U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

27–431 PDF 2006

THE MISSOURI RIVER AND ITS SPRING RISE:

SCIENCE OR SCIENCE FICTION

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RURAL ENTERPRISES, 

AGRICULTURE & TECHNOLOGY

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

WASHINGTON, DC, MARCH 15, 2006

Serial No. 109–42

Printed for the use of the Committee on Small Business

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/house 

COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS 

DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois, Chairman 

ROSCOE BARTLETT, Maryland, Vice 

Chairman 

SUE KELLY, New York 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

TODD AKIN, Missouri 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

MARILYN MUSGRAVE, Colorado 

JEB BRADLEY, New Hampshire 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

THADDEUS MCCOTTER, Michigan 

RIC KELLER, Florida 

TED POE, Texas 

MICHAEL SODREL, Indiana 

JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska 

MICHAEL FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania 

LYNN WESTMORELAND, Georgia 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

NYDIA VELA ́ ZQUEZ, New York 

JUANITA MILLENDER-MCDONALD, 

California 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

ENI FALEOMAVAEGA, American Samoa 

DONNA CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands 

DANNY DAVIS, Illinois 

ED CASE, Hawaii 

MADELEINE BORDALLO, Guam 

RAU ́ L GRIJALVA, Arizona 

MICHAEL MICHAUD, Maine 

LINDA SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

JOHN BARROW, Georgia 

MELISSA BEAN, Illinois 

GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin 

J. MATTHEW SZYMANSKI, Chief of Staff 

PHIL ESKELAND, Deputy Chief of Staff/Policy Director 

MICHAEL DAY, Minority Staff Director

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RURAL ENTERPRISES, AGRICULTURE AND 

TECHNOLOGY 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri, Chairman 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

ROSCOE BARTLETT, Maryland 

MICHAEL SODREL, Indiana 

JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska 

MARILYN MUSGRAVE, Colorado 

JOHN BARROW, Georgia 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

MICHAEL MICHAUD, Maine 

ED CASE, Hawaii 

RAU ́ L GRIJALVA, Arizona

PIPER LARGENT, Professional Staff

(II) 

C O N T E N T S 

WITNESSES

Page 

Talent, Honorable Jim, Senator, (R-MO), U.S. Senate ......................................... 3

Martin, Greg F., Brigadier General, Commander and Division Engineer, 

Northwestern Division, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers .................................... 5

King, Mr. Mitch, Regional Director, Mountain-Prairie Region, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior ..................................................... 8

Wells, Mr. Mike, Deputy Director and Chief of Water Resources, Missouri 

Department of Natural Resources ...................................................................... 10

Kruse, Mr. Charlie, President, Missouri Farm Bureau ........................................ 24

Muench, Ms. Lynn M., Vice President, The American Waterways Operators ... 26

Taylor, Mr. Steve, Missouri Corn Growers, Coalition to Protect the Missouri 

River ...................................................................................................................... 27

Waters, Mr. Tom, Waters Farm ............................................................................. 29

Sieck, Mr. David, Iowa Corn Growers ................................................................... 31

APPENDIX

Opening statements: 

Graves, Hon. Sam ............................................................................................. 41

Barrow, Hon. John ........................................................................................... 43

Skelton, Hon. Ike .............................................................................................. 45

Prepared statements: 

Martin, Greg F., Brigadier General, Commander and Division Engineer, 

Northwestern Division, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ............................ 46

King, Mr. Mitch, Regional Director, Mountain-Prairie Region, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior ...................................... 49

Wells, Mr. Mike, Deputy Director and Chief of Water Resources, Missouri 

Department of Natural Resources ............................................................... 57

Kruse, Mr. Charlie, President, Missouri Farm Bureau ................................ 60

Muench, Ms. Lynn M., Vice President, The American Waterways Operators ................................................................................................................. 62

Taylor, Mr. Steve, Missouri Corn Growers, Coalition to Protect the Missouri River ..................................................................................................... 68

Waters, Mr. Tom, Waters Farm ...................................................................... 73

Sieck, Mr. David, Iowa Corn Growers ............................................................ 75

(III) 

(1)

THE MISSOURI RIVER AND ITS SPRING RISE: 

SCIENCE OR SCIENCE FICTION 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 15, 2006

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RURAL ENTERPRISES, AGRICULTURE

AND TECHNOLOGY

COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS

Washington, DC 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in Room 

2360 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Sam Graves [Chairman 

of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Graves, King, Barrow. 

Chairman GRAVES. I’ll go ahead and call this meeting to order. 

Good morning and welcome to this hearing of the Subcommittee on 

Agriculture, Rural Enterprises and Technology. We’re here today, 

obviously, to have a hearing on the Missouri River and the science 

used by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to mandate management of the Missouri River by the Corps of Engineers. And I want 

to thank everybody for their participation. Obviously, all statements made by the witnesses and the Members will be placed in 

the record, in their entirety. 

It’s no secret that I am adamantly opposed to the spring rise. 

First, this policy is based on unproven science. According to the 

Fish and Wildlife Service, a spring rise might increase the spawning habits of the endangered pallid sturgeon, might is the key 

word. In accordance with this theory and the Endangered Species 

Act, the Corps of Engineers has mandated to implement an artificial, man-made spring rise. However, many, including the Missouri 

Department of Natural Resources, dispute that the spring rise will 

cause the pallid sturgeon to spawn. In fact, many say that the 

spring pulse could further harm the piping plover and the least 

tern, which are two birds which are also endangered on the river. 

Second, the spring rise, which according to the Army Corps of 

Engineers, will occur in May pending sufficient water levels in the 

upper basin reservoirs, will happen at a time when spring rise already occurs naturally. A combination of a naturally occurring rise 

and a man-made spring rise can create significant problems and 

flooding. In a State with a history of floods, as well as many acres 

and livelihoods in the flood plain, a flood could have a devastating 

impact on the economy and public safety. 

In 2003, the Missouri River flooded and its impact was devastating. Most people outside of Missouri have probably forgotten 

this, but for the citizens of Missouri, it is embedded in their memoVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:19 Sep 29, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 G:\HEARINGS\27431.TXT MIKE
2

ries. This flood cost 48 people their lives. It cost $15 billion in damages, and damaged some 72,000 homes. Now our Government 

wants to play Russian Roulette with the same river through a 

man-made flood. 

To add insult to injury, we all were informed late last year by 

the USDA that a farmer’s crop insurance will not cover any destruction caused by a spring rise. The USDA reasons that crop insurance only covers crops destroyed by a ‘‘natural occurring event.’’ 

The USDA goes on to explain that a federally-mandated spring rise 

will not be covered because it’s man made, not naturally occurring. 

As I understand it, the Government is mandating a flood that could 

impact over 1 million Missourians in the Missouri River flood 

plain, but the Government will not cover the flood costs associated 

with its own policies. I think that is absolutely ridiculous. 

As a farmer, I understand the risks associated with my business. 

It is my job to prepare and reduce as much risk as I possibly can. 

However, we have an instance where the Government is coming in 

and throwing us a pitch we have never seen before. This seems 

counter-productive. Farmers themselves are becoming an endangered species. 

There are other alternatives that will protect these threatened 

species without threatening the livelihoods of farmers and others 

who depend on the Missouri River. 

Again, I want to thank everybody for their participation for coming here today and I’ll now turn to Ranking Member Barrow, for 

his opening statement. 

[Chairman Graves’ opening statement may be found in the appendix.] 

Mr. BARROW. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning. My 

name is John Barrow and I represent Georgia’s 12th District in the 

Congress. The purpose of this hearing is to discuss the impact and 

change in water levels of the Missouri River, and in a broader 

sense to help protect the property rights in small businesses, including small farmers. I commend Chairman Graves for using this 

hearing to find ways to properly manage our rivers without infringing on the rights of local landowners. I understand this is a major 

local issue for Missourians, but how it’s resolved in this case will 

have nationwide consequences. 

Since I’m here with a bunch of Missouri folks, I think I should 

put in a word for a good friend of mine, Armed Services Committee 

Ranking Member Ike Skelton. Ike has been a strong supporter of 

agricultural interests along the Missouri River and he’s always 

worked both sides of the aisle to ensure that the river’s management is fair to Missouri agribusiness. He formerly served as a 

Member of the Small Business Committee and he’s the former 

Chairman of the Subcommittee on Procurement, Tourism and 

Rural Development. 

Ike would have been here himself to give a statement, but he’s 

committed to preside over an Armed Services Committee hearing 

regarding Iraq and Afghanistan, so he can’t be here. Since he can’t 

be here to submit a statement, Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 

consent to enter Ike’s statement into the record. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

3

[Ranking Member Barrows’ opening statement may be found in 

the appendix.] 

[Congressman Skelton’s (MO-4) opening statement may be found 

in the appendix.] 

Chairman GRAVES. Absolutely. We’re now going to move on to 

our first witness. Senator, you have a very busy schedule, but we 

appreciate you being here. Senator Talent used to be the Chairman 

of the overall Small Business Committee. His painting is on the 

wall back behind. It’s got to be a good feeling to come to a room 

where your likeness is hanging on the wall. 

Senator TALENT. I remember the day I was hung, Mr. Chairman. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman GRAVES. Well, thanks for being here, Senator. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JIM TALENT, SENATOR (RMO), U.S. SENATE 

Senator TALENT. Well, I appreciate it and thanks for—I didn’t realize I was a couple of minutes late. It’s extremely kind of you and 

the Ranking Member to wait for me and good of you to hold this 

hearing. It’s an important hearing and you know, Mr. Chairman, 

I just think people who are not familiar with this issue are not 

going to believe what the Government is doing. It’s incredible, as 

you know, and the Ranking Member mentioned Mr. Skelton. We 

have been fighting on a bipartisan basis for years in Missouri for 

sanity in river management. And really, that’s what I think this 

amounts to. 

We fought the spring rise. We fought the Government’s attempt 

to withhold water in the late summer. Sometimes I get in front of 

audiences of people who really don’t have anything to do necessarily with agriculture or the river and I say to them now if you 

were managing the Missouri River and the reservoirs upstream 

and you had a choice of releasing water in the spring when it’s 

rainy or in the late summer when there isn’t as much rain, what 

would you do? I have never had anybody say as a matter of common sense that we ought to release water in the spring, much less 

twice in the spring and then withhold it in the late summer. I 

mean even people who don’t understand hydrology and river management get this because it’s a matter of common sense. 

Mr. Chairman, you know that the Missouri River is the longest 

river in the United States. The Corps of Engineers operates the 

Missouri River to serve a number of congressionally-authorized 

purposes including flood control, navigation, irrigation, hydro 

power, water supply, recreation and fish and wildlife. It’s supposed 

to be a balance. That’s how they’re supposed to manage the river. 

It’s complicated to manage, even when water is plentiful. It’s 

very complex when flows are limited. I mean nobody is saying that 

this is easy. 

So the debate has spawned many Court cases and legislative battles for decades. I, and the whole delegation, and those my predecessors and everybody in the House has been fighting on behalf of 

Missouri farmers against the spring rise and that’s the issue that 

brings us here today. 

The spring rise is extremely dangerous, Mr. Chairman. Water is 

released from the lowest reservoir at Gavins Point. It takes only 

4

about 10 days to go from there to the confluence within the Mississippi River because between the release point in St. Louis, there 

are no locks and dams that can slow the water’s progress. In fact, 

twice in June of 2005, which was a terrible drought season, the 

Missouri River rose nine feet in a period of 18 hours because of 

rains. 

During spring months, the lower basin receives significant rainfall and the additional flows reduce drainage from highly productive crop land and therefore increase the probability of flooding. 

The flood plain, the area that would be affected by this decision 

includes 1.4 million acres of farm land, 30,400 homes and 5,345 

buildings worth an estimated $17 billion. That’s what’s at risk with 

this decision. 

Additionally, Mr. Chairman, I question the science behind the 

spring rise. Even the USGS admits that little is known about the 

essential life history needs of the pallid sturgeon. And water flow 

is just one of the many factors that impact spawning. Other stimuli 

thought to be associated with the spawning event include temperature, photoperiod and physiological conditions. 

Clearly, the spring rise is unjustified and premature. We need 

more time to evaluate alternative measures which are already underway and more time is necessary for the USGS and other agencies to form a baseline of analysis to evaluate biological response 

to the various approaches. 

Why have they chosen an method of helping to promote spawning of the pallid sturgeon, the one method which is the most destructive to the economy and dangerous to the lives of farmers in 

Missouri? I’ve always opposed the spring rise. Under the 2006 operating plan, recently released by the Corps of Farmers are now facing not one, but two spring rises, a March rise and a May rise. 

For generations, local farmers, residents and businesses have depended on the river for their lives and livelihoods. The two spring 

rises proposed by Fish and Wildlife put that livelihood at risk. Missourians understand they have a special responsibility to be good 

stewards of the river and to use its resources in an environmentally-sensitive way. We all agree with that. Who can we trust 

with the land and the resources, if not the farmers who live off it? 

But I don’t believe that the needs of Missouri farmers and the 

Missouri economy should place second fiddle to a fish. 

Furthermore, as you mentioned, Mr. Chairman, the Risk Management Agency recently announced that those land owners flooded 

under this proposed plan will not be eligible for crop insurance benefits because the flood would be a man-made disaster, rather than 

a naturally-occurring event. It’s outrageous that producers wouldn’t 

get the compensation that they need and deserve. 

I’m going to continue to work with you and the delegation on 

both sides of the aisle, as well as other groups to ensure that farmers who do fall victim to spring rise flooding are compensated. 

Mr. Chairman, I continue to oppose a management policy of the 

river which has shifted the primary purpose of the upstream dams 

and reservoirs away from a balance of the congressionally-mandated interests towards almost exclusive representation of recreational and environmental goals at the expense of other interests 

5

such as flood control, navigation, water availability, public water 

supply and power generation. 

