### A battle over treasured waters

River: Diverse interests struggle for control of the 2,341-mile Missouri
River, which seven states depend on.

By Laura Cadiz

Baltimore Sun

Sunday, Nov. 24, 2002\
\
PIERRE, S.D. - Bruce Peterson\'s Lighthouse Pointe resort on clear-blue
Lake Oahe is caught in the middle of a major water war for control of
the Missouri River - and he\'s losing the battle 1 foot at a time.

Not only is he coping with a yearlong drought, but the Army Corps of
Engineers regularly draws water from the lake, formed by a dam on the
once-meandering river, to create higher water levels more than 1,000
miles downstream for barge traffic, farm irrigation and power
generation.

The lake has been going down between 6 inches and 1 foot weekly since
late spring, said Peterson, who worries that continued drops in water
levels could force him to close his sailboat marina. Already, vast
expanses of lake bottom have been exposed.

\"Boat ramps have silted in or come out of the water,\" he said.
\"Something must be done soon.\"

Seven states have become economically dependent on the 2,341-mile
Missouri River, and the stakes have risen in recent years as America\'s
most engineered waterway struggles to meet all their needs. The tug of
war between environmental and commercial interests is intense.

To the north, South Dakotans rhapsodize about the river as a bright blue
thing of beauty. In their quest to preserve its waters for recreation,
they have eagerly embraced three rare river species they say must be
protected - the interior least tern, the piping plover and the pallid
sturgeon.

To the south in Missouri, the river is viewed by commercial interests as
a brawny fellow worker that lives up to its nickname, \"the Big Muddy.\"
Diminishing its flow, they warn, would be disastrous.

**\'Highly political task\'**

For a dozen years, the Army Corps of Engineers, prompted by a drought in
the late 1980s that dropped the water levels by at least 25 feet in the
river\'s three largest reservoirs, has been working on revising the
Missouri River Master Water Control Manual, which governs the river\'s
flow.

Another federal agency, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, is pressing
for a plan that would raise the water levels during the spring and lower
them in the summer.

That would allow the sturgeon to spawn and improve nesting conditions
for the birds by cleaning vegetation from sandbars to create the
necessary bare habitat. And it would mimic the river\'s natural flow.

But in the states to the south, the plan could lead to flooded farms and
put an end to barge traffic.

\"After reviewing 55,000 comments and talking to lots of people, I\'ve
come to the conclusion that there is a constituency for and against all
features of all of the plans,\" said Paul Johnston, a spokesman for the
Corps, which has the unenviable and highly political task of forming a
plan to appease all interests.

Even two well-known Democratic lawmakers - the Senate\'s Democratic
leader, Tom Daschle of South Dakota, and Rep. Richard A. Gephardt of
Missouri - are divided over control of the river.

\"When there\'s enough water, everybody is essentially happy,\" Johnston
said. \"When we get into drought conditions, when you have competition
for the limited resources, then you get lots of pushing and shoving
going on.\"

The Corps initially had a self-imposed deadline of May 31, but the Bush
administration has postponed the decision indefinitely. The Corps is
meeting with the Fish and Wildlife Service to determine a preferred
plan, and both groups have agreed to operate next year under the current
water control manual, Johnston said.

Daschle says the delay is a sign that the Corps is protecting the
declining barge industry, which generates annual revenues of \$7
million, at the cost of the \$85 million recreation industry. He accuses
the Corps of shirking its responsibility to manage the waterway in a
nonpolitical manner. \"It shouldn\'t take 12 years of study to determine
that the current Corps management plan doesn\'t hold up to objective
scrutiny,\" he said.

**Altering water levels**

Sen. Christopher S. \"Kit\" Bond, a Republican from Missouri, applauds
the delay and calls the Fish and Wildlife Service\'s plans to raise the
water levels during the spring and lower them in the summer an attempt
\"to rig this review in favor of endangered species and against the
safety and economic well-being of Missourians.\"

Today\'s Missouri River is a vastly different waterway from the one
Lewis and Clark followed on their exploration of the West that began in
1804.

The Flood Control Act of 1944 authorized the building of dams on rivers,
including the Missouri, which flows from western Montana to its
confluence with the Mississippi near St. Louis. Along with flood
control, the multipurpose dams were also designed for navigation,
irrigation, water supply, hydropower and recreation.

The river\'s reservoir system - the largest in the nation - became fully
operational in 1967, storing up to 73.4 million acre-feet of water. (An
acre-foot is enough water to cover an acre 1 foot deep.) Six dams and
reservoirs - Big Bend, Fort Peck, Fort Randall, Garrison, Gavins Point
and Oahe - are in Montana, Nebraska, and North and South Dakota.

**Flood dangers**

The Corps moves about 25 million acre-feet of water annually from the
dams for navigation, water supply, recreation and water quality but does
so in a carefully regulated fashion to minimize flooding and spare about
1.4 million acres of farmland in the river\'s flood plain.

About 30,400 residential and 5,345 nonresidential buildings are in these
flood zones, according to the Corps.

In Keytesville, Mo., farmer Ronald McNeall is concerned that a rise in
spring flows could inundate his 1,250-acre farm, which has been in his
family for 58 years, the length of time the Flood Control Act has been
in force.

Half of his land, where he plants corn, soybeans and wheat, is subject
to flooding by the Chariton River, a Missouri tributary. Floods in 1993
and 1995 cost him about \$270,000 in crop losses.

McNeall pointed to a rain in May, during which the state received about
12 inches - more than double the average rainfall - which would have
caused major problems if the Corps were letting more water through its
dams.

\"That was a prime example of why we\'re so concerned,\" he said.
\"Those rains weren\'t forecast.\"

He\'s particularly upset that he could suffer to save some obscure birds
and a fish.

\"Animals have their place,\" said McNeall, 53, while driving though his
farmland in his dusty pickup truck with his dog, nicknamed Wal-Mart,
running along outside.

\"That doesn\'t mean we have to turn our living room over to them if
they want to come in. What would we be doing with dinosaurs walking
around?\"

**Threatened species**

Garland Erbele, chief engineer of the water rights program for the South
Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources, doesn\'t have
much patience for people such as McNeall, with their disdain for
threatened species.

\"Obviously, they don\'t have a clue what they\'re talking about,\" he
said.

\"The pallid sturgeon\'s natural habitat is just gone,\" said Jim Riis,
the Missouri River fisheries program administrator for the South Dakota
Department of Game, Fish and Parks. \"The temperatures are changed; the
dams are barriers to their movements.\"

If nothing is done, the fish may be doomed, Riis said.

The Fish and Wildlife Service advocates releasing water in the spring
every three years and decreasing the flows most summers from Gavins
Point Dam, just west of Yankton, S.D., in the state\'s southeast corner.

In Missouri, the summer decrease would come at a time when high water
levels are crucial to run hydroelectric and cool coal-fired and nuclear
power plants because air conditioners are cranked up to fight the
Midwestern heat and humidity.

In South Dakota, the tourism industry stands to benefit if less water is
released in the summer, keeping lakes at ideal levels for recreation and
fishing, which is centered on walleye. Last year, more than 215,000
fishing licenses were sold in South Dakota. Lake Oahe is a major draw
for the state, in league with Mount Rushmore, the Black Hills and the
Badlands. It boasts more than 2,000 miles of shoreline extending into
North Dakota.

But because of the receding waters - more than 20 feet below normal -
business at Peterson\'s resort, which includes a nine-hole golf course,
has dropped about 30 percent overall for the year. \"If it\'s hard for
\[visitors\] to get a boat in, you hear about it,\" said Peterson, 55,
over a ham sandwich at his restaurant.

Though the state has 31 ramps on Lake Oahe, there are only about six
places where a boat can be launched, said Doug Hofer, director of the
South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks. The lake is now within
2 feet of reaching its lowest mark since it was filled in the 1960s, he
said.

**\'Costs are too high\'**

For Hofer, the barge operators 1,000 miles downstream are the villains.
But they, too, worry about jobs.

Don Huffman, Missouri River sales and logistics manager for MEMCO Barge
Line in Chesterfield, Mo., said dropping the water levels in the summer
will effectively eliminate all navigation on the Missouri River.

There won\'t be enough water to haul heavy shipments of steel, cement,
fertilizer, grain, corn, soybeans and wheat, he predicted.

Barge season on the river runs from April 1 to Dec. 1 from Sioux City,
Iowa, to the mouth of the river at St. Louis, with about 140 docks and
terminals, according to the Corps.

Creating lower summer flows wouldn\'t allow barges to run on the river
for those months, making navigation unreliable, Huffman said. \"The
logistics are impossible,\" he said. \"The costs are too high.\"

In Brunswick, Mo., Bill Jackson depends on barges to offer competitive
prices for his AGRIServices company, which ships corn, soybeans, wheat
and fertilizer to and from farmers and manufacturers.

Standing next to his business grain elevator and fertilizer warehouse,
Jackson said the northern states have a \"good deal.\"

\"They\'re just like a kid with too many toys, and they see their
neighbor\'s toys and want them too,\" he said.

But Riis, the South Dakota fisheries official, said the river\'s
management plan is an outdated concept that doesn\'t value tourism,
which is now thriving.

\"The lower states should look at the bigger picture and also consider
the recreation possibilities the river could create downstream, like
fishing and canoeing,\" he said. \"We need to recognize the contemporary
needs and contemporary uses.\"

**Missouri River review should focus on grain traffic**

By C. PHILLIP BAUMEL and JERRY VAN DER KAMP

Feedstuffs

Monday, Nov. 18, 2002

*C. Phillip Baumel is a Charles F. Curtiss distinguished professor in
agriculture at Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa. Jerry Van Der Kamp is
executive vice president and chief executive officer of AGRI-Industries,
West Des Moines, Iowa. Through a partnership, AGRI Industries operates
barge-loading terminals on the Missouri, Upper Mississippi and Illinois
rivers.*

Steve Swanson\'s grain farm in Page County, Iowa, is about 40 miles east
of a barge-loading terminal on the Missouri River at Nebraska City, Neb.
This 40-mile distance is within the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers\'
(Corps) estimated 45-mile competitive range for corn shipped by barge on
the Missouri River (Corps, 1998).

Swanson has never sold grain to the barge-loading terminal at Nebraska
City because he could always obtain higher net prices for his corn and
soybeans elsewhere. In recent years, he has sold all of his corn and
soybeans to his local elevator, which loads 27-car unit-trains on the
Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad.

History of traffic

The River & Harbor Act of 1945 authorized the Corps to provide a 9 ft.
deep, 735-mile navigation channel on the Missouri River from Sioux City,
Iowa, to its mouth just north of St. Louis, Mo. Construction of the
navigation channel was completed in 1981.

The Corps\' Missouri River Division commercial traffic group estimated
total commercial barge traffic (CBT) on the Missouri River over the
40-year period from 1960 to 2000 (data not shown). The Corps defines CBT
as all commodities shipped or received on the Missouri River, excluding
sand, gravel and waterway materials. Waterway materials are used to
construct and maintain the 9 ft. Missouri River navigation channel. Sand
and gravel are dredged from the river, dumped into barges and hauled
short distances to the riverbanks for transfer into trucks.

The Corps projected Missouri River CBT to be 1.1 million tons in 1960
and gradually increasing to 5 million tons by 1980. In 1960, actual CBT
was 1.4 million tons, of which 79% was grain \-- mostly wheat. Actual
CBT exceeded projected tonnage in the early 1960s, leveled off during
the late 1960s, peaked at 3.3 million tons in 1977 and has been
declining ever since. By 2000, CBT had fallen to 1.3 million tons, 61%
below the peak tonnage of 3.3 million tons in 1977 and 74% below the
projected 5.0 million tons.

