Great cities get their water from great rivers. Missouri's ...Great cities get their water from great rivers. Missouri's two largest cities—St. Louis and Kansas City—both take

Great cities get their water from great rivers. Missouri's two largest cities—St. Louisand Kansas City—both take water from rivers. Pictured is the skyline of Kansas Citywith the Kansas City Municipal Water Plant in the foreground. Photo by Jerry D.Vineyard.

i

Water Resources Report Number 50

Missouri State Water Plan Series Volume VI

Water Resource SharingThe Realities of Interstate Rivers

byJerry D. Vineyard

1997

MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCESDivision of Geology and Land Survey

P.O. Box 250, Rolla, Missouri 65402-0250(573) 368-2100

ii

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 96-76287Missouri Classification No. MO/NR. Ge 9:50

Vineyard, Jerry D., 1997, Missouri State Water Plan Series Volume VI, Water Resource Sharing—TheRealities of Interstate Rivers, Missouri Department of Natural Resources' Division of Geology and LandSurvey, Water Resources Report No. 50, 76 p., 44 figs., 4 tbls.

As a recipient of federal funds, the Missouri Department of Natural Resources cannot discriminate against anyone on the basis of race,color, national origin, age, sex, or handicap. If anyone believes he/she has been subjected to discrimination for any of these reasons,he/she may file a complaint with either the Missouri Department of Natural Resources or the Office of Equal Opportunity, U.S. Departmentof the Interior, Washington, DC, 20240

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PageKEY TO ACRONYMS.......................................................................................................................... iv

PREFACE ............................................................................................................................................ vii

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................. 1

RIVER BASINS...................................................................................................................................... 3

RIVER MANAGEMENT ........................................................................................................................ 9

RIVERS AS POLITICAL BOUNDARIES .............................................................................................. 15

DIVERSIONS AND DEPLETIONS ...................................................................................................... 19

INDIAN WATER RIGHTS AND OUT-OF-BASIN DIVERSIONS ....................................................... 23

INTERSTATE RIVER BASIN ORGANIZATIONS: THE MECHANISMS FORINTERSTATE COORDINATION AND COOPERATION.......................................................... 271. Missouri River Basin Association (MRBA) .......................................................................... 272. Arkansas-White-Red Basins Inter-Agency Committee (AWRBIAC) .................................. 323. Lower Mississippi River Conservation Committee (LMRCC) ............................................. 334. Upper Mississippi River Basin Association (UMRBA) ........................................................ 355. Mississippi River Parkway Commission (MRPC) ............................................................... 39

INSTRUMENTS FOR INTERSTATE COOPERATION ........................................................................ 43Upper Mississippi River Basin Charter .................................................................................... 48

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF INTERSTATE STREAMS ............................................................................ 49

THE CANNON WATER CONTRACTS: A CASE STUDY OF STATE WATER PLANNING .............. 53

CURRENT AND FUTURE INTERSTATE WATER ISSUES BY RIVER BASIN .................................... 63Arkansas River Basin ................................................................................................................ 63Lower Mississippi River Basin.................................................................................................. 63Missouri River Basin ................................................................................................................. 66Upper Mississippi River Basin ................................................................................................. 68White River Basin ..................................................................................................................... 71

FOR FURTHER READING ................................................................................................................. 73General ..................................................................................................................................... 73Arkansas-White Rivers ............................................................................................................. 73Mississippi River ....................................................................................................................... 74Missouri River ........................................................................................................................... 75

iv

KEY TO ACRONYMS

AOP - Annual Operating Plan (for the Missouri River)

AWRBIAC - Arkansas-White-Red Inter-Agency Committee

BOR - U.S. Bureau of Reclamation

CCWWC - Clarence Cannon Wholesale Water Commission

COE - U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

DGLS - Division of Geology and Land Survey (of DNR)

DNR - Missouri Department of Natural Resources

DEIS - Draft Environmental Impact Statement

EIS - Environmental Impact Statement

EMP - Environmental Management Program

EMTC - Environmental Management Technical Center

EPA - U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

ESA - Endangered Species Act

F&WS - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

IWR - Indian water rights

LMRCC - Lower Mississippi River Conservation Committee

LTRMP - Long-Term Resources Monitoring Project

MAF - Million acre-feet (1 acre-foot = 327,700 gallons)

MM - Master Manual (short for Master Water Control Manualfor the Missouri River)

MRBA - Missouri River Basin Association

UMRBA - Upper Mississippi River Basin Association

v

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

Frontispiece: Kansas City skyline .................................................................................................... iiFigure 1. Missouri is part of five principal river basins ........................................................... 1Figure 2. Upstream/downstream; Missouri is both ................................................................. 2Figure 3. Rivers make good natural boundaries ...................................................................... 3Figure 4. Missouri River basin ................................................................................................... 4Figure 5. Upper Mississippi River basin ................................................................................... 5Figure 6. Lower Mississippi River basin ................................................................................... 6Figure 7. White River basin ....................................................................................................... 7Figure 8. Arkansas River basin .................................................................................................. 8Figure 9. Corps of Engineers river management units ............................................................ 9Figure 10. Corps of Engineers and Bureau of Reclamation dams and

reservoirs in the Missouri River basin .................................................................... 11Figure 11. Table Rock Dam on the White River in Missouri .................................................. 11Figure 12. Lock and Dam 26, on the Mississippi River at Alton ............................................. 12Figure 13. Dams on the White River, Arkansas and Missouri ................................................. 13Figure 14. The New Madrid Floodway ..................................................................................... 14Figure 15. Missouri-Nebraska boundary along the Missouri River ......................................... 16Figure 16. Missouri River avulsion leaves Rosecrans Airport stranded ................................. 17Figure 17. Kaskaskia Island ....................................................................................................... 18Figure 18. Eagle Bluffs/Columbia wellfield ............................................................................. 19Figure 19. A water conservation ethic for upstream states ..................................................... 21Figure 20. Riparian wetlands and the flora and fauna that survive there .............................. 22Figure 21. Indian reservations in the Missouri River Basin .................................................... 24Figure 22. Comparison of tribal member vs. Missouri ratepayer's relationship

to Missouri River water ............................................................................................ 25Figure 23. Navigation on the Missouri River depends on reliable flows ............................... 28Figure 24. Droughts of record in the Missouri River basin ..................................................... 29Figure 25. The Annual Operating Plan guides Corps management

of the system during the year .................................................................................. 30Figure 26. Missouri vigorously opposed the Corps' Preferred Alternative for

managing the Missouri River ................................................................................... 31Figure 27. Funding percentages for the Environmental Management

Project (EMP). ........................................................................................................... 38Figure 28. The flood wall at Cape Girardeau ........................................................................... 39Figure 29. Mississippi River Corridor and Great River Road .................................................. 41

vi

Figure 30. Missouri River Compact flows through Congress ................................................... 45Figure 31. The Missouri River Barge Navigation Compact ...................................................... 46Figure 32. The Marmaton River .................................................................................................. 47Figure 33. Abandoned zinc-lead mines are now water-filled .................................................. 51Figure 34. Clarence Cannon Dam .............................................................................................. 53Figure 35. Clarence Cannon Dam under construction ............................................................. 55Figure 36. Open, vertical shaft in limestone bedrock, exposed during construction............ 56Figure 37. Clarence Cannon Wholesale Water Commission district map ............................... 58Figure 38. CCWWC's one million gallon water tower .............................................................. 60Figure 39. Cecil V. Fretwell Water Treatment Plant ................................................................. 61Figure 40. Gulf Hypozia Zone.................................................................................................... 64Figure 41. Sources of nitrogen and phosphorous in the Mississippi River ............................. 65Figure 42. Typical levee break during the Great Flood of '93. ................................................ 66Figure 43. Clipping from Post-Dispatch documenting reduced flood losses. ........................ 69Figure 44. Tow passing Thebes Gap on the Mississippi River ................................................ 70

LIST OF TABLES

PageTable 1. Congressional River Basin Acts ................................................................................ 10Table 2. Mni-Sose Intertribal Water Rights Coalition, Inc., claims for

Missouri River basin water ....................................................................................... 26Table 3. EMP projects completed, underway, or planned in Missouri ................................ 38Table 4. Water resource gains and losses on border-crossing streams. .............................. 50

vii

PREFACE

MISSOURI STATE WATER PLANTECHNICAL VOLUME SERIES

The Missouri Department of Natural Re-sources State Water Plan Technical VolumeSeries is part of a comprehensive state waterresource plan. This portion is designed toprovide basic scientific and background infor-mation on the water resources of the state. Theinformation in these technical volumes willprovide a firm foundation for addressingpresent and future water resource needs andissues. Each volume in the series deals with aspecific water resource component.

Volume IThe Surface Water Resources of

Missouri contains a basin-by-basin assess-ment of Missouri’s surface water resources. Itdiscusses the effects of climate, geology andother factors on the hydrologic characteristicsof major lakes, streams and rivers. It alsoassesses surface-water availability and devel-opment in the state.

Volume IIThe Groundwater Resources of

Missouri presents information on the avail-ability and natural quality of groundwaterthroughout the state. It focuses on Missouri’sseven groundwater provinces and includestheir geology, hydrogeology, areal extent,general water quality, and potential for con-

tamination. Aquifer storage estimates aregiven for each aquifer and county. The reportalso reviews the different types of water-supply wells in use and how water well con-struction techniques vary between areas andaquifers.

Volume IIIMissouri Water Quality Assessment

focuses on the current quality of Missourisurface water and ground-water. The volumelooks at chemical, bacteriological and radio-logical water-quality, and natural and man-induced water-quality changes.

Volume IVThe Water Use of Missouri describes

how Missouri is presently using its surface-water and groundwater resources. The reportcovers private and public water supplies, in-dustrial and agricultural water uses, and wateruse for electrical power production, naviga-tion, recreation, fish and wildlife.

Volume VHydrologic Extremes in Missouri:

Flood and Drought provides basic informa-tion about flooding and drought specific toMissouri. A historical perspective is given, aswell as information that can be used in plan-ning for hydrologic extremes. It also describesconcepts and defines terminology helpful inunderstanding flood and drought.

viii

Volume VIWater Resource Sharing - The Real-

ities of Interstate Rivers presents Missou-ri’s views concerning interstate rivers. Be-cause of its location, Missouri can be greatlyaffected by activities and water policy in theupper basin states of the Missouri and Missis-sippi river basins. Missouri policy can alsoaffect downstream states on the Mississippi,Arkansas and White rivers. Many serious

issues affecting these rivers have less to dowith their physical characteristics than withpolitical, economic and social trends.

Volume VIIMissouri Water Law provides an over-

view of the laws that affect the protection anduse of Missouri’s water resources. It suppliesreference information about existing doctrines,statutes and case law.

ix

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Several people read the manuscript be-fore publication, including Ron Kucera, JimWilliams, Steve McIntosh, Jim Vandike andJohn Drew. Many helpful suggestions weremade and numerous errors corrected. How-ever, any errors and/or ommissions remainthe responsibility of the author.

Dwight Weaver edited the manuscript,and Susan Dunn did the illustrations and pre-pared the manuscript for publication. SharonHankins prepared the typescript.

x

1

Missouri—the belt buckle of the nation—occupies strategic ground watered by Ameri-ca’s greatest river system, the Mississippi Riverand its tributaries. The Mississippi, the Missouri,and the White rivers bring into the state enor-mous flows of water that must be shared with19 other states. Missouri’s fortuitous location inthis well-watered landscape brings benefitsand responsibilities far beyond those of stateswhose waters rise within their own borders.

Missouri is the last state to share the flowof both the upper Mississippi and Missouririvers, but it is the first to use the water of thelower Mississippi. The White River flows fromArkansas into Missouri, then back into Arkan-sas. While it is in Missouri, the flow is impound-ed in lakes Table Rock, Taneycomo, and BullShoals. Lakes Norfork and Clearwater are ontributaries of the White. A small part of south-western Missouri drains into the Arkansas Riv-er, giving Missourians the first opportunity touse the water.

Missouri is both an upstream and a down-stream state, which conveys great privilege andheavy responsibility. As a downstream state,we vigorously defend our right to use a fair

share of water that flows into Missouri oralong its borders. At the same time, we are

obligated to use the water wisely andefficiently, and return as much ofit as possible—in as good condi-tion as possible—for the sequen-tial uses of states downstream from

Missouri.The ultimate destina-

tion of the Mississippi Riv-er is the Gulf of Mexico,

where its fresh, sedi-ment- and nutrient-laden waters nour-ish marine fisheries

INTRODUCTION

Figure 1. Missouri is partof five principal riverbasins.

Introduction

2

Water Resource Sharing - The Realities of Interstate Rivers

and the shoreline of the Mississippi Delta.Throughout their courses, rivers supportan ecosystem that relies on water to sus-tain itself. That ecosystem also supports a

Missouri is a DOWNSTREAM STATE toMontana IllinoisWisconsin KansasMinnesota IowaSouth Dakota ColoradoNorth Dakota NebraskaWyoming

Missouri is an UPSTREAM STATE toArkansas MississippiLouisiana KentuckyTennessee Oklahoma

complex human civilization with a grow-ing population that continues to changethe landscape at rates that may exceed anyin geological history.

Missouri is an upstreamstate to these states

Missouri is a downstreamstate to these states

Figure 2. Upstream/downstream; Missouri is both.

3

Geography—which for the purposes ofthis document is the cultural and physicallandscape developed upon the geologicalframework of North America—determines thedistribution and quantity of water resourcesavailable to political entities such as cities,states and Indian tribes. A river basin isthe total land area drained by a river and all ofits tributaries, to the watershed divides thatseparate one basin from another. It is custom-ary to subdivide basins by tributary. For exam-ple, the Grand, Osage, Chariton, and Gascon-ade watersheds are sub-basins of theMissouri River basin.

In the Mississippi basin, the Missouri, theWhite, and the Arkansas are sub-basins thatdrain the various parts of the state of Missouri.And, the Mississippi itself is subdivided forconvenience into the UpperMississippi and the LowerMississippi.

Rivers are used as polit-ical boundaries, as in the

case of Missouri and Illinois, but basin bound-aries—or divides—are not generally used aspolitical boundaries. Therefore, river basinshave no respect for state lines. Reality requires,though, that river basin boundaries be recog-nized in dealing with interstate water issues.

In calculating the water resources to whichthe people of Missouri have a right to use andenjoy, we use river basins as convenient plan-ning units. It is in this context that Missouri laysclaim to a fair share of water that flows—forexample—from the hot springs of YellowstoneNational Park, into Yellowstone River, whichflows into the Missouri River near Williston,North Dakota. In like manner, Missouriansshare part of the waters of Lake Itasca, sourceof the Mississippi River.

Figure 3. Rivers make goodnatural boundaries. A riverboatnavigating the approximateMissouri-Kansas boundaryapproaches Kansas City from theNorth. Photo by Jerry D. Vineyard.

River Basins

RIVER BASINS

4


Figure 4. Missouri River Basin. Names in heavy black type are the main-stem dams that the Corps of Engineers useto control the flow of the Missouri River.

5

Figure 5. Upper Mississippi River Basin.

River Basins

6


Figure 6. Lower Mississippi River Basin.

7

Figure 7. White River Basin.

River Basins

8


Figure 8. Arkansas River Basin.

9

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE)and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) arethe federal agencies with responsibilities forriver management. The BOR is responsible forthe upstream state (BOR does not operate inMissouri) tributaries of the Missouri River, whilethe COE has flood control, main stem opera-tions, and administrative authority. For inter-state rivers, the Corps is the primary authority.

The Corps has divided the country intomanagement units known as Divisions andDistricts. A Division is a major geographic area,with boundaries that generally follow drainagebasin divides. However, Corps organizationdoes not entire-ly follow riverbasin bound-aries.

Within aDivision theremay be severalDistricts, whichare to Divisionsas tributariesare to majorstreams.

Currently,Missouri inter-faces with threeCorps Divisionsand seven Dis-tricts (figure 9).Congress re-cently directed

RIVER MANAGEMENT

the Corps to reduce the number of divisionswhile retaining current districts, as a cost-cutting measure.

Congress authorized the Corps of Engi-neers to complete comprehensive plans ofdevelopment for 28 river basins, as noted inSec. 909 of the Water Development Act of1986. These authorizations began as early as1928, and they are repeatedly cited as theCongressional authority for Corps of Engineersprojects in the various river basins. Thoseauthorizations that affect Missouri are shown inTable 1.

In addition to these comprehensive de-v e l o p m e n tplans, Con-gress alsopassed thecontroversialFlood ControlAct of 1944( w i d e l yknown as theP i c k - S l o a nPlan) for con-struction ofdams on theMissouri River.The MissouriRiver BankSta bilizationand Naviga-tion Project,authorized by

Figure 9. Corps of Engineers river management units.

River Management

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS DISTRICTSAND DIVISIONS

10


Table 1. Congressional River Basin Acts

Basin Act of CongressArkansas River Basin June 28, 1938Arkansas-Red River Basin November 7, 1966Mississippi River and Tributaries May 15, 1928Missouri River Basin June 28, 1938Upper Mississippi River Basin June 28, 1938White River Basin June 28, 1938

Congress in the River and Harbor Act of 1945and completed in 1981, directed the Corps tochannelize the river below Gavins Point Damfor navigation. Today, the main-stem reser-voirs and the navigation channel are operatedas a system.

The Corps’ ability to manage the flow ofrivers and the utilization of their waters variesfrom basin to basin. For example, the Arkansasbasin in Missouri has no COE dams, levees, orother facilities, so there is little to no controlover the several tributary streams that flowfrom parts of southwestern Missouri.

The Missouri River, on the other hand, isrigidly controlled by the Corps’ Reservoir Con-trol Center in Omaha, Nebraska, where deci-sions are made on a daily basis in order tofollow the provisions of the Pick-Sloan Plan(commonly-used term for the Flood ControlAct of 1944, which authorized the Corps ofEngineers and the Bureau of Reclamation tobuild a system of reservoirs on the main-stemMissouri River and its tributaries. This systemwas designed to provide benefits to the entirebasin, in flood control, irrigation, water supply,hydropower, navigation, recreation, and fishand wildlife). In addition, the Corps maintainsan extensive system of levees and watercontrol structures that together form the 735-mile navigation channel from Sioux City, Iowa,to the mouth of the Missouri River near St.Charles, Missouri.

The Corps manages the Missouri Riverthrough a system of six main-stem reservoirs inNebraska, the Dakotas, and Montana, plus alarge number of dams on tributary streams.