This dangerous alignment of priorities on the river will also have 

an immediate impact on the livelihood of farmers and land owners 

along the river, as well as the economy of the State of Missouri. 

I thank you for your interest, Mr. Chairman. This is an important hearing. We need to keep doing everything we can to reverse 

this and I’m pleased to be here. I know Senator Bond, as you know, 

feels exactly the same way. I don’t know of a public official on either side of the aisle who has not felt the way we felt about this. 

So thank you for holding the hearing. 

Chairman GRAVES. Thank you, Senator. I appreciate you being 

here. 

We’re now going to seat the second panel, if you want to go 

ahead and come forward. 

[Pause.] 

We have a full complement of witnesses on this panel and on the 

third panel, so I have to ask everyone to be mindful of the clock 

and try to keep your comments to five minutes. There’s a light up 

there. When you have one minute left I think it turns yellow and 

then red. But I do appreciate everyone being here. Again, as the 

Senator pointed out and Ranking Member Barrow and myself, we 

think this is a very important issue and we’re looking forward to 

hearing from everybody. 

We’ll start out with General Gregg Martin, who is Commander 

and Division Engineer of the Northwestern Division with the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers. 

General, I appreciate you being here. Thank you very much. I 

look forward to your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF BRIGADIER GENERAL GREGG F. MARTIN, U.S. 

ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS 

General MARTIN. Mr. Chairman and distinguished Members of 

the Subcommittee, I am honored to be testifying before your Subcommittee today. My name is General Gregg Martin, Commander 

of the Northwestern Division of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 

The operation of the Missouri River Mainstem Reservoir System is 

under my command. 

The Corps operate the Missouri River Mainstem Reservoir System to serve the congressionally-authorized purposes of flood damage reduction, commercial navigation, hydropower, irrigation, 

recreation, water supply, water quality, and fish and wildlife. The 

Corps’ goal is to best serve these authorized purposes while complying with all applicable laws, including the Endangered Species 

Act, and while fulfilling our responsibilities to federally recognized 

Native American Indian Tribes. 

The Corps has been consulting with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service under the ESA since the early 1990s on the operation of 

the Missouri River Mainstem Reservoir System, the Bank Stabilization and Navigation Project, and the Kansas River projects. In 

November 2000, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service provided the Corps 

a biological opinion which concluded that the Corps’ operation of 

these projects jeopardized the continued existence of the interior 

6

least tern, piping plover, and pallid sturgeon, three species protected under the ESA. 

In 2003, as a result of additional information, including the listing of critical habitat for the piping plover, the Corps and the Service re-initiated ESA consultation. In their 2003 Amended BiOp, the 

Service concluded that the Corps’ actions still jeopardized the continued existence of the three listed species. However, in the 2003 

Amended BiOp, the Service provided a revised Reasonable and 

Prudent Alternative, to jeopardy. The RPA includes a requirement 

for a bimodal spring pulse form Gavins Point Dam for the benefit 

of the endangered pallid sturgeon. 

Intense efforts continue by the Corps, with assistance from the 

USFWS, the U.S. Geological Survey, States, and other natural resource experts, to restore physical habitat for the three listed species including the pallid sturgeon in the watershed of the Missouri 

River. The restoration work for the pallid sturgeon is intended to 

provide the habitat for young sturgeons to develop and survive. We 

also have a significant research program underway with the U.S. 

Geological Survey to determine the facts that may be limiting pallid sturgeon spawning and recruitment, as well as an aggressive 

pallid sturgeon propagation program. However, under the 2003 

Amended BiOp, these efforts, although beneficial, do not substitute 

for changes in river management to provide the flow conditions 

that the Service has indicated promote sturgeon reproduction. 

The 2003 Amended BiOp requires the Corps to implement the bimodal spring pulse releases no later than the spring of 2006. However, the BiOp also allows for consideration of existing 

hydroclimatic conditions, such as drought, in the decision on 

whether and how to implement the bimodal spring pulse in any 

given year. 

The Missouri River basin is currently experiencing an extended 

drought, and system storage is at unusually low levels. The Corps 

has taken these low levels into account in developing the technical 

criteria for a bimodal spring pulse release plan included in the Missouri River Mainstem Reservoir System Master Water Control 

Manual, the Master Manual, along with public input regarding any 

potential risks associated with the spring pulse releases. Consistent with the Master Manual technical criteria, the plan for this 

year is presented in the Corps’ 2005-2006 annual Operating Plan 

for the Missouri River Mainstem System. 

The technical criteria and AOP were developed through a collaborative process and were based on the requirements of the 2003 

Amended BiOp; analysis of hydrologic data; input from the Spring 

Pulse Plenary Group, which was compounded of more than 50 

Basin stakeholders, Tribal meetings and consultations; and public 

comments received on the draft AOP. This process was facilitated 

by the U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution and included representatives from the Service, the Corps, Tribal representatives, basin states, and a wide range of stakeholders. These 

discussions were key in the identification of Master Manual technical criteria for the bimodal spring pulse and the 2006 AOP. 

The technical criteria greatly reduce the potential for negative 

impacts as compared to the plan identified in the 2003 Amended 

BiOp. One key change was a reduction of the peak of the spring 

7

pulses from one to two weeks down to two days. This not only 

saves water in System storage, which is important during the 

drought, but also reduces the duration of the higher river stages. 

The Plenary Group discussions, and extensive discussions with 

the Service, also helped the Corps identify criteria for adjusting the 

magnitude of the May spring pulse in response to hydroclimatic 

conditions. During drought, these adjustments substantially reduce 

or eliminate the spring pulses. The Service informed us that the 

draft technical criteria for the bimodal spring pulse plan, when implemented in conjunction with the comprehensive adaptive management program to address future operational flexibility will meet 

the intended purposes outlined in the 2003 Amended BiOp for 2006 

and beyond. These criteria were then incorporated into the Master 

Manual Revision of 1 March 2006. 

The Corps understands farmers’ concerns over the potential for 

flooding of cropland during the bimodal spring pulse releases. The 

bimodal spring pulse plan includes criteria specifically designed to 

minimize the risk of downstream flooding and crop damage. First, 

the established downstream flow limits have not been changed in 

the revised Manual, and thus provide similar downstream flood 

control during the spring pulse releases as in previous years’ operations. Second, the Corps has agreed, at the request of downstream 

farmers, to integrate the National Weather Service precipitation 

forecasts into its daily Missouri River operational forecasts during 

the pulse period, and will adjust releases accordingly. And third, 

the Corps will integrate estimated actual rainfall derived from 

weather radar information into its forecasts. 

These measures, along with the reduced duration and magnitude 

of the pulses, will reduce the potential for downstream flooding. It 

is also important to know that as provided in the Master Manual 

spring rise technical criteria, that because the system storage was 

below 36.5 million acre- feed on March 1st of this year, March 

pulse was not implemented. We’ll check storage again on May 1st 

to determine if the May pulse will be implemented. System storage 

must be above 36.5 million acre-feed for the May pulse to be implemented this year. Also, due to the current extended drought, releases for navigation in 2006 will be 6,000 cubic feet per second 

lower than normal, thus resulting in lower peak flows if the May 

pulse is implemented. 

In conclusion, sir, the Corps remains committed to operate the 

Missouri River Mainstem System to serve the congressionally-authorized project purposes, fulfill our Tribal Trust and Treaty obligations, and comply with all applicable laws, including the Endangered Species Act. We’re convinced this can be best accomplished 

in a sustained collaborative process that includes the entire spectrum of Basin interests. Working together as a team, Federal, Tribal, State, local agencies and stakeholders, we can identify solutions 

that benefit the Basin as a whole. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I’ll be happy to answer 

any questions. 

[General Martin’s testimony may be found in the appendix.] 

Chairman GRAVES. Thank you, General. 

Next, we’re going to hear from Mitch King, who is the Regional 

Director of the Mountain-Prairie Region with U.S. Fish and WildVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:19 Sep 29, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 G:\HEARINGS\27431.TXT MIKE
8

life Service, Department of the Interior. I thank you for being here 

and look forward to your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF MITCH KING, U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE 

SERVICE 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Committee. As the Chairman mentioned, my name is Mitch King. I am 

the Regional Director for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s 

Mountain-Prairie Region in Denver, Colorado. I really appreciate 

this opportunity to provide testimony on behalf of the Department 

of the Interior. I’ve provided more extensive comments that are in 

front of you right now and in the interest of time, I’ll focus my oral 

comments on the pallid sturgeon in the spring rise. 

First, let me emphasize that large rivers like the Missouri River 

and their associated fishery habitat, like the pallid sturgeon, have 

evolved over thousands of years, so it stands to reason that if you 

make major changes to a large river system, you will invariably result in changes to the fishery that have evolved with that river system. The construction of dams and the regulation of the Missouri 

River for flood control and navigation capture the spring runoff 

flows in the reservoir for release during the late summer and early 

fall when conditions are drier and river flow is naturally lower. 

While these management actions have provided tremendous economic and social benefit to the nation, these benefits have come at 

a cost. One of those costs is the pallid sturgeon fishery whose numbers are now so low that it has been listed under the Endangered 

Species Act as endangered. Recognizing this impact, the Corps and 

the Service, have worked with our State partners, and I think 

we’ve developed reasonable solutions that facilitate navigation, facilitate flood control and other important interests, while working 

to restore the pallid sturgeon fishery. The Corps is combining physical habitat restoration, hatchery management and measured 

hydrological improvements to address the impacts to the pallid 

sturgeon fishery. 

It’s these hydrologic impacts, the spring rise, particularly, that 

seem to be getting most of the attention. Therefore, I’ll focus the 

remainder of my testimony on that. 

Let me start by assuring you that there is a mountain of science 

supporting the importance of spring rise when it comes to restoring 

pallid sturgeon fishery. While scientists may express opinions on 

the magnitude or the timing, there are literally hundreds of articles in the published scientific literature related to large river ecology and recognize the importance of the native fisheries in restoring some semblance of the natural hydrograph. 

The National Research Council, a subcommittee of the National 

Academy of Sciences stated it best by saying the ‘‘degradation of 

the Missouri River ecosystem will continue unless some portion of 

the hydrologic and geomorphic processes that sustain the pre-regulation Missouri River are restored, including ... flow pulses that 

emulate the natural hydrograph. [Without them] the ecosystem 

faces the prospect of irreversible extinction of species.’’ 

Very definitive quotes, just like this come from very well-respected river ecologists, and they’re found throughout the published 

literature. 

9

Even with this volume of science supporting the position that 

we’re taking, the Corps and the Service, along with our partners 

like the U.S. Geological Survey, are constantly seeking more knowledge about the pallid sturgeon. The USGS is working to better understand pallid sturgeon in the river. At the same time, the Fish 

and Wildlife Service is working to improve our hatchery management capabilities regarding pallid sturgeon, and undoubtedly, this 

new science will improve our knowledge base regarding the pallid 

sturgeon and help the Corps make even better management decisions in the future. 

Setting aside science for a moment, the Service is sensitive to the 

concerns of the users and stakeholders of the Missouri River Basin. 

The Service and the Corps have worked together over the past year 

with travel representatives, Basin States and a wide range of 

stakeholders. The spring rise in this year’s annual operating plan, 

which incorporated input from State, Tribal and Federal agencies, 

as well as stakeholders, complies with the requirements of the Endangered Species Act, while being responsive to the hydroclimatic 

conditions in the Basin and the potential impacts to people. 

Through this collaborative process, the spring rise was reduced 

in duration from roughly two weeks to two days. In addition, the 

magnitude of the pulses were reduced to the point that if water 

storage levels had been sufficient to support this year’s March 

pulse, the magnitude of that pulse would have been very near the 

same level of flow that the Corps has released at this same time 

in previous years and water levels that allowed them to provide 

full service navigation level. 

I’d like to call your attention briefly to the graph that I’ve provided you and make a few points there because I think it says anything about this better than I possibly could. On that graph, there 

are several different colored lines. The first line is the large blue 

one, is sort of the natural hydrograph. That’s the system that the 

pallid sturgeon was developed under. The flatter blue line is what 

the Corps of Engineers refers to as their normal navigation line. 

The orange line on that graph is what the biological opinion called 

for when it called for spring pulses and flow changes and the yellow line is what actually resulted after this year-long discussions 

that I talked about earlier and has the two-day spring pulses that 

I talked about. 

This graph shows you three really important points. First, you 

can see the river’s natural hydrograph where the pallid sturgeon 

evolved under. Second, you can see that the Service and the Corps 

have taken into account the potential impacts of our actions on the 

river community. That’s the difference between the orange and the 

yellow line. And third, and I think most important in this discussion, you can see that the water level impacts from the spring 

pulse plan are similar, if not less than those that would have been 

in place under normal navigation conditions. 

Mr. Chairman, I think that when you review the facts, you will 

see that the Service and the Corps have gone the extra mile to formulate an alternative that takes a positive step towards recovery 

of the pallid sturgeon and is sensitive to concerns of those who depend upon and live along the Missouri River. 

10

Thank you for this opportunity to comment. This concludes my 

prepared remarks and I’ll answer any questions. 

[Mr. King’s testimony may be found in the appendix.] 

Chairman GRAVES. Thank you, Mr. King. 

Susan Haseltine is here to just answer questions. She’s Associate 

Director for Biology, U.S. Geological Survey, and I appreciate you 

being here and we’ll probably depend on you quite a little bit here 

in questions. 

The next testimony is going to come from Mike Wells, who is the 

Deputy Director and Chief of Water Resources with the Missouri 

Department of Natural Resources. 

Thanks for being here. 