Table 1 shows the composition of barge traffic on the Missouri River for
2000. The most striking observation from Table 1 is that total CBT was
only 15.0% of total Missouri River barge traffic. Non-commercial traffic
\-- sand, gravel and waterway improvement materials \-- was 85% of total
traffic. The Corps stated that dredging operations for sand and gravel
are likely independent of navigation on the Missouri River.

A second observation from Table 1 is that corn, wheat and soybeans
totaled only 372,000 tons, or 4.3%, of total barge traffic and 28% of
CBT.

Table 2 puts Missouri River grain traffic in perspective by comparing
Missouri River corn and soybean barge traffic in 2000 with corn and
soybean production in Harrison County, Iowa, and with corn consumption
at local corn and soybean processing plants located close to the
Missouri River and with total U.S. corn and soybean exports.

In 2000, corn traffic on the Missouri River totaled almost 7.1 million
bushels, which was less than one-half of 1% of total U.S. corn exports
in 2000. In the same year, Harrison County, which borders the Missouri
River between Council Bluffs and Sioux City, produced more than 21
million bushels of corn. Therefore, total Missouri River corn traffic
was equivalent to only one-third of Harrison County\'s corn production
or the production in about 5.3 Harrison County townships.

Assuming 440,000 bu. per trainload \-- 4,000 bu. per car in a 110-car
shuttle train \-- the entire Missouri River corn traffic could have been
carried in 16 trips by one shuttle train. A shuttle train typically
requires 7-10 days to load, move to a destination, unload and return to
the origin elevator. This means that one 110-car shuttle train could
have hauled all of the 2000 Missouri River corn traffic in 16 to 23
weeks. Finally, the 7.1 million bushels of Missouri River corn traffic
equals about six weeks\' worth of corn consumption at the Cargill corn
processing plant at Blair, Neb.

Table 2 also shows that Missouri River barges hauled a total of 5.1
million bushels of soybeans, equal to about one-half of 1% of total U.S.
soybean exports in 2000. In the same year, Harrison County produced more
than 5.7 million bushels of soybeans. The total 2000 Missouri River
soybean traffic was equivalent to 89% of the 2000 soybean production in
Harrison County and about five weeks\' consumption of soybeans at the
Bunge soybean processing plant at Council Bluffs. One shuttle train
could have hauled the 5.1 million bushels of soybeans to New Orleans,
La., in 13 trips. Combined, one shuttle train could have hauled all of
the Missouri River corn, wheat and soybean barge traffic in about 41
weeks.

Total grain shipments on the Missouri River fell 81% from the peak of
1.95 million tons in 1964 to 370,000 thousand tons in 2000. Grain
represented almost 77% of total Missouri River CBT in 1964 but only 28%
in 2000.

Wheat tonnage declined even faster than total grain tonnage, falling
almost 99% from 1.77 million tons in 1964 to 21,000 tons in 2000. A
major reason for the development of the 9 ft. navigation channel on the
Missouri River was the expectation of hauling large quantities of wheat
to New Orleans for export. By 2000, the Missouri River was essentially
out of the wheat hauling business.

Corn shipments peaked in 1974 at 313,000 tons and fell to 198,000 tons
in 2000, a decline of 36%. Soybean shipments peaked in 1983 at 486,000
tons but then declined 69% to 153,000 tons in 2000.

A major cause of the dramatic decline in wheat shipments was the shift
from wheat to corn and soybean production in western Iowa and Missouri,
eastern Nebraska and Kansas and southeast South Dakota. However, the
lost wheat shipments were not replaced by corn and soybean shipments.
The reasons for the failure of Missouri River barges to capture
additional corn and soybean traffic to replace the lost wheat traffic
include:

\* The low-cost unit-train system in western Iowa and eastern Nebraska
captured large quantities of corn and soybeans for shipment to Arkansas
poultry feeders, to western cattle feedlots and direct shipments to
Mexico and to the Pacific Northwest for export.

\* The cost of barging on the Missouri River is about 55% higher than on
the Upper Mississippi River. The reasons for the higher costs are the
small number of barges per tow on the Missouri, long distances to the
mouth of the Missouri River and high fuel consumption of Missouri River
towboats.

\* Typical tow sizes on the Missouri are two to four barges between
Sioux City and Omaha, Neb., four to seven barges between Omaha and
Kansas City and 9-12 barges below Kansas City. The typical tow size on
the Mississippi River is 15 barges per tow. Similar-size towboats are
used on both rivers. Therefore, the towing cost per ton is much higher
on the Missouri than on the Upper Mississippi River.

\* The barge distance from Sioux City to the mouth of the Missouri River
is 702 miles. Dubuque, Iowa, located on the Upper Mississippi River
directly east of Sioux City, is only 383 miles from the mouth of the
Missouri River. Shipments from Sioux City must travel 83% more miles
than shipments from Dubuque to reach the mouth of the Missouri River.

\* The swift, narrow channel on the Missouri River means that rapid
currents force towboats to consume more fuel in controlling fewer tons
of cargo on both northbound and southbound movements. The Corps
estimates that towboats on the Missouri River obtain only 307 net ton
miles per gallon of fuel compared to 694 net ton miles per gallon on the
Upper Mississippi River. According to these Corps data, Missouri River
barges require 125% more fuel per ton-mile as well as 83% more miles
from Sioux City than from Dubuque to reach the river\'s mouth north of
St. Louis.

\* The high cost of barging on the Missouri River means that southbound
grain shipments cannot cover the cost of moving an empty barge up the
Missouri River to Omaha or Sioux City. The Corps has stated that,
\"Based on our observed timing of shipments, it is our general
conclusion that the grain movements that once dominated waterborne
commerce on the Missouri River now serve as a backhaul to the movements
of fertilizers and other agricultural chemicals into the region.\"

This backhaul requirement has important implications for the future of
grain shipments on the Missouri River. First, the quantity of southbound
grain shipments is limited to approximately the number of northbound
barges hauling fertilizers and other agriculture chemicals. Second,
low-cost rail rates for 65- to 70-car unit-trains of fertilizer are now
a major incentive for retail fertilizer dealers to build large
warehouses to receive these larger-sized rail shipments.

As more fertilizer dealers in western Iowa and Missouri, eastern
Nebraska and Kansas and South Dakota upgrade their fertilizer storage
facilities to receive ingredients by unit-trains, the percent of
fertilizer delivered by railroads will increase and the percent
delivered by Missouri River barges will likely decline.

Third, the substitution of animal waste for chemical fertilizers and
improved agronomic practices to improve the environment will continue to
erode fertilizer tonnage. These changes probably mean that, over time,
fewer empty barges will be available to load southbound grain shipments.

\* In 2000, there were no barge shipments of corn, wheat and soybeans on
the Sioux City to Omaha segment of the Missouri River (Corps). This is
surprising, given that 97,000 tons of chemicals received by this stretch
of the river generated approximately 65 empty barges for southbound
shipments. Among the reasons for the failure to generate any grain
shipments in this stretch of the river in 2000 is the Cargill corn
processing plant at Blair. This plant consumes about 60 million bushels
of corn per year. In addition, eight 110-car shuttle train-loading
facilities are located on or near the Missouri River from Jefferson,
S.D., to Council Bluffs. These shuttle train facilities divert corn to
southwest poultry and cattle feeders, to Mexican export markets, to St.
Louis for barge shipment to New Orleans and to West Coast export ports.

In 1960, AGRI-Industries purchased land on the Missouri River near
Blencoe, Iowa, between Council Bluffs and Sioux City to build a barge
loading grain elevator. Given the sharp downward trend in grain
shipments on the Missouri River beginning in 1964, the barge loading
facility was never built, and the land was eventually sold for camping
and other recreational uses.

Future prospects

Export demand. Most grain moving by barge on the Missouri River is
destined for export through New Orleans. U.S. corn and wheat exports
peaked in 1980 and have been declining since then. U.S. soybean exports
declined sharply during the 1980s and early 1990s, recovered in 2001 and
now exceed 1980 exports by a small margin.

A major reason for the recovery of soybean exports is that bovine
spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) has been linked to animal-based proteins
in animal feed, resulting in a shift from animal-based to
vegetable-based proteins in animal feeds. In addition, record-low
soybean prices stimulated increased use of soy protein. However, after
the shift to vegetable-based proteins is complete, growth in U.S.
soybean exports will slow as Brazil and other South American countries
continue to increase soybean production and exports.

Despite optimistic export forecasts from large-scale agricultural models
over the past 15 years, nothing on the horizon suggests a major recovery
in U.S. grain exports. Therefore, the demand for Missouri River barge
grain export traffic is likely to continue to decline, except for
temporary recoveries caused by natural disasters or short-term
distortions in normal grain marketing patterns around the world.

Increased competition. A recent article in a trade publication announced
the construction of additional grain storage and loadout and 6,000 ft.
of rail siding to permit the loading of 110-car shuttle trains at the
DeBruce Grain Co. barge loading terminal at Nebraska City, Neb.(Grain
Journal, 2002). The article stated, \"This is a very well-designed
facility, and we ought to be able to load a unit-train in about 10
hours.\"

United Farmers Mercantile Cooperative is expanding its unit-train
loadout facilities from 54-car to 110-car shuttle train loading capacity
at Red Oak, Iowa, about 35 miles east of the Missouri River. Both of
these new shuttle train-loading elevators are located on the BNSF
railroad.

Also announced has been the construction of two 110-car shuttle train
receiving facilities in the high plains of Texas. Both of the Texas
facilities, located on the BNSF line, would receive corn in 110-car
shuttle trains. These shipments of corn for manufacture into cattle feed
mean that railroad shuttle-train shipments from the Nebraska City and
Red Oak elevators will likely divert more corn from Missouri River
barges to the high plains of Texas.

Other grain firms are also investing in domestic grain facilities that
are likely to divert grain from the Missouri River. In July 2002,
Scoular Co. announced the acquisition of the J.R. Simplot Co. grain
elevator in Ogden, Utah, stating that \"the facility will be used by
Scoular to bring in corn for sale and distribution to area feed
manufacturers,\" the company said. \"We expect to be sending unit-trains
into Ogden. The Simplot manager will work closely with Scoular\'s
marketing office in Ogden and Omaha, Neb\" (Grain Elevator & Processing
Society, 2002).

On July 24, AGP Grain Cooperative of Omaha announced the purchase of
facilities in 10 locations in Texas and New Mexico from Shirley-Anderson
Grain Co. of Bovina, Texas. \"The board of directors approved this
purchase to expand destination markets for our local cooperative members
and their farmer members. Growth in this area\'s livestock feeding and
dairy production has created a strong market for Midwest grain and grain
products\" (Soyatech).

On Aug. 30, Soyatech reported that a soybean checkoff study revealed
that reduced shipping times and freight rates \"make westward rail
shipments cost effective and open the door for U.S. farmers to capture
more value for their soybeans. AGP recently broke ground on a new \$15
million shipping facility in Grays Harbor, Wash.\" (Baumel et al.,
2001).

The new facility, designed primarily for loading soybean meal into
Panamax vessels, will be able to unload 110-car trains from the Midwest,
including AGP\'s soybean processing plants on the Missouri River at
Sergeant Bluff, Iowa, and St. Joseph, Mo. Export rail markets will
continue to pull bushels of corn and soybeans away from Missouri River
barges and processors. Thus, most of the growth markets are served by
rail rather than by Missouri River barges.

Shuttle train expansions. The growth in shuttle train loading elevators
on and near the Missouri River has been dramatic. In September, there
were 17 shuttle train-loading elevators located within 45 miles of the
Missouri River between Jefferson, S.D., and Atchison, Kan. Half of these
elevators are located on the Missouri River or in towns bordering the
Missouri River. At least four new shuttle train-loading elevators are
expected to be operating within three years. Table 3 identifies the
states where 21 shuttle train loading elevators are or will be located
within 45 miles of the Missouri River.