Such a system can be extraordinarily effectivein reducing flood losses and providing mainte-nance flows within the basin. Citing data fromthe most recent floods, the Missouri River systemprevented $4.5 billion in damages during theGreat Flood of ’93, and $1.9 billion during flood-ing in 1995 (from Corps of Engineers, MissouriRiver Division, January 12, 1996).

There is a similar system of dams on theWhite River, operated by the Corps’ Districtoffice in Little Rock, Arkansas (figure 11).Operation of the White River system has be-come more controversial in recent years be-cause the various user groups are becomingmore assertive, leading to a major effort on thepart of the Corps of Engineers to develop aconsensus-driven operating plan.

The Mississippi River, though it has asystem of 27 dams, cannot be managed to theextent that the Missouri and White Rivers can,because the dams on the Mississippi areequipped with navigation locks and have littleto no flood-control storage (figure 12). Naviga-tion on the Mississippi, centerpiece of thenation’s Inland Waterway System, movessome 100 million tons of commodities annu-ally through the Port of St. Louis. River trans-portation on the Mississippi gives the Midwestaccess to international trade through the Portof New Orleans.

There are no dams at all on the lowerMississippi as it flows along the Missouri bor-der, but there is an extensive system of federallevees in place, managed by the Corps ofEnginners, to protect agricultural lands. Inaddition, the Corps’ Memphis District has an

11

Figure 10. Corps of Engineers and Bureau of Reclamation dams and reservoirs in the Missouri River Basin.

emergency floodway plan that would sacrificeMissouri farmlands in what is known as theNew Madrid Floodway, in the event of a majorflood on the lower Mississippi. During such anevent, if it became necessary to choose be-tween flooding the urban area of Cairo, Illinois,

or the agricultural lands on the Missouri side,the Missouri levee would be explosivelybreached to relieve the pressure on the Illinoisside (figure 14). A flood of this magnitude hasnever been experienced on the lower Missis-sippi, and one hopes that it never will.

Figure 11. Table Rock Dam on the White River inMissouri, one of four main-stem dams that enable theCorps of Engineers to manage the White River. Photofrom DGLS archives.

River Management

12


Figure 12. Lock and Dam 26, on the Mississippi River at Alton, Illinois, awash during the Great Flood of ’93.In such situations, navigation shuts down above St. Louis, until the river returns within its banks. Photoby Jerry D. Vineyard.

13

River Management

Figure 13. Corps of Engineers lakes (except privately-owned Lake Taneycomo) on the White River, Arkansas andMissouri.

14


Figure 14. The New Madrid Floodway. Area enclosed by the heavy dotted line is the area subject to flooding shoulda levee be purposely breached. Arrows indicate direction of flow.

15

Rivers As Political Boundaries

Throughout human history rivers havebeen used as political boundaries becausethey effectively divide land areas. The Missis-sippi River divides the U.S. into Eastern andWestern parts, and forms the partial bound-aries of 10 states. It forms the entire easternboundary of Missouri—with the exception of asmall section of the Iowa-Missouri borderformed by the Des Moines River—with theadjoining states of Illinois, Kentucky, and Ten-nessee. The Missouri River forms the Nebras-ka- and part of the Kansas-Missouri boundary,while the Bootheel in southeastern Missouri isformed by the channel of the St. Francis River,separating parts of Missouri and Arkansas.

Unfortunately, river boundaries are sel-dom precise. Boundaries are usually drawnon the thalweg, or hydrologic middle of ariver. Ideally, neighboring states own to thecenter of the river, but it seldom works out thatway, and when it does, it rarely stays the samefor very long.

Large rivers typically develop wide flood-plains, built up over time by the ceaselessactivity of the streams through flood anddrought. Left alone, rivers produce meandersthat follow the principles of hydraulics, prop-agating themselves through time in an endlesscycle of erosion and deposition. Change is thenorm—not the exception—which producesmany problems when rivers are used as polit-ical boundaries.

Missouri became a state in 1821, so theboundaries at that time were set according tosurveyed boundaries and the channels of riv-ers. The Missouri River did not become aboundary until the Platte Purchase of 1836.Since then, many changes have occurred,leaving parts of Missouri landlocked in Kan-

sas, some of Missouri on the Nebraska side,and some of Nebraska on the Missouri side ofthe river. On the eastern boundary, channelchanges on the Mississippi have left theMissouri-Illinois, Missouri-Kentucky, andMissouri-Tennessee boundaries in consider-able disarray.

When a river changes course dramatical-ly, as it typically does during a flood, the resultis called an avulsion. Perhaps the most spec-tacular avulsion happened when the MissouriRiver cut through the neck of a meander at St.Joseph, leaving St. Joseph’s Rosecrans Memo-rial Airport stranded on the Kansas side (figure16). Another major avulsion left a sizablechunk of Illinois—Kaskaskia Island—on theMissouri side (figure 17).

When avulsions occur, they do not changethe political boundaries, which are determinedby surveying instruments and legitimized bystatute. This becomes extremely complicatedbecause a landholder may have to deal withtwo or more taxing authorities who may notalways agree on precisely where the bound-ary lies.

Numerous avulsions involving theMissouri-Nebraska boundary have createdproblems for many years. Recently, the twostates began to negotiate resolution of theproblems, which required the formation of anInterstate Boundary Commission and the pas-sage of identical legislative language in bothstates. Negotiators worked out a solution, andthe Missouri General Assembly passed it, butthus far the Nebraska legislature has failed toact, leaving the situation unresolved. If Ne-braska fails to act by a certain time, the entireeffort will fail and it will be necessary to startover.

RIVERS AS POLITICAL BOUNDARIES

16


Figure 15. Missouri-Nebraska boundary along the Missouri River.

17

Rivers As Political Boundaries

Figure 16. Missouri River avulsion leaves Rosecrans Airport stranded on the Kansas side of the river.

18


Figure 17. Kaskaskia Island residents pay taxes in Illinois, but they live on the Missouri side of the Mississippi River.

19

DIVERSIONS AND DEPLETIONS

When water is taken from a stream forwhatever purpose, it is called a diversion.Water that is diverted from a source and isconsumed, or does not return to the source, iscalled a depletion. Typically, water is divertedfor purposes such as cooling water for fossilfuel and/or nuclear electrical generating plants,and returned after use.Some of this water is lostto evaporation, so thereis a net depletion. In theMissouri River basin, forexample, 25 million acre-feet (MAF) of water—onthe average—flows intothe system of main-stemreservoirs, while—on theaverage—only 20 MAF isreleased from GavinsPoint Dam, the lowestcontrolling point on thesystem. Diversions forpublic water supply, in-dustrial process water,evaporation from the res-ervoirs, and irrigationproduce major deple-tions that contribute tothe loss from the system.Future depletions will re-sult in even less watercoming down the river toMissouri.

Figure 18. Eagle Bluffs/Columbia wellfield.

Compared to the upper Missouri basin,there is relatively little depletion of the river asit passes through Missouri. The climate is morehumid, there are no large reservoirs, there iscomparatively little irrigation, and water di-verted for power plant cooling is returned tothe stream after use. Missouri public utilities

Diversions and Depletions

20


Earth is called the “Water Planet” be-cause three quarters of its surface is coveredby water. But only ONE PERCENT of thatwater is fresh water; the other 99 percent isunfit-to-drink salt water. The oceans con-tain most of the salt water, but some of it isheld in landlocked lakes such as the DeadSea in the Middle East, while mineralizedgroundwater such as that of northern andwestern Missouri makes another share ofthe world’s water supply unusable.

Groundwater becomes mineralizedwhen it dissolves chemical constituents fromthe bedrock aquifers which contain it. Somegroundwater is also thought to retain someof the original sea water that saturated thesediments from which the bedrock ulti-mately formed.

Water is essential for life; without it,humankind and the biosphere would die,leaving Earth barren and desolate.

Relying near-absolutely on only onepercent of the world’s water supply (desali-nation technology is being used to a verylimited extent), humankind has thus far

shown little concern for water conserva-tion. Neglect and contamination have fouledrivers, lakes, and even the ocean; the devel-opment and widespread use of organicchemicals threatens groundwater world-wide; and the spectre of global warminglooms over vast areas that could becomedeserts should global temperatures contin-ue their rise.

To paraphrase an old saw, water con-servation begins at home. We have aserious responsibility to use water conser-vatively, so that those downstream from usmay share to the same extent that we sharethe rivers that flow into Missouri from up-stream states. It is not OUR water; it belongsto the entire Earth, endlessly renewedthrough the hydrologic cycle.

As Earth’s population continues togrow at explosive rates, water will becomemore precious and less available. Compe-tition for water is certain to increase through-out the world in the coming decades, ab-sent widespread and affordable desalina-tion technology.

WATER CONSERVATION ETHIC

do divert large amounts of Missouri Riverwater for public water supply, but most of thatis ultimately returned as the outfall from waste-water treatment plants. A shining example ofhow this works is the City of Columbia. Theirwater supply comes from a wellfield on theMissouri River floodplain, by pipeline to thecity. After use, the water is returned to awastewater treatment plant, the effluent from

which passes through a biological filter (wet-land) before it returns to the Missouri River(figure 18).

Theoretically, every diversion results insome degree of depletion, so it is imperativethat water be used in ways that minimize thelosses to depletion. As we expect of thoseupstream, so do those downstream fromMissouri expect attitudes of conservation.

21

Figure 19. A water conservation ethic for upstream states—humorously articulated by the state of Louisiana—haspositive global benefits.

Diversions and Depletions

22


Figure 20. Riparian wetlands and the flora and fauna that survive there depend upon consistent river flows.Photo by Jerry D. Vineyard.

23

INDIAN WATER RIGHTS AND OUT-OF-BASIN DIVERSIONS

A highly uncertain aspect of river basinwater politics is the matter of tribal water rightsand the announced intention of some Indiantribes to sell water for profit to interests outsideof the Missouri River basin. When water istaken from a stream in one basin and movedover a divide into another basin, it is a totalloss—or depletion—to the basin from which itwas diverted.

One of the most spectacular examples ofsuch a diversion is the Central Arizona Project,which takes water from the Colorado Riverthrough a canal to water-short southern Cali-fornia, thereby greatly depleting the flow ofthe lower Colorado.

Missouri consistently and aggressivelyopposes out-of-basin diversions from theMissouri River basin. Large-scale out-of-basintransfers from the Missouri River upstreamfrom Missouri would ultimately reduce theflow of the river through the state of Missouri,to the point where its many benefits would beseverely reduced. Moreover, taking waterpermanently from a stream has negative ef-fects on the entire ecosystem. In the case of theMissouri River, these negative consequencesextend all the way to the Gulf of Mexico (figure20).

The reality of Indian Water Rights (IWR)—simply expressed—is that Indian tribes have aright to a share of water from both streams andgroundwater sources, by treaty with the U.S.Government. Through a long history of adju-dication, courts have upheld those rights, andthere have evolved methods based on arableland for determining how much water is in-volved. Indian tribes have a legal status similar

to that of states.Indian water rights are at issue primarily

in the Missouri River Basin, which has 27 to 28separate tribes living on reservations (figure21). All of these reservations lie in states up-stream from Missouri, but their water rightsimpact the river flow through our state. TheMni-Sose Intertribal Coalition, representingperhaps half of the basin tribes, has made apreliminary claim to a total of 21,489,000 acre-feet of Missouri River water, of which10,926,000 acre-feet is estimated to be netdepletions.

The proposed use of the water is forirrigation, domestic needs, and for whateverpurposes the tribes may wish to use the waterfor. Water marketing—including the for-profittransfer of water across basin boundaries—is aright that has been aggressively sought bysome Indian tribes.

Only a few tribes have pursued theirclaims in the courts, to the point where agree-ment has been reached on the total amount ofwater that belongs to them. Indian claims areadjudicated based upon what is known as theWinters Doctrine, which is a complex, court-approved procedure for determining howmuch water a tribe is entitled to. Customarily,water rights are determined on the basis of acomplex formula that uses “potentiallyirrigable acreage” as a determinant of theright.

Generally speaking, the concept of deter-mining water rights based on potentiallyirrigable acreage results in settlements thatgrant Indians far more water per capita thanthe average Missourian can expect. For exam-

Indian Water Rights and Out-of-Basin Diversions

24


Figure 21. Indian reservations in the Missouri River Basin.

ple, two tribes in Western Montana with anaggregate population of about 5,000 weregranted the right (by compact with the Stateof Montana) to use 1,050,000 acre-feet ofwater per year from the Missouri River. Thistranslates to 210 acre-feet of water per personper year (one acre-foot equates to 326,700gallons). Looking at it from a purely statisticalviewpoint, each tribal member has a right touse 68.6 million gallons of water per year.

In stark contrast, the typical ratepayer inthe St. Louis County water system, whichdraws raw water from the Missouri River andpurifies it for domestic use, uses an average of150 gallons per day, which is a total of 54,750gallons per year. Comparing the tribal mem-ber’s RIGHT with the St. Louis resident’s AC-TUAL USE, it is apparent that the Indian canuse—or sell to the highest bidder—more than1,250 TIMES the amount currently purchasedby a typical Missourian.

There is an important distinction be-tween a Missourian’s actual USE of water andan Indian’s RIGHT to water. Theoretically, aMissourian can use as much water as he is

willing to pay for, but the tribal member consid-ers his right as ownership of a commodity thathe may—if he chooses—sell for profit. If the rightincludes the authorization to sell water out ofbasin, then the Indian has the potential todeprive the Missourian of access to as muchwater as he needs.

Pursuing this thinking to its obvious con-clusion, there could come a time when Missou-rians would have to purchase water from Indiantribes in order to keep them from selling theMissouri River out of basin to the highestbidder(s). Indeed, this option was actuallyoffered—as the right of first refusal to down-stream states—in discussions with tribes’ legalcounsel related to Congressional ratification ofthe compact between Montana and two tribes inthat state. While Congressional ratification wasnot forthcoming, the water rights compact be-tween the tribes and the state of Montana,granting the two tribes 1,050,000 acre-feet ofwater—is still in force.

The Indian reservations in the MissouriRiver Basin have potentially irrigable acreage,and therefore, tribal members have rights to

25

use water from the river or from the associatedgroundwater. By far the largest number oftribal claims have never been adjudicated, soit is unclear how much water may ultimatelybe allocated to tribal uses. However, esti-mates have been made by both the Corps andtribal officials. On the low side, Corps esti-mates of 3.5 million acre-feet (MAF) were usedin the Corps’ Missouri River Master ManualDraft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS).A much higher estimate—6.5 MAF—was alsoconsidered by the Corps. However, the high-est estimate seen thus far was prepared by theMni-Sose Intertribal Water Rights Coalition,Inc.: 21.5 MAF in total rights, of which 10.9MAF could be depleted.

Putting this in context, recall that the totalaverage annual outflow from the Missouri Riv-er reservoir system is 20 MAF. If the tribes, whoall live on reservations, most of which areupstream from Gavins Point Dam (which con-trols the outflow from the six main-stem reser-voirs on the Missouri River) should ultimately

deplete 10.9 MAF, then the Missouri Riverflow from Gavins Point into the state of Missouriwould be only 9.1 MAF. Recall also that this isONLY tribal water—no depletions from newdiversions by states are included.

More troubling than the AMOUNT of In-dian Water Right claims is the tribes’ demandthat they be allowed to market water out ofbasin, for profit. Any water diverted out ofbasin is a net loss—or depletion—to down-stream states. Tribal water agreements aresometimes determined through compactswith states. However, interstate out-of-basindiversion rights must be granted by Congress.Bills to grant this right to two tribes in westernMontana have been introduced in Congress,but have been successfully thwarted by theMissouri Congressional delegation. Constantvigilance will be required, however, to insurethat such diversion rights are not grantedthrough a legislative ploy such as attachinglanguage to a bill written for a different pur-pose.

Figure 22. Comparison of tribal member vs. Missouri ratepayer’s relationship to Missouri River water.

Indian Water Rights and Out-of-Basin Diversions

1 ac. ft. = 325,851 gals210 x 325,851 = 68,428,710 gals

1,050,000 ac/ft5,000 tribal members

= 210 ac. ft/yr/member

Two Montana tribes sign a compact with theState of Montana

for a total of 1,050,000 acre-feet of water(surface and ground)

from the Missouri River Basin.

26


RESERVATION ANNUAL DIVERSION ANNUAL DEPLETION(Acre-feet) (Acre-feet)

Blackfeet 878,000 323,000

Fort Belknap 211,000 87,000

Crow 2,114,000 738,000

Sioux Tribes 16,686,000 8,638,000

Wind River 510,000 480,000

Northern Cheyenne 90,000 30,000

Fort Peck 1,000,000 630,000

TOTAL 21,489,000 10,926,000

Table 2. Mni-Sose Intertribal Water Rights Coalition, Inc.; preliminary quantification of Missouri Riverbasin water rights by tribe.

“The Fort Peck-Montana Compact was a negotiated settlement of the Fort Peck water rights case in thecontext of adversarial and hotly contested litigation that went to the Supreme Court on jurisdictionalquestions. (See Arizona v. San Carlos Apache Tribe, 463 U.S. 545 (1983). The standard from Arizona v.California was used by the parties to establish the quantity of the Fort Peck tribal water right, as it was usedin the Wyoming case and other cases now pending. The Tribes’ expert hydrologist was Stetson Engineers,the expert witnesses upon whose testimony the quantification in the Wind River Wyoming case was based.Both Stetson Engineers and State experts agreed to study practical irrigable acreage on the Reservation, dida land classification, and exchanged the standards being used for analysis and interpretation.

Stetson Engineers carefully studied all existing data for all lands on the Reservation. After severalmonths of study, Stetson Engineers determined that 50l,755 acres—nearly one-quarter of the Reservation—could feasibly be irrigated out of the Missouri River, which forms the southern boundary of the Reservation.In making that determination, Stetson Engineers analyzed the Soil Conservation Service data for all landson the Reservation. They identified all irrigable lands, and planimetered them to determine acreage.Irrigable lands were classified in classes II, III and IV. There were no Class I lands and only 19,870 acreswere Class IV. Climate was also carefully analyzed. The lands determined to be irrigable by StetsonEngineers were shown on a series of 27 maps prepared by them.

The State’s experts reviewed Mr. Stetson’s analysis, and completed their own review of Reservationlands. The State used the ‘prime and important’ land classification of the Soil Conservation Service andagreed that 487,763 acres on the Reservation were irrigable from the Missouri River. The State decided thattheir studies verified the practicably irrigable acreage determined by Stetson Engineers, and ultimatelyaccepted the Stetson acreage determination; there was in fact only a 3 percent difference. Both StetsonEngineers and the State experts considered that a 300-foot elevation above the Missouri River would be aneconomically feasible service area. Therefore, all the lands that were analyzed were those below this 2,300foot contour.”