STATEMENT OF MIKE WELLS, MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF 

NATURAL RESOURCES 

Mr. WELLS. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. My name is Mike 

Wells, and I am the Deputy Director for the Missouri Department 

of Natural Resources and Chief of Water Resources for the State 

of Missouri. As Chief of Water Resources, I represent the state in 

all interstate water issues. I want to thank Chairman Graves for 

inviting me to give testimony on this very important issue. 

Let me begin by saying that the State of Missouri is truly concerned about protecting endangered species and natural habitat 

along our rivers. In fact, we have been a strong advocate of the research efforts being conducted to determine more about the life requirements of the pallid sturgeon. However, we are extremely disappointed to see the Federal Government move forward with a 

man-made spring rise on the Missouri River that intentionally increases the risk of flooding. 

The Federal Government has characterized the spring rise as an 

experiment to learn more about the pallid sturgeon. It is disheartening to know that the welfare of our citizens is being threatened 

by an experiment. Especially, when Federal scientists have publicly 

acknowledged that very little is known about the ecological needs 

of the pallid sturgeon and the basic research questions that they 

hope will be answered by the spring rise experiment have yet to 

be studied under existing conditions. It is apparent from the limited research that has been conducted to date that there is a lack 

of scientific evidence to justify a man-made spring rise. 

In the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s 2003 Amended Biological 

Opinion, the Service indicated that a ‘‘spring rise’’ was needed as 

a spawning cue to ensure the continued survival of the pallid sturgeon. Yet, in all but less than 100 miles of the river immediately 

below Gavins Point Dam, the Missouri River already experiences a 

natural spring rise or many spring rises, actually. Just as an example, and Senator Talent has already alluded to this, but in 2005, 

there were five natural rises on the Missouri River between the 

months of March and June, the period we’re talking about on the 

lower Missouri River near Boonville. These rises exceeded the manmade rises mandated in the Service’s Biological Opinion. More 

than 800 miles of free-flowing river below Gavins Point Dam 

should provide researchers with ample opportunities to conduct experiments on flow changes without putting downstream farmers 

and riverside communities at an increased risk of being flooded. 

11

As was mentioned earlier, the Missouri River’s flood plain encompasses approximately 1 million acres in Missouri, much of which is 

prime farmland. With spring time being the time of year when Missouri flood plain farmers are already at greater risk of being flooded, artificially adding even more water to the river in the spring 

only intensifies the flood risk. 

Regardless of the precautions that the U.S. Corps of Engineers 

takes to minimize the risk of downstream flooding that would result from a manmade rise, they cannot ensure that the added 

water will not cause flooding. Water released from Gavins Point 

Dam takes five days to reach Kansas City, and approximately 10 

days to travel to the Missouri River’s confluence with the Mississippi River at St. Louis. Once water is released from Gavins 

Point Dam, it cannot be retrieved. Given that local rainfall events 

can cause the Missouri River to rise by more than 10 feet in less 

than 24 hours, a planned spring rise experiment that would increase river levels from 1 to 3 feet would increase interior drainage 

and flooding problems for farmers and riverside communities. 

Last spring, we had a perfect example of how quickly water levels can change on the lower Missouri River. During the week preceding May 12, 2005, the level of the Missouri River at St. Joseph, 

Missouri was considered low, with stage readings of around 8 feet. 

With these low river levels, it would have appeared that conditions 

were right for the Corps to implement a man-made spring rise 

without causing flooding. However, from noon on May 12th until 

mid-day on May 13th, the Missouri River at St. Joseph rose over 

10 feet to a stage reading of 18 feet. This is one foot above flood 

stage. Local drainage districts begin to have problems with interior 

drainage around St. Joseph at 12 feet. With water released from 

Gavins Point Dam taking about 4 days to reach St. Joseph, it is 

easy to see that if the Corps had implemented the man-made 

spring rise in mid-May of last year, the additional water would 

have increased the level of flooding and compounded interior drainage problems in Missouri. 

The Federal Government should not be conducting experiments 

that threaten people’s livelihoods, especially when more reasonable 

courses of action are available. The range of the pallid sturgeon includes over 1,600 miles on the lower Missouri and Mississippi 

River, as well as a significant reach of the Yellowstone River in 

Montana, all of which have natural spring rises. By focusing research and recovery effort on these reaches, the Service and the 

Corps could take advantage of reaches of rivers that have more 

natural hydrographs. This would avoid contentious issues related 

to flow while providing ample opportunities to study the pallid 

sturgeon. The prescriptive and inflexible manner in which the Endangered Species Act is being applied in the management of the 

Missouri River is threatening many of the cooperative efforts being 

pursued with private landowners to recover the pallid sturgeon. 

Federal agencies should be working to find common sense ways to 

protect the species without harming citizens who live and farm 

along the Missouri River. 

I want to thank you for this opportunity to testify today, Chairman Graves. And I’d be glad to answer any questions. 

[Mr. Wells’ testimony may be found in the appendix.] 

12

Chairman GRAVES. Thank you, Mr. Wells. Mr. King is gone so I 

guess I get to dominate all the questions. I was born in 1963. When 

were the reservoirs put into place? When did we start putting all 

the reservoirs in South Dakota and beyond and what was the original purpose of installing those reservoirs and managing the river? 

General MARTIN. Right, Mr. Chairman, I’ve got my technical expert, Mr. Larry Cieslik, who is the Deputy Director of Programs. 

He’s been with the Corps for decades and he could probably answer 

that question, if that’s okay. 

Chairman GRAVES. Give us your name for the record and your 

position. 

Mr. CIESLIK. My name is Lawrence Cieslik. I’m the Deputy Director of Programs for the Northwestern Division of the Corps of 

Engineers. I handle Missouri River issues. I’m also the Chief of 

Water Management for the Corps. 

And to answer your question, Fort Peck was built back in the Depression Era as a Work Progress Administration project and it was 

in place prior to the Flood Control Act of 1944 or the Pick-Sloan 

Act. The Pick-Sloan Act authorized the construction of the other 

five dams in the system and also authorized them as a system of 

reservoirs to be operated as such. And they were authorized for numerous purposes, including flood control, navigation, irrigation, hydropower, water supply, water quality, recreation, fish and wildlife. 

Chairman GRAVES. So basically we’ve got all those reservoirs and 

irrigation throughout the system above Gavins Point. Recreation 

has obviously become a more important or has taken on a more important role, just simply because of the development and flood control. Basically, flood control to hold that water when you’ve got all 

of the winter melt coming down, you hang on to that water and 

then you start, essentially releasing it in the summer time when 

traditionally our rainfall is low, down in the lower States. 

Mr. CIESLIK. That’s correct, sir. 

Chairman GRAVES. And now we have a system or at least a system is being proposed and all in conjunction with the pallid sturgeon to try to increase the spawning. 

And what I want to talk about a little bit is the science behind 

that. Mr. King, you’ve mentioned that there’s sound science. I’ve 

read lots of reports too and I’m sure that you’ve got many biologists 

saying that this is going to work. I’ve read a lot of reports from biologists and people within the Federal Government that say it isn’t 

going to work. I’ve read that the pallid sturgeons’ spawning habits 

have more to do with the temperature of the water, rather than 

what’s being proposed. 

And I want to know exactly how—just tell me how this is going 

to help? Is it those increased water levels? What makes a pallid 

sturgeon spawn? What does it take? I’m curious about this. 

I want to know how it’s going to help and another question I’m 

going to ask you too, and you can kind of implement it in there, 

is the pallid sturgeon endangered worldwide or is this just in the 

Missouri River? I’m curious about that also. 

Mr. KING. I think I’ll take the last one first, because that’s sort 

of the easiest one. The pallid sturgeon is located in some 1600 

miles, something like that, from the Mississippi River all the way 

up to the upper end of the Missouri River, so it is not world-wide. 

13

It is strictly in the Mississippi and Missouri River system. It is listed as an endangered species. 

Chairman GRAVES. That’s the only place it lives is in that section 

of the river, the Missouri River? 

Mr. KING. It lives in that 1600-mile stretch from the lower ends 

of the Mississippi all the way through the upper ends of the Missouri and very sporadically in those areas because of the lakes and 

reservoirs. 

But as far as the spring rise and the science behind the spring 

rise, scientists, because they’re scientists, always question their, 

are continually questioning their input, so it doesn’t surprise me 

that some people might say that there needs to be more information gathered, but we had a fairly extensive review that included 

State Fish and Wildlife Agency scientists, that included river scientists, river ecologists and the quotes are just from various scientific published literature is pretty clear that natural river systems and those natural hydrographs are extremely important for 

maintaining the fish and I read you the quote from the National 

Academy of Sciences and it’s fairly reputable that—I don’t have 

any concerns at all that the science is there. Now what causes the 

pallid to spawn, there’s a whole plethora of things that may be involved in pallid sturgeon spawning and you mentioned some of 

them in your comments, photoperiod, water temperatures, but I 

think everybody recognizes that some semblance of a natural 

hydrograph that includes those peak spawning, peak flows is important for spawning. 

And I’ll ask—if Sue wants to chime in with anything else. 

Ms. HASELTINE. I guess I would concur with what Mitch says, 

but I would also say that we’re not just looking at spawning, but 

we’d like to see recruitment and there’s a whole series of events 

that are associated with the natural hydrograph and temperature 

and photoperiod that create circumstances where larvae and young 

fish can survive to recruit into the year class. 

And we think that these kinds of species mimicking the natural 

hydrograph as much as possible will give us the best opportunity 

for that recruitment, not just spawning, but recruitment. It’s associated with habitat and nutrient flow in the river and maybe turbidity. So there’s a whole series of factors. The consensus of the 

science community is that the more you can mimic the natural 

hydrograph, the better chance you have of bringing those factors 

together for a good year class. And that’s what we’re looking for on 

that in the Missouri system. 

Chairman GRAVES. I’ve got a 2005 U.S. Geological Survey report 

that said that 75 percent of the sturgeon tracked last year 

spawned. And so I have to ask, that seems like a pretty good track 

record to me. And again, I have to question, does a man-made 

spring rise, is it going to increase it from 75 percent to even more? 

Do we know for sure that this is going to have an impact? Do we 

know for sure or is this an experiment? And that’s really the ultimate question I’m getting to. Is this an experiment because ultimately, I don’t believe we do know for sure. 

But 75 percent seems pretty good, pretty good to me. 

Mr. KING. Mr. Chairman, I’m not familiar with that study, but 

I’ll look into that and learn a little bit more about it. But as Ms. 

14

Haseltine said, the issue is spawning and recruitment, and this is 

a migratory fish and it moves upstream. It spawns its eggs, then 

floats downstream with the flow and there’s got to be enough of a 

location for that fish to—for the eggs to mature to the point before 

they reach slack water and that’s how shortnose sturgeon do it. I’m 

not quite sure that—I’ll let Ms. Haseltine talk about the USGS 

study. 

Is it an experiment? I don’t think it is. I think we know enough 

about this species, and as I’ve mentioned before, there’s good, solid 

science that says restoring these natural stream flows is important. 

The key here is are we being responsive to the downstream water 

users? I think we have. We’ve said let’s reduce these amounts that 

we think is necessary to restore the natural hydrograph to the very 

minimum that we think will cause the reaction by the fish that we 

think we need to have and reduce those levels to the point where 

we are minimizing the impact downstream. 

And then let’s again, as I talked about before, all scientists want 

to learn a little bit more about it. Let’s study, let’s monitor. Let’s 

not only study the fish, but let’s check downstream. Let’s study the 

impacts downstream. I think we’ve done just about everything that 

you can possibly do to try to make sure that when we have these 

short, two-day duration pulses that are slightly above what is normally released under navigation levels, when we have those, that 

we know that downstream weather systems, they’re using that, the 

Corps is using that in their calculations. They came up today and 

said or as they mentioned, in March, they decided not to do this 

because the storage was not sufficient. All of the criteria for managing flows to reduce flood flow stayed in place in this effort. It’s 

just that short, two-day spring pulse. And I think we feel very comfortable that we’re on good solid ground. 

Chairman GRAVES. Ms. Haseltine, do you want to comment on 

that? 

Ms. HASELTINE. Actually, I’m not familiar with the specific study 

that you—we’re doing sturgeon studies all up and down the river, 

so I’m not sure which specific one that you’re referring to, but I 

guess I would go back to my point that yes, we may be tracking 

sturgeon that spawned, but our intent here is to get really effective 

spawning and then recruitment over the summer into the next year 

class. And so my question would be the natural hydrograph in relation to not just spawning but the whole recruitment process. So I 

believe that the consensus is that this natural hydrograph gives 

many clues to both shortnose, which we’ve done more work with 

because there are not that many pallids in the basin to work with, 

but also to pallids that will be beneficial. 

Chairman GRAVES. Do we have hatcheries? Are we raising pallid 

sturgeon? 

Mr. KING. Yes. We’ve got our hatchery in Bozeman, Montana. 

That’s where we’re doing most of our sort of technical research associated with it. We have several other hatcheries along the Missouri River that we have pallid sturgeon recovery activities. 

As I mentioned in my comments, there’s sort of the threepronged approach to try to deal with this. One is—and one of those 

is hatchery management activities. And we’re doing everything we 

can possibly do to try to make sure that is another safeguard that’s 

15

out there to help us restore these pallid sturgeon and keep them 

mature and in the wild at a reproductive age. 

Chairman GRAVES. How does that work? Pallid sturgeon have to 

swim up river. They spawn, lay their eggs and they’ve got to float 

all the way downriver until they get mature. How do you do that 

in a hatchery? 

Mr. KING. We keep them in flowing water and hatch the eggs out 

and bring them up to a release size of five or six inches and then 

release them. They’re at the point now where they’re feeding on 

their own. 

Chairman GRAVES. Another technical question again is it still 

about the depth of the river, because the river is flowing. I’ve never 

seen the Missouri stop and I almost get the impression that if we 

don’t release this water, there’s not going to be flow for these eggs 

to float downstream. But there is flow. There’s flow right now. 