There is little doubt that these elevators will continue to divert more
grain traffic away from the Missouri River.

These investments in shuttle train loading and receiving elevators
suggest that many Missouri River Basin grain elevator operators, as well
as the Union Pacific and BNSF railroads, have concluded that the best
way to increase their market shares is to access additional domestic and
export markets. These low-cost shuttle train rates will provide access
to feed markets in the southwest and west, export markets in Mexico,
export ports in the Pacific Northwest and California and the Lower
Mississippi River barge market at St. Louis.

Local ethanol production, wet corn milling at Blair and soybean
processing at Council Bluffs are providing additional processing markets
to grain producers located within 45 miles of the Missouri River. In
September, there were six corn processors, five soybean processors and
six wheat mills located on or near the Missouri River from Sioux City to
Kansas City.

This large number of processing plants has added marketing opportunities
to grain farmers, particularly for the growing number of grain producers
who own or hire semi trucks to deliver grain to these new markets. In
2000, more than 12,000 semis were owned by Iowa farmers. This number is
expected to grow to 16,000 by 2005 (Baumel et al., 2001). Similar growth
in semi ownership is expected in other states.

Farmers buy used semis for two reasons. The first reason is to provide
more hauling capacity to keep their combines running at harvest time.
The second reason is to access more markets. Historically, the local
elevator and the Missouri River were the primary markets for grain
farmers located near the Missouri River. Today, these farmers search
several markets to find the highest price, net of transportation costs.

Electronic information and marketing services enable grain farmers to
check prices paid at more than 100 markets from the monitors in their
farm business office. The farmer-owned semis enable them to bypass
high-cost local elevators and Missouri River barge terminals and to
economically deliver their grain up to 100 miles or more to any of these
100 end-user and other markets.

Railroads are using 110-car shuttle train rates as a competitive tool to
enable shuttle train loading elevators located on their lines to
increase their bid prices to keep farmers from driving their
grain-loaded semis past the elevators on their railroad lines.

The farmer-owned semi is the best tool available to grain farmers to
keep railroad rates in check. The primary grain competition facing
railroads today is the farmer-owned semi, not the Missouri River, as the
Corps claims (Corps). These investments in shuttle train shipping and
receiving capacities, combined with the growth in local markets and
farmer-owned semis, mean that the current downward trend in grain
shipments on the Missouri River is likely to continue.

Alternative strategies

There are several alternative Missouri River investment strategies,
including:

\* Continue to maintain and operate the 9 ft. Missouri River navigation
channel. This is the preferred option of many farm organizations and
much of the barge and grain shipping industries. The Corps estimated
that the transportation benefits for Missouri River agricultural traffic
are \$2.20 per ton. The Corps calculated these benefits as the
difference between Missouri River barge rates and the cost of
alternative modes to New Orleans. The Corps failed to include low-cost
shuttle train rates to St. Louis and Mississippi River barge rates to
New Orleans.

In 2001, one railroad alone hauled approximately the same number of
bushels of grain from the five states bordering the Missouri River to
Mississippi River barge markets at St. Louis as barges hauled on the
entire Missouri River in 2000. More importantly, the Corps failed to
calculate the difference between the net prices to farmers from Missouri
River barge shipments and from truck and rail shipments to local and
other distant markets.

The huge losses in barge grain traffic on the Missouri River indicate
that grain farmers are not finding the highest bids, net of
transportation cost, at Missouri River barge markets. The methodology
used by the Corps to derive these benefit estimates, the experience of
farmers like Steve Swanson and declining grain shipments on the Missouri
River suggest that the Corps\' estimated benefits of \$2.20 per ton of
grain moved on the Missouri River are too high.

The Corps estimated that the average annual navigation share of Missouri
River operations and maintenance (O&M) costs for the five years from
1993 to 1997 was \$7.1 million (Corps, 2001). Dividing the \$7.1 million
average annual O&M costs by the 1.3 million CBT in 2000 yields an
average O&M cost of \$5.42 per CBT ton.

Using the Corps inflated transportation cost savings of \$2.20 per ton
for grain moving on the Missouri River means that every dollar the
public spends to operate and maintain the Missouri River generates 40.6
cents in transportation savings to barge companies, export elevators,
importers and grain producers. This very low benefit-cost ratio raises
the question of how long the public will subsidize the Missouri River,
especially with declining CBT and likely continued declining CBT in the
future.

\* Change the user tax structure. Barge companies pay a user tax of 20
cents/gal. of fuel used to propel commercial barges. The revenues from
this tax are placed in a trust fund for waterway construction. Using the
Corps\' estimated fuel consumption of 307 ton miles per gallon of fuel
on the Missouri River, a barge movement from Sioux City to the mouth of
the Missouri River would generate tax revenues of about 48 cents per ton
of freight, or about 1.3 cents/bu. of corn.

Elimination of this tax could help reduce the non-competitiveness of
Missouri River barges. However, the public would still continue to pay
about \$5.42 per ton, or about 15.2 cents/bu., of grain to operate and
maintain the 9 ft. channel for barge traffic on the Missouri River.

A second option to maintaining the current Missouri River navigation is
to increase Missouri River user charges to recover at least part of the
public expenditures for Missouri River operation and maintenance costs.
While this would reduce the public expenditures for Missouri River O&M
costs, this option would make Missouri River barge transport even less
competitive with railroads and truck deliveries to local markets.

\* Rationalize the inland waterway system. Phenomenal changes have taken
place in the grain distribution system over the past three decades to
reduce handling, transportation and infrastructure costs. In 1970, one
or more grain elevators were located in almost every small town
throughout the Midwest. These country elevators received, stored and
merchandised grain for their farmer customers and for the Commodity
Credit Corp. (CCC). They provided feed, petroleum products, fertilizers,
tires, batteries, chemicals, herbicides and insecticides, pitchforks,
scoop shovels and baler twine.

The elevators, the center of economic activity in many small towns, grew
in capacity as crop sizes increased. To a large extent, they were
economically viable because a large share of their revenues came from
CCC storage payments to keep grain supplies off an oversupplied market.

The cost of operating these facilities was high. Everything that happens
to grain before it reaches the domestic or foreign consumer, including
transportation, storage, handling and insurance, must be paid by
someone. Ultimately, this high cost must be borne by grain producers,
either in the form of lower prices or reduced quantity demanded.
Therefore, if the U.S. grain farmer was going to produce and sell to
domestic and world markets, cost had to be squeezed from the middle.

Agriculture could no longer support all of the country elevators. Some
small elevators disappeared, and larger ones appeared in neighboring
towns. These larger elevators handled increasing volumes of fertilizer
and chemicals. Ultimately, many small elevators were incorporated as
pieces of a larger system.

Today, some country elevator complexes have facilities in up to 40
towns. This consolidation reduced the cost of handling grain, fertilizer
and other inputs, helping make U.S. grain more competitive worldwide.
Export grain elevators and terminals have also squeezed costs out of
their operations.

This elevator consolidation and the resulting cost reduction also
affected the rural highway infrastructure and the nation\'s railroads,
particularly those in the Midwest. As more grain moved out of the larger
elevators, the volume of grain moved by rail from other elevators on
branch lines declined. Railroads quickly realized that they no longer
could afford to own, maintain, upgrade and operate branch railroad lines
that served a declining volume of business.

From 1960 to 2000, more than 100,000 miles of railroad lines were
abandoned (Corps, 2001), and thousands of small country elevators lost
their rail service. Farmers and country elevator managers complained
bitterly to politicians that the loss of the branch rail lines would
spell the death knell of their local communities and destroy a highly
prized way of life they had enjoyed for generations, but economics
dictated that this was going to happen.

Many miles of local rural roads are used predominantly by farmers who
farm the adjacent land. Local officials in most Midwest states found
that many low-volume gravel roads would have to be eliminated or
maintained at a much lower level. Some roads have been privatized, and
gates have closed hundreds of miles of gravel road to public travel
because the money is just not there to support the continued maintenance
for a few users.

Other low-volume roads remain in the public road system but at a greatly
reduced maintenance level. There is also much concern about the ability
of the public to maintain all of the bridges on these roads. Today, many
local rural roads are subject to weight restrictions because the funds
are not available for bridge repair.

Just as railroad branch lines and some mainlines could not be maintained
by the railroads for the limited number of shipments and all the country
elevators could not survive because of high costs, large numbers of
low-volume local roads have and will continue to disappear or be
restricted in their use because the public is unwilling to pay the high
cost of maintaining these roads and bridges.

This rationalization of the grain elevator, railroad and rural road
systems has enabled the U.S. to maintain and improve its competitiveness
in world markets. Railroad carrying capacities are at all-time highs,
and earnings have stabilized at levels that attract capital to modernize
and upgrade the railroad systems.

Country elevators are more efficient than ever before. Export elevators
have found ways to survive. County township governments are coping with
the current rural road environment by upgrading fewer miles and
downgrading or vacating more miles of local rural roads. Thus far, only
the inland waterway has grown in size.

What is the future of the waterway system that is so important to
agriculture and, therefore, so critical to the economic well-being of
this nation?

Like it or not, grain production is increasing around the world. World
consumers are only willing to pay world market prices for grain, and
U.S. farmers can only get their costs down so far. For agriculture to be
competitive, costs have to be taken out of the middle \-- costs out of
country elevators, railroads, county roads and export elevators. These
industries have been reducing these costs for decades. Tax dollars are
much sought after, and they are increasingly scarce.

Every year, the U.S. population becomes more urban, and their voices
become louder in Washington, D.C. Agriculture must take a look at how
much of the inland waterway system can efficiently be maintained and
preserved, how the costs are going to be paid and at what level of
service these waterway systems should be maintained and operated.

The inland waterway system is no different than the country elevator
complex that the system couldn\'t afford and support or the branch lines
on the railroads that the system could not preserve and support or the
county roads that the public is unwilling to support. There will not be
enough tax dollars in future years for everything that everybody would
like to do on the inland waterway system unless agriculture is willing
to pay higher user taxes.

Agriculture may have to ultimately make choices of whether it can and
should support commercial navigation on all of the tributaries to the
Mississippi River system, much like the railroads have done with their
branch lines, like country elevators have done with their branch
elevators and like local governments are doing on their low volume
roads. Agriculture may discover that it can only support the core river
system that is of the greatest importance to the greatest number of
users.

The river system is very important to agriculture. Global competitive
pressures will continue to force U.S. grain distribution to a minimum
cost system and will increasingly divert grain from high-cost Missouri
River barges.

Conclusions

\* Commercial barge traffic has been declining on the Missouri River
since 1977.

\* Wheat shipments, more than one-third of all commercial traffic on the
Missouri River in 1979, have almost disappeared.

\* The reasons for these dramatic declines in Missouri River barge
traffic are reduced wheat production, a highly competitive railroad
system, high Missouri River barge costs and rapidly growing local and
domestic markets.

\* There is little reason to believe that these trends will be reversed
on a long-term basis.

\* The public cost of providing navigation on the Missouri River exceeds
the benefits to shippers.

\* An open public debate is needed to evaluate alternative navigation
investment strategies on the Missouri River and other low-volume rivers.
Farmers need to be involved in these debates.

REFERENCES

Baumel, C.P., H. Hommes, J.P. Gervais and M.J. McVey. 2001. \"The Iowa
Grain Flow Survey: Where and How Iowa Grain Producers Shipped Corn and
Soybeans During Sept. 1, 1999, to Aug. 31, 2000.\" Iowa State University
Extension, EDC96, Revised. Ames, Iowa. October.