Source: Quoted from a memo from Reid Peyton Chambers, General Counsel for the Assiniboine and SiouxTribes, Fort Peck Reservation, Montana, to Simon B. Buckner, Assistant Attorney General, Missouri, dated August3, 1992.

Case study of quantification of Indian Water Rights in accordance with the Winters doctrine.

27

ASSOCIATION: noun; 1 the act of associating; 2 the state of being associated; companionship;fellowship, partnership; 3 an organization of persons having common interests, purposes, etc.

MRBA at a glance:

Members:MissouriMontanaIowaNebraskaKansasWyomingNorth Dakota*South DakotaMni-Sose Intertribal Coalition

Federal Associates:Corps of EngineersBureau of ReclamationBureau of Indian AffairsFish & Wildlife ServiceEnvironmental Protection AgencyGeological SurveyWestern Area Power AdministrationMaritime AdministrationNational Park Service

Executive Director:Richard H. Opper

Meetings:At least quarterly, at various locations through-out the basin, or chosen for convenience

Dues:$8,000 per year per Member (federal Asso-ciates pay no dues)

Address:Missouri River Basin AssociationP.O. Box 9193Missoula, MT 59807Phone (406)542-6272FAX (406)542-7585

Newsletter:“The Missouri River Report”

Frequency:Quarterly

*South Dakota withdrew from the MRBA in summer 1995.

INTERSTATE RIVER BASIN ORGANIZATIONS:THE MECHANISMS FOR INTERSTATE COORDINATION AND COOPERATION

1. MISSOURI RIVER BASIN ASSOCIATION

MRBAMissouri River Basin Association

Interstate River Basin Organizations

28


The states of the Missouri River Basinorganized the Missouri River Basin Associa-tion (MRBA) in the early 1980s in the aftermathof the Reagan administration’s disbanding ofthe U.S. Water Resource Council. The councilhad operated a number of interstate river basincommissions, of which the Missouri RiverBasin Commission was one. In disbanding theCouncil and its various basin commissions,the administration invited states to form theirown organizations to continue the coordina-tion and cooperation that had been fostered bythe commissions.

The Basin commissions typically had apresidentially-appointed Commissioner, anda budget sufficient to employ staff to carry outthe responsibilities assigned to them. TheMissouri River Basin Commission was typicalof most commissions in having an active staffand a bank account of unspent federal funds.

In disbanding the commissions, the adminis-tration offered the unspent funds to the statesif they formed acceptable organizations tocarry on the work.

In this manner, the Missouri River BasinAssociation (MRBA) began with a treasury ofabout a half million dollars. The Commissionstaff was not retained, and the office files andother assets were either retained or distribut-ed among the members.

Missouri has maintained continuous mem-bership in the MRBA, paying dues consistentlyand regularly attending meetings. The Gover-nor appoints Missouri’s member of the boardof directors, which has been the Director of theDepartment of Natural Resources. And, twoAlternates are currently named by the Gover-nor: DNR Director of Intergovernmental Co-operation, and the Division of Geology andLand Survey's State Water Resources Coordi-

Figure 23. Navigation on the Missouri River depends upon reliable flows being released from the main-stemreservoir system, to maintain navigation depths during the customary eight-month season. Pictured: towheading upriver past bluffs near Rocheport, Missouri. Katy Trail State Park is visible as a path along the baseof the bluffs on the right. Photo by Jerry D. Vineyard.

29

The Corps of Engineers operates the Missouri River system according to requirements ina document called the Missouri River Master Water Control Manual (Master Manual) thatembodies the intent of Congress when it passed the Flood Control Act of 1944. The MasterManual directs the Corps to hold water in the large upper basin reservoirs during high flow, toprevent flooding downstream, and to release that water during drought events in order to meetneeds on the lower river for water supply, power plant cooling water, navigation, and otherpurposes. The Master Manual requires the Corps to operate under strict engineering principles thatinsure that the system can not only protect from massive flooding but also withstand the ravages ofsevere drought such as the drought of the 30s, that lasted 12 years (figure 24).

Figure 24. Droughts of record in the Missouri River Basin.

The reservoir system had not been tested under drought conditions until a severe droughtbegan in 1988. When the Corps began to draw the reservoir levels down in accordance with theMaster Manual, the upstream states objected, citing economic losses to lake-based recreation inthe Dakotas and Montana. Upstream state governors demanded that the Corps abandon themanagement strategy embodied in the Master Manual in favor of a different strategy that wouldmaintain high lake levels by reducing the volume of water released to meet downstream needs.

The Corps responded by 1) beginning a restudy of the Master Manual, and 2) by imposingselected departures from Master Manual requirements, principally by reducing the length of thenavigation season and by arbitrarily reducing flow support for navigation. These actions igniteda continuing upstream vs. downstream controversy that flared throughout the six-year droughtand today seems far from a satisfactory resolution.

Droughts ofrecord in the

Missouri RiverBasin:

Drought of the30s - 12 years



nator. The Water Resource Program of DNR’sDivision of Geology and Land Survey pro-vides budget and technical support.

There are 10 states in the Missouri RiverBasin, but only seven are currently members

of the MRBA. The states of Colorado andMinnesota, having only small areas within thebasin, chose not to participate in the associa-tion. The state of South Dakota had been anactive member until mid-1995, when Gover-


30


nor William Janklow withdrew from the Asso-ciation because he did not agree with theAssociation’s handling of the Master Manualcontroversy, an issue which has polarized theMRBA since about 1988.

Membership in the MRBA had not beenopen to the Indian tribes in the basin untilrecent years, when the state members voted tooffer member status and one seat on the boardto represent the tribes living on reservationswithin the basin.There are some 28tribes, but not all ofthem are represent-ed. The Mni-SoseIntertribal WaterRights Coalitioncurrently repre-sents 27 tribes, pay-ing the same annu-al dues as a mem-ber state.

The MRBAhas no statutoryauthority, but itdoes exert consid-erable influencewhen it takes uni-fied positions onCongressional leg-islation, and itworks closely withthe Corps of Engi-neers and otherfederal agenciesinvolved in issuesaffecting the river.For example, theCorps consultswith MRBA duringthe developmentof the Annual Op-erating Plan (AOP)for the River.

The AOPstates specificallyhow the Corps willoperate the Mis-

souri River during a given year. The MasterManual sets forth overall requirements, andthe AOP documents how the Corps will carryout those imperatives. The customary proce-dure is for the Corps to prepare a draft AOP,then convene public meetings to ask for inputfrom the various river users before publishinga final report that will guide the ReservoirControl Center in Omaha during the forthcom-ing year (figure 25).

Figure 25. The Annual Operating Plan guides Corps management of the system during the year.

31


The most critical issue of recent years hasbeen the update and revision of the MissouriRiver Master Water Control Manual (MasterManual), the document prepared and used bythe Corps to manage the river in accord withthe Water Development Act of 1944, known asthe Pick-Sloan Plan. Severe and persistentdrought in the basin during the late 1980s andearly 1990s prompted upper basin interests tocall for changes in the Master Manual’s require-ments for system operations.

Revision of the Master Manual has beena slow and frustrating process, costing the

Corps some $12.5 million and requiring eightyears to date to conduct studies, public in-volvement, and review of a Draft Environmen-tal Impact Statement (DEIS). The Corps devel-oped a Preferred Alternative that would havedrastically changed the management plan forthe Missouri River. However, testimony dur-ing a series of 24 public hearings ran stronglyagainst the Corps' plan, causing them to sus-pend further work on the Preferred Alterna-tive pending completion of several additionalstudies to cover shortcomings identified in thehearing process.

Figure 26. Missouri vigorously opposed the Corps’ Preferred Alternative for managing the Missouri River,partly on the grounds that the proposed “Spring Rise” would have increased the risk of flooding, such asexperienced in the Great Flood of ’93. Pictured is the Missouri River at Jefferson City. Photo by Jerry D.Vineyard

32


2. ARKANSAS-WHITE-RED BASINS INTER-AGENCY COMMITTEE (AWRBIAC)

COMMITTEE: noun. 1 a group of people chosen, as from the members of a legislature or club,to consider, investigate, and report or act on some matter or on matters of a certain kind; 2 a groupof people organized to support some cause.

AWRBIAC at a glance:

State Members:LouisianaMissouriArkansasTexasKansasColoradoOklahomaNew Mexico

Federal Members:AgricultureArmyCommerceEnergyHousing and Urban DevelopmentInteriorTransportationEnvironmental Protection AgencyFederal Emergency Management Agency

Administration:No staff; no permanent office.Administrative tasks are rotated among the

members.

Meetings:Twice a year, in Spring and FallMeetings are numbered; Spring 1996 wasthe 137th meeting of AWRBIAC. Meetingsare hosted by volunteers at various loca-tions usually within the basins.

Dues:None; expenses of the organization areminimal. A registration fee is charged ateach meeting that is sufficient to covercosts incurred, such as room rental, etc.

Address:AWRBIAC has no permanent office; theaddress changes annually, residing withthe current chair, which may be either astate or a federal agency. For 1995-96, theaddress is:

Arkansas-White-Red Basins Inter-Agency Committeec/o Tom WehriRm. 5404, Federal BuildingLittle Rock, AR 72201

Publications:No newsletter; AWRBIAC publishes anannual report, and a “Directory of Stateand Federal Officials Engaged in WaterResource Development.”

33

Among the interstate river basin associa-tions to which Missouri belongs, AWRBIAC is theleast costly, though not necessarily the leasteffective. Coordination and cooperation are theprimary focus of its activities; it employs no staffand its treasury rarely contains more than $500.

AWRBIAC held its first meeting in Sep-tember 1955, in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Its purposeis to “...provide facilities and proce-dures for the coordination of the pol-icies, programs, and activities of thefederal agencies and states in the fieldof water and related land resourcesinvestigation, planning, construction,operation and maintenance; providemeans by which conflicts may be re-solved; and to provide procedures forcoordination of their interests withthose of other federal, local govern-mental, and private agencies in thewater and related land resources field.”

The business of the Committee is con-ducted at meetings, which are normally heldtwice a year, in the spring and fall. Agendas forthe meetings usually include time for coordina-tion, deliberations and reports, technical ses-sions, and field trips. Meetings may be heldmore frequently than semi-annually, if neces-sary or desirable.

Currently, AWRBIAC has subcommit-tees organized by basin, that deal specif-ically with issues germane to the individ-ual basins. For example, the White Riversubcommittee is concerned with dissolvedoxygen, while the Arkansas River sub-committee focuses on the MontgomeryPoint Lock and Dam, and the Red Riversubcommittee deals with saltwater con-tamination.

Administration of AWRBIAC is a low-budget, low-frills, all business operation. Ex-penses are usually borne by whichever agencyor state is chairing the Committee, as part of thenormal cost of doing business. The mailing listis small; secretarial services are usually provid-ed by the chair’s agency.

For Missouri, the Governor appointsa Representative and one or more Alter-nates. Currently, the Director of the De-partment of Natural Resources representsMissouri, and there are two Alternates:DNR Deputy Director for Intergovernmen-tal Cooperation, and the River Basin Coor-dinator in the Division of Geology andLand Survey. The DNR Division of Geol-ogy and Land Survey’s Water ResourcesProgram provides technical and budget-ary support.


The LMRCC was organized in 1994 toprovide a forum for dealing with lower Missis-sippi River natural resource issues. It is mod-eled after similar organizations on the MissouriRiver (Missouri River Natural Resources Com-mittee) and the upper Mississippi (Upper Mis-sissippi River Conservation Committee). How-ever, it differs from these organizations inhaving membership almost equally dividedbetween traditional fish and game agencies,and environmental resource and regulatoryagencies such as departments of natural re-sources.

Missouri has two member agencies: theDepartment of Conservation, and the Depart-ment of Natural Resources. Both agencies pay

the $1,000 per year annual dues. In the Depart-ment of Natural Resources, the annual dues aresplit 50-50 between the Division of Geologyand Land Survey and the Division of Environ-mental Quality.

The LMRCC has not existed longenough to establish a significant trackrecord, but its mission is to “...promotethe protection, restoration, enhance-ment, understanding, awareness, andwise use of the natural and environ-mental resources of the Lower Missis-sippi River, through coordinated andcooperative efforts involving research,planning, management, information shar-ing, public education and advocacy.”

3. LOWER MISSISSIPPI RIVER CONSERVATION COMMITTEE (LMRCC)

34


To carry out its mission, LMRCC has sixtechnical sections charged with dealing withthe following issues: (1) Fisheries; (2) Wildlife;(3) Law Enforcement; (4) Recreation; (5) WaterQuality; and (6) Red River.

LMRCC has a Chairperson, Chairper-son-Elect, and Secretary-Treasurer, select-

ed from the members. The organizationemploys no staff, but a Coordinator man-ages the affairs between meetings, andedits the newsletter. The Coordinator isan employee of the U.S. Fish & WildlifeService, with an office in Vicksburg, Mis-sissippi.

LMRCC at a glance:

Members:Arkansas Dept. of Pollution Control and

EcologyArkansas Fish & Game CommissionKentucky Dept. of Fish and Wildlife

ResourcesLouisiana Dept. of Environmental QualityLouisiana Dept. of Wildlife and Fisheries*Mississippi Dept. of Environmental

Quality*Mississippi Dept. of Wildlife, Fisheries

and ParksMissouri Dept. of ConservationMissouri Dept. of Natural ResourcesTennessee Dept. of Environment and

ConservationTennessee Wildlife Resources Agency

Cooperating agencies and organizations:Texas Parks and Wildlife AgencyGulf States Marine Fisheries Commis-

sionU.S. Army Corps of EngineersU.S. Fish & Wildlife ServiceU.S. Environmental Protection AgencyU.S. Geological Survey

Coordinator:Ron Nassar (601)638-1891

Meetings:LMRCC holds an annual meeting, usual-ly in late winter, at various sites withinthe basin. Standing committees mayhold specific meetings as required.

Dues:$1,000 per year per member agency.

Address:Lower Mississippi River Conservation

CommitteeRoom 236, Thomas Building900 Clay StreetVicksburg, MI 39180

Newsletter:“The LMRCC Newsletter”

Frequency:Quarterly

* Mississippi agencies withdrew from the LMRCC in 1996.

35

4. UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER BASIN ASSOCIATION (UMRBA)

Address:Upper Mississippi River Basin Association415 Hamm Building408 St. Peter StreetSt. Paul, MN 55102(612)224-2880

*Newsletter:“The River Register”Frequency:

bimonthly

Serial Publications:“Mississippi Clippings,” a monthly com-

pendium of clippings from major newssources within the basin; “Legislative Sum-mary,” an occasional compilation of basin-related Congressional legislation, issuedfrom time to time when Congress is insession. Issued in loose-leaf format, it isdesigned to be updated frequently duringthe course of Congressional sessions.

UMRBA at a glance:

State Members:IowaMissouriWisconsinIllinoisMinnesota

Federal Advisory MembersDepartment of AgricultureDepartment of the ArmyEnvironmental Protection AgencyU.S. Department of the InteriorU.S. Department of Transportation

Executive Director:Holly Stoerker

Meetings:Quarterly; meetings are numbered, i.e., the 57th quarterly meeting washeld in St. Louis, Missouri Feb. 20-22, 1996.

Dues:State Members pay $35,000 per year;Advisory Members pay no dues.


The five states of the Upper MississippiRiver Basin organized the Upper MississippiRiver Basin Association (UMRBA) after the Re-agan administration dismantled the Water Re-source Council and its river basin commissions.Unexpended funds in the accounts of the UpperMississippi River Basin Commission were givento the UMRBA upon its organization.

The UMRBA maintains a permanent staff ofthree, in offices in St. Paul, Minnesota. Additionaltemporary staff are employed as needed to carryout requirements of externally-funded programsand other activities related to, but not part ofnormal administrative duties.

Each state has one representative to theBoard of Directors of UMRBA, appointed by therespective governors. For Missouri, the Repre-sentative is usually—but not necessarily—the Di-rector of the Dept. of Natural Resources. Inaddition, governors may appoint Alternates;Missouri has two, the DNR Deputy Director ofIntergovernmental Cooperation, and the RiverBasin Coordinator.

The DNR/DGLS Water Resources Pro-gram provides technical support. The repre-sentatives select a chairperson from amongthemselves. In practice, the chair rotates amongthe five state members.

*The River Register was terminated in 1997 as a cost-cutting measure.

36


PURPOSEThe purpose of this proclamation is to protect and enhance the

future of the Upper Mississippi River System as a multi-purposeresource by setting forth principles governing its management andaffirming means and mechanisms for intergovernmental cooperation.

FINDINGSThe governors of the signatory Upper Mississippi River Basin States

jointly find and declare that:The Upper Mississippi River is a valuable national and regionalresource. Its ecological, economic, and cultural significance extendsbeyond its waters and shoreline communities. The region's prosperityand quality of life are dependent upon the river's continuing viabilityas a commercial transportation system, an ecologically rich fish andwildlife habitat, a source of water supply, and a recreational resource.

The States, in partnership with the federal government, share acontinuing responsibility for the wise use and management of theUpper Mississippi River System. While the federal government's roleis an important and long-standing one, the States of the basin possessa unique obligation to manage the waters of the basin in the interestof all the citizens of the region.

The States have historically exercised leadership in promoting thecollective stewardship of the resources of the Upper Mississippi RiverBasin. The rich heritage of interstate and intergovernmental collabo-ration, evidenced by the creation and maintenance of cooperativeforums such as the Upper Mississippi River Basin Commission and theUpper Mississippi River Basin Association, is the States' responsibilityto nurture.

The relationship between maintaining a healthy economy and ahealthy environment is becoming increasingly clear. Effective man-agement of the Upper Mississippi River System will require enhancedcollaboration among all units of government and the pursuit of unifiedeconomic and environmental policies.

INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATIONThe Governors hereby jointly declare that:** The states reaffirm their individual and collective support for the

Upper Mississippi River Basin Association, established in 1981 byrepresentatives of the five basin states.

** The purpose of the Upper Mississippi River Basin Association shallbe to foster achievement of the above stated principles byfacilitating dialogue and cooperative action among its memberstates and between those states and the federal government.

** The responsibilities of the Upper Mississippi River Basin Associa-tion shall include, but not be limited to, the study and evaluationof issues of common concern to the member states; creation ofopportunities and means for information exchange on policy andscientific matters; review and comment on federal projects, pro-grams, and policies of regional significance; and development andadministration of intergovernmental agreements.

** The Upper Mississippi River Basin Association shall provide a forumwhereby the Governors seek to unify the states' river-relatedpolicies and articulate their mutual concerns and shared vision formanagement of the Upper Mississippi River.