You’re not going to release water because there’s not water upstream. I live six miles from the Missouri and I go over there and 

it’s still flowing. 

Mr. KING. It’s flowing all the time, sure. 

Chairman GRAVES. So why do we need that increased depth? I 

still don’t understand. I’m not a biologist. So you’re going to have 

to explain it to me in real basic terms. 

Mr. KING. It’s velocity. It’s temperature. It’s the change in flows. 

That’s what causes the fish to say it’s time to spawn because over 

centuries, they’ve had these increased flows that have said it’s 

springtime, it’s time to spawn and the eggs float downstream. It’s 

not just maintaining a flow, it’s maintaining the changes in flow, 

that natural hydrograph we talked about. 

Sue, do you want to talk a bit about that? 

Ms. HASELTINE. I would say that, you know, flow is a term that 

we use for integrating a lot of things, velocity, volume, temperature 

are all involved in the cues that the fish get. And the flow also has 

a lot to do with shaping the physical characteristics of the habitat 

that they’re going to spawn in and so flow, photoperiod and temperature, along with turbidity in the water are vital clues, not just 

to spawning, but to migration and to habitat creation for these 

types of fish. 

And we have more experience with the shovelnose in that regard, 

and actually I just did find the reference to this study that you referenced which was on shovelnose sturgeon, not pallids, but this—

flow is kind of a term that we use to—and the natural hydrograph 

is a term that we use to indicate the integration of all the conditions in the main channel of the river which we feel are needed for 

appropriate spawning and recruitment. 

Chairman GRAVES. Is Mother Nature following your time table? 

Aren’t you attempting to do just exactly what is opposite or 

counter to what nature does? There are going to be years when we 

have droughts. We’re going to have extended periods of droughts. 

There’s going to be years when we have flooding which that has me 

more concerned than anything else because you don’t know what 

the rain levels are going to be. It may not be this year. It may not 

be next year, but one of these years we’re going to have a lot of 

rain and you’re going to release that water and it may only be two 

days, but it only takes a day’s worth of rain to change things. But 

16

in those years when we have limited flows, what are you doing 

about the pallid sturgeon then? What are you doing about the pallid sturgeon when we’re flooding? 

You’re trying to regulate it, put it on a time table so it’s exactly 

the same every single year and I’ve never known nature to be exactly the same. 

Mr. KING. Mr. Chairman, that’s not—we’re trying to do exactly 

the opposite of that. We’re trying to mimic the natural hydrograph, 

and that natural hydrograph on that chart that I showed you 

bounces. Every year it bounces a little bit different. The way the 

Biological Opinion is written, and the General may be able to correct me on this or Larry, for sure, the way the Biological Opinion 

is written, is my understanding is that in years when you have 

more flows coming down, you adjust the release rates. 

In years where you have less flows coming down, you adjust the 

release rates. You’re trying to mimic that a little bit, but for this 

one year here, we basically went to the bottom line and said what 

is the minimal flow that we think we need from the standpoint of 

fish to generate the responses we expect to see from the fish that 

minimize the impact downstream. 

Now on top of that, you lay in all of those restrictions that the 

Corps can speak to better than I of flow limits and when they release, just the same restrictions they use right now for navigation 

flows that they release down the river, to say we better not release, 

we better slow up because we’ve got an interior storm coming 

through. And if I understand this correctly, they’ve even expanded 

that even further now, and they’ve added to their knowledge base 

there. 

They’re doing everything they can possibly do to try to make sure 

their releases do not adversely impact people downstream. And the 

Fish and Wildlife Service fully supports that. We don’t have a problem in the world with saying no—we can’t give you the release 

right now because conditions are not right. 

In fact, that’s exactly what happened in March, and no one in 

Fish and Wildlife Service took issue with the Corps’ decision there. 

And if the Corps were to come along in May and say, we got a 

major flood coming in off of the Platte River or some other side 

channel, and we better not do this or storm predictions are there, 

you won’t hear the Fish and Wildlife Service say anything about 

that either. We recognize the importance of those flood restriction 

and flood limit criteria that the Corps uses. 

Chairman GRAVES. It’s not withholding water, because there isn’t 

enough that bothers me, it’s letting water go when we have too 

much that bothers me. But again, I come back to the same question, haven’t you changed the river? We’ve been managing it. We’re 

supposed to be managing it for navigation, but aren’t you doing—

again, it comes back to my question, aren’t you doing exactly opposite of what you intend to do? You’re trying to create a natural 

flow, but do it exactly the same for the most part every single year, 

just as the graph, you’re trying to do it by averages, but Mother 

Nature doesn’t work that way. Some years again, you’re going to 

have flooding. Some years you’re going to have drought. You can 

have extended periods of drought. 

17

I just have a hard time seeing that this management is going to 

exactly mimicking the natural flow of the river. And we don’t know 

what the rainfall is going to be. 

I wish I had as much confidence in your predictions of the rainfall. As a farmer, I don’t have any confidence in what the predictions are. They never seem to work out. They never seem to 

work out. 

Mr. KING. Mr. Chairman, I’ll ask Ms. Haseltine to speak a little 

bit more to this, but as I’ve said several times, our Biological Opinion is written such that it will allow changes to—in that. The 

graph you’re looking at is strictly a projection of averages. If there 

is more flow coming down the river, then there will be a change 

in the amount of water that we would suggest that comes down on 

behalf of the sturgeon. If there’s less flows, there certainly will be 

less of a flow. 

So we’re not, and I want to make this perfectly clear, we’re not 

suggesting the same thing every year. We’re wanting to mimic that 

natural hydrograph, and I’ll see if Sue wants to add anything. 

Ms. HASELTINE. I think that you make a good point that these 

fish evolved in a system that was highly variable. They are longlife fish and we don’t expect that the conditions which will create 

a strong recruitment class will occur every year. We’re going to 

have periods of droughts. We’re going to have periods of floods, but 

as you look over a series of years, there is normally an early pulse 

which reflects snow melt off the Basin and then a stronger pulse 

which reflects water coming down from the Rocky Mountain system 

and entering the system. That’s a characteristic. And the amount 

of each pulse each year naturally is highly variable and this species 

is evolved to that. 

They don’t need a good recruitment class every year to make it. 

They’re very long-lived. But every once in a while, the conditions 

will be ripe so that they will get a strong recruitment class. And 

so I think their biology is very amenable to managing their needs 

to other needs in the system. 

Chairman GRAVES. Mr. King? 

Mr. KING OF IOWA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate 

Chairman Graves pulling this hearing together. I appreciate the 

support we have from the Missourians in this task. I’m the lone 

voice for Iowa that represents any part of the Missouri river on this 

issue as Mr. Graves is and many of the Missouri delegation as well. 

First, I’d like to direct my first question to General Martin and 

not like a lawyer, I’m going to ask you a question that I’m not certain of the answer, but it occurs to me, having lived there on or 

near that Missouri bottom most of my life, pretty close from the beginning of Pick-Sloan, that there was a prioritized list of reasons 

to implement the Pick-Sloan Program, and as I recall it was flood 

control from the floods in the early 1950s, 1952, I think is the year; 

and, flood control, hydroelectric generation, navigation and then irrigation. And after that, I don’t remember any priorities. Would 

that be the original priorities in the priority order or was there a 

different order and have there been other priorities added since 

that time? 

18

General MARTIN. Sir, I think you have it pretty close. And there 

were additional priorities that were added in later, recreation, fish 

and wildlife and some others. 

Sir, if it’s okay, I’m going to turn that one over to Mr. Cieslik 

who has been there for decades. 

Mr. KING OF IOWA. Thank you. 

Mr. CIESLIK. Yes, and originally the Pick-Sloan mentioned what 

have been called the Big Four, if you will, irrigation, hydropower, 

navigation and flood control. 

Mr. KING OF IOWA. In that order? 

Mr. CIESLIK. Not in any order, but the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, as you’ve heard, I’m sure, has also said that flood control and 

navigation are what they call dominant project purposes, undefined 

as to what exactly ‘‘dominant’’ means, but when they read the 1944 

Flood Control Act, they have stated that they believe flood control 

and navigation are dominant project purposes. 

Mr. KING OF IOWA. Thank you. And while we talk about navigation, I pose this question and that is that when the Corps controls 

the flow or the outlet at Gavins Point that ends up in a lower discharge than is planned in the Master Manual, did we have incidents on the Mississippi River, below St. Louis, where we had some 

barge traffic that had to pull over and be tied off because of low 

flows in the Mississippi? Did that affect Mississippi navigation as 

well as Missouri navigation, General Martin? 

General MARTIN. Sir, I believe there were and there were instances. 

Mr. KING OF IOWA. Thank you. I wanted to—and I would point 

out too that when I read a list of priorities, whether they’re in a 

particular order or not, I think about the Declaration of Independence where it says life, liberty, pursuit of happiness. I can’t imagine pursuit of happiness taking precedence over life. So I think 

they are, at least implicitly in a priority order. 

And then to Mr. King, and I may plow this field over again because I’ve missed some of the questions that were directed by Mr. 

Graves. I regret that I had to leave the room a couple of times, but 

on the pallid sturgeon, and I look at this surge that we have here 

and I know that we’ve reproduced them well in a controlled environment and if I have this right, we go up about three forks and 

on an annual basis with gill nets until we’re successful with finding 

a couple of females that are ready to spawn, until we get about six 

males so we have some genetic diversity. And that package of 

about—well, exactly two females and six males is then brought 

back to the hatchery and from that there would be perhaps over 

a quarter of a million eggs, and of those quarter of a million fertilized eggs, the efficiency in captivity is far greater than the wilds, 

naturally. And as they advised me, about 95 percent of those eggs 

actually are fertilized and get to the point where they could be released back into the river. 

I understood there were fish that were a little larger than the 

6 or 7 inches. In fact, I thought they had told me they were raising 

some to 14 to 15 inches before they were released into the river. 

But that would indicate that a number approach 250,000 fish 

would be ready to be released into the river and perhaps on an annual basis. Is that what we’re doing? A quarter of a million reVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:19 Sep 29, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 G:\HEARINGS\27431.TXT MIKE
19

leased, pallid sturgeon every year or what is that number and for 

how many years has that gone on? 

Mr. KING. Mr. King, I’ll have to get back to you on the specific 

numbers. It sounds like you’ve got some pretty good numbers in 

front of you and I don’t have anything to suggest that there’s any 

difference in those numbers that you’ve laid out. 

I’ll get back to you on exactly what we are releasing each year. 

I’d be glad to do that. As far as the size of the fish, you’re probably 

more correct than I on the release size. What I was talking about 

is the size when they—that I saw them in the hatchery where 

they’re basically feeding on their own and they’re not just drifting 

in the system. 

Let me get back to one point that you were talking about earlier 

about purposes. The work that’s being done on the pallid sturgeon 

is not being done under the umbrella of fish and wildlife resource 

work. The pallid sturgeon work is as much a part of the navigation 

and the flood control activities because the Endangered Species Act 

and the adverse impacts to the species are the result of those. So 

to try to separate out and say this is a fish and wildlife activity 

versus one of the principal responsibilities or principal purposes is 

a bit of off. 

Mr. KING OF IOWA. I thank you for that because I think you’re 

going to help me get to this point that I want to set this up for. 

But first I have a couple of other questions to ask and then I will, 

if given time, return to that. But as Mr. Wells testified, I believe, 

there have been five incidents on the lower Missouri River that 

there have been pulses or surges that have exceeded the design 

pulse at least in this flow that we have. And wouldn’t that mimic 

the natural, you call it the natural hydrograph, during that period 

of time? 

And is there any evidence that there has been natural reproduction of pallid sturgeon in that lower portion of the river that may 

have been triggered by those natural pulses or previous natural 

pulses since the time of the implementation of our reservoir system? 

Mr. KING. I think, if I recall on the numbers that I’ve seen, is 

there is very little evidence at all of any natural reproduction and 

natural recruitment all the way to a free swimming fish in pallid 

sturgeon. Now shortnose sturgeon there is. 

To answer your question that you had earlier, in 1997, 412 10-

inch pallid sturgeon were stocked in the lower Platte. In 1998, 

17,500 larval pallid sturgeon were hatched at Garrison and they 

were taken to Gavins Point Fish Hatchery for further rearing. In 

2000, approximately 400 juvenile pallid sturgeon were released 

from Gavins Point and were stocked. The numbers are much lower, 

and I’m not quite sure if the numbers that you’ve got again might 

have been somebody talking about shortnose sturgeon versus pallid. 

In my discussions with our folks at Bozeman Fish Technology 

Center, the rearing of pallid sturgeon, the spawning of pallid sturgeon is extremely sensitive. 

Mr. KING OF IOWA. I recognize that you don’t have any results 

there from the Yankton Hatchery. Would you have those numbers 

in front of you? 

20

Mr. KING. I don’t have those in front of me, but we’ll get the complete package for you. 

Mr. KING OF IOWA. I did visit that hatchery and I don’t have any 

numbers in front of me, but that’s what I did learn that day, at 

least as the number of eggs and the percentage of successful fertilization and actually I call it weaning them, and so if they’re— 

Mr. KING. I’ll check. 

Mr. KING OF IOWA. Pardon me? 

Mr. KING. I’ll check. 

Mr. KING OF IOWA. Okay. I thought you had another name for 

weaning these fish. 

Mr. KING. No. Weaning is good for me. 

Mr. KING OF IOWA. Okay, then a couple more questions. Is there 

evidence that there’s a regional genetic imprint that’s part of the 

genetics of these fish? If you go up to three-fourths and net these 

females and breed them, take them down and release them perhaps in the lower part of the Missouri River down in Mr. Wells’ 

territory, do they stay there? Do they swim away? 