Grain Elevator & Processing Society. 2002. \"Scoular Co. Acquires Grain
Facility in Utah,\" GEAPS InGrain, Vol. 22,

No. 7. July. p. 7.

Grain Journal. 2002. \"River terminal expansion. DeBruce Grain adds
storage, upgrades receiving and loadout in Nebraska.\" Vol. 30, No. 3.
May/June. p. 28.

Maravell, Mike. 2002. \"AGP Grain Cooperative announces Texas Grain
Elevator acquisition.\" AGP Grain Cooperative, Omaha, Neb., July 24.
mmaravell@agp.com.

Railroad Facts, Association of American Railroads, Washington, D.C.
Various issues.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1998. \"Master Water Control Manual,
Missouri River,\" Review and Update, Vol. 6A-R, Northwestern Division,
Missouri River Region. August. p. 10, 16, 19, 22, 25, 27.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. \"Master Water Control Manual,\" appendix
B. Rates and Availability of Barge Transportation: Missouri River
Region. p. 3-4, 22.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2001. \"Missouri River Master Water
Control Manual Review and Update RDEIS.\" August. p. 3-8.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. \"Waterborne Commerce of the U.S. Part 2
\-- Waterways and Harbors Gulf Coast, Mississippi River System and
Antilles.\" Waterborne Commerce Statistics Center.
www.iwr.usace.army.mil/ndc/wcsc.htm.

**Missouri River grain traffic rebuttal**

Commentary

Feedstuffs

Nov. 20, 2002

Dear Sirs:

I read the November 18th, 2002 article in FEEDSTUFFS, " Missouri River

Should Focus On Grain Traffic", with interest. I had to look twice at

the background and credentials of the authors, because at first glance I

thought I was reading an article sponsored by the Environmental Defense

Fund or American Rivers. Up until now only their arguments have been

characterized by having more holes in them than the separator screens in

a combine.

When the Corps predictions were made in the 50's no one knew what effect

the opening of the Arkansas River to Catoosa in 1970 would have. Also,

no one could predict farmers along the Missouri would quit growing wheat

and increase the Corn and Soybean acreage. The article further says, "

The most striking observation from table one is that total CBT was only

15% of total barge traffic". This observation is not striking at all,

in light of the way professor Baumel makes the comparison. This

comparison is made only with tons, not ton-miles. Quote:" Sand and

gravel are dredged from the river, dumped into barges and only hauled

short distances". These "short distances" vary from 0-3 miles while CMT

tonnage moves from 143 to 732 miles. Does it take Rocket Science to

conclude that even though there is over 6 times as much sand and gravel,

CMT products move several hundred times as many miles.

Then the professor goes on to say, Corn, Soybeans, and Wheat totaled
only 28% of

barge CBT traffic. The professor conveniently omits the fact that the
Corps\' figures list processed grain movement products such as soybean
meal separately, even though it is apparent from the remainder of his
article, he is not unaware of their movement.

This is just the start of the numbers games and other statements, which

have no bearing on any argument he has put forth. Example, he says "low

cost rail rates for 60-70 car unit trains of fertilizer are now a major

incentive for retail fertilizer dealers to build large warehouses to

receive these larger-sized rail shipments".

Does he really think Potash rates from Canada will affect Missouri River
terminals that store primarily Nitrates and Phosphates? He goes on,
still completely ignoring what the incentive was for the railroads to
offer lower rates in the first place, navigation on the Missouri River.

Now for some other flimflamming: " In 2000 there were no barge shipments

of Corn, Wheat, or Soybeans, on the Sioux City, to Omaha segment". One

could ask Professor Baumel why he doesn't count the regular shipping of

Soybean meal from Sergeant Bluff. But wait, technically Soybean meal

isn't Soybeans, and neither is the Corn Meal left from processing

Ethanol at Blair, Corn.

How about this statement; " A major reason for the recovery of Soybean
exports is that outbreaks in Europe of a disease in cattle, called
bovine spongiform encephalopathy has been linked to animal based protein
feeds. Makes it sound temporary doesn't it? What if

you substitute "MAD COW" disease for bovine spongiform encephalopathy

(BSE)?? It now sounds a bit more permanent.

Now he says; " Despite optimistic export forecasts from large-scale

agricultural models over the past 15 years, nothing on the horizon

suggests a major recovery in U.S. grain exports". Then he lists a whole

page of businesses that are increasing their export capabilities. Let's

go back to the beginning of the story; " Steve Swanson\'s grain farm in

Page County, Iowa, is about 40 miles east of a barge-loading terminal on

the Missouri River at Nebraska City, Neb. This 40-mile distance is

within the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers\' (Corps) estimated 45-mile

competitive range for corn shipped by barge on the Missouri River

(Corps, 1998)."

Again he says; A recent article in a trade publication announced the

construction of additional grain storage and load out and 6,000 ft. of

rail siding to permit the loading of 110-car shuttle trains at the

DeBruce Grain Co. barge-loading terminal at Nebraska City, Neb. (Grain

Journal, 2002). The article stated, \"This is a very well-designed

facility, and we ought to be able to load a unit-train in about 10

hours.\"

He also says; " United Farmers Mercantile Cooperative is expanding its

unit-train load out facilities from 54-car to 110-car shuttle train

loading capacity at Red Oak, Iowa, about 35 miles east of the Missouri

River. Both of these new shuttle train-loading elevators are located on

the BNSF railroad".

Then he talks about other Shuttle train expansions. " The growth in

shuttle train loading elevators on and near the Missouri River has been

dramatic. In September, there were 17 shuttle train-loading elevators

located within 45 miles of the Missouri River between Jefferson, S.D.,

and Atchison, Kan. Half of these elevators are located on the Missouri

River or in towns bordering the Missouri River. At least four new

shuttle train-loading elevators are expected to be operating within

three years. Table 3 identifies the states where 21 shuttle train

loading elevators are or will be located within 45 miles of the Missouri

River".

Does anyone care to guess why all of the Elevators that are increasing

their facilities all happen to be within 45 miles of the Missouri River?

Surely it couldn't be because the U.S. Army Corps of Eng. says: "This

40-mile distance is within the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers\' (Corps)

estimated 45-mile competitive range for corn shipped by barge on the

Missouri River (Corps, 1998)".

Last but not least his OXYMORONS!! " The quantity of southbound grain

shipments is limited to approximately the number of N/Bound barges.

There is little doubt that these elevators will continue to divert more

grain traffic away from the Missouri River". Who Cares? All of the

southbound empties always get loaded. The Navigator doesn't care. The

Farmer doesn't care. Only Baumel cares.

Is it possible Professor Baumel doesn't ascribe to the concept of

compelled rates? Maybe all of the Corn and Beans in the Missouri River

Basin are harvested within 45 miles of the Missouri River. I DON"T THINK

SO!!!! And neither does the businessmen building bigger elevators,

within 45 miles of the Missouri River, and the farmers shipping Beans

and Corn. They don't care whether it goes by Barge or train if the rates

are the same. As long as there is Navigation on the Missouri River, the

rates will be the same. As long as the rates are the same, there will be

an equitable return on the money spent to support navigation.

Capt. Bill Beacom

*The author is a Missouri River boat captain.*

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| **Corps rehabilitating river**\                                       |
| \                                                                     |
| **[By MARILYN FONTENOT\                                               |
| Atchison Daily Globe]{.underline}**                                   |
|                                                                       |
| **[Saturday, Nov. 23, 2002\                                           |
| ]{.underline}**\                                                      |
| \                                                                     |
| The Army Corps of Engineers is trying to make things right with the   |
| Missouri River.                                                       |
|                                                                       |
| Since its beginning the Mighty Mo has done what it wanted to -- its   |
| uncontrolled channel meandering back and forth and forming bars,      |
| shoals and new banks all the way to St. Louis. There were about       |
| 300,000 acres that included numerous islands, channels, sandbars and  |
| inlets that supported vegetation, wildlife and aquatic life.          |
|                                                                       |
| All that changed in the early 1900s when people started to control    |
| the river, placing embankments on its banks. Then came dikes made of  |
| rocks, and on to dredging, which created a new navigation system. The |
| changes protected utilities, transportation, bridges and farmlands    |
| that were in danger of flooding. But they wreaked havoc with the      |
| environment.                                                          |
|                                                                       |
| Now the Missouri River Mitigation Project is helping restore the      |
| river to its natural state and Benedictine Bottoms is on the list of  |
| places to help.                                                       |
|                                                                       |
| The BC Bottoms Project has been developing for about four years and   |
| Friday was the first day Brig. Gen. David A. Fastabend, who heads up  |
| the Northwestern Division in Portland, Ore., came to see it. Gen.     |
| Fastabend is commander and division engineer of the Army Corps of     |
| Engineers' Northwestern Division. He directs the corps' civil,        |
| military and environmental activities in one-quarter of the United    |
| States. The programs he supervises exceed \$1 billion over five       |
| district offices -- Kansas City, Mo.; Omaha, Neb.; Portland, Ore.;    |
| and Seattle and Walla Walla, Wash. A huge part of his budget is set   |
| aside for hydroelectric, navigation and flood control projects. It    |
| also includes fish and wildlife activities at corps projects in the   |
| Missouri and Columbia river basins.                                   |
|                                                                       |
| "We've heard good things about this area and the BC Bottoms," he      |
| said, looking around. "The State of Kansas is one of our working      |
| stakeholders in this project. Our mission is flood and navigation and |
| taking care of the environment. That's a big part of our work."       |
|                                                                       |
| Gen. Fastabend said the program has expanded since its inception in   |
| 1986. Congress authorized the project and gave the corps permission   |
| to acquire and develop 29,000 acres of land and habitat on 18,200     |
| acres of existing public land in Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas and Missouri. |
|                                                                       |
| In 1999, Congress approved 166,750 acres more to be used for the      |
| 40-year mitigation project.                                           |
|                                                                       |
| "It could go up even more," Gen. Fastabend said. "We've set our       |
| sights higher -- not just about species but habitat expansion. There  |
| may even be expanded funding."                                        |
|                                                                       |
| BC Bottoms features 550 acres of native upland habitat, 750 acres of  |
| native grassland habitat and 450 acres of wetland habitat and was     |
| completed in 1998. More than 175,000 trees and shrubs have been       |
| planted. The wetlands were built using earthen fill levees, three     |
| wells and distribution piping with water-level controls. Bottomland   |
| hardwoods and shrubs provide dense areas as well as an escape route   |
| and winter cover for wildlife. The Kansas Department of Wildlife and  |
| Parks manages the 2,111-acre mitigation site.                         |
|                                                                       |
| The wetland prairie habitat provides nesting and food sources for     |
| birds and ducks. Pheasants can be seen crossing the roads while       |
| hundreds of ducks take flight from permanent marshes. Deer hide in    |
| the tall grasses like big bluestem, Indian, eastern gamma and switch  |
| grasses along with wildflowers and legumes. The design was developed  |
| through a joint effort between the KDWP, Kansas State and Extension   |
| Forestry and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.                      |
|                                                                       |
| Former Kansas Gov. Mike Hayden, secretary of the KDWP, accompanied    |
| Gen. Fastabend and several officials with KDWP                        |
|                                                                       |
| hunter at heart, Mr. Hayden said BC Bottoms is a necessary piece in   |
| the world's effort to save the environment. It's about helping with   |
| the quality of life, he said, and bringing natural habitat back where |
| it belongs.                                                           |
|                                                                       |
| Mr. Hayden said the corps has been very generous to his department.   |
| The corps helped finance the project and spearheaded the effort.      |
|                                                                       |
| "It's healing of the river," Mr. Hayden said. "It's all about open    |
| space and public lands. It's the best pheasant hunting place in the   |
| state -- I know that. I'm looking forward to hunting season."         |
|                                                                       |
| Kelly Ryan, project manager for the mitigation program, said there    |
| are future projects in store for the site. Plans call for an increase |
| of native wetlands in the next couple of years. More acquisitions are |
| scheduled with even more restoration on the land.                     |
|                                                                       |
| "Our program is to work with willing sellers only," Mr. Ryan said.    |
| "From Sioux City to St. Louis there is a little over 2 million acres  |
| that were lost for wildlife."                                         |
|                                                                       |
| Mr. Ryan said the corps has been stabilizing the banks of the river   |
| in many areas to create opportunities that have been lost. Fish and   |
| wildlife populations have reduced in number along with the loss of    |
| recreational opportunities, and the corps is determined to do         |
| something about it.                                                   |
|                                                                       |
| "There is a price that the American people paid by channeling the     |
| river," Mr. Ryan said. "There was a lot of progress with that project |
| but it came with a price. Now what we're going to do is mitigate for  |
| those losses through the mitigation program."                         |
|                                                                       |
| For more information on the mitigation project visit the corps        |
| Website at www.nwk.usage.army.mil.                                    |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Bottom of Form                                                        |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

**Officers catch two men robbing Indian graves**

Burial sites are difficult to protect, including this one in southeast
Missouri

By PETER SHINKLE

St. Louis Post-Dispatch

Thursday, Nov. 21, 2002

Robbing the graves of American Indians is lucrative, illegal and almost
impossible to stop, since the crime generally occurs in remote areas far
from police patrols.