** In fulfilling its purpose and responsibilities, the Upper MississippiRiver Basin Association shall be responsive to public concerns,seeking to include all river constituencies in consensus-building.

** Each of the member states of the Upper Mississippi River BasinAssociation shall be represented by designees of the Governor.Those individuals shall be responsible for insuring that all appropri-ate agencies, boards, commissions, and constituencies of the stateare engaged in the deliberations and activities of the UpperMississippi River Basin Association.

** The President of the United States is hereby requested to ensurethat all federal departments and agencies with authorities related

JOINT GOVERNORS' PROCLAMATION ON UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER SYSTEM MANAGEMENTApril 1997

to the Upper Mississippi River cooperate with the Upper MississippiRiver Basin Association and utilize that forum for coordination oftheir river-related policies and programs with the basin states.

PRINCIPLES FOR MANAGEMENTThe Governors agree and commit to the following principles formanagement of the Upper Mississippi River System:** The Upper Mississippi River System shall be managed to ensure the

needs of present generations are met without compromising theability of future generations to meet their needs.

** Comprehensive management for multiple purpose use shall be thefoundation of Upper Mississippi River policies and programs. Thisapproach recognizes the multiple objectives which the publicexpects the river system to serve and integrates environmental andeconomic decision-making to achieve these objectives.

** The relationship between the river system and its watersheds shallbe recognized in management decisions.

** There shall be an appropriate balance of power and responsibilitybetween the federal government and the basin states such thatstates and federal agencies are permitted and encouraged to workcooperatively to achieve mutual river management objectives.* The states shall take responsibility for more fully integrating

comprehensive management objectives for the Upper Missis-sippi River System into their own programs and policies. Stateagencies shall work cooperatively with one another on an intra-and interstate basis.

* The federal government shall be expected to unify its policiesto reflect comprehensive management and to provide consis-tency among federal agencies. In addition, the federal govern-ment must recognize states as partners in river management.

** Mechanisms to facilitate development and implementation of acommon vision and shared goals and objectives for the UpperMississippi River System shall be established and maintained.Consensus building involving all river constituencies shall bepursued and the anticipated effects of management decisionscommunicated widely.

** Policy and management decisions shall be based upon scientifical-ly sound environmental end economic analysis.

** Management objectives shall emphasize results and planning shalllead to action. Those actions shall be routinely evaluated andflexibility preserved to adapt to changing needs and conditions.

** The Upper Mississippi River Basin Association shall be governed bythe Articles of Association executed in 1981 and hereby authorizedto be amended as necessary to reflect the principles and declara-tions of this joint proclamation.

** Nothing in this proclamation nor in the conduct of the affairs of theUpper MississippiRiver Basin Associ-ation shall abrogatethe rights and re-sponsibilities ofeach state to man-age its water andrelated land re-sources. The Up-per Mississippi Riv-er Basin Associationshall undertake noactivities whichwould be inconsis-tent with the Com-pact Clause or theInterstate Com-merce Clause of theU.S. Constitution.

37


EMP at a glance:

Established by Congress in 1986, as a“...long-term program designed to protectand balance the resources of the UpperMississippi and guide future river manage-ment,” with the following five elements:

Habitat Rehabilitation and EnhancementProjects

Long Term Resource MonitoringRecreation ProjectsEconomic Impacts of Recreation StudyNavigation Monitoring

Environmental Management TechnicalCenter, Onalaska, Wisconsin

Funding is through the Corps of Engi-neers, with funds for the LTRMP fun-neled through the Corps to the NationalBiological Service.

Joint effort of the Corps of Engineers, U.S.Fish & Wildlife Service, and the states.

Environmental Management ProgramCoordinating Committee:

Agency Representatives:U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Co-chair)

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (Co-chair)IllinoisIowaMinnesotaMissouriWisconsinU.S. Dept. of AgricultureU.S. Environmental Protection AgencyU.S. Geological SurveyU.S. Dept. of Transportation

Administration:The Mississippi Valley Division of theCorps of Engineers manages the pro-gram and is guided in its policies by theOffice of the Chief of Engineers.

Address:111 North Canal Street Chicago, IL 60606-7205(312)353-6345

ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

UMRBA differs from the other basin organi-zations to which Missouri belongs primarily inthe level of its activities. With a permanent staffof three, and a budget about twice that of theother three basin groups combined, UMRBA hasbecome quite successful and very adroit in de-veloping productive interaction with Congress,federal agencies and interest groups.

In 1994, UMRBA began an introspectiveprocess to “reinvent itself,” considering wheth-er a better alternative existed that might resultin a more effective collaboration in addressingissues. Following a special conference duringwhich alternative organizational models werepresented, the Board decided to continueUMRBA essentially unchanged, except for mak-ing the relationships with federal agenciessomewhat more formal. A revised coopera-tive agreement was signed as a governor'sProclamation in 1997.

Perhaps UMRBA’s greatest achievement,which began while the original Upper Mississip-

pi River Basin Commission was operating, wasthe development of a Master Plan for the river.When the Plan was completed, it was present-ed to Congress and ultimately resulted infunding of the Environmental ManagementProgram (EMP). The significance of a group ofstates and several federal agencies workingtogether to develop a plan for what needs tobe done was not lost on Congress.

Today, the EMP is the vehicle throughwhich federal funding comes to the basin forlong-term environmental monitoring, rehabilita-tion and enhancement of fish and wildlife habitatand the general ecology, and the technical dataand studies necessary for intelligent planning.

The Environmental Management Programis a direct result of emerging problems relating tonavigation on the river. Congress authorizedconstruction of a second lock at Locks and Dam26 at Alton, Illinois, to relieve congestion on thisbusy stretch of the river. At the same time,Congress recognized the need to balance in-

38


Project Name Status Cost

Monkey Chute, MO complete $ 56,000Bay Island, MO underway 2,530,000Cottonwood Island, MO design 3,324,000Clarksville Refuge, MO complete 454,000Dresser Island, MO complete 2,600,000Pharrs Island, MO underway 2,783,000Cuivre Island, MO design 1,827,000Pools 25/26, MO design 1,187,000Least Tern, MO design 310,000Norton Woods, MO fact sheet 1,630,000Stag Island, MO fact sheet 2,250,000Angle Blackburn, MO fact sheet 696,000

$19,647,000

Figure 27. Funding percentages for theEnvironmental Management Project (EMP).About 97% of funding is targeted for habitatprojects and resource monitoring.

2.6%

65.1%0.4%

31.9%

EconomicImpacts ofRecreationStudy

Long TermResourceMonitoring

Recreation Projects

HabitatProjects

Table 3. EMP projects completed, underway, or planned in Missouri (1996 status).

creased commercial navigation with other eco-nomic, environmental, and recreational objec-tives, so it set up the EMP to address these needs.

Since 1986, the EMP has been funded atlevels up to $19.2 million per year. The EMPCoordinating Committee establishes prioritiesfor projects that are completed with cooperationfrom state agencies. In Missouri, the Departmentof Conservation, charged with responsibility forfish and wildlife and forests, is the agency thatworks with the Corps on EMP projects, andprovides a representative on the EMP Coordinat-ing Committee.

The EMP was authorized by Congress fora period to end in 2002; a Report to Congressis in preparation, designed to summarize theaccomplishments of the program, to evaluatethe program’s success in order to determinewhether it should be extended.

“Partnership” is the key word in theEMP. As summarized in the EMP promo-tional brochure, “The five states and theFish and Wildl i fe Service act ive lyscreen, recommend, and participatein developing habitat projects. Manyprojects involve state and local cost-sharing with the federal government,further emphasizing the partnershipapproach of the EMP. State biologistsalso staff the six Long Term ResourceMonitoring Field Stations.”

Missouri has a field station at CapeGirardeau operated cooperatively with theMissouri Department of Conservation.Staff of the field station conduct regularly-scheduled water quality, fish and wildlifemonitoring, and special studies.

39

5. MISSISSIPPI RIVER PARKWAY COMMISSION (MRPC)

Figure 28. The flood wall at Cape Girardeau held during the Great Flood of ’93, protecting low-lying partsof the city from severe flooding. Photo by Jerry D. Vineyard.

MRPC at a glance.

State Members:ArkansasIowaIllinoisKentuckyLouisianaMinnesotaMississippiMissouriTennesseeWisconsinOntario (Canadian Province)

Executive Director: John F. Edman

Meetings:Twice yearly; Mid-Winter and Annual Meetings.Technical Committees meet separately as needed.

Dues:$7,500 per year.

Address:Mississippi River Parkway CommissionPioneer Building Suite 1513336 Robert StreetSt. Paul, MN 55101(612) 224-9903; FAX (612) 224-9413


40


Congress created the Mississippi RiverParkway Commission (MRPC) to develop thetourism resources along the Mississippi Riverby enlisting the cooperation of the states andCanadian provinces adjacent to the river. Spe-cifically, the commission works collectively to“preserve, promote, and enhance thescenic, historic, and recreational resourc-es of the Mississippi River, to foster eco-nomic growth in the corridor, and todevelop the national, scenic and historicparkway known as the Great River Road.”The organization charges dues to each state,and operates with funds appropriated by Con-gress to carry out part of its work. The commis-sion has a chairperson known as the Pilot, andmaintains administrative offices with a smallstaff, in St. Paul, Minnesota.

MRPC operates with six technical commit-tees: Transportation, Promotion, Historical/Ar-chaeological/Cultural, Environmental/Recre-ation, Economic Development, and Agriculture.DNR’s River Basin Coordinator serves on theEnvironmental/Recreation Committee.

To carry out its responsibilities as amember state, Missouri has a parallel com-mission known as the Mississippi RiverParkway Commission of the State ofMissour i (RSMo 226.440-465) . TheMissouri commission is composed of ninemembers and assigned to the Dept. ofTransportation for administrative purpos-es. Its purpose is to “...aid in the promo-tion and securement of federal parks anda scenic parkway and highway for thestate of Missouri along the MississippiRiver. The commission shall work towardthe planning, construction, maintenance,

and improvement of the Great River Roadand Mississippi River Parkway, which isto follow generally the course of theMississippi River and extend from Canadato the Gulf of Mexico” (RSMo 226.440).

The Mississippi River Parkway legislationwas amended via Senate Bill 715 in 1996, toreflect a bipartisan approach wherein fourmembers are appointed by legislative leadersin the House and Senate, and five are appoint-ed by the Governor.

In addition to the nine bipartisan mem-bers, the commission has as ex-officio mem-bers the director of the Dept. of Transportation,the director of State Parks, the director of theDept. of Conservation, the director of the Dept.of Agriculture, and the director of the Dept. ofEconomic Development.

The MRPC, which is a 501(c) 3 non-profitorganization, sought Congressional funding toproduce a Mississippi River Corridor Study.Congress provided funds under PL 101-398,and a Mississippi River Corridor Study Com-mission (MRCSC) was formed under the aegisof the National Park Service to conduct thestudy. The MRCSC set up its own board ofdirectors, with offices in Baton Rouge, Louisiana.

A draft Mississippi River Corridor Study inthree volumes—Feasibility Report, and a two-volume Inventory of Resources and Signifi-cance, was released in August 1995. However,the report met widespread resistance becauseof the perception that it would lead to exten-sive acquisition of land by federal and stateagencies, thereby eroding Congressional sup-port for appropriations to complete the work.At this writing, the report remains in draft form,with no Congressional funding for completion.

41

Figure 29. Mississippi River Corridor and Great River Road. From draft report of theMississippi River Corridor Study.


42


43

force of federal law, the compacts define agree-ments between states that set forth how muchwater each state is entitled to, and under whatconditions. Frequently employed in Westernstates, there are no water compacts involving thestate of Missouri, although several attempts havebeen made to develop them.

COMPACT: (as a noun) to agree together;an agreement between two or more indi-viduals, states, etc.

Agreements between states must be rati-fied by Congress, so there has developed afairly standard procedure for negotiating com-pacts. Given a problem that affects two or morestates, that seems amenable to the develop-ment of a compact, the following proceduremay be followed:

1) States announce their intent to form acompact, and name official negotia-tors.

2) A federal agency, usually the Corps ofEngineers, is named to preside at meet-ings of the compact negotiators.

3) When agreement is reached, it is draft-ed in the form of state legislation, whichmust have identical wording in eachstate legislature.

4) When identical legislation has beenenacted in each state that is party to thecompact, the compact must be ratifiedby Congress.

INSTRUMENTS FOR INTERSTATE COOPERATION

There are numerous options for interstatecooperation, ranging from informal communi-cation to elaborate interfaces having the forceof law. Currently, river basin associations arethe primary focus of Missouri’s cooperativeefforts with other states and federal agencies,but charters, compacts, and constituency groupshave also been employed, or considered, fromtime to time.

1. River basin organizations: Based ondrainage basin boundaries, these organiza-tions characteristically address issues of mutualinterest in a collaborative process that involvesstates, federal agencies, and various interestgroups. Their activities do not attain the forceof law, although their recommendations maybecome the basis for Congressional legis-lation. They are usually supported by duespaid by members, and their perpetuation de-pends entirely upon the members’ willing-ness to participate cooperatively.

Some are relatively informal, with nodues structure and no permanent staff, relyingon members to provide whatever administra-tive costs are required to keep the organizationalive. Others have permanent staff, dues thatrequire line-item legislative appropria-tions, and relatively frequent, regularly-sched-uled meetings.

2. Interstate Compacts: Formal, highlystructured, and administratively difficult, inter-state water compacts are nevertheless one ofthe most frequently-used instruments to dealwith the use and allocation of the waters ofstreams that cross state boundaries. Having the

Instruments for Interstate Cooperation

44


5) Upon ratification by Congress, the com-pact attains the force of law and thesignatory parties develop a procedureand schedule for carrying out the pro-visions of the compact.Negotiating interstate water compacts is

likely to be a long and difficult process, requir-ing five to ten years of negotiations and legis-lative activity. It may be extraordinarily diffi-cult to persuade individual state legislators topass identical versions of the compact lan-guage; getting the document approved byCongress is usually much easier than gettingthe states to agree on the specific wording.

Standard procedure is not always fol-lowed in compact negotiations. In fact, pastpractice in Missouri has been to ignore theprocess and look for a quick solution.

Following are several examples of inter-state compacts that were proposed involvinginterstate streams, but were never consummated:

1. Missouri River Compact. U.S. Rep-resentative Robert A. Young of St. Louis intro-duced legislation in Congress for a 10-statecompact relating to the management of theMissouri River. Congressman Young’s bill,introduced first in 1982 and again in 1983,would have established a Missouri River Inter-state Compact Commission, charged with ne-gotiating a compact to allocate the waters ofthe Missouri River among the 10 states in thebasin. The bill did not specify any of the termsof the compact, only that the states shouldnegotiate to agreement and then submit thedocument to each of the state legislatures andto Congress for ratification.

Despite newspaper accounts suggestingthat a 10-state Missouri River compact was“flowing through Congress” (figure 30), thebill died in committee, and no similar bills havesubsequently been introduced.

Young’s proposed Missouri River Com-pact would have addressed the pollution issueby requiring that the agreement “...ensurethat any allocation of water made by suchcompact or agreement shall not causedeterioration in the water quality of anystate of the Missouri River Basin and shallnot reduce the navigational capacity ofthe Missouri River.”

2. Mississippi River Interstate Pollu-tion Phase-Out Compact. Introduced inCongress by the Louisiana delegation in 1989,this legislation would have set up a 10-statecompact commission that was to have negoti-ated an agreement to reduce the contaminantload of the Mississippi River. In the bill, “pol-lution” was defined as “...any man-made al-teration of water, resulting from the dis-charge of substances including but not lim-ited to dredge or fill material, spoil, solidwaste, incinerator residue, sewage, garbage,sewage sludge, munitions, biological materi-al, radioactive material, heat, wrecked ordiscarded equipment, rock, sand, and cellardirt.” Cellar dirt? Yes, whatever THAT is...

The proposal attracted little support anddied in Congress. More recently, the state ofLouisiana has become concerned about the so-called “Dead Zone,” a region of low oxygen offthe Mississippi delta in the Gulf of Mexico.More formally called the Gulf Hypoxia Zone,this is a phenomenon that appears during thesummer season, waxing and waning in a man-ner similar to the “Ozone Hole” in the atmo-sphere over Antarctica. However, no proposalhas yet been made to develop an interstatecompact to deal with the hypoxia issue.

3. Compact Between Iowa, Kansas,Missouri and Nebraska for the Develop-ment of the Missouri River for BargeNavigation. The Missouri General Assemblypassed, and the Governor signed, legislationthat would have united the lower Missouribasin states in an effort to increase navigationon the Missouri River.

The legislatures of Missouri, Iowa, and Ne-braska passed substantially identical legislation,but Kansas did not act, so the effort died. Missou-ri’s bill had a sunset date of July 1, 1984; when thatdate passed, the effort ended; no subsequentlegislation has been attempted (figure 31).

4. Kansas-Missouri Stormwater Com-pact. A Missouri legislator from the Kansas Cityarea introduced legislation in the mid-1980s tofoster cooperation between Kansas and Missouriin dealing with stormwater problems in the twoKansas Cities. The Missouri legislation was passedand signed by the Governor, but again, Kansasfailed to act, and the effort failed.

45

May 9, 1983 Missouri Times, Page 15

Washington NewsBill setting up 10-state Missouri River compact flowing through Congressby JOAN EDWARDS

b y P r e s i d e n t s T r u m a n a n dEisenhower.

The bill would provide for a com-pact commission composed of onemember from each of the 10 MissouriRiver Basin states, to be designated orappointed by its governor with the ad-vice and consent of the state senate.One member of the commission wouldrepresent the federal government andbe appointed by the president. Thecommission would have the power todevelop comprehensive policies for theintegrated operation of relief, storageor diversion of the waters of theMissouri Basin.

The upstream basin states of Wyo-ming, South Dakota, North Dakota andMontana are very enthusiastic aboutthis plan, because they don’t want togive up their water which, in some cas-es, they can sell. But major diversionsof river water could seriously affectdownstream basin states such asMissouri, Iowa, Nebraska, and parts ofKansas. Colorado is considered to be amiddle basin state. Minnesota is partof the basin, but only a small part.

Young has modified the languageof his previous bill by deleting a provi-sion to require that any water alloca-tion made by the Missouri compact notcause deterioration in the water qualityof any state in the basin and not reducethe navigation capacity of the river.

Jim Webb, of Young’s office said,“Water engineers would be likely tosay that the water quality or quantitywould be affected by any change inflow, no matter how small.”

