# Barge traffic wins another round



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Posted on Tue, Aug. 16, 2005

• Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals 
• US News

Conservation groups lose appeal of Missouri River ruling

By Kevin O'Hanlon

Associated Press Writer

LINCOLN, Neb. - Environmental groups lost their appeal today of a ruling allowing the Missouri River to be controlled without changes they say will save endangered fish and birds.

The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld an earlier decision by U.S. District Judge Paul Magnuson in Minnesota, who ruled in favor of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

The agency has proceeded with its new plan to keep summer water levels high enough for barge shipping.

Conservationists and the fishing and recreation industry in the Dakotas and Montana opposed that approach; they want a more seasonal spring rise and lower summer flows that would mimic how the river flowed naturally for centuries.

Downstream farming and shipping interests argued that changing to an ebb-and-flow would end barge shipping and cause flooding.


----------



## Matt Jones (Mar 6, 2002)

Goodbye Sakakawea. :eyeroll: I simply cannot understand why they are willing to sacrifice a huge fishing industry for a barge industry worth peanuts.


----------



## nodakoutdoors.com (Feb 27, 2002)

That's what everyone has been asking for awhile now. I rarely like to get involved in political debates, but this is an instance where Gov't really has too much power, especially when it's utterly clear they're screwing things up.

:bs:


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

*The article stated*



> Downstream farming and shipping interests argued that changing to an ebb-and-flow would end barge shipping and cause flooding.


How would keeping more water in the upper basin cause flooding down stream? Kinda smells like the travel-all in "Grumpy old men" only with out the pine tree air freshners 

Like I said before ND, SD and MT should just buy out the barge industry, dismantle the barges and send them one board at a time to Senator Bonds home address.

Political favors are bull****, be it local or national!!!!

Later
Bob


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Corps rejects Blunt's request to release Missouri River water 
By SAM HANANEL Associated Press Writer 
The Associated Press - Thursday, August 25, 2005
WASHINGTON

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has rejected a request by Missouri Gov. Matt Blunt's office to release water from reservoirs on the Missouri River to help shippers navigating the drought-plagued Mississippi River.

In a letter dated Tuesday, John Paul Woodley, the assistant Army secretary who oversees the Corps, said conditions do not warrant a special release of water to keep barges moving.

"I do not believe than an emergency situation exists at this time," Woodley said. "I expect the Corps' dredging capability will effectively address the current low water conditions on the Mississippi River."

Woodley made the comments in a letter to Rep. Earl Pomeroy, D-N.D., who had asked the Corps to reject Blunt's request. Pomeroy's office sent the letter to the Associated Press.

Blunt spokeswoman Jessica Robinson said the governor is disappointed with the Corps' decision.

"The governor is concerned that we'll encounter worse problems this fall, and he believes that releasing water from Missouri's reservoirs is an important tool that we should have at our disposal," Robinson said.

Pomeroy shot back: "The Corps' decision to reject Gov. Blunt's request recognizes that upstream drinking water needs come before negligible navigational activity downstream."

In his letter, Woodley cited a federal appeals court decision last week that upheld the Corps' right to manage the Missouri reservoirs under a master plan the agency issued last year. The plan shortens the navigation season on the Missouri by 48 days and calls for a "spring rise" to release water at specified times each year.

"Our intent is to operate the Missouri River Mainstem Reservoir System strictly in accordance with the Master Manual," Woodley's letter said.

Blunt made his request two weeks ago, warning that the Mississippi River could be shut down to commercial navigation - causing massive economic losses - if the drought continues and more water is not released from upstream.

With the Mississippi at historically low levels, the Corps has spent the last several weeks dredging the river. Some companies have lightened barge loads to get through low channels.

The Missouri River provides more than half of the water for the Mississippi River. The Corps manages dams and reservoirs along the Missouri River, but its oversight has long been pulled in different directions by competing interests.

Downstream states like Missouri and Illinois want more water released from the dams to support barge traffic, while northern states, also suffering from the drought, want to keep water in upstream reservoirs to help fishing and boating interests.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

I'm not taking sides on this....but this request is completely different than past requests to release more water.

In the past it has been asked for barge traffic on the Missouri River.This time it is about barge traffic on the Mississippi because of severe drought.Lots more money involved in it this time.

Glad the courts ruled in upper Missouri states favor.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

With all the flooding throughout the Ohio and Tennessee valleys I don't believe the Mississippi could be low on water. They just spread misinformation around the country to attain their personal goals, like a little kick back from the oil barges that are filling the underground oil storage facilities constructed in the salt caverns. Last year they lost millions of gallons from one of their underground salt storage systems. EPA didn't even blink an eye, or maybe they had them both swollen and blackened to be able to see better in a different direction. :evil:


----------



## Lil Sand Bay (Feb 2, 2005)

Forgive my ignorance guys..., but what the hell are those barges hauling down the Missouri that's so valuable? I suspect it's probably not agricultural products, as thats a very slow delivery process. I live about 80 miles east of Duluth/Superior and all those grain products coming from your direction are via trucks down Highway #2, or arrive at port by the trainload. Just what is it in those barges that offsets, in politicians minds, the value of the recreational dollar to your state?


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Every thing!

Here is a cut from one site.

_*Big Soo Terminal is one of the largest diversified terminals on the inland waterway system. The facility can service all types of products by barge, rail or truck. Dry bulk storage buildings hold over 115,000 tons, liquid product storage for 6,000,000 gallons, palletized packaged goods storage for thousands of pallets, 200,000 bushel elevator for grain and unlimited ground storage are available. Handling stations have secondary containment systems and are geared to move up to 250 tons per hour.

Big Soo will direct transfer any type product to and/or from barge, rail or truck. Some of the products transferred are: dry bulk and liquid fertilizer, salt, grain, steel products, lumber, paper, iron ore, feed stuffs and railroad track equipment.*_

Here is a link to some history behind the barge industry

http://www.agri-industries.com/articles/MORiverJrnl.pdf

Here is another one.

http://outreach.lrh.usace.army.mil/Stat ... efault.htm

Bob


----------