But federal and local officers responding to a telephone tip did catch
two men in the act near Wappapello Lake in southeastern Missouri three
months ago, setting up a rare prosecution that could bring the pair 10
years in prison.

Cynthia Jackson, assistant operations manager for the Army Corps of
Engineers at the lake, about 100 miles south of St. Louis, said other
parks and corps regions across the country have problems protecting
archaeological treasures. \"Every district in the nation has burial
sites that are getting dug up,\" Jackson said in a recent interview.
\"We\'re the only ones who caught someone. That\'s unusual.\"

The anonymous call came Aug. 15 to the corps, which manages the lake as
part of a 44,000-acre park in Wayne and Butler counties. Corps rangers,
joined by a Missouri conservation agent and Wayne County sheriff\'s
deputies, drove to a remote area near the lake and hiked a half\--mile
through hilly terrain.

There they discovered the two men digging up an archaeological site,
said Alan Dooley, spokesman for the corps. The officers arrested Steven
S. Tripp and William T Cooksey as the two prepared to leave.

The men had about 15 arrowheads and artifacts in their possession, and
Tripp had several items in his- shoes, said LeeAnn Summer, an attorney
for the corps. The men had discovered human remains as they dug, but
\"they didn\'t want those for some reason, so they put them in a pile
out of their way,\" she said.

Both were indicted Oct. 24 on charges of destroying archaeological
resources on federal land and damaging federal property. The , former
charge carries a maximum penalty of two \'years. in prison and a
\$20,000 fine; conviction of the latter carries a possible 10-year term
and \$250,000 fine.

Cooksey, 53, of Union, appeared in U.S. District Court in Cape
Girardeau, posted a \$10,000 bond and pleaded not guilty. He could not
be reached for comment for this story. His attorney, Terry Flanagan,
declined to comment.

Tripp, for whom no age and address were available, remained at large, a
prosecutor on the case said.

The charges relate to the artifacts only, and would apply regardless of
the presence of the bones, officials said.

Corps officials placed a value of \$14,000 ;on the damage they blamed on
the suspects.

Summer said it was not determined from which culture the artifacts
originated. About 10 American Indian tribes, including the Cherokee, are
known to have lived near the lake, she said.

The destruction of archaeological sites nationwide occurs constantly,
said Patty Wright, assistant professor of anthropology at the University
of Missouri at St. Louis.

The black market for artifacts is booming here, and they\'re popular in
Germany and Japan also, she said.

A host of state and federal laws, including the U.S. Native American
Grave Protection and Repatriation Act, make it illegal to destroy graves
or move artifacts. It is legal to collect arrowheads and some other
artifacts on private property, Wright said. But it is illegal to disturb
graves - whether on private or public property - without first obtaining
permission from proper authorities.

The laws have had little effect, she said.

\"The problem from an archaeological standpoint is that you take them
out of their contexts, so you can no longer interpret anything about
them or the people who made them. You just wind up with the artifact
itself,\" she said.

Since the illicit dig at Wappapello Lake was discovered, the corps has
filled in the holes. But it has not put up signs warning people not to
dig there, out of fear of attracting attention to the site, Jackson
said.

\"We\'re checking it daily,\" she said.

\"We take this seriously.\"

**Tribes closer to meaningful protection of religious sites\
**

By Daniel Kraker

American Indian Report

November 2002\
\
JUST SOUTHWEST OF BILLINGS, Mont., is a site sacred to dozens of plains
Native Americans, among them the Blackfeet, Comanche, Crow, and Sioux.
The two-and-a-half-mile Valley of the Chiefs, encircled by sandstone
cliffs, is home to thousand-year-old carvings and multi-hued drawings of
shields, animals and human figures. It\'s the largest collection of
Native American rock art on the continent.\
\
The valley is also a holy place. For centuries Indian people have
traveled there for vision quests and prayer ceremonies. Because of its
spiritual significance, the valley often hosted peace talks among area
tribes.\
\
But over the past two years the valley has become a
battleground\--ground zero for Native Americans\' heightened efforts to
protect their sacred sites from growing; industrial pressures. In spite
of the valley\'s obvious religious, cultural and historical value, the
Bush administration\--12 days after it took office\--granted a permit to
the Anschutz Exploration Corporation to drill for oil there. A coalition
of environmental groups and tribes responded with an administrative
challenge to the Department of the Interior.\
\
\"Exploring for oil in this place has been described as placing an oil
rig in the Sistine Chapel,\" said Rep. Nick Rahall II, D-W. Va., in a
hearing on the drilling proposal. \"Are we really that desperate?\" he
asked. \"Are we really that greedy?\"\
\
In this case, the answer was \"no\" on both counts. Bowing to public
pressure, and unwilling to enter into what was certain to be a costly
and protracted legal battle, Anschutz donated its drilling leases to the
National Trust for Historic Preservation.\
\
\"We don\'t know of another instance where a drilling or mining company
has donated leasing rights to a nonprofit organization,\" said Trust
President Richard Moe.\
\
While thrilled with Anschutz\'s decision, Native Americans working to
protect sacred sites realize they would be foolish to expect similar
acts of corporate kindness in the future. So they have taken the
offensive. Representatives of a number of organizations have formed the
Sacred Lands Protection Coalition to advocate for strengthened
protections of sacred sites. And individual tribes and activist groups
have relentlessly raised public awareness over battles in their
backyard.\
\
Their efforts have begun to pay off. Bills have been introduced in both
the California Legislature and Congress to increase protection of sacred
sites. The Senate Committee on Indian Affairs has held a series of
oversight hearings on sacred lands protection. And Assistant Secretary
of the Interior Neal McCaleb has reconvened a sacred sites working
group.\
\
But despite these positive developments, Native American sacred sites
are still under siege across the country, from Washington to Arizona to
Georgia to New Jersey. In many cases the assault is being led by the
usual cast of characters\--mining, energy and timber companies. But in
some instances the conflicts are with the federal government itself, the
same people Native Americans are trying to convince are duty-bound by
their trust responsibility to help protect and preserve their historic
and sacred places.\
\
ZUHI SALT LAKE: CAN IT CO-EXIST WITH A COAL MINE?

Sixty miles south of the Zuni Pueblo, cupped in an extinct volcanic bowl
in the high desert of northwest New Mexico, sits Zuni Salt Lake, sacred
not only to the Zuni but also other Pueblo tribes, the Navajo and the
Apache. When water evaporates from the natural saline lake in the
scorching summer sun, a snowy white layer of salt crystals is left
behind on the shallow bottom.\
\
Zuni men pilgrimage to the lake on a web of sacred trails to collect the
salt for use in ceremonies. It\'s also used on Zuni dinner tables,
providing an everyday connection to the sacred. The salt is the physical
embodiment of Salt Woman, or Salt Mother, a powerful and important deity
in the Zuni religion.\
\
\"The salt is not only a very important sustenance for Zuni people,\"
explains Zuni councilman Dan Simplicio. \"It\'s a spiritual connection
to \[Salt Woman\] as a deity.\"\
\
Because of the \"spiritual nature\" of the salt harvested from the lake,
says Simplicio, \"it contains properties that \... in our belief system,
enable healthier livestock.\" The salt similarly helps Zuni people, he
says. \"It physically helps the people who consume the salt.\"\
\
Even the area surrounding the lake is considered sacred. Extending from
the lake 10 miles in all directions, the \"Sanctuary,\" as it is known,
contains burial grounds and a number of sacred sites. Historically the
area was a neutral zone, where Southwest tribes could come together
without fear of conflict. Anyone entering the Sanctuary was, and still
is, required to lay down their arms and cleanse themselves of any
violent thoughts.\
\
In 1985, recognizing the sacredness of the lake to Pueblo people, the
U.S. government returned the lake\--and the 5,000 acres immediately
surrounding it\--to Zuni control. But a few years later, the Salt River
Project (SRP), a Phoenix-based power company, began acquiring land about
10 miles east of the lake, with the hope of eventually opening a coal
mine to fuel the booming electricity markets of southern Arizona.\
\
In 1996, over the vigorous objections of Zuni and other pueblos, New
Mexico granted SRP a state mining permit for the Fence Lake Mine. The
tribes\' primary concern is water. The mine needs to pump about 4,000
acre-feet of water per year from local aquifers for its operations. The
Zuni and other pueblo people fear the mine, if it\'s built, will suck
the lifeblood right out of their sacred salt lake\--and Salt Woman.\
\
Finally, this past May, the Department of the Interior gave SRP its
long-awaited nod of approval to begin work on the mine, which is
expected to produce 80 million tons of coal over 50 years and bring 200
jobs to a struggling rural economy. The federal Mining Act of 1872 all
but guarantees companies mining permits on federally owned land as long
as they avoid \"undue\" destruction of the environment.\
\
But, in trying to balance its competing mandates to fulfill both its
trust responsibility to Native Americans and develop economic
opportunities on public lands, the Interior did impose a number of
restrictions on SRP. Chief among them is a prohibition on pumping from
the Dakota Aquifer, which the Zuni tribe feels is most vital to the
lake\'s survival.\
\
That alleviates some concern, but Zuni leaders are still worried about
additional mining impacts. Simplicio says the mine will \"create
airborne pollutants which will eventually dump into the lake itself. It
doesn\'t matter how much dust suppression they think they\'re doing,
there\'s still going to be airborne pollutants.\"\
\
SRP also plans to construct rail lines from the mine to transport the
coal. The Zuni say the tracks will bisect their sacred trails leading to
the lake. They\'re also worried about disturbances to other sacred sites
and burials in the area. Simplicio says initial work on the
transportation corridors to and from the mine site have already
unearthed four human remains. \"The assault on our culture has begun,\"
he says.\
\
But one of the largest concerns, Simplicio says, is something that\'s
rarely talked about. According to Zuni belief, long ago the Salt Woman
grew angry over Zuni people\'s misbehavior, and moved away. The Zuni
embarked on a desperate search, and eventually found her where she still
resides today, at Zuni Salt Lake. But Simplicio says if the mine is
built, she may leave again.\
\
\"Zuni people have it in their hearts never to see her leave again,\" he
says. \"We never want to see the salt lake move anywhere else. We had a
difficult enough time locating her the first time. If we lose her, we
might never get her back, and we can\'t live without her.\"\
\
\"We want to stop this project. We will do everything we possibly can to
protect the Zuni Salt Lake,\" asserts Zuni Governor Malcolm Bowekaty.\
\
The tribe is considering filing a lawsuit against the federal
government, but with no gaming and no mineral resources within its
reservation borders, it is weighing whether it can justify the cost.\
\
MISSOURI RlVER: ERODING SACRED SITES\
\
Meandering across Montana and down through both Dakotas, the upper
Missouri River basin has been called home by Native American cultures
since the glaciers receded 12,000 years ago. It is considered sacred to
the tribes along the river for the life it has sustained over the
centuries. To many, the great river is known simply as \"Grandfather.\"\
\
The Sioux people who lived along the river\'s banks were prosperous
traders, and lived in large, earth lodge villages for long stretches of
time, often over 100 years. When these semi-permanent communities were
abandoned, huge burial grounds were left behind. Archeologists refer to
the 1,500-mile area along the upper basin as the Missouri River trench.
To them it\'s one of the richest archeological sites in the world; to
the Native people whose reservations still border the river, it\'s their
most sacred cultural area.