The controversy over the alloca-tion of river water has refocused over amuch disputed plan to divert water fora coal slurry. The Energy Transporta-tion Systems, Inc., (ETSI) of San Fran-cisco appears to be making progresswith its plan to build a coal slurry pipe-line, using Missouri River water from

South Dakota and sending it to the coalfields of Wyoming. From there it wouldbe transported to power plants in Okla-homa, Arkansas, Texas, and Louisiana.ETSI’s project is just one of severalplans to tap Missouri River water forindustrial and agricultural uses. Stateand federal officials say the amount ofwater is very small, but believe theETSI plan would set an important pre-cedent. The state of South Dakota couldearn as much as $1.4 billion in the next50 years over the sale.

Missouri, Iowa and Nebraska havefiled a lawsuit which is now pending, toprevent this diversion.

Webb said another proposal to di-vert Missouri River water which camefrom a 1976 Department of Commercestudy and recommended constructionof a conduit running from Nebraska toNew Mexico and Texas was “truly pre-posterous.”

Estimated costs range from $10-$30 billion and it would divert half theflow of the Missouri River,” Webb said.

The purpose of this project wouldbe to provide irrigation for crops instates with insufficient water supply.

“There are crops that could begrown in those regions that don’t needas much water,” Webb said. “Probably,the crops that are now grown therewould be more efficiently grown else-where.”

Co-sponsors of Young’s bill in-clude Missouri Democrats Ike Skelton,Richard Gephardt and Harold Volkmerand Missouri Republicans TomColeman and William Emerson. Re-publican Congressman DouglasBereuter of Nebraska is also co-spon-sor.

“The concept of the Missouri com-pact would seem so important that itwouldn’t be debatable,” said AndyDuran of Young’s office. “But opposi-tion to it has once again reared its ugly

WASHINGTON — DemocraticCongressman Robert Young’s bill toestablish a 10-state compact to allo-cate the waters of the Missouri River isreceiving remarkably swift attentionby congressional committees respon-sible for moving the bill forward.

It has been referred from the Inte-rior and Insular Affairs Committee tothe subcommittee on water and powerresources, and it is expected to go short-ly to the U.S. Department of Interiorfor the administration’s comment.

Young, of Maryland Heights, in-troduced a similar bill in October dur-ing the 97th Congress, with no hope ofgenerating congressional action beforethe end of the session. He hoped thebill would stimulate congressional andstate comments on his proposal. He gotsome adverse comments from up-stream states and made some changeswhich he hopes will mollify the oppo-sition to his proposed Missouri Riverinterstate compact commission. He re-introduced the bill April 12.

Young said he thinks there is anurgent need to move now on setting upthe compact because, he said, “there isa proliferation of major proposals todivert Missouri River water.”

“There is absolutely no questionthat future proposals will continue toplague the states in the basin,” Youngsaid. Any substantial diversion woulddrastically affect water transportationand vessel safety...drinking water sup-ply, industrial use and commercial fish-ing activity.”

In presenting his bill, the congress-man said, “There are signs of an im-pending water crisis everywhere. It’sestimated that in less than 20 years,every region of the country will con-front severe water shortages unless weas a nation recognize that we cannotcontinue to waste and pollute our mostprecious life-giving commodity, wa-ter.

“Irrigation for the nation’s farmershas almost tripled in the last 30 years.Ninety percent of the water in the westis used for irrigation, thus competingagainst the growth of our cities to usethis water for drinking supplies, manu-facturing and the production of criticalenergy resources,” Young said.

Young said there are now 20major interstate river compacts inthe United States and the legisla-tion he introduced is patterned af-ter the recommendation made 30years ago by the Missouri BasinSurvey Commission, and endorsed

head.”This month, Sen. James Abdnor,

R-South Dakota, omitted 10 Missouriand Iowa flood control projects from a$7.5 billion water project bill. Abdnor,who chairs a water resources sub-com-mittee of the Environment and PublicWorks Committee, is retaliating forMissouri’s and Iowa’s opposition toSouth Dakota’s plan to divert river wa-ter for the ETSI slurry and a bill toallow a study of three additionalMissouri River water projects.

But the slurry project is still goingahead and requests for right-of-wayfor pipeline the have been filed withthe U.S. Forest Service. The HouseInterior Committee has approved themeasure giving the pipeline companythe right to take land necessary for con-struction.

Missouri’s Sen. Jack Danforth “isunalterably opposed” to the coal slurry.He said it is a threat to the MissouriRiver.”

He favors the Missouri basin com-pact as an ideal solution to the problemof how to manage the water, but feels itwill take years to achieve it.

Interior Department spokesmanHarmon Kallman said, “The adminis-tration favors the principles of theMissouri basin compact, if the statescan get together. The administrationfavors states’ rights.”

Carroll Hammond, executive di-rector of the Missouri Basin States As-sociation, said, “The Association Boardof Directors have not met since Young’sbill has been reintroduced with the de-letion of one section that was particu-larly offensive to upstream basinstates.”

“Some states,” said Hammond, “be-lieve there is no need for this bill — notyet, or in the foreseeable future...andpossibly the deletion of that sectionwon’t change their mind.” But he feelsthere is a “need to get together andexchange a lot of information on anongoing basis.”

“The Missouri basin compact leg-islation is premature,” Wyoming’s stateengineer, George Christopolous, said.“The states are not ready to compactwater and they should be allowed tolook at the legislation.”

Charles Michael of the MissouriDepartment of Natural Resources said,“The state is in favor of a wide plan ofattack on this issue, but given the dif-ferences of opinion among the variousstates, it will be 20 years in coming toreality.”

Figure 30. Missouri River Compact flows through Congress.

46


BARGES

237.400. Interstate compact for bargetraffic development on the Missouri Riverwith Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska.—Within sixty days of September 28, 1983, thegovernor shall act to enter into a compact withthe states of Iowa, Kansas and Nebraska toread substantially as follows:

COMPACT BETWEEN IOWA, KANSAS,MISSOURI AND NEBRASKA FOR THE DEVEL-OPMENT OF THE MISSOURI RIVER FORBARGE TRAFFIC

ARTICLE I

The purposes of this compact are toprovide for planning for the most efficient useof the waters of the Missouri River to increasethe amount of barge traffic on that segment ofthe Missouri River which flows between andwithin the compact states, to take necessarysteps to develop the Missouri River and itsbanks to handle more barge traffic than ispresently handled, to encourage the use ofbarges on that segment of the Missouri Riverfor transporting bulk goods, especially farmcommodities, to insure that the intended in-crease in barge traffic does not impose unac-ceptable damage on the Missouri River in all itsvarious uses, including agriculture, wildlifemanagement, and recreational opportunities,to consider the diversion of the waters of theMissouri River as it affects navigation, and topromote joint action between the compactparties to accomplish these purposes. Thepurposes of the compact do not includelobbying activities against user fees forbarge traffic and such activities under thiscompact are prohibited.

ARTICLE II

It is the responsibility of the four states toaccomplish the purposes in Article I through

the official in each state who is charged withthe duty of administering the public watersand to collect and correlate through thoseofficials the data necessary for the properadministration of the compact. Those officialsmay, by unanimous action, adopt rules andregulations to accomplish the purposes of thiscompact.

ARTICLE III

The states of Iowa, Missouri, Kansas, andNebraska agree that within a reasonable timethey shall fulfill the obligations of this compactand that each shall authorize the proper offi-cial or agency in its state to take the necessarysteps to promote the use of barges and devel-op the Missouri River as it flows between andwithin the compact states for greater amountsof barge traffic.

ARTICLE IV

This compact does not limit the powersgranted in any other act to enter into interstateor other agreements relating to the MissouriRiver flowing between and within the com-pact states, alter the relations between therespective internal responsibilities of the gov-ernment of a party state and its subdivisions,or impair or affect any rights, powers, orjurisdiction of the United States, or those act-ing by or under its authority, in, over, and tothose waters of the Missouri River. The adop-tion of this compact by the general assemblyshall not require the state of Missouri to adoptany legislation or to appropriate funds for itsimplementation.

ARTICLE V

Unless this compact is entered into on orbefore July 1, 1984, the governor shall take nofurther action to secure the compact.

(L. 1983 H.B. 102 & 1)

Figure 31. The Missouri River Barge Navigation Compact (RSMo chpt. 237.400, p. 2356) passed the Missouri Legislatureand was signed by the Governor, but failed to gain acceptance from the other three states.

47

5. Kansas-Missouri Interstate StreamsCompact. In the late 1970s and early 1980s,the Missouri DNR and the Kansas Water Officebegan negotiations toward an interstate com-pact involving the streams that cross the Kan-sas-Missouri border. Missouri interests, in par-ticular the City of Nevada, were concernedabout the reliability of flows in the MarmatonRiver (figure 32), which they hoped to use toaugment their water supply. Kansas, on theother hand, was interested in the Spring River,which flows from Missouri into Kansas, and incertain issues relating to groundwater pumping.

Negotiations continued for several years,with both sides compiling data and discussingoptions. The matter was considerably compli-cated by the fact that Missouri uses the RiparianDoctrine, while Kansas is a Prior Appropriationstate. A major issue was the fact that Kansas canand does issue permits for water use, whileMissouri does not. Kansas questioned wheth-

er, if a compact were to be negotiated, Missouricould guarantee performance in the absence ofany water rights laws.

Riparian Doctrine: The concept ofwater rights whereby the owner of land alonga watercourse is entitled to “reasonable use” ofthe water in the stream. The riparian doctrinein itself does not convey water rights per se. Infact, Missouri has no water rights legislation;conflicts are dealt with on a case-by-case basisthrough the courts.

Prior Appropriation Doctrine: The con-cept of water rights commonly described as “firstin time, first in right.” This doctrine is the normin many Western states, where water is frequent-ly in short supply. States that use the priorappropriation doctrine typically develop waterrights statutes that rigidly apply the principles toboth water in streams and groundwater.

Figure 32. The Marmaton River is reduced to a trickle at the state line during dry years. Kansas, a priorappropriation state, has the potential to issue permits to consume all of the available water before it reachesMissouri. Photo by Jerry D. Vineyard.

Instruments for Interstate Cooperation

48


The informal discussions continued forseveral years, toward the point where a Com-pact Commission would be formed and actualbargaining would begin. Unfortunately, elec-tion of a new governor in Kansas replaced thedirector of the Kansas Water Office, so thecontinuity was lost and the compact discus-sions fell by the wayside. Since then, nofurther attempts have been made to rein-stitute compact negotiations.

Another interstate issue was the proposedconstruction of the Fort Scott Dam, a Corps ofEngineers project set for the Marmaton River,some 20 miles upstream from Nevada,Missouri, in Kansas. Questions arose abouthow much water would be released from thedam, and whether Kansas could issue permitsfor the use of all available water in the streambefore it reached the Missouri state line. Tohave been successful, the compact wouldhave had to address these difficult issues,which would have taken a great deal of timeand effort, probably including the passageof some sort of water rights legislation forMissouri, that would have enabled thestate to guarantee the terms of the compact.

6. Missouri-Arkansas Interstate StreamCompact. During the mid-1980s DNR becameinvolved in negotiations with the state of Ar-kansas toward a compact covering streams thatcross the Arkansas-Missouri boundary. Withthe exception of the White River, which flowsinto Missouri from Arkansas, then back intoArkansas, streamflow is from Missouri intoArkansas, giving Missouri the advantage innegotiations.

Arkansas has existing compacts with oth-er states, and felt that a compact with Missouriwould be advantageous for both states. Pre-liminary negotiations went on for some time,but the negotiations ended before agreementhad been reached. Since then, no furtherefforts have been made by either state toresume negotiations.

7. Charters.

CHARTER: noun. 1 a franchise or writtengrant of specified rights made by a governmentor ruler to a person, corporation, etc. 2 adocument setting forth the aims and principlesof a united group, as of nations.

UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER BASINCHARTER

Signed by the five Governors of the UpperMississippi River Basin in October, 1989, theUpper Mississippi River Basin Charter sets forthprinciples for the management of the basin’swater resources, and guidelines for notificationand consultation among the signatory states.

The purposes of the Charter are “...toconserve the levels and flows of the waterresources; to protect the environmentalecosystem; to secure present develop-ment; to provide a foundation for futureinvestment and development; and to as-sure all significant benefits and impactsare considered before a decision is made.”

The Charter has four Principles: 1) Integ-rity of the Upper Mississippi River Basin; 2)Notification and Consultation; 3) CooperationAmong States; and 4) Reservation of StatesRights.

The centerpiece of the Charter is a re-quirement that “Any state having knowl-edge of a proposal for a new or increaseddiversion of water which will exceed 5million gallons per day average in any 30-day period from the waters of the UpperMississippi River Basin to another basinshall notify and offer to consult with allsignatory states in order to allow signato-ry states to express their concerns, iden-tify their interests, develop where possi-ble mutually acceptable agreements, ortake such other actions as they may findappropriate.”

In short, the Charter commits each state totell the others when they plan to use over fivemillion gallons of water per day for any newpurpose. The Charter recognizes the rights ofstates to use Mississippi River water, but it intro-duces the matter of courtesy and provides a wayto avoid surprises and possible lawsuits.

The Charter was developed through theUpper Mississippi River Basin Association, but itis not the same as the UMRBA. However, eachstate reports its Charter activities—or lack ofthem—at the annual meeting of the UMRBA.Since the signing of the Charter in 1989, nosignificant diversions have been reported.

49

Streams that cross state boundaries con-tribute a significant share of the water availablefor use in Missouri. The majority of suchstreams flow from other states into Missouri,but some flow from Missouri into other states.When a stream crosses the border bringingwater into the state, it is subject to depletion bythe donor state before it reaches Missouri. If aMissouri stream crosses into another state, wehave the advantage—absent an interstate watercompact—of using as much water as we pleasebefore it reaches the border. Moreover, we candegrade the quality of the water as much as welike, within limits set by instate standards,before it passes into the adjacent state.

Unfortunately, more streams flow intoMissouri than flow out of the state. Why is thisnot fortunate? It is, up to a point; but ifneighbor states deplete the water flow beforeit reaches Missouri, then we have a net loss thatmay be extremely difficult to recover.

EXAMPLE: Marmaton River Basin, Kan-sas and Missouri.

The Marmaton River rises in southeasternKansas and flows for some 40 miles throughthat state before it reaches the Missouri border,just west of Nevada, Missouri. From the borderit flows generally northeastward to the LittleOsage River. Ultimately the Marmaton helpsfill Truman Lake, contributing to fish, wildlife,and recreation, and power generation throughthe turbines of Truman Dam.

Missouri is a riparian state, meaning thatpeople who live along the river are entitled touse reasonable amounts of water from the

river. Kansas, though, is a prior appropriationstate; residents must obtain permits to usespecific amounts of water that are determinedby the prior appropriation doctrine, which inits simplest form, means “First in time, first inright.” Absent an interstate compact that allo-cates shares to each state, Kansas is free to grantpermits to its citizens to use ALL of the water ofthe Marmaton River before it reaches the stateline.

The situation is compounded by the factthat Kansas has much lower annual precipita-tion than Missouri; water is simply more pre-cious in Kansas than it is in Missouri.

Many years ago, the Corps of Engineersproposed to build a dam on the MarmatonRiver in Kansas, to be called the Fort Scott Dam.It would have impounded a lake entirely inKansas, and subject to that state’s water laws.The risk in such a situation is that the impound-ed water becomes attractive to water import-ers—such as cities and irrigation districts—thatmay want to move the water out of the basin,thereby depriving downstream users of the useof the water.

Unfavorable political and economic con-ditions have prevailed since the dam was firstproposed, and there are no current plans tobuild it. However, it remains on the list ofprojects authorized for the Corps to build,should the situation change.

All of the streams crossing the Iowa-Missouri border flow from Iowa into Missouri,but Iowa is also a riparian state, and it hasannual precipitation more like that of Missouri.

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF INTERSTATE STREAMS

The Significance of Interstate Streams

50


INFLOWS acre feet OUTFLOWS acre feet

From Kansas: To Kansas:Kansas River 3,302,100 Spring River 275,400Blue River/Indian Creek 38,000 Center Creek 79,500Marais des Cygne River 815,900 Shoal Creek 99,800Little Osage River 80,400Marmaton River 93,300 To Oklahoma:West Fork Dry Wood Creek 34,700 Lost Creek 12,700

Buffalo Creek 17,900From Iowa: Elk River 152,500Chariton River 160,300 Honey Creek 3,100Des Moines River 2,902,900East Fork Grand River 19,300 To Arkansas:East Fork 102 River 21,800 Upper Table Rock; JamesFox River 36,800 Upper Bull Shoals 1,764,500Grand River 40,200 North Bull Shoals Tributary 88,300Honey Creek 10,500 Little North Fork 172,900Little River 20,200 North Fork White River 783,000Lotts Creek 12,600 Lower Norfork Lake Tributary 52,600Nishnabotna River 561,900 South Fork Spring River 59,000Nodaway River 231,800 Middle Spring River 70,100Platte Branch 9,900 Upper Spring River 139,900Platte River 54,200 Eleven Point River 605,200Shoal Creek 14,200 Fourche Creek 67,800South Wyaconda River 10,600 Current River 1,295,900Tarkio River 40,200 Little Black River 215,500Thompson River 143,000 Black River 1,052,600West Fork 102 River 41,300 Cache River 27,600West Tarkio Creek 18,500 St. Francis River 1,134,100Weldon River 46,500 Little River Ditch 1,199,100

Buffalo Ditch 72,500From Arkansas:Honey Creek 11,100Elk Creek 25,200Upper Little Sugar River 81,200Sugar Creek 25,800White River 756,700Kings River 333,600Indian Creek 22,300Long Creek 163,300Bull Shoals Lateral 248,500

Total Inflow From Other States 10,428,800 Total Outflow to Other States 9,191,500

Source: U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service, unpublished data prepared in support of Missouri State Water Plan. Harold Deckerd, 1995.

Table 4. Water resource gains and losses on border-crossing streams.

51

Therefore, the potential for competition foravailable water is less critical than it is with thestate of Kansas. Moreover, Iowa has extensiverural water systems that in a few cases servicecommunities in Missouri.

Missouri’s border with Oklahoma andsoutheastern Kansas features several streamsthat flow from Missouri into Kansas and Oklaho-ma, and thence into Grand Lake ‘O the Chero-kees. Water quality is probably the primaryconsideration in water relationships betweenMissouri, Kansas and Oklahoma. Extensiveunderground metal mining in what was knownas the Tri-State Zinc-Lead District of Missouri,Kansas and Oklahoma through a period of morethan a hundred years left a legacy of abandoned,water-filled mine workings and extensive minetailings piles on the surface. Mining began nearJoplin in 1839 and progressed into nearby Kansasand Oklahoma.

