly difficult balancing act. Second, the Administration is doing what Congress told it to do. Third, this Administration deserves a fraction of the 8 years of indecision we saw during the Clinton Administration. Fourth, what lower Missouri and Mississippi River Governors want is no less important for this Administration to consider than what the Dakotans want. This matter is so important to the 35 million downstream citizens, that the Administration should think twice before embracing the Dakota plan. Then it should devise and adopt a balanced plan.


Since we are all State patriots today, I add in closing that according to the latest Fish and Wildlife Agency funding survey, while the States of North and South Dakota raised from through their own State sources $4.1 million for Fish and Wildlife in 2000, the State of Missouri raises over $98 million so I hope we can all agree that following Missouri’s lead might be a good place for upstream conservationists to start.


I have proposed a great number of measures to restore habitat on the Missouri and Mississippi without the harm to people and I have pledged to help the citizens in the Dakota improve their recreational industry.


Again, I respect the priorities of the good Dakota citizens and hope that they respect our priorities.”