Beginning in the 1940s, the U.S. ArmyCorps of Engineers began erecting a
series of six gigantic dams to control flooding, generate cheap
hydroelectricity and provide thousands of jobs to servicemen returning
from World War II. But these benefits didn\'t come without great cost.\
\
\"Entire Native populations were removed from the safety of their
\'reservation\' homes, had their farms and gathering areas flooded,
their burial grounds flooded or exposed, and their traditional lifeways
thrown into turmoil,\" Scott Jones, cultural resources officer for the
Lower Brule Sioux Tribe, told the U.S. Senate Committee on Indian
Affairs.\
\
The destruction continues today. The river\'s water level, managed by
the Army Corps, fluctuates wildly. The rise and fall of the water,
coupled with the freezing and thawing of the reservoirs in the winter,
is extraordinarily destructive to the shoreline. The Army Corps
estimates 30 feet of shoreline is lost every year through erosion\--and
along with it, say Missouri River tribes, 40 to 80 burial and cultural
sites.\
\
These are \"sacred places,\" explains Pemina Yellow Bird, a cultural
resource representative from North Dakota\'s Mandan, Hidatsa and Arikara
Nation. \"Places that are intrinsic to our origin stories, places where
the people emerged here on this earth, \[places that are\] very holy,
very, very sacred and very, very valuable to us.\"\
\
For decades Missouri River tribes have pleaded with the **Army Corps**
to stabilize the shoreline and protect their sacred sites. But
**Congress** hasn\'t provided the Corps with the necessary funds.
According to Yellow Bird, since 1978 less than \$2 million dollars has
been spent stabilizing reservation shoreline on the Missouri River,
preserving a mere 19 sites\--less than what is lost in a year.\
\
The plan that governs the rivers management, the Missouri River Master
Water Control Plan, does little to protect Native American sacred sites.
But the federal government is drafting a new plan, and Missouri River
tribes are drafting a provision they hope to have included, to
cooperatively manage their cultural sites with the states and the Army
Corps. Their hope is to have a decision-making role in the protection of
their resources.\
\
\"What we\'re asking for is not unreasonable,\" says Yellow Bird.
\"We\'ve lost everything, and what little we have left, let me tell you,
we are fighting tooth and nail, we are fighting with everything we have
to preserve and protect it for the generations to come. We just want
\[our children\] to be able to see where their ancestors walked.\"\
\
INDIAN PASS: MORE VALUABLE THAN GOLD?\
\
Indian Pass, near the lower Colorado River in far southeast California,
has been described as a giant prehistoric chessboard, with its
alternating sequences of black basalt and white quartz. Quechan tribal
members have traveled there for centuries to practice ceremonies like
the Keruk, where the dead are helped into the next world. Archeological
records estimate the area has been frequented by Native Americans since
near the time the Missouri River basin was settled\--more than 10,000
years ago.\
\
The area contains countless religious sites, including prayer circles,
ceremonial places, ceramic shards, petroglyphs and a network of sacred
trails that connect the vivid rock formations together. Among them is
the Trail of Dreams, where Quechan tribal members run to seek visions.\
\
But a portion of the trail, as well as other sacred sites that pockmark
Indian Pass, are threatened. Canadian company Glamis Gold wants to open
a 1,600-acre, open-pit goldmine on the site. Ironically, after Glamis
applied for its mining permit in 1994, Indian Pass was withdrawn from
future mining claims to protect the religious and cultural value of the
site to Quechan people.\
\
\"The Indian Pass area is very sacred,\" explains Quechan councilman
Phil Emerson. \"We have several vision quests and gather-ings out there,
and as spiritual runners we run the trails. Then, boom, they said they
were going to try to put a gold mine there.\"\
\
But in January 2001, after a six-year public permit process, the mine
was denied by outgoing Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt. According to
California Senator Barbara Boxer, this was the first time the Bureau of
Land Management had denied a mine because of its environmental and
cultural impacts.\
\
Ten months later, however, Gale Norton rescinded Babbitt\'s denial on a
legal technicality, allowing the permitting process to start afresh. Her
decision was made without consulting the Quechan tribe.\
\
\"Once again, despite promises to the contrary,\" said Quechan President
Mike Jackson, Sr., \"we are learning about \[the\] Interior\'s actions
from a press release and after-the-fact notification\--not meaningful
before-the-fact, government-to-government consultation.\"\
\
Then, in early 2002, the Bureau of Land Management began another mineral
examination of Glamis\' mining claims to determine whether the mine
would be profitable and meet the standards of law. In late September,
the Interor upheld the claims. It will now review the mine\'s
environmental analysis (something the Clinton administration did twice)
and either approve it, or call for a new analysis, around the New Year.\
\
The Quechan tribe\--like the Missouri River tribes, the Zuni, and
countless other tribes fighting to protect their sacred places\--is not
sitting idly by waiting for the federal government to act. Rather, they
enlisted the help of some powerful politicians. In February, California
state Senate President pro tem John Burton introduced SB 1828, which
would have required government agencies to notify an Indian tribe of any
proposed construction within 20 miles of its reservation. It also would
have mandated the developer work with the tribe to limit the effects of
the project on any sacred sites.\
\
An avalanche of local governments, developers, ranchers and other
business interests lined up against the bill, claiming that nothing
short of the future economic growth and prosperity of California was at
stake. Despite the formidable opposition, the bill easily passed both
houses of the state Legislature. And polls showed it had strong public
support among voters.\
\
Courtney Coyle, the Quechan Tribe\'s attorney, said the fears of the
bill\'s opponents were exaggerated. \"Detractors said we were trying to
stop development,\" she said. \"Really it would have allowed what needed
to be built to be built, and it would have enabled people to protect
what needs to be protected.\"\
\
Still, on the same day that the Interior approved the mining claim of
Glamis Gold at In-dian Pass, Governor Grey Davis vetoed the bill. In his
veto message, however, he said he had directed his administration \"to
pursue all possible legal and administrative remedies that will assist
in stopping the development of that mine.\" He also indicated he may be
willing to sign a revised version of the bill next session.\
\
Chris Peters, executive director of the Seventh Generation Fund, said it
was a \"sad day in Indian history\" when Davis vetoed the sacred lands
legislation, the first bill of its kind ever considered by a Statehouse.
\"The sacred places are dwindling,\" he added, \"but the Native
spiritual understanding that\'s derived from these places is equally
threatened, especially in California. We just don\'t have a lot of
places to go, especially in southern California, where development is
happening so rapidly.\"\
\
The Glamis goldmine on Indian Pass is still far from a done deal.
Senator Boxer has called for an investigation of the Interior\'s
decision to approve Glamis\' mining claim. She believes there may have
been a conflict of interest\--many Interior officials have ties to the
mining industry. She\'s also introduced legislation in the Senate to
prohibit development of the area.\
\
Quechan President Mike Jackson promises his people will not lose Indian
Pass without a fight. \"The tribe will take all steps required to
protect its sacred places,\" he says. \"The United States government has
not changed in its march to destroy us, and it continues today. Our
people are unyielding and will continue to fight. We will take all steps
to protect our culture and our traditions.\"\
\
AT LONG LAST, A FEDERAL SACRED SITES BILL\
\
The local efforts to preserve sacred places\--in California, the upper
Midwest, New Mexico, and around the country\--have coalesced into a
flood of activity around sacred sites protection at the national level.
But it didn\'t happen overnight, and there\'s still a long way to go to
transform local organizing into meaningful national reform.\
\
Efforts to protect Native American sacred sites on a national scale
began in earnest in the late 1980s, after the U.S. Supreme Court
overturned a series of lower court decisions that prohibited the
construction of a road in northern California that would have interfered
with Native American religious ceremonies.\
\
Seventh Generation Fund\'s Peters says Lyng vs. Northwest Indian
Cemetery Protection Association left tribes with the situation they\'re
in now, \"basically that sacred lands can be logged, eroded, bulldozed,
mined and destroyed, and Native tribal leaders and spiritual leaders
have absolutely no litigative recourse within the American judicial
process.\"\
\
After the Lyng decision, Peters says, there was a flurry of action\--a
coalition was put together, several bills were drafted, the Senate held
a series of select committee meetings, and a number of field hearings
were held throughout the country. That culminated with President
Clinton\'s 1996 Executive Order 13007, which mandated federal
departments consult with tribes prior to taking any significant action
or developing policies that might affect sacred sites.\
\
But up to this point, the Executive Order hasn\'t been enforced. \"It\'s
just more policy,\" says Peters. \"It has no teeth.\" But a new bill,
introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives by West Virginias
Rahall, would change that.\
\
The Native American Sacred Lands Act (NASLA) would turn the Executive
Order into an enforceable federal law. The bill would also for the first
time give tribes the ability to petition the government to place federal
lands off-limits to development when if they believe it would damage
their sacred lands.\
\
\"The tribes would no longer have to depend on the good graces of
federal bureaucrats to protect these lands,\" said Rahall when
introducing the bill. \"Rather, the tribes could ini-tiate those
protections.\"\
\
The bill has received a tepid response by proponents of sacred site
protection. Lillian Sparks, of the National Congress for American
Indians, says a \"Cause of Action\" clause needs to be inserted into the
legislation before her organization will wholeheartedly endorse it.\
\
\"We would like for tribes to have recourse,\" she says, \"because
currently in the NAGPRA laws and the American Indian Religious Freedom
Act, as well as historic preservation laws, there isn\'t a recourse for
tribes if damage is done to sacred sites, and that\'s what we\'re
looking for, and that\'s what we\'re asking for in the comprehensive
legislation.\"\
\
Peters agrees. It\'s imperative, he says, for Native Americans to be
able to \"actually bring a lawsuit, in an already biased court system.
\"What we\'re looking for, ultimately,\" he says, \"is to be put on a
level playing field with development interests.\"

**Ramp needs studied for Missouri River\
**

Associated Press

Aberdeen American News

Tuesday, Nov. 19, 2002

PLATTE - Not all the Missouri River docks and ramps that have been
threatened by low water can be saved, according to a member of a
committee studying how to help keep those structures open.

\'\'Barring nature taking care of things, we\'re going to have to set
some priorities for what ramps can stay open and put a lesser priority
on some others. It\'s a certainty we aren\'t going to be able to save
all the ramps,\'\' said Russ Backus, a fishing guide from Rapid City.

\'\'I think all of us on the committee are just praying for a mountain
of snow in Montana and North Dakota to make all of our work and
void,\'\' Backus said.

The 13-member Missouri River Reservoir Access Improvements Advisory
Group is holding public hearings on the issue. The next hearing is
Wednesday in Pierre.