The last mine in the District closed in1972. Pumps that had been pumpinggroundwater out of the mines to keepthem dry, were turned off, and themines slowly filled with water. Someof the old mine shafts now overflow,functioning very much like springs.And, there are some exploratorydrillholes that were never plugged,that now are flowing wells. Thewater quality in some of these pseu-do-springs and flowing wells is of

poor quality. The problem is most serious inOklahoma, which is down-gradient from mostof the abandoned mines.

The problem is exacerbated by the factthat most of the old mines were interconnect-ed, making it nearly impossible to isolate andcontrol a specific problem well or spring.

Another interstate water issue related toriver basins is the problem of groundwateroverpumping along state borders. One exam-ple involves the city of Miami, Oklahoma,which obtains its municipal water supply fromdeep wells drilled into bedrock. Heavy pump-ing of these wells has depressed the water tablein adjacent parts of Missouri, causing concernabout “taking” of Missouri groundwater re-sources. Other states have addressed similarproblems with interstate compacts, but eventhese do not always work as they are designedto do, leaving litigation in the U.S. SupremeCourt as a last resort.

Figure 33. Abandoned zinc-lead mines inthe Tri-State District in Missouri, Kansas andOklahoma are now water-filled and thesource of interstate water quality problems.Photo by Jerry D. Vineyard.

The Significance of Interstate Streams

52


53

THE CANNON WATER CONTRACTSA CASE STUDY OF STATE WATER PLANNING

INTRODUCTIONThe Mississippi River Basin is noted for

major water projects of great value. In Missourion the Salt River, tributary to the Mississippi,the award-winning Clarence Cannon Whole-sale Water Commission is now delivering abun-dant high-quality drinking water from MarkTwain Lake to farm families, municipalities,and commercial customers in northeastern andnorth-central Missouri. Long-term and stead-fast state water planning for this project beganmore than 30 years ago. The outcome has beenan outstanding example of water resourcesharing of hydropower, flood protection, rec-reation and water supply for the public andprivate sectors.

This case study of wa-ter planning details the ac-tivities of state governmentworking through a succes-sion of governors toward acommon goal of providing asafe and reliable water sup-ply to a part of the statewhere both surface andgroundwater supplies havehistorically been inadequateand in many areas, unsafe.

This was accomplishedfirst by forward-looking wa-ter planning that led to theCorps of Engineers’ con-struction of a dam namedafter the late CongressmanClarence Cannon (figure 34).

The completed project created a water source—the Mark Twain Lake—that includes storage fora guaranteed reliable water source for 98 outof 100 years, providing up to 16 million gal-lons of water per day. The final phase of thisiniative was the funding and construction of alarge water treatment plant and distributionlines. Raw water from the lake is processed inthe new, state-of-the-art Cecil V. Fretwellwater treatment plant and distributed through-out a multi-county area with developmentcosts financed by a local bond issue. Thiscompleted the state-federal-local alliance thatmade the entire system possible.

Figure 34. Clarence Cannon Dam, Salt River, western Ralls County, Missouri.Completed on January 8, 1984, the dam provides water-supply storage sufficientfor many years into the future. Photo by Jerry D. Vineyard.

The Cannon Water Contracts

54


THE EARLY YEARSLarge and successful water projects are

years in the making and come to fruition onlyafter consistent and well thought out waterplanning has taken place. The story of theCannon Water Contracts begins in the 1930s,when Congress passed the Flood Control Act of1938, which provided for a single-purpose,flood-control dam near Joanna, Missouri. Con-gress wanted to stop the devastating floodingthat had plagued farmers for many years.However, the greater flooding problems on theMissouri River had higher priority, and noprogress was made toward building the JoannaDam—as it was known at that time—until the1950s.

A heated debate between supporters andopponents of the dam raged for several yearsuntil the supporters gained the upper hand byrecasting the dam as a multi-purpose structure.Eventually, hydropower generation, flow sup-port to Mississippi River navigation, recreation,and water supply would be counted among thebenefits to be realized by building the dam.Gradually the pendulum swung toward damsupporters, who gained the backing of long-time U.S. Representative Clarence Cannon ofElsberry, and then U.S. Senator StuartSymington. Their support, of course, wasabsolutely essential if the project was to receivefederal funding.

Years of controversy between supportersand opponents and concurrent hydrologic andeconomic studies by the Corps of Engineerstook place in the 1950s, but in the early 1960sit seemed probable that Joanna Dam would bebuilt. It was in this period that joint state andCorps of Engineers geologic investigations wereconducted, and the preferred dam site wasselected. At this point it also became necessaryfor the State to decide what position it wouldtake. For example, the State Park Board movedto ask the Corps to replace State Park lands thatwould be flooded by the lake. On balance, theBoard favored construction of the dam, seeingit as an investment in future recreational op-portunities for Missourians. The Missouri De-partment of Conservation, however, formallyopposed the dam because of their commitment

to stream resources rather than to artificiallakes. Meanwhile, the Congress authorizedthe Joanna Dam project in 1962 at an estimatedcost of $63,300,000. The legislation was signedby President John F. Kennedy.

STATE WATER PLANNING BEGINSCongress had earlier passed legislation

known as the Water-Supply Act of 1958, whichmade it possible for non-federal partners toparticipate with the Corps in the planning andbuilding of water projects in exchange for repay-ment of the costs over a 50-year period. The statelegislature reacted to the Congressional initiativeby creating the Missouri Water Resources Boardin 1961. Clifford Summers became its director. .Governor John M. Dalton became the first in anuninterrupted succession of governors to sup-port the project. At the same time, the MissouriLegislature passed a resolution supporting thedam.

The State Water Resources Board wascharged to “...develop a plan for a gradual,long-range comprehensive state-wide pro-gram for the conservation, development,management and use of the water resourcesof the state.” In 1963, the Missouri Housepassed a resolution requiring the Water Resourc-es Board to consider the question of non-federalsponsorship of water-supply costs of the project,setting a 1965 deadline.

Congressman Clarence Cannon died of aheart attack on May 12, 1964, prompting Con-gress to rename Joanna Dam in honor of thelong-time Missouri representative who hadbecome its champion. The lake impoundedby Cannon Dam would be named in honor ofMark Twain, whose birthplace is preserved inMark Twain State Park adjacent to the lake.

The Water Resources Board essentially fol-lowed the 1938 State Water Plan that emphasizedthe need for surface water impoundments toprovide water supply in some parts of the state.The Board took advantage of the benefitsoffered by the Water Supply Act of 1958 bywriting “Water Assurance Letters” to the Corps ofEngineers, pledging to repay federal costs in-curred in the construction of water projects.Several such letters were prepared, covering

55

water-supply storage in Mark Twain Lake aswell as in Long Branch Reservoir, some 80miles to the west in the Missouri River Basin,and several other projects that were neverbuilt, such as the Meramec Park Dam, on theMeramec River in the south-central part of thestate. Several of the other proposed dams forwhich water assurance letters were written,were never built, largely because of environ-mental concerns.

The Corps of Engineers accepted theseletters as assurance that the State would backup its commitment with appropriations on thecompletion of the dams. To lend credibility tothe letters, which were signed by the membersof the Water Resources Board, the Legislatureset up a special fund known as the WaterDevelopment Fund. Annual appropriationswere to be made into the fund during the timeof construction of the dam, so that when the billcame due, there would be money in the bankto pay it. Unfortunately, regular appropria-tions were not made into the Fund, and previ-

ously deposited funds were spent for otherpurposes, so it has not functioned as it wasdesigned to do. The reasons why continuingdeposits have not been made is not entirelyclear, but it probably has much to do with thepriorities that tend to develop within eachlegislative session.

CONSTRUCTION OF CANNON DAMGround-breaking for Cannon Dam took

place on September 21, 1968, but it would be16 years before the project would be declaredcomplete. Every year brought new competi-tion in Congress for project funding. Fortu-nately, the project enjoyed bipartisan support,so funds continued to be appropriated, even asproject costs escalated. A succession of prob-lems plagued the work, and as the yearspassed, inflation pushed the costs ever high-er. On one occasion, a flood washed awaymuch of the preliminary work, causing a vir-tual restart on earthmoving. Labor strife de-layed the work on several occasions (figure 35).

Figure 35. Clarence Cannon Dam under construction. View is from the south abutment of the dam,looking north. The lake side of the dam is to the left. The massive structure on the right is the powerhouseand outlet works. Photo by Jerry D. Vineyard.


56


Figure 36. Open, vertical shaft in limestone bedrock, exposed during construction on the north abutmentof Clarence Cannon Dam. Geologic problems such as this one, discovered late in the construction phase,added considerably to the cost of the project. Photo by Jerry D. Vineyard.

Late in the construction period, unex-pected geological problems surfaced that re-quired expensive remedial measures. Testdrilling on the north abutment of the damrevealed a series of openings that had beendissolved in the limestone bedrock by ground-water. These were in essence vertical cavesthat had previously had no openings to thesurface; they were revealed only by late-stagedrilling. Correcting the problem requiredexpensive, meticulous excavation of the sed-iment filling the caves, after which the open-ings had to be refilled with concrete. If theseopenings had not been discovered, the lakemight have been catastrophically drained andthe costs of correcting the problems wouldhave been enormous. Geologists from DNR’sDivision of Geology and Land Survey werecalled in by the Corps to help devise a plan todeal with the geological hazards.

By the time the project was complete, thecost had escalated from $63.3 million to over

$364 million, an increase attributed to infla-tion over a 20-year period, labor strife, damag-ing floods, and other unforeseen expenses.

Strong support for the project from Mis-souri’s Congressional delegation, all governorssince Dalton, and the Missouri Legislature in-sured that the construction would continue inspite of the increasing costs. Part of the addedcosts would have to be shared by the State,which had committed to repaying the costs ofwater-supply storage to be incorporated intothe project.

Finally, on January 8, 1984, the Corps an-nounced that the Clarence Cannon Dam wascomplete. In addition to having protectionfrom downstream flooding, northeastern andnorth-central Missouri now had a new hydro-power plant, a recreational lake with new StatePark facilities, and 20,000 acre-feet of water-supply storage to meet public and private needs.All this in a part of the state where groundwatersupplies are very small and of poor quality.

57

MAKING THE PLAN A REALITYWhile the Corps of Engineers was build-

ing Cannon Dam, the State was having organi-zational problems of its own. Too many auton-omous agencies reporting directly to the gov-ernor brought a crippling inefficiency to Stategovernment. The Executive Branch was reor-ganized in 1974 into a cabinet structure with14 departments. More than 80 separate agen-cies gave up their autonomy to become parts ofthe new departmental structure.

The Missouri Water Resources Board waseliminated, but the Board’s powers and dutiesrelated to water planning were transferred tothe Department of Natural Resources, ultimate-ly residing with the Division of Geology andLand Survey in Rolla, which earlier had beenknown as the Missouri Geological Survey andWater Resources. To carry out these responsi-bilities, the Division formed a new Water Re-sources Program. One of the first tasks of thisprogram was to deal with the responsibilitiesimposed by the Water Assurance Letters givenlegitimacy by the Water Resources Board.

Late in the construction of Cannon Dam,the Department of Natural Resources realizedthat a major marketing effort would be neededto distribute and sell the water it would soongain title to. It seemed prudent to considereconomies of scale rather than looking towardnumerous water intake structures in the lake,each devoted to supplying the water needs ofa relatively small constituency.

So legislation was developed to modifythe existing municipal corporation statutes toenable the formation of Wholesale Water Dis-tricts. The late state senator Norman Merrell,recognizing the potential social and economicbenefits of water to his district, and thus to allof Missouri, sponsored not only the wholesalewater districts legislation but other neededlegislation as well. In 1983, the Legislaturepassed HB 204 [RSMo Chpt. 393.710-770], en-abling the formation of wholesale water dis-tricts to market water efficiently from largereservoirs.

Reacting quickly, residents in the MarkTwain Lake area, under the leadership of CecilV. Fretwell, organized the Clarence Cannon

Wholesale Water Commission under terms ofthe 1983 legislation (figure 37). Their solepurpose was to acquire and market water fromMark Twain Lake.

Early in 1984 the Corps of Engineers senta letter to the State of Missouri informing theState that the Cannon Dam was complete andthe bill for repayment of the costs of water-supply storage under the Water-Supply Act of1958 was now due and payable. But first, saidthe Corps, a contract would have to be nego-tiated and signed.

The Department of Natural Resourcesresponded by forming a negotiating team head-ed by Jerry D. Vineyard, who enlisted the aidof Assistant Attorney General Robert Lindholm;Jerry Lane, Director of DNR’s Public WaterSupply Program; and Steve Decker, RegionalAdministrator of DNR’s Division of Environ-mental Quality’s Macon office. He also broughtin Cecil V. Fretwell, Chairman of the ClarenceCannon Wholesale Water Commission, whichwas perceived as the primary customer for thewater. The negotiating team began its work in1984, and final contracts were signed in 1988.

While negotiations were underway, otherdetails had to be worked out. Preliminarydesigns for the water intake structure and thewater distribution lines required easements forcrossing State Park lands with water lines, sothe Legislature had to pass legislation (H.B.1600, 1986) to allow that to happen. And,certain tax advantages were necessary to theefficient operation of the wholesale water dis-trict, so more legislation (S.B. 488, 1986) wasrequired.

THE CANNON WATER CONTRACTSThe Corps and the State negotiating team

were breaking new ground; this was the firstsituation in Missouri where the Water-SupplyAct of 1958 was involved. The objective was totransfer title to the State for 20,000 acre-feet ofwater-supply storage, which the Corps esti-mated would provide up to 16 million gallonsof water per day, with a reliability of 98 yearsout of 100. It is important to remember thatwater-supply STORAGE is involved, not thewater itself. This is analogous to buying a


58


Fig

ure

37.

Serv

ice

area

for

the

Cla

renc

e C

anno

n W

hole

sale

Wat

er C

omm

issi

on.

Wat

er m

ains

ow

ned

by t

he C

omm

issi

on c

onne

ct w

ith

cust

omer

-ow

ned

line

s in

citi

es a

nd r

ural

wat

er d

istr

icts

. D

raw

ing

from

CC

WW

C's

199

5 A

nnua

l R

epor

t.

59

bucket, which can then be filled and emptiedas many times as one wishes. In this case,Mark Twain Lake is the “bucket,” from whichwater is drawn out through the intake struc-ture and replaced by inflow into the lake fromthe Salt River and its tributaries. As long as the“bucket”—Mark Twain Lake—holds water, upto 16 million gallons per day is available foruse (figure 38).

The cost of the water-supply storage isbased on a formula contained in the Water-Supply Act, which also sets the terms of therepayment. Briefly, the non-federal entitymust pay approximately five percent of thecost of the project, which had escalated tomore than $360 million by the time construc-tion was complete. The repayment terms,however, were quite generous. The interestrate was set at 3.22 percent, which seemed anincredible bargain, given prevailing mortgageinterest rates of up to 15 percent at the time.The non-federal entity would have 50 years torepay the cost, and 10 years of that would bean interest-free period, giving time for con-struction of appropriate marketing facilities.

Only the State could qualify for thesefavorable terms, because the State had earliersigned a Letter of Assurance, promising to pay100 percent of the cost of including 20,000acre-feet of water-supply storage in the designof Cannon Dam. In order to bring the ClarenceCannon Wholesale Water Commission into thepicture, the State suggested—and the Corpsaccepted—the concept of transferring part ofthe State’s share of the water-supply storage tothe CCWWC. This was ultimately done bydeveloping two contracts: the Three-PartyContract, between the Corps, the State, and theCCWWC, and the Two-Party Contract, be-tween the Corps and the State. The Three-PartyContract would transfer part of the State’s shareto the CCWWC, but title to the water wouldrevert to the State in case of default by CCWWC.The Two-Party Contract would cover the re-maining storage, which would remain underthe control of the State.

The main reason for developing two con-tracts was to reduce the overall costs to CCWWC,

and relieve the State of costs related to admin-istering the contracts. In effect, the Stateavoided becoming a permanent broker forwater from Mark Twain Lake.

While negotiations were underway be-tween the Corps, the State, and CCWWC, Con-gress passed the Omnibus Water Act of 1986,which drastically changed the terms of water-supply storage repayment. Instead of 3.22percent interest and a 50-year payback with a10-year interest-free period, the new rulesspecified interest at market rates, a 30-yearpayback, and no interest-free period. Needlessto say, this would have greatly increased thecosts, so the State and CCWWC appealed tothen-Senator John C. Danforth, who inter-vened by getting the Corps to concede that“substantial agreement” had been reached inthe negotiations, allowing the process to con-tinue under terms of the 1958 law.

Finally, in the spring of 1988, the negoti-ations were complete, and the Cannon WaterContracts were signed in a special ceremony atCannon Dam Visitor Center. Governor JohnAshcroft signed for the State, Assistant Secre-tary of the Army Robert Page for the Corps,and Cecil V. Fretwell for the CCWWC. Inaddition, DNR Director Frederick Brunnersigned as the administrator for the abol-ished Water Resources Board, which hadoriginally developed the concept of buyingwater-supply storage as a part of the CannonDam project.

The impact of this precedent-setting pro-cess is difficult to underestimate. For the firsttime since early settlers came to north-centraland northeastern Missouri, the region has asafe and abundant water supply, nearlydrought-proof, and sufficient to last far into the21st century. The cost is less than it would havebeen under nearly any other scenario, thanksto state water planning work that began in theearly 1960s. Moreover, the cost to the consum-er will go DOWN in the future, not UP! Oncethe cost of water-supply storage is paid—by theyear 2034 or earlier—the only cost will be ashare of the Corps’ operation and mainte-nance costs for keeping the dam in operation.


60


Figure 38. Clarence Cannon Wholesale Water Commission's one million gallon water tower is a visiblesymbol of a new era of plentiful water in northeastern Missouri thanks to state water planning and local, stateand federal cooperation. Photo by Jerry D. Vineyard.

61

BUYING AND SELLING WATERWhile the contract negotiations were un-

derway between 1984 and 1988, the officialsof the CCWWC had to overcome some formi-dable obstacles. First, they had to sell poten-tial members/customers on the wisdom ofbecoming party to contracts between the Stateand the Corps of Engineers, a tall order in aregion where the intentions of governmentare often suspect. Once over that hurdle, thenext one was equally formidable: obtainingfunding to build a water treatment plant andinstall distribution lines to deliver finishedwater to far-flung customers. The third hurdlewas no less daunting: actually building andoperating the water treatment and distributionsystem.