What I’m trying to get at here is can we take these fish and 

transfer them north and south across that river above the dams, 

below the dams? Will they freely establish a typical habitat for 

them where the habitat is most conducive to their survival or are 

they directed by a genetic imprint like a salmon might be? 

Ms. HASELTINE. I think we have a little information on the genetics of these fish, but not the whole story. But we do know that 

in the lower free-flowing part of the river from the lower Mississippi up the Missouri, we have fish that travel that whole 

length. So we would expect that we will not find great genetic distinctions there because have evidence of fish moving so far. Now 

much of the rest of the population is trapped by dams and reservoirs, so we don’t really—and we don’t have enough information 

to really give you a definitive answer. 

Mr. KING OF IOWA. Okay, then that resolves at least conditional 

to your response being, and you’ve conditioned it a little bit. But 

I’m back to this question if we don’t have evidence, at least significant evidence that the sturgeon has reproduced under the pulses 

or the surges that have occurred naturally, as testified by Mr. 

Wells, then why do we think that if we create lesser surges that 

really don’t meet, if we create lesser surges, why do we think that 

we’re going to have reproduction under those conditions, if we can’t 

have reproduction under natural conditions that exceed them, meet 

and exceed? 

Mr. KING. Fair question. First, I’d have to speak to Mr. Wells’ 

discussion about natural spring pulses. As you move further downstream, because of the uninhibited input from uninhibited streams, 

streams that are fairly free-flowing, you do see more natural spring 

pulses. You start to see that as you move further down away from 

Gavins Point down. The unfortunate thing is because these fish 

swim so much, they move up towards Gavins Point Dam; that’s 

their response, and as they get closer to Gavins Point Dam, they 

start losing the impact of any kind of a spring pulse. The result is 

they get ready; they’re moving up. They’re ready to spawn. They’re 

getting all of the impulses that they think, but then, as they move 

further upstream, the impulses fade away. The interesting thing is 

21

right below Gavins Point Dam, 60 miles or so below Gavins Point 

Dam, is some of the best habitat, but the pulse is diminished because you don’t have those in-flowing streams as you move further 

down. 

Mr. KING OF IOWA. Okay, but Mr. King, I can’t quite accept an 

idea that perhaps the fish that would naturally be living in St. 

Louis or downstream from St. Louis would swim the whole 1800 

miles up there, so there must have been a strain of pallid sturgeon 

that would spawn perhaps in the Platte River as opposed to the 

upper reaches of the Missouri River. 

What’s happened to that particular section of the species? 

No, let me just take this to the real question and that is the emphasis here was that my questioning focuses on separating the species from the flow of the river. And in fact, what I’m seeking to do 

is identify what portions of this natural hydrograph, as you’ve testified, really are necessary for the reproduction of the pallid sturgeon. I mean we’re sitting here, the testimony, I think, the tone of 

it would be under the assumption that no matter that if we could 

reproduce this natural hydrograph, then everything would be okay 

and that the species would recover. 

And perhaps there’s no portion of this natural hydrograph that 

is necessary for the reproduction of the species and if that natural 

hydrograph that exists in the lower part of the river, you can qualify that question, hasn’t produced that kind of reproductive results, 

we’re going to great lengths here to try to reproduce something 

that we can never reach this natural hydrograph with dams in the 

river. 

And so why would we think that something less than that would 

work when we have examples up and down this river and even up 

in my stretch of the river in the tributaries of the Boyer and the 

Little Sioux and those rivers that haven’t produced reproduction of 

the pallid sturgeon. 

So great lengths to reproduce a tiny little shadow of the natural 

hydrograph that may never get us to the point where we would like 

to be to reestablish the species. We could do this for 100 years and 

then finally decide well, let’s just go hatch a million of them and 

turn them loose to save the species. 

Mr. KING. First of all, the overall package for the pallid sturgeon 

is not just the releases. As I mentioned earlier, there’s habitat 

work that’s going on. There’s work at the hatchery, so that will be 

a piece of the puzzle at some point in time. We have, although I 

agree with Ms. Haseltine that there’s not a genetics issue, we don’t 

think that’s the case, we do have some disease issues that States 

are a little concerned about, diseases from one hatchery to another. 

But the bottom line is that there’s three real pieces to this puzzle. One is restoring the natural hydrograph. One is dealing with 

them in a hatchery environment and trying to make sure that that 

piece is there and one is talking about making sure that their habitat in the rivers is available for them. So, we’re working on all 

three of those. We’re not just focusing on the one. We’re also working upstream with Bureau of Reclamation, the Yellowstone Project, 

to try to improve opportunities there. We’re doing everything we 

can do all over this river system and we’re not just focusing on this 

issue. 

22

At this point in time this hearing is focused on Gavins Point and 

the flow issues. 

Mr. KING OF IOWA. One more question then, Mr. King, and that 

is that we’re seeking to reestablish a natural habitat for the reasons that you’ve stated and probably a number of others besides. 

Are there predator species within the river that might be preying 

on pallid sturgeon that didn’t exist during the time that they were 

reproducing freely in a relatively prosperous manner? 

Mr. KING. I’m not sure I can answer that question. I think the 

answer is no, not in the river systems. In the lake systems, there 

certainly is and for those fish that for any kind of eggs and larvae 

that might be floating down the river system and ending up in one 

of the lakes on the upper end, that might be a problem, but I don’t 

think that’s a problem in the lower end. 

Do you have any indication? 

Ms. HASELTINE. I would that predation concerns are at the larval 

stage. There are both natural and introduced predators at the larval stage, but that’s kind of a normal part of the fish’s live history. 

Mr. KING OF IOWA. Would you be able to name some of those species, Ms. Haseltine, that are in the river today that would be predators that weren’t there perhaps at the time of Lewis and Clark? 

Ms. HASELTINE. I’d have to get back to you. 

Mr. KING OF IOWA. How about the Walleye? 

Ms. HASELTINE. The Walleye certainly in the upper reservoirs 

and reaches. I think that’s what— 

Mr. KING OF IOWA. It’s in our mind and we just haven’t said it 

that there are far more Walleye that have been introduced up there 

that were not a natural species to the river that we can determine 

and that having it in the lakes also means that they exist in the 

river and so has there been a study on whether that extra predator, that aggressive predator has had an impact on the successful 

spawning of the sturgeon? 

Mr. KING. I don’t know of any study, but what I’ll do is I’ll get 

back to our river fishery ecologist, and we’ll get you an answer to 

that question. 

Mr. KING OF IOWA. Thank you, Mr. King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman GRAVES. Mr. Wells, I’d be interested in your comments. As you’ve listened to this, as Chief of Water Resources for 

the State of Missouri, you’re obviously very well in tune with 

what’s going on and what’s being proposed. I would be very interested in hearing what you have to say. 

Mr. WELLS. Well, I’ll go back to what Congressman King just 

said. I think one of the points that we were trying to make in our 

testimony is that we have many natural spring rises on the lower 

Missouri River and the Mississippi and also on the Yellowstone, 

the 1600 miles is just the Missouri and the Mississippi. And we 

also know that the pallid sturgeon is found in the Atchafalaya 

River. 

When we look at what’s being proposed here, it is really for 

about a hundred miles just below Gavins Point Dam. Whether you 

want to call that a controlled experiment or not, I mean we understand the complexities of conducting an experiment in a natural 

23

river, especially down in our part of the world where we get rises 

over night. 

But going back to my testimony, just last year, we just looked 

at last year, we know it’s going to vary during the period of March 

until June. We had five rises at Boonville and we just looked at 

Boonville. We know at St. Joe we had similar situations and in 

Kansas City. but all of the rises that exceeded what’s being proposed here, greatly exceeded in duration and magnitude of rise. 

So I think back to what Congressman King is saying here, we 

just don’t understand the importance of it, just looking at the hundred miles right below Gavins Point Dam. I understand what Mr. 

King said here from the standpoint of the fish swimming upstream, 

but you’ve got to look at the whole river and where they’re coming 

from. Those that are coming up to spawn around Boonville and Lisbon Bottoms and the area we have there, with the natural spring 

rise, we just believe that this is an experiment that has the potential to harm our citizens and there’s just not the science to support 

it. 

We support the research work that’s being done. We think we 

need to have more baseline information before we move forward. 

Let’s try to find out more about the pallid sturgeon. We’ve heard 

here, even today well, we think it’s this or it might be this. We’re 

playing with people’s lives here and their livelihoods. And so we 

need to be more certain about what the results are going to be if 

we’re going to move forward. 

Chairman GRAVES. I think you just summed it up with that 

statement. We’re playing with people’s lives and we’re playing with 

people’s lives and putting the best interests of the pallid sturgeon, 

I believe, ahead of people. I think that is absolutely the wrong approach. I think it’s a very reckless approach and some, I guess, 

could say that it’s reckless not to be taking care of the pallid sturgeon, but I truly believe and I’m not a biologist, but I believe the 

pallid sturgeon can take care of itself and it’s going to spawn. 

We’ve got lots of reports. 

In fact, the one I’m looking at right now by Donald Jorgensen 

who is retired from the U.S. Geological Survey and claims that the 

results, there’s no indication that spring rise is essential to cue 

spawning of the Missouri River fish species, any fish species, and 

we’d be happy to provide this for anybody that wants it. 

But there’s a lot of conflicting testimony out there. There are 

those who say it’s going to work and those who say it’s not going 

to work and as Mr. King pointed out, I think we need to, and Mr. 

Wells pointed out, we need to gather a lot more data before we 

start playing, as I pointed out in my opening statement, Russian 

Roulette with people’s lives and I believe that’s what it is. 

We’re going to have votes called pretty quickly, so I want to go 

ahead and seat the third panel and try to get started with that so 

we can hear that testimony and have questions, because unfortunately, we’ll probably have a pause in between the testimony for 

votes. But I appreciate everybody coming and let’s bring the third 

panel up and get them seated. 

[Pause.] 

We’ll go ahead and get started. Again, we do have some votes 

that are probably coming up, so I want to get started with the tesVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:19 Sep 29, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 G:\HEARINGS\27431.TXT MIKE
24

timony and then we can come back to questions, but again, I want 

to state that all, everyone’s statements, including the Members, 

will be placed in the record in their entirety. 

We have Charlie Kruse, President of the Missouri Farm Bureau 

with us. We also have Lynn Muench, Vice President of the American Waterways Operators out of St. Louis. Steve Taylor, with the 

Missouri Corn Growers Association and Coalition to Protect the 

Missouri River. Tom Waters who is a farmer on the river and understands all too well the impact that the river has and I’ll let Mr. 

King introduce our last panelist. 

Mr. KING OF IOWA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Our last panelist 

is Mr. Dave Sieck from Glenwood, Iowa. He’s the past president of 

the Iowa Corn Growers, current member of the board and not a 

bottom feeder, but a bottom farmer in the Missouri River bottom. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman GRAVES. We’ll start out with Charlie Kruse. 

Charlie, thanks for being here. I appreciate you coming all the 

way to Washington to testify. 

STATEMENT OF CHARLIE KRUSE, MISSOURI FARM BUREAU 

Mr. KRUSE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you 

for having this hearing. And Congressman King, our neighbor to 

the north, we appreciate your interest in this as well. 

My name is Charlie Kruse. I’m the president of the Missouri 

Farm Bureau, a general farm organization with over 103,000 member families. I am also a fourth generation farmer from Southeast 

Missouri. 

The Subcommittee’s interest in management of the Missouri 

River is very much appreciated as we continue to hope that common sense will ultimately prevail. Missouri Farm Bureau continues 

to oppose any kind of man-made spring rise on the Missouri River. 

Many of us here today and so many back home had faith in the 

system, faith that policy makers and elected officials would understand that no bird or fish is more important than the fundamental 

rights of landowners. From our perspective, it is amazing that two 

birds, a fish and a handful of Government biologists can hold a 

river hostage. 

Yet, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will say they have no 

choice; pointing to the tentacles of the Endangered Species Act and 

the demands of U.S. Fish and Wildlife biologists. The biologists say 

they think, perhaps, that a man-made rise will trigger a spawning 

cue, but can’t be sure. And the U.S. Geological Survey has bought 

into the fishing expedition saying they have a baseline and will 

solve the mystery given enough time and money. 

Obviously, there is no consensus on a man-made spring rise. Yet, 

the Corps, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Geological 

Survey believe it’s prudent to hide behind the Endangered Species 

Act and disregard the views of landowners, many of whom have expressed their concerns time and time and time again. Their feelings were summarized by stickers worn at a meeting last summer 

saying ‘‘My Farm is Not Your Laboratory.’’ 

The final Annual Operating Plan for 2006 is proof that the Endangered Species Act has major flaws. It is meant to be a crutch 

for species not a shield for bureaucrats. In this regard, I applaud 

25

the House of Representatives for approving much-needed ESA reforms. And Congressman Graves, we’re proud of the role that 

you’ve played in trying to make some of these things happen. 

Our involvement in this issue will continue. However, landowners have no confidence in the scientific ‘‘expertise’’ of the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service. The Service, in our view, is determined 

to implement a man-made rise, now renamed a pulse, in 2006. In 

fact, at last year’s Plenary Group meeting in Omaha, the Service 

disregarded the views of stakeholders from throughout the Basin 

and lowered the preclude to 36.5 million acre feet—a number they 

thought achievable even under current drought conditions. Yet, federal computer projections were wrong and the scheduled March 

rise did not occur. 

The Missouri River system was constructed for two primary purposes: flood control and navigation. Over time, the system has 

yielded many diverse benefits including stable supplies of drinking 

water, hydroelectric power generation and the expansion of recreational opportunities. Today, we find ourselves fighting a federal 

law that will increase the potential for flooding and increase the 

uncertainty surrounding commercial navigation. 