The group is reviewing a 131-page document describing conditions at more
than 60 Missouri River parks, recreation areas and lakeside access sites
in South Dakota.

The state Game, Fish and Parks Department report goes into detail on
each bay with a boat ramp or dock and has recommendations for projects
that would let the area be used in low-water conditions.

The total cost of projects proposed in the report is more than \$23
million.

Clearly, the state can\'t begin to pay for all that work, said
Democratic Sen. Jim Hutmacher of Oacoma, co-chair of the advisory group.

\'\'We aren\'t going to be able to do something for every one of these
sites up and down the river,\'\' Hutmacher said. \'\'What we\'re going
to have to try to do is figure out what is feasible and what isn\'t.\'\'

The group might try to get the Legislature to pass a resolution of
support, he said. \'\'That resolution could be taken to the
congressional delegation as the start of attempts to get help with
funding some of the work.\'\'

The state needs a long-range view of river development, said Tom
Deadrick of Platte, another member of the advisory group.

It\'s been estimated that Missouri River recreation has an \$80 million
value in South Dakota. Taken over 20 years, the state stands to benefit
by \$1.6 billion, Deadrick said.

\'\'This whole list of recommended projects is \$23 million,\'\' he
said. \'\'What\'s \$23 million one time when you look at the 20-year
benefits?\'\'

One by one, shorter ramps and those in the shallower bays went out of
service this summer.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers\' latest report shows no improvement in
river levels. Lake Oahe is expected to be 18 feet below normal by the
end of November. That would be 16 feet lower than at the same time last
year.

\'\'When the water goes, the business goes,\'\' said Charlotte Caldwell
of the American Creek Marina in Chamberlain.

The report on ramps and docks doesn\'t touch some of the concerns of
advisory group member Mike Jandreau, Lower Brule Sioux tribal chairman.
Jandreau wants riverbank stabilization and silt control, admitting it
would cost millions.

**South Dakota could have more clout in Missouri River debate**

Aberdeen American News

Sunday, Nov. 24, 2002

SIOUX FALLS, S.D. - The long-running battle over management of the
Missouri River will return to Congress in January but new players and
fresh dialogue are expected to enter the debate.

Although Sen. Tom Daschle is no longer the leader of the Senate, he will
continue to lead the Democrats. That, coupled with Sen. Tim Johnson\'s
growing seniority on the Appropriations Committee and the connections of
Gov. Bill Janklow, who was elected to the U.S. House, suggest South
Dakota will have more clout on the issue.

The Missouri River has become a battleground between states and the
federal government - namely the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. But
management of the river has also prompted a fight between upstream and
downstream states and their own interests in the river.

But Daschle hopes South Dakota will now have more leverage in the
debate.

\"I\'m encouraged by Bill Janklow\'s advocacy of change in Missouri
River management,\" Daschle said. \"I think it\'s critical that we work
together, and I haven\'t had a chance to talk to him at length about
this since he\'s been elected, but I would like it to be one of our
highest priorities.\"

Daschle has called for the Corps of Engineers to be stripped of its
authority over the Missouri River. Janklow, who has sued the corps twice
over river management, said the agency should stay in a river management
position but should be forced to manage river flows more responsibly.

Eric Eckl, communications director for American Rivers, an environmental
group, is also expecting more clout for South Dakota in the Missouri
River debate.

\"The recent elections probably dealt the president a stronger hand, but
the margin in the Senate is narrow,\" Eckl said. \"And with Janklow in
the House, you have a real champion who understands the river and its
issues. The addition of a real Missouri River champion in the House of
Representatives is a new ingredient in the mix.\"

But Cindy Broyhill, owner of a bait shop on the Missouri River near
Pickstown, is not optimistic. Whether the issue is control of water
flows or management of the reservoirs or funding for low-water access to
the river, Broyhill said it is a struggle to get any feeling of hope
after more than a decade of stalemate.

\"I don\'t have any feelings of optimism at all,\" she said. \"It\'s
nice that they talk about making it a priority, but we\'ve seen fighting
for years, and I think we\'ll just go on fighting. I don\'t see any
solution.\"

# Recovering the Missouri River dinosaur

**By Ben Ikenson**

**Environmental News Network**

**Friday, November 15, 2002**

![](media/image1.jpeg){width="2.6041666666666665in"
height="1.8541666666666667in"}

The pallid sturgeon is sometimes called \"the dinosaur of the Missouri
River.\"

With its long, flat snout, a few rows of bony scales, and a growth
potential of seven feet, it certainly looks prehistoric. And in fact,
the species descends from fish that inhabited the Missouri and
Mississippi rivers 70 million years ago.

Today, biologists are struggling to keep the endangered fish from going
the way of the dinosaurs.

On Nov. 1, biologists with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service released
several hundred young, nine-inch pallid sturgeon into the waters of the
Big Muddy, near Booneville, Mo. The fish were spawned at the Miles City,
Mont., State Fish Hatchery and subsequently raised at the Service\'s
Neosho National Fish Hatchery in southwestern Missouri, with financial
support from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

The recent release is one in an ongoing series of stocking efforts
throughout the Lower Missouri River. Neosho National Fish Hatchery will
continue stocking the fish in the Missouri River near Bellevue, Neb.;
Vermillion, S.D.; and Booneville (Franklin Island), Mo.

All fish are marked with individually coded tags so their contribution
to recovering wild populations can be evaluated over the next 20 years.
Transponders will allow biologists to identify each fish and to
eventually collect information on movement, distribution, abundance,
survival, reproduction, growth, and other life history parameters.

\"We are hopeful this is one of many successful stocking efforts as we
try to bring this fish back,\" said Jim Milligan, project leader of the
service\'s Columbia Fishery Resources Office. If efforts ultimately do
bring the fish back, pallid sturgeon may eventually become premier game
for recreational fishing.

For now, biologists are concerned with conserving the species and
restoring it to the ecosystem. With suckerlike mouths, pallid sturgeon
feed on numerous other fish inhabitants of the river, serving an
important role in the food chain.

But restoring the species will be no quick feat. \"Because pallids
don\'t reach sexual maturity until they are between 10 and 15 years old,
and the first generation progeny of any stocked fish would require a
similar time span to reach maturity, a minimum 20-year time frame is
projected to fully assess the situation,\" Milligan said. \"We do know
that stocking can only be successful if these fish have the right
environment in which to live and grow.\"

The Missouri River is certainly not the same river the pallid
sturgeon\'s ancestors inhabited 70 million years ago. But most changes
have occurred only within the last 100 years as a result of flood
control, navigation, and hydropower operations.

\"Construction and operation of the six mainstem Missouri River dams
completely altered the hydorology of the river ecosystem as well as
converting about one-third of the 2,300-mile-long river into deepwater
lakes,\" said Milligan. \"Coldwater releases from the dams through
hydropower turbines also radically altered the temperature regime. Corps
of Engineers\' channelization of the lower third (750 miles) of the
river for commercial barge navigation and flood control \... also
eliminated well over 100,000 acres of the shallow, low-velocity water
needed for nursery habitat.\"

The once large, free-flowing river characterized by turbid water,
braided channels, sandbars, and extensive backwater habitats was
radically altered. Now, the Upper River is fractured by a series of dams
and reservoirs; the Lower River is a steadily controlled channel.

Of all native fish, the ancient pallid sturgeon has perhaps suffered
most from these changes. The ratio of pallid sturgeons to all river
sturgeons in the Lower Missouri and Middle Mississippi rivers has
declined from 1:20 to 1:650 over the last century.

\"Because they have stringent spawning requirements,\" said Milligan,
\"pallids have had a hard time establishing self-sustaining populations
over the past 30 to 40 years.\"

Scientists think that a rising river level between May and July can
trigger spawning runs, but success still requires water temperatures of
about 50-60 degrees Farenheit and suitable spawning substrate.

\"Good substrate is generally thought to be clean rock, cobble, or
rubble on which adhesive eggs will stick,\" said Milligan. \"The rising
or high river stage must persist for four to eight days, depending on
water temperature, for the eggs to hatch.\"

The specific challenges to successful pallid sturgeon reproduction do
not stop when the eggs hatch. In fact, larval fish are extremely
vulnerable because, while absorbing the yolk sac and growing large
enough to swim on their own, they drift with the river current for 5 to
12 days. During this time, they can be eaten by just about any other
fish who consume zooplankton, and they can be killed in power plants,
water supply diversions, or many other types of intake or
water-withdrawal devices.

\"Drifting larvae are usually lost or killed before they find suitable
nursery habitat,\" said Milligan.

Suitable pallid sturgeon nursery habitat is typically characterized by
areas of shallow water that contain firm substrate such as sand, gravel,
cobble; by relatively mild water velocities; and by an abundance of
plankton and benthic organisms such as worms and bugs on which the young
sturgeon can feed.

As the fish grow, so do their chances for survival. They become more
mobile; they can tolerate deeper, faster current; and they can move to
more suitable habitats as river conditions change.

While pallids have likely been most disturbed, changing river conditions
have also made other sturgeon populations wane.

\"Shovelnose and lake sturgeon have also declined,\" said Milligan.
\"Lake sturgeon is in serious decline, and shovelnose sturgeon
populations are in trouble too because they are being severely
over-exploited for caviar production.\"

Adult female pallid sturgeon, which can produce large quantities of
eggs, are also considered at risk for caviar harvest. However, such
harvest of pallid sturgeon violates federal law.

Pallid sturgeon were designated a federally endangered species in 1990.
Recovery efforts have been ongoing ever since. According to Milligan, a
combination of stocking young fish, restoring habitat, and
reestablishing more natural river flows is essential to pallid sturgeon
recovery.

Some stretches of the Missouri River that have been restored to historic
conditions have produced dramatic results. In 1998, Fish and Wildlife
Service biologists collected wild-born larval pallid sturgeon --- the
first documented reproduction in the Lower Missouri River in at least 50
years --- from the waters at Lisbon Bottoms, a habitat restoration unit
of the Big Muddy National Fish and Wildlife Refuge in Missouri. Managers
there created a side channel of the river to mimic an aspect of the
river\'s historic flow pattern.

Several state and federal fish hatcheries in the pallid sturgeon\'s
historical habitat of Montana, South Dakota, North Dakota, Missouri, and
Louisiana are engaged in collaborative efforts to produce pallid
sturgeon for supplemental stocking.

Norm Stucky, Fisheries Division administrator for the Missouri
Department of Conservation said, \"the challenge of saving this unique
species from extinction is too great for any one agency to assume
alone.\" The Missouri Department of Conservation began rearing pallid
sturgeon at the Blind Pony Hatchery in 1992. Since then, more than
10,000 have been stocked in the Missouri and Mississippi rivers.

The latest stock of pallid sturgeon in the river comes from the
nation\'s oldest fish hatchery. Neosho National Fish Hatchery was
established in 1888 to produce and stock sport fish, such as rainbow and
brown trout. Today, along with its pallid sturgeon efforts, Neosho is
experimenting with ways to raise endangered freshwater mussels.

\"We\'re an old hatchery now working to conserve a much older species,\"
said hatchery manager David Hendrix. \"We\'re going beyond the
traditional fish hatchery role to help endangered species like pallid
sturgeon.\"

As with the river, the hatchery has changed over time, reflecting the
evolving needs of the Missouri River\'s fisheries. Together, state and
federal biologists will evaluate the progress of stocked fish and
monitor the recovery of the pallid sturgeon. Biologists estimate that,
along with major habitat and flow restoration, supplemental stocking
will be required for the next 20 to 30 years --- a tiny measure of time
in relation to the epochal span of this prehistoric species.