Thanks to sufficient public involvementand assurances by political leaders such asSenator Norman Merrell at the local, state andfederal level, the first hurdle was overcome intimely fashion. To obtain funding, the Com-mission floated a $25 million bond issue thatpassed on a vote of the people, by an unprec-edented 95 percent majority, giving strongindication of the yearning of people in thatregion for a reliable water supply (figure 39).

Part of the cost of the water treatmentplant was borne by grants ($2.8 million) fromDNR and from the U.S. Farmers Home Admin-istration, but by far the largest share ($21.8million) was borne by CCWWC customersthrough the bonding process.

The actual construction of the plantand the initial laying of some 155 miles ofdistribution pipelines was accomplishedin near-record time. In addition, two boost-er pumping stations and 2.5 million gal-lons of system storage were built. Bidsfor construction were opened in Septem-ber 1990, and the first sale of water tomembers began on June 16, 1992. Treatedwater began to flow to 17 cities and ruralwater districts in a multi-county area whowere members of CCWWC at the time.

THE VISION AND REWARD OF STATEWATER PLANNING

There are few situations where stategovernment has delivered such tangibleresults as those that flow from the CannonWater Contracts. For the first time in history,a water-stressed part of Missouri has a “bullet-proof” water supply, at a price that will godown as the years go by. A water supplyadequate to meet almost any foreseeable need,under control of the state, is available foreconomic development and/or enhance-ment of the quality of life, something thatfew other places in the United States can claim.This has all been possible because of thecontinuity of state water planning throughseven governors, 35 General Assemblies,and uncounted administrators and stateemployees.

Water, anyone?

Figure 39. The Clarence Cannon Wholesale Water Commission's Cecil V. Fretwell Water Treatment Plant in MonroeCounty, Missouri. Drawing from CCWWC's 1995 Annual Report.


62


63

SELECTED CURRENT AND FUTURE INTERSTATE WATERISSUES BY RIVER BASIN

Issues that engage states in dialogue andcontroversy vary from basin to basin. Someissues are highly contentious, while others aremore like continuing irritations or occasionalaggravations. Each basin organization ad-dresses the issues that concern its members inan ongoing manner, through the protocols setup by the representatives. For example,Missouri River management has been a topicof deliberation in the Missouri River BasinAssociation continuously since the organiza-tion was formed.

ARKANSAS RIVER BASIN

ISSUE: Water Quality.BACKGROUND: Over a period of more

than a hundred years, underground metal min-ing for zinc and lead left a legacy of abandoned,water-filled mines that now present a water-quality problem in a three-state area, but pri-marily in Oklahoma, where some of the minewater now drains.

STATUS: There are no ongoing deliber-ations in AWRBIAC related to this issue. How-ever, the US EPA has designated Superfundsite(s) and has an ongoing program to addressthe problems.

OUTLOOK: Federal involvement in thisissue continues at a relatively low fundinglevel, and is not expected to increase, given thecurrent mood in Washington. Neither Missourinor Oklahoma considers this to be an urgentproblem at this time.

LOWER MISSISSIPPI RIVER BASIN

ISSUE: Gulf Hypoxia Zone.BACKGROUND: Since the early 1970s, a

zone of low oxygen concentration (hypoxia)has developed in the Gulf of Mexico, off theMississippi River delta. The hypoxia zone canbe thought of as the marine analog of the“ozone hole” over Antarctica (figure 40). Thehypoxia zone waxes and wanes with the sea-sons, being most pronounced in the summer.The low oxygen stresses marine life, killingthose organisms that cannot swim away from it,and causes fish, shrimp, etc. to avoid it. Thecause of the hypoxia is thought to be largeamounts of nutrients (nitrogen and phospho-rous), the source of which is believed to beprimarily from agricultural and urban sourcesin the states upstream in the Mississippi Riverbasin (Lovejoy, 1992).

STATUS: While the Gulf hypoxia phe-nomenon has been known to science for years,the public is only beginning to become awareof it. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agen-cy and the State of Louisiana co-sponsored twointerstate meetings in late 1995 to draw atten-tion to the problem. The thrust is to developan awareness of the issue throughout thestates that are part of the Mississippi Riverdrainage, and convince their pollution controlagencies to take action to reduce the volumeof nutrients that enter the river. According topreliminary data developed by federal agen-cies, including the U.S. Geological Survey and

River Basin Issues

64


reducing the nutrient loads that otherwisewould accompany eroding soils.

The Parks and Soils Sales Tax has a sunsetprovision that expires in 1998, but a successfulinitiative petition campaign put the issue on theballot and it passed by a wide margin in theNovember 1996 election.

Looking ahead, crop production fore-casts for the first 50 years of the 21st centuryshow a doubling of grain production overcurrent levels, which suggests that more fertil-izer is going to be needed. In order to avoidhigher nutrient loading in the river, applicationtechnology and surface water runoff controlsmust show dramatic improvements.

ISSUE: Endangered Species.BACKGROUND: The Endangered Species

Act (ESA) brings powerful forces into play whenan animal or plant is declared endangered. In-dustries can be shut down, federal agencies canbe forced to carry out costly recovery actions, andprivate enterprise can be restricted. The thrust ofthe ESA is to prevent the extinction of species,and it has had some spectacular successes. TheU.S. national symbol, the bald eagle, has recov-

the U.S. EPA, Missouri, with its extensive row-crop agricultural activity and with major popula-tion concentrations along the Missouri and Mis-sissippi Rivers, is a significant source of nutrientsin the river.

OUTLOOK: Great strides have been madein Missouri to control point-source pollution,as from city sewage treatment facilities andindustrial discharges, toward improving waterquality in the major rivers. Non-point sourcepollution abatement, including stormwatercontrol, is not as far advanced, but is expectedto show rapid improvement because both theU.S. EPA and the Missouri Division of Environ-mental Quality have given it high priority. Atthe same time, agricultural practices are chang-ing toward more narrowly targeted uses andlower application rates of both fertilizers andpesticides, thereby improving crop productionand water quality at the same time.

The Department of Natural Resources’Soil and Water Conservation Program, usingfunding from the one-tenth cent sales tax forsoil and water and state parks, has made signif-icant strides in reducing soil erosion, thereby

Figure 40. Gulf Hypoxia Zone, thought to be caused by excessive nutrients entering the Gulf of Mexico through theMississippi River and its distributaries, waxes and wanes with the seasons, becoming most intense during the latesummer.

65

ered from the brink of extinction, to the pointwhere the Missouri Department of Conservationholds annual “Eagle Days” for public viewing ofthe majestic birds in the wild. Bald eagles arenow frequently seen in winter months, fishingalong the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers, andin the Gasconade and Osage basins.

Nevertheless, the ESA is frequently viewedwith fear and trembling, and monumentalstruggles have developed between the U.S.EPA, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, andvarious interests who fear a loss of jobs oreconomic potential related to ESA listings.

The Lower Mississippi River is habitat forthe Pallid Sturgeon, a relatively recent ESAlisting. So little is known about the life cycle ofthe fish, however, that it is not clear whatrestrictions may be placed on the various usersof the Lower Mississippi in order to recover thespecies.

OUTLOOK: The Pallid Sturgeon is a free-ranging species that uses the entire MississippiRiver, plus the Missouri, Ohio, and smaller

Figure 41. Sources of nitrogen and phosphorous in the Mississippi River, by category. Data obtained by the U.S.Geological Survey, using 1991 nitrogen fertilizer sales, the 1987 Census of Agriculture, and from other sources.

tributaries of the Mississippi. Therefore, anymeasures designed to recover the specieswill likely affect all parts of the river system.The Missouri Department of Conservation isa major player in the recovery plan, and hasdeveloped methodology for hatchery pro-duction of sturgeon, which are later releasedinto the rivers where they presumably willenhance the species chances for full recoveryand delisting. In addition, various habitatprojects on both the Mississippi and MissouriRivers are expected to gradually increase thefavorable habitat for the fish, and therebyimprove its chances for survivability.

Meanwhile, several other fish species arebeing considered for ESA listing. At this point,it is not clear whether requirements for addi-tional species will be the same as, or differentfrom, criteria favorable to the Pallid Sturgeon.

ISSUE: Levees.BACKGROUND: Levees built by the

Army Corps of Engineers generally performedwell during the Great Flood of '93. Many other

River Basin Issues

66


levees built by levee districts and other gov-ernmental and quasi-governmental entitiesdid not fare as well. For the most part, this wasthe result of levees being constructed forfloods of magnitudes lower than the GreatFlood of '93. The perception is that the leveesystem protecting the Missouri River and partsof the Upper Mississippi cannot be operated asa unit because of conflicting jurisdictions (fig-ure 42).

STATUS: No current activity.OUTLOOK: No major changes expected.

MISSOURI RIVER BASIN

ISSUE: Revision of the Master WaterControl Manual.

BACKGROUND: Since 1988, when amajor drought settled in over the Missouri RiverBasin, there has been an intense controversybetween the states and Indian tribes of thebasin, and the Corps of Engineers, over howthe river should be managed. The Corps ofEngineers operates the system of six main-stemdams that control the river, from the Reservoir

Control Center in Omaha, Nebraska. Since thesystem became operational in 1954, the Corps’management decisions have been guided bythe Missouri River Master Water Control Man-ual (Master Manual, or MM), which is revisedperiodically to reflect current conditions.

The Master Manual is designed to guidethe Corps in providing the benefits specifiedin the Water Development Act of 1944, whichauthorized the construction of the dams andcharged the Corps of Engineers with operatingthe main-stem reservoir system. The legisla-tion further specified the benefits—Flood Con-trol, Navigation, Irrigation, Water Supply, Hy-dropower, Recreation, and Fish & Wildlife—that the Corps must deliver.

When the drought began in 1988 (itended with the Great Flood of ’93), the Corpsbegan to draw down the water stored in themain-stem reservoirs in order to meet down-stream needs, as required by law. However,upstream states objected on the grounds thatrecreational boating, game-fish spawning, andfishing were adversely impacted by lower lakelevels. The Corps responded by beginning

Figure 42. Typical levee break during the Great Flood of ’93. Missouri River, St. Charles County, Missouri.Photo by Jerry D. Vineyard.

67

studies of the river that would lead to a revisedMaster Manual, presumably reflecting currentconditions. In the meantime, the Corps acced-ed to demands of upstream state politicians bydeparting from Master Manual requirementsand curtailing support for navigation on thechannelized reach of the river between GavinsPoint Dam near Yankton, South Dakota, and St.Charles, Missouri.

The extensive studies were necessary inorder to comply with the National Environ-mental Policy Act, which requires an Environ-mental Impact Statement (EIS) before takingany major federal action. A draft EIS (DEIS)was completed in 1994, and there followed aseries of 24 public hearings throughout theMissouri River Basin and in cities in the Missis-sippi River Basin where impacts of Corps ac-tions on the Missouri River would be felt.

Following the public hearings, which gen-erated voluminous oral and written testimony,the Corps admitted shortcomings in its DEIS,and began a series of new studies to providethe data necessary to revise the DEIS.

STATUS: Extensive studies are underwayby the Corps of Engineers and its contractors tocorrect deficiencies in the DEIS. These studiesare scheduled for completion in September,1997, after which the Corps will issue a revisedDEIS, and conduct a new series of publichearings to receive comments. Following thehearings, the Corps plans to prepare a finalDEIS, and thereafter, a revised Master Manual.

Meanwhile, the states and Indian tribesare holding negotiating sessions to try to reacha compromise solution that all parties canagree on. This effort is moving toward conclu-sion in fall, 1997.

OUTLOOK: Upstream and downstreaminterests in the Missouri River are still far apartin reaching agreement on how the river is to bemanaged in the years ahead. Even if every-thing works as the Corps projects, the earliesta new Master Manual could be in effect isprobably 1998. In the meantime, the existingMaster Manual is still in effect, yet the Corpscontinues to depart from its provisions bycurtailing navigation beyond Master Manualrequirements. The upstream states are not any

happier; South Dakota resigned from theMissouri River Basin Association, and Gover-nor Janklow has made it clear that he will takewhatever action he thinks will be successful inforcing the Corps to change its managementstrategy to retain more water upstream, andrelease less water to meet downstream needs.

ISSUE: Indian Water Rights.BACKGROUND: Some 25 Indian tribes

living on reservations in the Missouri RiverBasin claim rights to water from the MissouriRiver and its tributaries. The tribes are seekingto adjudicate their rights through compactswith individual states, and eventual ratificationby the Congress. A major tribal goal is to gainthe right to market water out of basin, for profit.The total volume of Indian Water Rights claimsnow exceeds the average annual water releasefrom Gavins Point Dam (see p. 4).

STATUS: Congressmen from upstreamstates have introduced legislation in Congresson three separate occasions, to ratify a com-pact between two Indian tribes living on res-ervations in western Montana, with the State ofMontana. The compact grants to the tribes theright to market water out of basin, for profit.To date, the effort to obtain Congressionalratification of the compact has not been suc-cessful, but some version of the legislation islikely to surface again. Missouri remainsunalterably opposed to out-of-basin watermarketing for profit, because it has the poten-tial to severely reduce the flow of the MissouriRiver through Missouri, and to negatively im-pact the ecosystem all the way to the Gulf ofMexico.

ISSUE: A new vision for the MissouriRiver.

BACKGROUND: Pending revision of theMaster Manual, considerations of the Endan-gered Species Act, and a profound change inthe public attitudes about flood plain manage-ment in the aftermath of the Great Flood of ’93set the stage for a new vision for the MissouriRiver in the 21st century. The channelization ofthe river through the Bank Stabilization andNavigation Project has long drawn fire fromthe environmental community, which arguesfor restoration of fish and wildlife habitat and

River Basin Issues

68


enhancement of recreational opportunities.The opportunity is at hand to redesign theriver to deliver the benefits we presently enjoyand provide improvements for the future.

STATUS: After the ’93 flood, funds be-came available to acquire flood-damaged landsthat could not be restored to agricultural pro-duction. Towns and villages that were heavilydamaged have either moved to higher ground,or the residents—after buyouts—have simplymoved away. Today there are far fewer occu-pied structures on the floodplain (figure 43).

Moreover, highway and bridge designersare beginning to revise their approach to con-struction in floodplains. Through the MissouriRiver Mitigation Project and such other federalprograms as the Emergency Wetlands ReserveProgram, the Missouri Dept. of Conservation’spost-flood recovery initiative, State EmergencyManagement Agency and Dept. of EconomicDevelopment buyout programs financed bythe Federal Emergency Management Agen-cy and U.S. Dept. of Housing and UrbanDevelopment, flood-damaged lands arebecoming the basis for a dramatic restora-tion of fish & wildlife habitat on the river,without sacrificing commercial navigation.

OUTLOOK: Land acquisition continues,albeit at a pace slower than might have beenanticipated, largely because of land title/own-ership problems. The Dept. of Conservationhas extended its $6 million partnership landacquisition program to the year 2002. Thereappears to be a loose coalition of agencies andprivate organizations that are working towarda more productive Missouri River corridor, thatis less vulnerable to flood damage.

UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER BASIN

ISSUE: Environmental managementprogram.

BACKGROUND: The Upper MississippiRiver Basin has in place a federally-fundedEnvironmental Management Program (EMP)that has achieved notable success (see Table 3,p. 38). Briefly, the EMP develops partnershipsbetween state and federal agencies to acquireand/or restore wildlife habitat along river cor-

ridors. A similar program for the Missouri Riveris viewed as a way to greatly improve theriverine ecosystem.

STATUS: The Missouri River Basin Asso-ciation has worked toward setting up an EMPfor the Missouri River, either as an addition tothe Mississippi River EMP, or a stand-aloneprogram.

OUTLOOK: The current outlook in Con-gress for funding new programs appears to bebleak, but perhaps not hopeless.

ISSUE: Upper Mississippi NavigationStudy.

BACKGROUND: The Corps of Engi-neers, under the direction of its North-CentralDivision, is conducting a six-year, $45 millionstudy to determine what needs to be done tocontinue and enhance commercial navigationon the Mississippi River. The navigation sys-tem is currently operated through a series of 27locks and dams, beginning in St. Paul, Minne-sota and ending just above St. Louis, Missouri.Some of the dams were built in the 1930s andare in need of replacement and/or major reha-bilitation. The Corps study now focuses on 14of these structures—12 on the main-stem Missis-sippi, and two on the Illinois River—whichneed 1) replacement; 2) major rehabilitation;and/or 3) additional lock capacity.

To address environmental concerns, thenavigation study has environmental compo-nents that deal with water quality, fish & wild-life, habitat, and recreational issues. The Corpshas set up a Governors’ Advisory Committee tocoordinate with states on issues that are raisedduring the study. In addition, the Corps hasallocated significant funds for public involve-ment.

STATUS: The navigation study is wellunderway, scheduled for completion in 1999,provided budget cutbacks in the Corps of Engi-neers do not delay its completion. Engineeringand economic studies are nearly complete, butenvironmental studies are not as far along. Quar-terly meetings with the Governors AdvisoryCommittee are being held, and public involve-ment sessions are scheduled periodically.

OUTLOOK: Significant funding problemsthat threaten to derail the navigation study time-

69

St. Louis Post-Dispatch

NEWS ANALYSISFRIDAY, JANUARY 26, 1996

Public Costs Plummet for 1995 Floods

River Basin Issues

Buyout Of Property Destroyed in ’93 GetsCredit For Savings

By Tim O’NeilOf the Post-Dispatch Staff

The floods of Spring 1995 cost public treasuriesonly about 5 percent of the heavy bill rolled up bythe record flood in 1993, according to a Missouriagency’s report.

The biggest reason for the savings was that thegovernment had bought about 4,000 residentialproperties that were ruined by the Mississippi andMissouri rivers in the spring and summer of 1993.There wasn’t nearly so much valuable property forthe floods of 1995 to destroy.

The other reason is that the 1995 flood wasn’tquite as bad. The Missouri got within three feet ofits August 1993 record at St. Charles, but theMississippi at St. Louis stayed about seven feetbelow its historic high. Only in far southernMissouri near the Ohio River, which also floodedin spring 1995, did crests exceed the 1993 levels.

Even before the rivers receded in May, it wasobvious the damage was much lower than in 1993.

Reports last week by the Missouri EmergencyManagement Agency put solid figures to thatassumption. The agency says state and federalspending on buyouts, assistance to flooded fami-lies, repairs to public works and other costs for1993 totaled about $390 million, not countingdamage to farmland and crops or flood-insuranceclaims.

For the May 1995 flood, the figure is $23.3million.

“The reason is that the buyout was so effec-tive,” said Susie Stonner, agency spokeswoman.

“The same areas flooded in both years. The peopleweren’t there the second time.”