Much has been said about the science associated with a spring 

rise. Given enough time and money engineers can do amazing 

things, perhaps even determine the exact needs of the prehistoric 

pallid sturgeon. But in the end, we have to ask ourselves if this is 

what we want. Do we want to protect this fish at all costs? Is it 

worth jeopardizing human lives and the livelihood of farmers along 

the Missouri River? We think not. 

In our opinion, the 2006 Annual Operating Plan is nothing more 

than a grand experiment advocated by Government biologists with 

nothing to lose and research dollars to gain. These people ignore 

the fact that man-made rises increase the likelihood of flooding and 

harm to our citizens. 

Today, many Missouri farmers are dealing with the impacts of 

drought conditions, rising input costs and weak commodity prices. 

And apparently, on top of all this, we’re going to add the uncertainty of a man-made spring rise. In our opinion, this farce should 

be called off and the focus should be directed towards making our 

inland waterway system more efficient and more competitive. 

For 26 years I wore the same uniform worn by the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers and I must tell you that I am shocked and saddened that the Corps would take steps to impose potential flooding 

on the citizens of this country. I was always taught that the mission of the Corps was to manage the United States’ navigable waters, not to react to the whims of environmentalists and put citizens in harm’s way. If anyone wonders why people are losing faith 

in our Government today, this is a classic example of a great lack 

of common sense. 

We participated in this process every step of the way and we’re 

not going to give up now, but suffice it to say, we believe officials 

have already made up their minds, thus we have no confidence in 

their decisions or the science being used to justify those decisions. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

[Mr. Kruse’s testimony may be found in the appendix.] 

26

Chairman GRAVES. Thank you, Mr. Kruse. Next, we’ll go ahead 

and take testimony from Lynn Muench, who is vice president of the 

American Waterways Operators. I think we can get your testimony 

in and then we can run over and vote. There’s three votes. We 

shouldn’t be too terribly long, but we do have to run and vote. 

But Lynn, we’ll go ahead and take your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF LYNN M. MUENCH, THE AMERICAN 

WATERWAYS OPERATORS 

Ms. MUENCH. Mr. Chairman, thank you, and the distinguished 

Members of the Committee for an opportunity to make comments 

on the operation of the Missouri River and the impacts the operations have on small businesses throughout the nation. 

AWO is the national trade association for the U.S. tugboat, 

towboat and barge industry. The industry safely and efficiently 

moves over 800 million tons of cargo each year, including more 

than 60 percent of the U.S. export corn and other bulk commodities 

that are the building blocks of the U.S. economy. 

Why does AWO’s membership have concerns with the proposed 

spring rises on the Missouri River? There are two principal reasons. First, the spring rise will decrease the navigational reliability 

of the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers as it further diminishes congressionally-authorized navigation. And two, this proposal will 

harm a key customer of the barge and towing industry, the Midwest farmer. 

The Committee invited AWO here to answer a simple question, 

the Missouri River and its spring rise, science or science fiction? 

The answer is simple. It is science fiction. 

It continues to astound me and most reasonable and thoughtful 

stakeholders throughout the Mississippi River why the spring rise 

exists. This is an attempt to turn the entire lower basin and its 

citizens, including the Mississippi River, into a lab experiment is 

an example of big government gone amok. 

This spring and summer, over 50 Missouri River stakeholders 

spent countless hours as part of the spring rise plenary group sponsored by the Corps, the Service and several other Federal agencies, 

including the Environmental Protection Agency. The group did 

come to a consensus that, unfortunately, the Corps and Service 

continue to ignore, in a truly unprecedented and remarkable the 

Upper Basin, Lower Basin and the Tribes all agreed that there 

should be no spring rise as long as the drought persists. That recommendation has been ignored. 

Here are some of the things we learned during the session and 

information that the Corps and Service continued to ignore. There 

are three areas on the river system that appear to be viable areas 

and much preferred from a scientific nature than below Gavins 

Point Dam to recover the pallid sturgeon. These three areas have 

variable spring rises from none to several. The Missouri River already has over 500 miles with a naturally-occurring spring rise. 

This information indicates that a spring rise probably has little, if 

any, impact on the spawning cue of the species. 

One of the groups reporting to the plenary group identified several ‘‘outside the box’’ real ways to recover and test the recovery 

methods of the pallid sturgeon. None have been incorporated by the 

27

Service under its ‘‘adaptive management’’ scheme. Contrary to 

what you heard earlier today, the Service also continues to ignore 

the best available science they purport to use. 

The Biological Opinion represents nothing more than the values 

of some members of the Service that implements policy instead of 

offering science for policy makers to evaluate. This Biological Opinion is not supported by scientific fact. It is clearly science fiction. 

The new Master Manual increased the number of non-navigation 

days in 2005, threefold from 17 to 48 days. Now this flexible spring 

rise will decrease the navigation season by a minimum of one more 

day this year at a minimum, over the 15 to 61 the Corps predicts 

for 2006. As the reservoirs continue to be tapped for the excessive 

waste of water, non-navigation days will continue to increase as 

long as the drought persists in the basin. 

This change will undoubtedly continue to reduce the flow from 

the Missouri River that contributes up to 88 percent of the water 

in the middle Mississippi. During 2005, with low water on the Mississippi River and as Midwestern farmers struggled to get their export products to New Orleans following the hurricanes, the Northwestern Division shut off the flows from the Missouri River, resulting in up to two feet of decreased water levels in October and November in the Mississippi River. This action decreased every southbound tow by a minimum of 407,000 bushels, up to as much as 

655,000 bushels of soybeans or corn. 

Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, the Corps and the Service continue 

to disregard the President, the Congress and Federal Courts. For 

the economic well-being of the small businesses of the Midwest and 

especially it’s agricultural community, these agencies must be directed by Congress to adhere to the primary purposes of the Missouri River system, navigation and flood control and to do so on the 

basis of sound science, not science fiction. 

Once again, on behalf of AWO, I’d like to thank the entire Committee for the invitation and your attention. 

[Ms. Muench’s testimony may be found in the appendix.] 

Chairman GRAVES. Thank you, Ms. Muench. We’ll recess for just, 

hopefully, a brief period of time. I apologize again for votes coming 

in the middle. It shouldn’t take us very long at all and then we’ll 

come back, Steve, and we’ll start right off with your testimony. 

[Off the record.] 

Chairman GRAVES. We’ll go ahead and come back to order. 

Again, I apologize for the delay in votes. Hopefully, it didn’t have 

too big an impact. Looks like we lost some of our audience, but 

that’s all right. 

Steve, we’ll go ahead and move to you with the Missouri Corn 

Growers and the Coalition to Protect Missouri River. I appreciate 

you being here and coming all this way and I look forward to your 

testimony. 

STATEMENT OF STEVEN K. TAYLOR, MISSOURI CORN 

GROWERS, COALITION TO PROTECT THE MISSOURI RIVER 

Mr. TAYLOR. Chairman Graves, thank you, and Members of the 

Subcommittee. My name is Steve Taylor. I’m the chairman of the 

Coalition to Protect the Missouri River, a diverse group repVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:19 Sep 29, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 G:\HEARINGS\27431.TXT MIKE
28

resenting utility, navigational and agricultural interests. Again, I 

thank you for this opportunity to be here today. 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service states in its 2003 Amended 

Biological Opinion that spring rises are mandated for the Missouri 

River. Also, within the Department of the Interior, the U.S. Geological Survey is tasked with providing science that assists policy 

makers regarding complicated, natural resource issues such as the 

spring rise. The USGS states that the 2003 Biological Opinion is 

based, in large part from a National Research Council report entitled ‘‘The Missouri River Ecosystem: Exploring the Prospects for 

Recovery.’’ This report was sponsored by the Corps of Engineers 

and the Environmental Protection Agency. Instead of focusing on 

species recovery, however, these agencies ask the NRC to develop 

a report on policies that could promote flood plain ecosystem management. 

This is where some slight of hand occurred. The issue was species recovery, but the Corps has asked instead for a system and 

ecocystem recovery. The confusion and chaos this mix-up of science 

causes came sharply in the focus last year with the Corps and Fish 

and Wildlife Service attempt to design a spring rise from the Missouri River. The U.S. Corps of Engineers sponsored an intergovernmental and stakeholder group process to develop a recommendation for implementing a spring rise. But because of the use of ecosystem science and a lack of species recovery science, the process 

failed. 

In an amazing show of abstinent persistence, the Corps and the 

Fish and Wildlife Service acknowledged the failure, but continued 

its dedication to this failed process by announcing the development 

of yet another inter-governmental and stakeholder group to work 

on the spring rise. 

Now let me focus on the true status of the science of the sturgeon 

recovery, some of which we’ve heard already today. Because of the 

NRC report, spring rises are currently the main focus of species recovery, but how important are the spring rises to species recovery? 

Do spring rises help the fish to spawn? Is spawning the problem? 

Are there other threats to the sturgeon during the life cycle? No 

one really knows because the science is lacking. We do know that 

the spawning surveys of 85 species of Missouri River fish indicate 

a spring rise is not necessary. And again, as we’ve heard today, 

temperature the photoperiod has been suggestions of primary cue 

to spawn. 

In a September 2005 USGS survey which you quoted, it did actually provide some limited information on sturgeon research in the 

Missouri River. There was some fascinating information in this report. Again, as you said, there was 75 percent spawning success 

rate, successful spawning without the mandated spring rise. 

We were also encouraged to see that this limited research also 

looked at water temperature, depths, physical habitats, quantity of 

habitat, the spawning substrates regarding gravel and rock deposits within the channel. While expanding the research for spawning 

beyond just flow is encouraging, we would also encourage more research on the entire life cycle of the sturgeon. 

We are also encouraged by some of the recent comments of USGS 

which they’ve stated that ‘‘scientific data about what management 

29

benefit sturgeon are limited.’’ But notwithstanding the dictatorial 

stance of the Department of the Interior that a spring rise is mandated, some scientists are being true to their fundamental obligation as scientists, they’re beginning to step forward, acknowledge 

the lack of science supporting the spring rise and questioning the 

importance of the spring rise. 

We hope this trend continues and that other scientists realize 

that the longer that they stand on the quicksand which is a science 

supporting the spring rise, the more they do so at their own professional peril. 

The Congress and the White House need to encourage agencies 

to make what little information that does exist more available and 

to allow for more true partnerships in the question for information. 

Data and information is all important. Congress appropriates millions of dollars to assist endangered species on the Missouri River. 

A portion of this money should be provided to scientists outside the 

U.S. Department of the Interior. 

And again, Chairman Graves, I thank you for your time. 

[Mr. Taylor’s testimony may be found in the appendix.] 

Chairman GRAVES. Thanks, Steve. 

Next, we’ll hear from Tom Waters. Tom, I appreciate you coming 

all the way. I know you know the river very well and I look forward to your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF TOM WATERS, WATERS FARM 

Mr. WATERS. Thank you, good afternoon. My name is Tom Waters. I am a seventh generation farmer from Ray County, Missouri. 

I own and operate our family farm in the Missouri River bottoms 

near Orrick, Missouri. I also serve as the chairman of the Missouri 

Levee and Drainage District Association, where I represent farmers, landowners, businesses and others interested in the issues surrounding the Missouri River and its tributaries. I am a member of 

the Missouri-Arkansas River Basins Association Board of Directors 

and serve as president of three local levee and drainage districts, 

which combined encompass over 20,000 acres of Missouri River bottomland. 

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for this opportunity to provide testimony regarding the Missouri River. It’s a great honor to 

have the opportunity to travel to our Nation’s Capitol and represent my friends, colleagues and citizens from home. 

I am here to share my thoughts with you regarding the United 

States Army Corps of Engineers plans for increasing flows on the 

Missouri River twice during Missouri’s spring planting season. 

It has become increasingly clear the Corps’ plan for a spring rise 

will be designed to intentionally flood Missouri River Bottomlands. 

Representatives from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service describe the spring pulse as a means 

to connect the river to the floodplain. They tell us the purpose of 

the spring pulse is to provide some semblance of the ‘‘natural 

hydrograph’’ which historically inundated the floodplain. 

The reason the mainstem reservoir system was built was to protect against the inundation of the floodplains. On two different occasions, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis has clearly 

stated ‘‘the 1944 Flood Control Act has been interpreted to hold 

30

flood control and navigation dominant and recreation, fish and 

wildlife secondary.’’ 

The Corps’ 2006 Annual Operating Plan ignores the Court’s opinion and includes two opportunities to cause intentional flooding 

along the river. I fully expect without changes, future Annual Operating Plans will include even greater threats to bottomland farmers, small businesses and communities as the Corps increases 

flows. 

On March 1st, the Corps of Engineers announced there would 

not be a March spring rise this year. Severe drought conditions in 

the Upper Missouri River Basin have caused reservoirs to reach 

all-time low levels. It is very sad we have to rely on such severe 

drought conditions to stop the implementation of the March spring 

rise. 

I believe these man-made spring rises are in direct conflict with 

the Corps’ mission of flood control. How can the Corps of Engineers 

protect our farms, businesses, homes and communities from flooding and at the same time make releases from the reservoir system 

with the purpose of connecting the river to the floodplains? The two 

goals are incompatible and the Corps’ efforts to do both is doomed 

to fail. Maybe not this year or the next year, but the Corps of Engineers and the Fish and Wildlife Service are playing a game of Russian Roulette with this super-sized science experiment and sooner 

or later the small businesses, landowners and communities along 

the river will pay a high price for their actions. 

Increased river levels in the spring keep land near the river wet 

when farmers need to be preparing soil and planting crops. Drainage outlet pipes need to be open in the spring to help drain water 

from the normal spring rainy season. A high river in the spring 

causes outlet flood gates to be covered. This holds back water, 

which would normally be released into the river, increasing the 

risk of flooding and keeping land covered with water longer following heavy spring rains. 