**Corps reform fight could push water resources bill to 2004**

**By Damon Franz**

Environment & Energy Daily

Nov. 18, 2002

With a fight over proposed reforms to the embattled Army Corps of
Engineers likely to become even more hotly contested in the new
Congress, suggestions have been popping up on Capitol Hill that biennial
water resources legislation \-- slated to be passed in 2002 \-- will not
actually reach President Bush\'s desk until 2004.

**Tough reform fight looms in Senate panel**

Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), slated to take over as chairman of the
Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, has said passing the
biennial Water Resources Development Act would be one of his top
priorities when the 108th Congress begins in January. Although WRDA
bills, which authorize new corps projects and steer agency policy, are
typically passed every two years, the bill was held up this year over
proposals to give the agency independent oversight and implement other
reforms to make the corps more environmentally and fiscally responsible.

Despite Inhofe\'s plan, however, the new Senate dynamic could make it
more difficult to pass the legislation in the coming year than it would
have been in the current legislative session.

Earlier this year, it appeared a WRDA bill with significant corps reform
would have an easy time passing the Senate. EPW Committee ranking member
Robert Smith (R-N.H.) was a leading proponent of reform, and his
proposal had the backing of other heavy players, like Committee Chairman
James Jeffords (I-Vt.) and Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.).
Although opposition from some members delayed the bill\'s release, the
committee reportedly had authored a WRDA bill including significant
corps reform by September and was ready to vote on it shortly
thereafter.

But that was before Smith lost his re-election bid. Serving out the
remainder of his term, sources say Smith pulled the WRDA bill because he
did not want to engage in a high-profile fight over corps reform as a
lame-duck senator.

With Smith gone and opponents of reform ascending to leadership
positions, it now appears more likely that a battle over reform could
end in deadlock. That\'s because top-ranking Democrats have come out
strongly in favor of a corps overhaul and do not appear willing to cede
much on the issue. For instance, Daschle, the Senate\'s top Democrat,
signed on as a cosponsor to corps reform legislation, and sources on and
off the Hill have said Jeffords, set to become committee ranking member,
will not support a WRDA bill without corps reform.

Meanwhile, Inhofe, who will have the most power in authoring the bill,
has challenged the idea of corps reform. \"I\'m disappointed that
instead of addressing water priorities, we\'re instead discussing how to
reform the corps,\" Inhofe said at a hearing on the WRDA bill in June.
\"I question whether this effort will ensure the result proponents
envision. Much of what the corps does or doesn\'t do is ultimately
decided by Congress, and not the corps.\"

Despite Inhofe\'s statements, some corps reform proponents are confident
that, being a fiscal conservative, the senator will support at least
some aspects of a corps reform package, especially those that could make
the agency more financially accountable. \"We\'re still confident that
Senator Inhofe and other fiscal conservatives on the Republican side
will see that the government needs to change the way they fund water
projects in America,\" said Keith Ashdown of Taxpayers for Common Sense,
noting that Inhofe was a proponent of increasing the local cost-share
for the Everglades project.

\"The thing we\'re going to focus on as an organization is, now that the
Republicans have the slate, they have to practice what they preach on
fiscal discipline,\" he said.

But while Inhofe was the resounding voice of fiscal caution while the
committee discussed the Everglades restoration bill, his warnings
against excessive spending on water projects might be limited to those
he perceives as purely environmental in nature.

\"I find it amusing that the individuals who are trying to introduce
more deliberation, more reports and more bureaucracy are the ones who
are supporting the Everglades restoration act, one of the largest acts
that we\'ve ever considered,\" he said. \"We need to decide what our
national priorities are; do we continue to use our waterways for
navigation and economic development, or do we focus exclusively on
environmental restoration? It seems the latter is the direction some
would have us move.\"

And Inhofe is not the only Republican on the Senate EPW panel who
opposes corps reform. Sen. Kit Bond (R-Mo.) has said he not only opposes
the proposal to require independent audits of expensive or controversial
corps projects, but he also opposes even the current requirement that
the agency prove the benefits of its projects will outweigh the costs
before proceeding.

\"It\'s simple for us to tell you just to stack up the pennies and if
there\'s more in one pile than in the other, go ahead with it,\" he said
to the corps\' Chief of Engineers Lt. General Robert Flowers at the WRDA
hearing. \"But it seems to me it would be better for you, me and the
public we serve if the administration issued ranges of cost and benefits
and options and laid out the environmental issues, including separate
analyses from resource agencies, and have the administration give its go
or no-go recommendation, and let us earn our money by deciding whether a
project is worth undertaking.\"

Bond, now the third-ranking Republican on the committee, strongly
opposes proposals to overhaul the agency, saying independent review and
more stringent environmental requirements would further slow the already
glacial process of getting corps projects approved. And Bond says
shifting more of the cost burden to local sponsors is merely an attempt
by urban easterners \-- who have already benefits from the corps\'
flood-control services \-- to cut off poor communities in other areas of
the country that have been left behind.

\"Any legislation that would make an already costly, lengthy and
bureaucratic process more costly, lengthy and bureaucratic, I will
oppose it,\" he said. \"I think I have bipartisan support from many
regions to resolve it if necessary. I didn\'t pick this fight, but I am
ready and anxious, with energy and enthusiasm, to join it.\"

Bond, along with new Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) \-- an
active proponent of large corps projects of the sort environmentalists
point to when citing the need for corps reform \-- could exert pressure
on Inhofe to reject reform proposals. If that is the case, and if
Jeffords sticks to the mantra of \"no WRDA without reform,\" the stage
is set for gridlock on the matter.

Still some groups that depend on new corps projects are cautiously
optimistic the Republican majority will improve WRDA\'s chances of
passing next year. \"I think it\'s going to be marginally better for the
movement of WRDA,\" said Howard Marlowe of the American Shore and Beach
Preservation Association. \"From the hearing they held, \[Inhofe\] was
opposed to the \[corps reform\] suggestions that were being made.
Whether he\'s going to compromise on that is uncertain, but it sets out
a better position for getting a WRDA bill passed.\"

Tom Chase of the American Association of Port Authorities agreed that
the Republican majority could improve prospects for a WRDA bill, but he
also indicated that the strong feelings both sides have on the issue
could make passage difficult. \"It may make it easier to get a bill out
of committee,\" he said. \"But then again, the majority this year
didn\'t get a bill out that they wanted. It wasn\'t easier for the
pro-corps-reform folks to move their version of WRDA.\"

Chase said he felt it would be more likely for committee members to
compromise on corps reform while the bill is being drafted than to pass
a reform-free WRDA bill and face an amendment fight on the floor.

Meanwhile, Ashdown of Taxpayers for Common Sense said with both houses
of Congress under Republican control, it may be easier for the Bush
administration to enact its goal of reducing the corps\' burden on
federal coffers. \"Now there is no one in the way to thwart the Bush
administration\'s efforts to reduce the size of the Corps of
Engineers,\" he said. \"The party that wants to shrink the government
now has control of all three houses.\"

**House bill will start over from scratch**

On the House side, a WRDA bill made it all the way to the floor but
Republicans quickly withdrew it in the face of strong opposition from
corps reform proponents. Those advocates complained that they had been
robbed of a fair chance to debate their proposals in committee and
rallied their colleagues to vote against the bill when the leadership
tried to bring it to the floor for quick passage under suspension of the
rules.

When Congress starts anew in January, the WRDA bill will go back to the
drawing board, requiring new approval at the committee and subcommittee
levels, according to Jim Berard, Democratic press secretary for the
House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. \"The bill has to
start from ground zero and go through the committees,\" he said.

The fact that their unwillingness to consider corps reform prevented the
Republican leaders from passing a WRDA bill this year means the
committee leaders will have to face the issue more directly this year if
they want a bill, according to Berard. \"If you\'ve got the same people
and the same bill, the fact that it didn\'t survive this Congress means
there probably need to be some changes to make it through the next,\" he
said.

Rep. John Duncan (R-Tenn.), who chairs the House Transportation Water
Resources Subcommittee \-- which writes the WRDA bill \-- said last
month that his committee will likely debate the corps reform ideas
earlier in the process next time. \"We may need to hold some hearings on
the issue,\" he said.

As in the Senate, the leader of the WRDA-authorizing committee in the
House \-- Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman Don Young
(R-Alaska) \-- opposes corps reform. Thus, passage of the act in 2003
may well depend on how much of the corps reform package the leadership
is willing to stomach in order to get new water resources projects \--
and federal dollars \-- in their colleagues\' congressional districts.

Some observers off the Hill are beginning to speculate that the pressure
to pass a WRDA bill next year might not be strong enough to push the
leadership into accepting corps reform. \"Right now there are very few
projects that are just immediate and dire necessities,\" said David
Conrad of the National Wildlife Federation.

According to Conrad, the last time Congress considered reforming the
corps in a WRDA bill, during the 1970s and early 1980s, the legislation
stalled for 12 years until lawmakers could agree on the provisions for
increasing the local cost-share and implementing concurrent
environmental mitigation. \"It took that long to get agreement on the
essential reforms,\" he said.

And Scott Faber of Environmental Defense said reauthorization of the
Transportation Equity Act of the 21st Century, which will take place in
the same committees charged with writing WRDA, will most likely push the
water bill back another year. \"They\'re going to need all hands on deck
to do TEA,\" he said.

Aides on the House T&I Committee and Senate EPW Committee denied that
TEA-21 reauthorization would have any effect on the chances of passing
WRDA. \"I don\'t see where TEA-21 is going to pose any problem to
WRDA,\" Berard said. \"The main issue with WRDA is whether they can come
to an agreement on these corps reform provisions.\"

**Corps to increase day-use fees in 2003**

HQ USACE News Release

Monday, Nov. 18, 2002

WASHINGTON, D.C. \-- The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will increase
recreation day use fees effective Jan. 1, 2003. Fees for the issuance of
special event permits will also increase for the 2003 recreation season.

Over 375 million Americans visit Corps lakes for recreation purposes
each year. One quarter of them come to fish. Others come to camp, hike,
hunt and view wildlife.

"The Corps operates these facilities for the use of all Americans\",
said Maj. Gen. Robert H. Griffin, director of Civil Works, U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers. "These fees will help us sustain the quality of our
facilities for the enjoyment of our visitors."

Recreation use fees collected are used to help offset operating and
maintenance costs at Corps facilities, to assure public demand for high
quality recreation opportunities is met.

The new day use fee schedule for Corps operated recreation facilities is
as follows:

\-- A fee of \$1 per person, up to \$4 per vehicle, will be charged at
developed swimming beaches, and a fee of \$3 will be charged for boat
launching at ramps that have additional amenities. The current fee is a
maximum of \$3 per vehicle at beaches and \$2 for boat launchings

> \-- A maximum fee of \$4 per vehicle per day may be charged for the
> use of all day use recreation facilities within a park. The current
> fee is \$3 per vehicle.
>
> \-- An annual pass may be purchased for \$30 to permit the holder and
> accompanying passengers to use all day use facilities at
> Corps-operated parks for the calendar year. A second annual pass may
> be purchased at the reduced rate of \$15.00. The current fee is \$25
> for an annual pass and \$5 for a second pass.
>
> \-- Golden Age and Golden Access passports will be honored. Holders
> will receive a 50 percent discount on all recreation use fees.
>
> \-- There will be no fee for children 12 years old or younger.
>
> \-- The basic fee to issue a special events permit will be \$50. The
> current fee is \$25.

In addition to the fee changes, the Corps is conducting a stringent
review to ensure Corps recreation use fees are comparable to those
charged by other providers for similar facilities and services in the
local area. This is being done to assure unfair competition with private
industry is avoided and may result in increased camping fees at some
locations.

The Corps charges fees under the authority of the Land and Water
Conservation Fund Act for recreation sites, facilities and services
provided at government expense.

Additional information about the Corps' recreation program can be found
at <http://www.usace.army.mil/recreation/>