Missourians suffered the most property damageamong all the Midwestern states during the 1993flood. The purchase and demolition of 3,963residential properties cost the state and federaltreasuries about $90 million. In St. Charles Countyalone, the government bought 1,489 properties,including 450 homes and 809 mobile-home pads.

After last year’s flood, the state and federalemergency agencies agreed to buy only 130 resi-dential properties for a total cost of about $3.6million. Most of the purchases are in CapeGirardeau and Commerce, a town on the river sideof the main levee about 10 miles south of CapeGirardeau.

Commerce’s 170 residents have decided to aban-don the town. Only two Missouri communities—Rhineland, on the Missouri upriver from Hermann,and Pattonsburg, on the Grand River in northwest-ern Missouri near Gallatin—have decided to movetheir towns uphill, as Valmeyer is doing in Illinoissouth of St. Louis.

Comparisons of other flood-damage factors areequally lopsided. For example, 37,000 Missourihouseholds received $34.5 million in emergencyassistance in 1993 and spring 1994. In 1995, only4,000 households received $4.1 million.

And the cost of repairs to such public works asroads, bridges, and water plants: $127 million in1993-94 and $9.5 million last year.

Figure 43. Clipping from St. Louis Post-Dispatch documenting reduced flood losses.

70


table have arisen in Congress. It is uncertainwhether Congress will stay the course and fundthe study to completion. If the study is not fullycarried out, there is a question whether the workwill be adequate for the preparation of an Envi-ronmental Impact Statement, required beforemajor federal expenditures can be made to re-place or rehabilitate locks and dams. The aver-age cost per structure is likely to be between$100 and $500 million.

ISSUE: Environmental ManagementProgram.

BACKGROUND: As part of an agreementenabling the replacement of Lock & Dam 26 atAlton, Illinois, Congress established the Envi-ronmental Management Program (EMP), de-signed to enhance fish and wildlife habitatthroughout the Upper Mississippi River corri-dor. The 20-year program sunsets in the year2002. To date, 19 projects in Missouri havebeen completed, are underway, or have beenplanned for a total of $19.625 million.

STATUS: Missouri has benefitted to aconsiderable extent from the EMP, which hasimproved the outlook for fish and wildlife

resources in the river reach north of St. Louis.However, no projects have been completed onthe lower part of the river, between St. Louisand Cairo, Illinois (mouth of the Ohio River).

Looking toward reauthorization of theEMP after the current program sunsets in 2002,the Corps is preparing a Report to Congressthat will summarize the achievements of theprogram and make the case for extending theprogram beyond 2002.

OUTLOOK: Budget problems have sur-faced in the new Congress. The EMP had beenfunded at the authorization level of $19.2million per year, but Corps administrators havebeen forced to prioritize, with the likely out-come that full funding will not be achieved.

ISSUE: Levees.BACKGROUND: The Great Flood of ’93

focused attention on uncoordinated levee con-struction in the Upper Mississippi. Levees onboth sides of the river are built to differentspecifications and heights, and maintained byautonomous levee districts. The system wasseverely stressed in the ’93 flood, with manydevastating levee breaks. Heroic floodfighting

Figure 44. Tow passing Thebes Gap on the Mississippi River below Cape Girardeau, during low water. Photoby Jerry D. Vineyard.

71

efforts sometimes prevented flooding on oneside of the river, only to exacerbate floodingon the other side.

STATUS: Following the Great Flood of’93, the Upper Mississippi River Basin Associa-tion developed a Leveed Floodway Agree-ment signed by all five states. The agreementprovides guidelines for levee heights andcontains assurances that one state will notbuild a levee that will cause increased flood-ing on the opposite side.

OUTLOOK: The Leveed FloodwayAgreement was signed in 1995, but it ran intounexpected opposition and the state of Illinoishas withdrawn. It is uncertain whether theagreement can be salvaged by renegotiation.

WHITE RIVER BASIN

ISSUE: Revised Management Plan.BACKGROUND: For many years the

Little Rock District of the Corps of Engineers,which manages the White River lakes, power-generation dams, flood control and navigation,has been making annual exceptions to itsoperating plan, to address desires of variousconstituencies. To eliminate continuing vari-ances, the Corps invited a wide spectrum ofgovernmental agencies and private interestgroups to help develop a new operating planfor the river, which would accommodate theneeds of farmers, conservationists, the recre-ation industry, power generation, flood con-trol and navigation in a plan that would notrequire annual variances. Toward this goal, theadvisory group has met periodically with theCorps over the past three years, but agreementhas not yet been reached. Missouri has threeentities represented on the informal advisorygroup: the Dept. of Conservation, represent-ing fish and wildlife interests; private individu-als from the Clearwater Lake Association, rep-resenting recreational interests; and the Dept.of Natural Resources, representing water re-source interests.

STATUS: Planning meetings continue onan as-needed basis. Currently, the Corps isworking on a new economic model to assist indecision-making on the relative priority of

different uses of the river system.OUTLOOK: Meetings begin early in

1996 toward completing a new operating strat-egy for the White River. However, recentbudget cutbacks in the Corps leave the LittleRock District with reduced resources to con-duct the necessary studies to support informeddecision-making. And, the longer the processcontinues, the more complicated it seems tobecome. As an example, farmers on the lowerWhite River want water off their croplands inthe spring, at the same time fish and wildlifemanagers want flooding to encourage fishspawning and to simulate the unregulatedconditions under which flora and fauna oncethrived.

ISSUE: Dissolved oxygen.BACKGROUND: Low dissolved oxygen

in the tailwaters of the four large dams on theWhite River—Beaver, Bull Shoals, and Norforkin Arkansas, and Table Rock in Missouri—hasbeen a persistent problem threatening thehealth of the fisheries in the river, especiallythat of the Brown trout. The problem worsensin late summer, and is related to power gener-ation releases through the turbines of thegenerating plants in each dam. To address theproblem, an ad hoc committee representingthe several interests involved, has been work-ing to develop solutions that will raise oxygenlevels to reasonable levels.

STATUS: Several measures have beendeveloped and placed in operation, that haveimproved the situation somewhat. However,the problem is not considered to be solved, andwork continues. Both the Missouri Dept. ofNatural Resources and the Dept. of Conserva-tion send representatives to meetings.

OUTLOOK: Recently, representativesof the Tennessee Valley Authority, whichhas successfully dealt with low oxygenproblems involving its dams, have touredthe White River dams to see if they canoffer helpful advice. Eliminating the lowoxygen problems will be highly beneficialto the recreational economy, as well asallowing for continued development ofthe Brown, Rainbow, and Brook trout fish-eries in the White River.

River Basin Issues

72


ISSUE: Water Quality.BACKGROUND: When Table Rock Dam

was completed and Table Rock Lake filled, ithad remarkably clear water, but over the yearswater clarity has declined. The reason isthought to be worsening water quality, causedby residential and commercial developmentaround the perimeter of the lake, and bygreatly increased boating and recreational ac-tivity on the lake.

STATUS: Awareness of the decliningwater quality in Table Rock Lake, as well as inthe other White River lakes, is causing wide-spread concern. Studies are being conductedto determine the rate of decline and its causes.

OUTLOOK: As concern over lake waterquality rises, more emphasis is likely to beplaced on arresting the decline and restoringthe lakes to better water quality. In Missouri,stronger pollution-abatement measures, phos-phorous limits, stormwater control, and newregulations for individual waste-disposal sys-

tems (usually septic tanks) is expected to havea positive impact on reducing nutrient loadingin the lakes.

ISSUE: Water supply.BACKGROUND: The explosive

growth of the Branson area in southwest-ern Missouri has begun to stress availablegroundwater capacity to meet public wa-ter supply needs. Administrators are nowbeginning to look toward surface watersupplies, from sources such as Table RockLake and Lake Taneycomo.

STATUS: The public debate over watersupply is just beginning.

OUTLOOK: Any significant diversion ofWhite River water for water-supply purposes islikely to trigger negotiations about reallocationof reservoir storage. If this is done, accommo-dation will have to be reached, not only withthe Corps of Engineers, but also with otherstorage users who will have to relinquish partof their share of the lake storage.

73

FOR FURTHER READING

Mark Twain’s oft-cited “Life on the Mis-sissippi” is a nostalgic look at the Mississippiin the days of the steamboat. Today one mustlook largely to government documents to findanswers to questions about the great rivers.Monumental environmental impact statements,special studies, and topical reports all contrib-ute to the mix of information that is available.The following citations give a general idea ofthe type of information that can be found bythe persistent researcher.

Government documents are usually avail-able at any good library. Ones not at hand canbe accessed through interlibrary loan. Someof the older documents may be difficult to find.

GENERAL:

The Great Flood of ’93 has become awatermark among floods, and it has resultedin sweeping changes in the way governmentsrespond to such disasters. In the aftermath ofthe flood, President Clinton appointed a spe-cial White House Task Force to study the floodand make recommendations. The results ofthat effort are presented in the following reports.Army Corps of Engineers, North Central

District, 1994, The Great Flood of1993, post-flood report, Upper Mis-sissippi and Lower Missouri Rivers,with five appendices:

Appendices A, B, and C: Upper Mississip-pi River Basin

Appendices D and E: Lower MississippiRiver Basin

Army Corps of Engineers, St. Louis Dis-trict, 1995, FPMA: Flood Plain Man-agement Assessment, Main Report:St. Louis Dist., Corps of Engineers,plus five separately-bound appendi-ces.

Appendix A: Hydraulic Modeling (350 p.)Appendix B: Evaluation (400 p.)Appendix C: Environmental (440 p.)Appendix D: Public Involvement/Inst.

Factors (490 p.)Appendix E: Cultural Resources (90 p.)

What has become known as the “Gallo-way Report” is the work of the President’s taskforce led by Brigadier General Gerald E. Gal-loway, who crafted many of its recommenda-tions. The Galloway group also had a Techni-cal Committee, which brought together allavailable technical information into usableformat through space-based technology.Interagency Floodplain Management Re-

view Committee, 1994, Sharing thechallenge: Floodplain managementinto the 21st century: ExecutiveOffice of the President, FloodplainManagement Task Force, plus appen-dices A through K, glossary, and(separate), report of the ScientificAssessment and Strategy Team (SAST).

ARKANSAS-WHITE RIVERS:

The Arkansas-White-Red-Basins Inter-Agency Committee (AWRBIAC) issues an annualreport that summarizes both state and federal

For Further Reading

74


activities within the basins. The 1994-95edition is the last published; others will besimilar.AWRBIAC, 1995, Annual Report: Arkan-

sas-White-Red Basins Inter-AgencyCommittee, Oklahoma Water Re-sources Board, preparer.

MISSISSIPPI RIVER:

The Corps of Engineers conducted a de-tailed study of the lower Mississippi River, inthe course of producing an environmentalimpact statement. Published in 22 documents,the complete report included the Main reportand 22 other documents as listed below):Army Corps of Engineers, 1975, Lower

Mississippi Region ComprehensiveStudy, Main Report and 22 Appendi-ces:

Appendix A History of StudyAppendix B EconomicsAppendix C Regional Climatology, Hy-

drology, and GeologyAppendix D Inventory of FacilitiesAppendix E Flood ProblemsAppendix F Land ResourcesAppendix G Related Mineral ResourcesAppendix H IrrigationAppendix I Agricultural Land DrainageAppendix J NavigationAppendix K M and I Water SupplyAppendix L Water Quality and PollutionAppendix M Health AspectsAppendix N RecreationAppendix O Coastal and Estuarine Re-

sourcesAppendix P Archaeological and Histori-

cal ResourcesAppendix Q Fish and WildlifeAppendix R PowerAppendix S Sediment and ErosionAppendix T Plan FormulationAppendix U The Environment

The Mississippi River Corridor Commis-sion prepared a draft report that describes theresources along a one-county-wide path onboth sides of the river from New Orleans to St.Paul. The two volumes of the report carry

different dates; Congress may not appropriatefunds for publication of the final documents.The work was done by the Denver ServiceCenter, National Park Service, U.S. Depart-ment of Interior.Draft Mississippi River Corridor Study,

Volume 1: Feasibility Report, August1995, 37 p., illus.

Draft Mississippi River Corridor Study,Volume 2: Inventory of Resourcesand Significance, August 1995 andSeptember 1995, 145 p., illus.Maps of the rivers are customarily main-

tained by the Corps of Engineers. Highlydetailed, these maps are used by river pilots tonavigate the rivers. In loose-leaf format, themaps show all aids to navigation, plus count-less other details. The set of maps for thelower Mississippi is typical. For other compa-rable maps, see the Corps headquarters forthat river.Army Corps of Engineers, Lower Missis-

sippi Valley Division, St. Louis Dis-trict, 1994 Flood Control and Naviga-tion Maps of the Mississippi River,Cairo, Illinois to the Gulf of Mexico(Including navigation charts of theMiddle Mississippi River belowHannibal, Missouri, and the Gulf Out-let, New Orleans to the Gulf of Mex-ico): 68 maps, 20 charts, and 19information sheets, 1994.The Gulf Hypoxia Zone is thought to be

caused primarily by nutrient enrichment fromstates upriver from Louisiana. The EPA fi-nanced a study to determine where the nutri-ents are coming from. The study covered only1989, so readers of the following report shouldbear its limitations in mind.Lovejoy, 1992, Sources and quantities of

nutrients entering the Gulf of Mexicofrom surface waters of the UnitedStates: U.S. Environmental Protec-tion Agency, Gulf of Mexico Program,49 p., plus 51 pages of appendices.The Upper Mississippi River Basin Com-

mission prepared a comprehensive study ofthe river that became the justification for Con-gressional funding for the establishment of theEnvironmental Management Program and its

75

Environmental Technical Center. The reportwas issued as a main report and 13 TechnicalReports, as follows:Upper Mississippi River Basin Commis-

sion, 1981, Comprehensive MasterPlan for the Management of UpperMississippi River System, Main Re-port plus Technical Reports: UpperMississippi River Basin Commission(since terminated; Upper MississippiRiver Basin Association, St. Paul, Min-nesota, replaced it).

Technical Report A: Navigation and Trans-portation

Technical Report B: Effects of NavigationCapacity Expansion on Railroads

Technical Report C: National Transporta-tion Policy Relationship to Naviga-tion Capacity Expansion

Technical Report D: Environmental Re-port

Technical Report E: Mitigation and En-hancement Handbook

Technical Report F: Long-Term ResourceMonitoring

Technical Report G: Impacts of Naviga-tion on Recreation, Potential Wilder-ness, and Cultural Resources

Technical Report H: Immediate Impactsof a Second Lock at Locks and Dam 26

Technical Report I: Dredged MaterialDisposal

Technical Report J: Computerized Analyt-ical Inventory and Analysis Feasibili-ty

Technical Report K: System ObjectivesTechnical Report L: Institutional Arrange-

ments for System ManagementTechnical Report M: Evaluation of the

Public Participation Program

MISSOURI RIVER:

The definitive study of the Missouri Riveris the monumental work in some 21 volumes,known as the Draft Environmental ImpactStatement (DEIS). The DEIS was completed in1994, but the final EIS has not been issued,pending further study.

Army Corps of Engineers, Missouri RiverDivision, 1994, Draft EnvironmentalImpact Statement, Missouri River Mas-ter Water Control Manual, review andupdate study: Summary statementplus executive summary, plus 21 sep-arately-bound reports, as follows:

Volume 1: Alternatives Evaluation reportVolume 2: Reservoir Regulation StudiesVolume 3A: Low Flow StudiesVolume 3B: Low Flow Studies, Gavins

Point Dam to St. Louis, MissouriVolume 4: Hydraulic StudiesVolume 5: Aggradation, Degradation and

Water Quality ConditionsVolume 6A: Navigation EconomicsVolume 6B: Water Supply EconomicsVolume 6C: Recreation EconomicsVolume 6D: Hydropower, Flood Control

and Mississippi River EconomicsVolume 6E: Regional Economic Develop-

ment ImpactsVolume 7A: Reservoir FisheriesVolume 7B: Reservoir Fisheries Appendix

CVolume 7C: Riverine Fisheries Main Re-

port and App. AVolume 7D: Riverine Fisheries Apps. B

and CVolume 7E: Riverine Fisheries App. DVolume 7F: Wetlands and Riparian Main

Report and Apps. A and BVolume 7G: Wetlands and Riparian Apps.

C, D, E and FVolume 7H: Least Tern and Piping Plover,

Historic Properties, and MississippiRiver Environmental

Volume 8: Economic Impact Models, andEnvironmental Impact Models

Volume 9: Socioeconomic StudiesAnnual Operating Plans (AOPs) are pre-

pared by the Corps of Engineers to guide theiroperation of the river. They follow the re-quirements of the Master Manual, and usuallyappear around the first of the year, in time toguide the Corps through the navigating sea-son. Reviewing AOPs gives a clear answer tothe question, “How has Corps management ofthe river changed over time?”

For Further Reading

76


Army Corps of Engineers, Missouri RiverDivision, 1995, Missouri River mainstem reservoirs, summary of actual1994-1995 operations and operatingplan for 1995-1996: U.S. Army Corpsof Engineers, Missouri River Division,116 p., 12 pls., misc. additional data.The definitive history of the Pick-Sloan

plan for the Missouri River tells the fascinatinghistory of the project from beginning to thepresent, in the words of a Corps of Engineershistorian.Ferrell, John R., 1993, Big dam era: A

legislative and institutional history ofthe Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin pro-gram: Missouri River Division, U.S.Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha,Nebraska, 228 p., illus.The Marmaton River is a typical interstate

stream that has been studied by the Corps ofEngineers. Their report covers both Kansasand Missouri, and contains information aboutthe Fort Scott authorized project. The reportalso contains a draft interstate water compacton the Marmaton River.

Army Corps of Engineers, Kansas CityDistrict (in cooperation with theMissouri Department of NaturalResources), 1984, Marmaton Riverdata base: U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers, Missouri River Division,36 p., illus., plus 12 p. appendix,and 15 p. Draft Kansas-MissouriMarmaton River Compact.TheMissouri River Basin Commission

prepared a Comprehensive, CoordinatedJoint Plan (CCJP) for water and relatedland resources in the Missouri River basin,completed in 1980. Shortly thereafter, theCommission dissolved and the planningeffort has been largely forgotten.Missouri River Basin Commission, 1980,

Missouri River Basin water resourc-es management plan, a compre-hensive, coordinated joint planfor water and related land resourc-es: Missouri River Basin Commis-sion, Omaha, Nebraska, main re-port plus Apps. A through H.

Documents

Great cities get their water from great rivers. Missouri's ...Great cities get their water from great rivers. Missouri's two largest cities—St. Louis and Kansas City—both take