I know the effects of a high river. It’s is a risk I face each time 

I plant a crop. For seven generations my family has faced the risk 

of a high river due to Mother Nature’s unpredictable weather patterns. But we have never had to face a man-made rise designed to 

flood us. It is amazing the same system built by previous generations to protect rich Missouri River bottomlands can now be used 

to flood this land, which produces food and fiber for a hungry 

world. 

By building the reservoir system, Congress made a commitment 

to the American people. It was a promise and commitment of flood 

control and navigation. Businesses, communities and farmers rely 

on that commitment for their livelihoods. The spring rise is the 

first step in dissolving the commitment and it places a heavy burden on those who rely on the river system for flood protection. 

It is my hope that Congress will take a hard look at the dangerous direction the Corps of Engineers has taken with their plan 

to intentionally flood lands along the Missouri River. I appreciate 

your time and willingness to serve as Representatives in Congress 

and thank you for this opportunity to be here. I want to mention 

one other thing, Chairman. I heard you apologize a couple of times 

for going to vote and I just want to let you know that my friends 

31

and neighbors voted for you to be here to vote and we’re proud you 

do that for us. Thank you. 

[Mr. Waters’ testimony may be found in the appendix.] 

Chairman GRAVES. I appreciate that. Next we’re going to hear 

from David Sieck, and David, I appreciate you being here from 

Iowa, representing the Iowa corn growers. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID SIECK, IOWA CORN GROWERS 

Mr. SIECK. First, I’d like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Committee for the opportunity to comment on the Missouri River spring rise plan. Farmers appreciate that Congress is 

willing to call attention and investigate whether a spring rise is 

justified. My name is David Sieck. I farm in Glenwood, Iowa and 

I’m a third generation farmer. I am a member of the Iowa Corn 

Growers Board of Directors and past president of the Iowa Corn 

Growers Association. 

My family farm is located along the Missouri River and our family has farmed that ground along the river since the 1940s. I would 

actually like to say that prior to my grandfather buying the 

ground, I’ve seen title that said ground previously located in Sarpe 

County, Nebraska, now residing in Mills County, Iowa. So I’ve 

truly had land that’s been in two different States. 

I have been personally involved in many stakeholder meetings 

regarding the Missouri River over the past 12 years. I have most 

recently been a member of the Socio-Economic Technical Working 

Group of the Plenary Committee during 2005 to determine the 

stakeholders’ opinions regarding the proposed spring rise in 2006. 

It was my opinion then, and continues to be my opinion now, that 

the spring rise is not justified by science, and will cause extensive 

economic harm to farmers as well as Iowa communities. 

Farmers strongly oppose the spring rise plan for 2006 and the 

years thereafter. The spring rise was proposed because of the pallid 

sturgeon. While it is documented that the pallid sturgeon numbers 

are low, there’s no scientific certainty the spring rise will bring 

back the population. In fact, the 2005 study by the U.S. Geological 

Survey shows that temperature is a much more important factor 

for the fish’s ability to survive than flow changes. 

In 2005, the U.S. Geological Survey completed an extensive survey. We’ve talked about that a lot today and this research project 

was to learn more about the pallid sturgeon’s reproductive habits. 

The study showed that the shovelnose sturgeon is used as an example because it is a close relative of the pallid. On September 14, 

2005, the Geological Survey published a report entitled ‘‘Update on 

Sturgeon Research’’ which concludes that without changing any 

flows on the Missouri River, 75 percent of the pallid sturgeon 

tracked had spawned, including fish in the upper Missouri and 

Gavins Point. This study corresponds with past studies that have 

shown no correlation between sturgeon spawning and the spring 

rise. 

The Fish and Wildlife Service’s Biological Opinion demands a 

spring rise as a spawning cue for the pallid sturgeon, but information in the 2004 Army Corps’ Revised Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement Executive Summary states, ‘‘Corps and USFWS biologists agree that there is no data to support definition of a spawning 

32

cue that would successfully result in spawning on the Lower 

River.’’ The Corps affirms in the Revised Draft Master Manual review that ‘‘this lack of information supported the general understanding between the Corps and the Fish and Wildlife Service 

staffs that the required spawning cue is basically unknown at this 

point in time. Corps staff understood that the criteria were hypothetical, and they did not have supporting data, analysis, and documentation of associated spawning success.’’ 

Corps’ records demonstrate that there is already a natural spring 

rise on the Missouri beginning at the mouth of the Platte. I’d say 

it goes north of that a little further because I farm about two miles 

north of that—and moving downstream. There is no indication that 

the pallid are naturally spawning at great levels where this natural spring rise occurs even though shallow water habitat is closest 

to ideal in that part of the river. 

A few short years ago, scientists said a spring rise was needed 

for the two birds, the piping plover and the least tern. As it turns 

out, these populations have increased without a spring rise, and 

even though the Fish and Wildlife Service said that the spring rise 

was essential to the nesting, in an August 2003 press release from 

the Army Corps, the following was stated: ‘‘The operation this summer resulted in the fourth straight year of record numbers of adult 

piping plovers and the second highest number of least terns.’’ He 

added, ‘‘This is the sixth consecutive year that the fledge goals 

have been met for the interior least tern. The fledge goals for the 

piping plover have been met for five of the last six years.’’ This is 

another example of where the Fish and Wildlife Service’s ‘‘science’’ 

was not justified. 

Iowa Corn Growers support solutions based on science, not experiment. The spring rise is an experiment, to see if the pallid sturgeon may be helped. On the other hand, a spring rise has a real 

likelihood of economic harm, not only to farmers, but to rural and 

urban communities along the Missouri River. The people, businesses, and communities along the Missouri River should not have 

to endure purposeful flooding, when the outcome of the species recovery is not certain. 

The levels of increased water proposed in the future could add 

as much as four feet to flood stages at various river reaches. The 

water, on top of natural events, could not only flood, but cause interior drainage problems for a large portion of western Iowa. This 

means that not only farms and communities directly touched by 

the Missouri River will be impacted, a spring rise will affect interior drainage miles away from the river banks. 

Agriculture is a major land use in the Missouri River Basin. It 

is easy to see the importance of the river to Iowa. Every farm in 

Iowa is either in the flood plain of the Missouri or Mississippi 

River. We encourage the Corps to continue to protect agricultural 

land and provide flood control for the 1.4 million acres along the 

Missouri River. 

While the Iowa Corn Growers Association recognizes the importance of preserving our natural resources, we believe untested 

methods of preservation should not come at the expense of damaging farms, communities and businesses. The Army Corps of Engineers has the ability to place navigation and flood control ahead of 

33

endangered species according to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. We are asking the Government to put human costs ahead of 

possible benefits to the pallid sturgeon. 

Again, I’d like to thank you for the ability to speak today and I 

appreciate this hearing. 

[Mr. Sieck’s testimony may be found in the appendix.] 

Chairman GRAVES. Thank you. Thank you all. One of the first 

areas I want to get into is obviously interior drainage which I think 

there’s more potential for impact and damage there, than anything 

else and I happen to be very familiar with it. We farm on the Turkey River Bottom which dumps directly into the Missouri in Holt 

County. We farm in Atchison County and I know what the river 

does, what happens when it gets high. I know what happens to our 

flood gates and I know how long it takes that water to move on 

out and if we get rain, everything is backed up and nothing moves. 

But anybody can comment if they want to and my next question 

is actually about small business impact and the industry impact 

that it’s going to have, but we’ll go ahead and start with interior 

drainage. 

Tom, you may want to start. You actually mentioned it in your 

testimony. 

Mr. WATERS. Sure, thank you. I have a long-standing invitation 

for the Corps of Engineers and Fish and Wildlife folks to come out 

and visit my farm and look at these internal drainage problems. 

I’m happy to say several of them have been there. I kind of lost 

count of the number Generals and Colonels we posted, but I’d welcome you and your colleagues to come out as well. 

The problem we face with internal drainage with a high river, 

our drainage system is not allowed to drain into the river. We have 

flood gates at the levees that close and when we get an internal 

rain, that water is not able to drain. One of the drainage pipes that 

we take these folks to drains over 20,000 acres. About half of that 

comes from the hills during rain events. And if those gates aren’t 

open, that water doesn’t drain and it just starts backing up and our 

ditches fill with water, our fields aren’t able to drain. We’re either 

not able to get in to plant our crop. If our crop is planted, oftentimes it will drown out, cause us to replant or if it’s late enough, 

we may not even be able to replant, so really that’s the bulk of our 

problem. 

We’re also concerned, of course, about seeing a spring rise come 

when the river is full and we have a 10-inch rain event within that 

10 days, the time that the water is released, we can see flooding 

in those instances, but I think for most farmers along the river, it’s 

the internal drainage that causes us real havoc. 

Mr. KRUSE. I think you make a very good point, Mr. Chairman, 

because I think all of us who farm know full well that springtime 

is perhaps the most uncertain time of probability of getting a heavy 

rain. You pointed out in some of your comments earlier, nobody 

can—I don’t know anybody that can predict accurately two weeks 

out what the weather is going to do, but the spring time is when 

a lot of bottom land is wet to begin with. So I think your point is 

an excellent one. If we’re going to release more water and then run 

the chance of Mother Nature deciding to create more water, it really exacerbates the problem greatly. 

34

Farmers have a certain time line for planting. And farmers certainly know that if you miss that time window, you may still get 

a crop planted, but you’ve lost the opportunity for optimal planting 

times and so I think that again creates a real problem. 

A lady at one of the listening sessions that I participated in back 

in Missouri made a point and I think it’s a point that needs to be 

made pretty often. She said to Fish and Wildlife people and the 

Corps people, you know, what you all are going to do is not going 

to affect you personally in any way. It’s going to have no bearing 

on your livelihood. It’s going to have no bearing on what you do, 

but it’s going to have the potential to have a huge impact on me 

personally and my family, she said. 

And I think you can translate that to people that live all up and 

down the river who are scared to death that something that’s as 

void of logic as this suggestion is, has the potential to really cause 

great harm, not only economic harm, and not just to farmland, 

we’re certainly concerned about farmland, but people who live 

along the river, people who have businesses along the river. 

We’re talking about our own Government potentially causing 

great harm to people and I think it’s time we do something to stop 

it. 

Chairman GRAVES. Dave? 

Mr. SIECK. I’d like to add one thing. I would concur with what 

they’ve been talking about, but I would like to add another perspective to that. I’m in a levee district that has about 22,000 acres. This 

levee district, as you know, in the 1990s we experienced several 

from just naturally occurring water and it backed up and the river 

ran really high or out of its banks for weeks. 

It has weakened the structures in our levee. These tubes that go 

through were basically in our levee were corrugated metal tubes 

designed by the Corps of Engineers and these structures are probably 25, 27, maybe 30 years old in spots and what is happening is 

that because of all that water for long periods of time along the 

levee, these tubes are starting to settle and there’s O-rings around 

them and they’re starting to settle and pop the O-rings. So our 

levee district is basically a—it was a Federal levee, but we have 

paid it off and now we have a Board of Trustees that runs it. 

And anything, if it was a FEMA event and we were limited by 

a certain amount of time for a FEMA event to turn claims in, well, 

you know, we couldn’t crawl in these tubes because the water may 

have been low, but it was still up against the tubes. It was no 

longer out of the banks. And with this, we have tubes that are 

critically damaged from all this water in the 1990s that didn’t get 

it turned in under FEMA and fixed. So we’re sitting here with the 

potential of lots of structures that maybe we’ve already replaced 

one of them. The one on the farm that we own has just been replaced this year with concrete because they’re finding the steel isn’t 

holding. 

So they’re replacing these with concrete structures and that burden at about $250,000 a pop is having to be bore by the levee district because there’s no federal money to do that and because of the 

fact that we couldn’t turn it in under FEMA. 

So we’ve had the first one that’s in trouble. We have another one 

that is looking like it needs it and they’re starting to inspect all the 

35

tubes. With this increased spring rise, if we do get it, and this 

water setting against these levees, how are we going to bear the 

burden of fixing all these levees down the road from that increased 

pressure that isn’t just caused from a natural event. We have a 

huge concern in our levee district about that. 

Chairman GRAVES. Mr. King? 

Mr. KING OF IOWA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First remarks, 

Mr. Waters, I’ve never met a seventh generation farmer and I’m 

not sure I can find it but it seems to me that Scripture says that 

the sins of the fathers will be visited upon the son of the seventh 

generation. Have you actually surpassed the statute of limitations 

established as Biblical? 

Mr. WATERS. Sometimes I wonder about that. I’m proud of my 

heritage there at home. I’m proud of the farm that we take care 

of. 

Mr. KING OF IOWA. You have every right to be. Can you tell us 

about how many years does that span, that period of time? 

Mr. WATERS. You know, actually, when I was doing the testimony I thought I better check that out and around 1850s is when 

my first relatives moved to the area where I farm now. 

Mr. KING OF IOWA. I just happen to recall that Thomas Jefferson 

declared a generation to be 19 years, so 19 times 7 would be a little 

less than that, but it changes, of course, generation to generation. 

I wanted to remark on that because seven generations really 

means something and when your roots go down, there’s a lot more 

to this than a crop this year. There’s seven other generations behind, hopefully, that can make their living and their lives there. 

I direct my first question to Ms. Meunch. I’d just like to ask if 

you could flesh out a little bit what’s happened to the prospects of 

the barge industry, in the lower Mississippi below St. Louis, as 

well as the reaches of the Missouri River, all the way up to Sioux 

City, the percentages of freight. You may have testified to that and 

I missed it. 

Ms. MUENCH. No. The whole structure has changed on the Missouri River. Let me start with that. It wasn’t all that long ago that 

there were annual contracts for things that were shipped on the 

Missouri River. Now everything is in flux because no one can rely 

on the navigational flows. And the annual operating plan now with 

the Master Manual it’s always a guessing came on what it’s going 

to look like next year. And that has done a lot of things for the towing industry on the Missouri River in a negative sense. 

One, several companies have gone out of business because they 

just simply can’t afford to play that Russian Roulette with their 

business every year, and there’s also been a total lack of investments within the terminals and the ports on the Missouri River, 

because they’re not certain that they’re going to have those flows 

year after year. 

On the Mississippi River, what it’s essentially done at this point, 

has only been an increase in freight rates for everything going 

north and south of St. Louis, because that’s really a limiting factor 

at this point. But it hasn’t changed really what kind of traffic is 

there. But there is that possibility, if we continue to have that 

unreliability during the major export season in October and NoVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:19 Sep 29, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 G:\HEARINGS\27431.TXT MIKE
36

vember that it could negatively impact whether we can even get 

crops to the market for export. 

Mr. KING OF IOWA. Thank you, Ms. Meunch. I’ll turn to my Iowa 

witness here, Mr. Sieck, and ask him some questions that I don’t 

expect he’s going to be prepared to answer. 

What was the indigenous population of bottom farmers in 1952? 

Mr. SIECK. The indigenous? 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. SIECK. I guess in our area, I have a water mark that’s about 

three and a half feet above the land that is the furthest away from 

the river, almost to the flood plain and there wouldn’t have been 

many farmers out there at that period of time. 

Mr. KING OF IOWA. Because that would have been in flood zone 

and it was habitually flooded? 

Mr. SIECK. Right, and even though there was some small farmer 

levees, there wasn’t the kind of protection needed in 1952, it was 

pretty much bank-based. 

Mr. KING OF IOWA. So once the floods—when was the last year 

that the bottoms flooded in your area? 

Mr. SIECK. Before the levees or just between the levees or where 

are we talking? Because you know, the farmer levees weren’t as 

good a levees. The levees now kind of hold it in between the banks. 

Mr. KING OF IOWA. I’d say as we know it today. 

Mr. SIECK. 1997 or 1998 was the last year. 

Mr. KING OF IOWA. 1997 or 1998? 

Mr. SIECK. Right. 

Mr. KING OF IOWA. And prior to that, one or two floods a decade 

or how did that run out? 

Mr. SIECK.I always say back before the 1990s we were maybe 1 

to 2 per 10. After the 1990s, with all that water, we had probably 

about three or so, and they were long periods. They weren’t just 

short ups and downs, they were for weeks at a time where the 

water was out of the banks. 

Mr. KING OF IOWA. But the 1990s were what they were? 

Mr. SIECK. Right. 

Mr. KING OF IOWA. And I’ll never forget that. There was a peak 

population though of farmers in the bottom during that period of 

time and I’m going to guess it probably— 

Mr. SIECK. Pretty much probably hiding in the hills during all 

high water events. They moved their cattle and everything off, but 

yes, it was the most amount of farms and the most amount of people out there, probably. 

Mr. KING OF IOWA. In the 1960s and 1970s, about in there? 

Mr. SIECK. Yes. 

Mr. KING OF IOWA. And I just had this bizarre thought as I sat 

here and I listened and I wondered if it were the sturgeon that 

were actually studying the indigenous population of bottom farmers 

over the last half a century, what might they recommend for the 

habitat to improve the population of the species in the Missouri 

River bottom? I suspect they would slay let’s change some of the 

habitat so that they’re not taking second rate to another species. 

But that was my little gambit here for fun. 

And then I want to just—Mr. Waters, did you lean towards the 

microphone? 

37

Mr. WATERS. Yes, I was just going to assure you it wouldn’t be 

a spring rise. 

Mr. KING OF IOWA. Thank you. Maybe that was what I was looking for. 

And in the Corps testimony, the requirement that they list under 

stakeholders in 2005 and Mr. Sieck, as a member of the Plenary 

Committee, were the stakeholders given an opportunity to discuss 

whether a spring rise should go forward? Did you weigh in on that 

question and if so, did you get a response on that? 

Mr. SIECK. I guess. I was on the Socio-Economic Subcommittee 

which dealt with stakeholders and how it affected us in the lower 

reaches and our farms and things and we were given sidebars 

when we started that there was going to be a spring rise, so actually, looking at alternatives that didn’t include a spring rise was 

off the table. So to me, I don’t know if we truly looked at all the 

alternatives and I had a real concern during the process because 

of that fact that we’re going to have a spring rise and you guys 

have to decide how you want it done. 

Mr. KING OF IOWA. Thank you. 

Ms. MUENCH. Congressman, I was actually a part of the plenary 

group and I would like to say something for the record because it 

was very important and really quite breathtaking that this happened at the very end of the plenary group. And that was Chad 

Smith, who works for American Rivers, and as you can imagine, 

we’re not usually on the same side of the fence, put up a proposal 

for how to move forward with the spring rise and part of that proposal was to have a spring rise off the table for 2006 period. And 

went through another list of what the spring rise would look like, 

including a preclude level of 49 million acre feed which is much 

higher than the 36.5 that’s presently there. The only part of that 

proposal that anyone had any problems with was the relaxation of 

flood control. That was universally from Upper Basin, Lower Basin 

and the Tribes. 

There were a couple of people who were very invested in this Biological Opinion who weren’t agreeing with that, but as a group, the 

plenary group was ready to say yes, let’s move forward with this 

proposal, but we’ve got to have the flood control constraints in 

place. 

Mr. KING OF IOWA. Thank you. And I’m going to direct a followon question to Mr. Kruse and that would be if and in spite of the 

resistance to this pulse that’s here in this panel and that’s here in 

this panel, if this goes forward and as I look at the yellow line on 

this diagram and realize that that line could well in subsequent 

years go up and up and up, and each year that there might be a 

pulse and the greater magnitude that’s more likely in subsequent 

years because we expect there will be more water to work with in 

subsequent years, in fact, pray there will be, what would you ask 

the Federal Government to do in order to indemnify the man-created losses that could come from a pulse or a spring rise? 

Mr. KRUSE. Congressman King, I think that’s a very important 

point. There has been discussion, for example that the Risk Management Agency should somehow provide crop insurance to farmers 

who farm in the bottoms. I have personally taken the view that 

and you know, RMA is saying that they are not allowed to cover 

38

man-made events with crop insurance. I personally have taken the 

view if Federal Government agencies are going to impose this on 

citizens, it ought to be those agencies that figure out how to make 

people whole. 

I don’t necessarily quarrel with the Risk Management Agency 

when they say that they are not under current law allowed to provide crop insurance for man-made flooding. I think this is a very, 

very important point and it goes beyond agriculture; it goes to people who live in these areas. It goes to people who have small businesses in these areas and certainly it goes to people who farm in 

these areas. 

Again, I think if there are Federal Government agencies that are 

going to impose this kind of total lack of logic event on people, then 

they ought to figure out how they’re going to make them whole and 

Congressman King, I would agree exactly with your language, how 

to make these people whole, if something like that occurs. 

Mr. KING OF IOWA. Thank you. Anyone else on the panel would 

like to weigh in on that question of what the Federal Government 

ought to be obligated to do? 

Mr. Sieck? 

Mr. SIECK. Well, I guess it comes back to the subsequent years. 

And if you look at the yellow lines on your chart and you look at 

the proposed rises for this year and compare that to the natural 

hydrograph, the first rise basically mimics the natural hydrograph. 

But the second rise has been so compromised from the start from 

the natural hydrograph, I don’t see how we could ever have a hope 

of success as far as making people whole. The crop insurance issue 

is a double-edged knife as far as we can see. If we ask for coverage 

under crop insurance, we’ve also given them the right to give us 

bigger spring rises because all those guys are covered now, go 

ahead. 

So it’s a huge issue that cuts both ways and there needs to be 

some serious thought that that’s just the opportunity for them to 

give us more of what we’ve opposed all the way along. So I have 

an issue with that. 

Mr. KING OF IOWA. Thank you. Anyone else? 

Mr. WATERS. You know the attorneys for the Fish and Wildlife 

Service and the Corps of Engineers in Federal Court told the Judge 

that the purpose of the spring rise was to intentionally flood bottoms lands. So if that’s the case, we shouldn’t have to rely on crop 

insurance to cover us for those types of flooding because one thing, 

crop insurance is a percentage. You’re just going to get a percentage of your loss. So there needs to be some way that you can recover 100 percent of your losses due to this Federal action. 

And so I don’t know if there’s a program that needs to take place 

or what, but I can tell you this, the easiest answer is not to have 

the spring rise, not to put us in that predicament to begin with. 

Mr. KING OF IOWA. Thank you. Mr. Taylor. 

Mr. TAYLOR. As mentioned earlier, I’m here representing Missouri corn growers, but I’m also chairman of the CPR which has 

over 30 some organizations as members, including chambers of 

commerce. I believe it was at the beginning of this hearing that 

Senator Talent laid out quite well the magnitude of what’s at risk 

here, billions of dollars, not only in agriculture, but others. And 

39

that’s why we have chambers of commerce and utilities and navigation and others that are interested in this. 

I thought in my testimony what would be good to frame this was 

talking about how when the USGS, the main science agency was 

asked what was the basis of science, they turned to the NRC report. If you take and look at that NRC report really closely, it really to me strikes me as goes completely against what this Committee is here for which is promote small business. It talks, in my 

opinion and I guess other people can read it and have other opinions, but in my opinion as I read it, it bemoans the facts that we 

put the dams in in the first place and that sort of thing. And protecting—it actually talks about the problems that the infrastructure and transportation, the population growth that’s caused to the 

ecosystem. And that’s fine if we’re debating the ecosystem, but the 

issue and the science that we’re supposed to be talking about is the 

pallid sturgeon. 

So again, I just wanted to expand it. The big picture is definitely 

a lot is at risk as far as the agricultural community and that’s part 

of what I’m representing here today. But as Senator Talent said, 

there’s billions of dollars at stake in the bottomland. 

Mr. KING OF IOWA. Thank you. And just in a concluding statement here, Mr. Chairman, I would just like to make a remark on 

Mr. Sieck’s testimony with regard to the least tern and the piping 

plover and I recall as the saga unfolded, it was we need to have 

the spring rise in order to do three things, well, actually two things 

for three species. One of them was to wash the pallid sturgeon out 

into the Oxbow, so they could spawn. Another one was to wash the 

willows off of the sandbars so there would be a place for the plover 

and the tern to nest and then we needed to have another surge to 

go out there and flood up into the Oxbow, apparently to round up 

the spawned pallid sturgeon and bring it back into the river so 

they can swim away. 

And now we’ve resolved the issue with two of the species that 

you’ve testified and I think it was very relevant to this that their 

numbers are up several years in a row. It looks like their population is becoming more and more stable. We found ways to manage that. We found ways to hatch the sturgeon out, so it almost 

looks like there was a pre-conceived notion of what this river needed to be flowing like and that the species fit the need to design the 

river flow conveniently. And now we’re down to one species instead 

of three. That’s great progress in a way. If we could continue this 

kind of progress, this question would be over. 

But the part that disturbs me yet, as I look at these lines on this 

graph, the yellow, the orange and the two blues, is the idealistic 

viewpoint that we should get to the natural hydrograph and the 

impossibility of getting there with dams in the river, and so if we 

don’t know to what degree we need to mimic the natural 

hydrograph or what portion of it is necessary for reproduction, it 

may be impossible to ever have the type of, if it is indeed even effective in the spawning, it may be impossible to ever reach the 

level of the flow of the river. It is impossible to reach the natural 

hydrograph. So what less than that ideal, if that is the ideal, would 

it be required for the reproduction of the pallid sturgeon? And this 

is, I’ve been somewhat amazed with the skill in language that I’m 

40

seeing here, but what did I read, the super-size science experiment, 

I appreciated that remark and I think with that, I would conclude 

my remarks and thank the Chairman. 

I yield back. 

Chairman GRAVES. Thank you, Mr. King. You’re exactly right. 

We don’t know what degree we’re ever going to be able to achieve 

the natural hydrograph. We do know that the pallid sturgeon has 

adapted. It’s adapted in our fisheries. I mean the fact is they’re 

swimming around in circles at least in our hatcheries. 

I do think they will adapt. We can’t lose sight of the fact that 

it affects not only farmers, but it affects businesses. It affects 

power plants. It affects communities. And we just barely touched 

on that whole aspect of it. 

This is an important issue. It’s a very powerful issue and it’s 

something that concerns me. I get myself in trouble sometimes 

when I say things and I know my staff gets a little upset, but the 

fact of the matter is if—I hate to lose a species, but if we were to 

lose the pallid sturgeon, as a result of—because we’ve become more 

commercial, we’ve got more people farming the river and it becomes another one of the 90 percent of the species that have lived 

on this planet and are now extinct. I’m sorry for that, but I’m not 

going to put fish or two birds for that matter ahead of people. And 

I think we have to bear that in mind. 

Thank you all for being here. I do want to thank Mr. King and 

General Martin and Mr. Wells for sticking through the hearing. I 

appreciate that very much for you sticking by and listening to the 

rest of the testimony in light of the votes that we had. And we do 

have to vacate the hearing room. We ran a little over time, but I 

do appreciate everybody being here and thank you so much for 

your testimony. 

[Whereupon, at 12:55 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

41


27431.001
42


27431.002
43


27431.003
44


27431.004
45


27431.005
46


27431.006
47


27431.007
48


27431.008
49


27431.009
50


27431.010
51


27431.011
52


27431.012
53


27431.013
54


27431.014
55


27431.015
56


27431.016
57


27431.017
58


27431.018
59


27431.019
60


27431.020
61


27431.021
62


27431.029
63


27431.030
64


27431.031
65


27431.032
66


27431.033
67


27431.034
68


27431.022
69


27431.023
70


27431.024
71


27431.025
72


27431.026
73


27431.027
74


27431.028
75


27431.035
76


27431.036
77


27431.037
78

Æ


27431.038