River plan evokes flood of concerns for local businesses

eece Sanders knows the Mississippi River.

He navigated it and other waterways as a tugboat captain for nearly 35 years until he partially retired in 1979. His river roots these days are just as wet, as the Cape Girardeau resident remains a co-owner of a small Illinois-based barge company.

He cares what happens to the river. Mississippi mud is in his blood, not to mention that he carries a continuing financial stake.

So at first glance it may be hard to figure why he -- and many other Southeast Missouri business people -- so strongly opposes a plan that would alter water flow levels on the Mississippi's sister river, the Missouri River, which connects in St. Louis some 100 miles to the north of here.

"Rivers flow," Sanders said by way of explanation. "That water they want to mess with may start out in the Missouri River, but before it's through it would go right past us in the Mississippi."

Saving wildlife

For the past 12 years, Missouri River basin states, agricultural interests and environmental groups have clashed over whether the Missouri River flow should be changed to send more water down the Missouri River during spring months and less during the summer months.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regulates the flow of the Missouri with six dams in the Dakotas and Montana to prevent spring flooding and to bolster low-water summer months to help barges have enough water to transport farm commodities during crucial selling times.

The reason the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has suggested the changes is to protect endangered wildlife and habitat -- specifically a fish, the pallid sturgeon; and two birds, the piping plover and the interior least tern. The service says the changes would help by returning water levels to the time before they were tampered with by man.

That may be the reason ostensibly, but other interests in the Dakotas want the water to stay up there because it has helped build a lucrative recreation industry and millions of dollars that they'd hate to lose.

Financially devastating

But for Southeast Missouri barge companies and those who transport using barges, the move could be financially devastating. Others worry that the extra water during already flood-prone springtime will wash out crops and send flood water scurrying into some city streets and homes.

"It could hurt us, that's the bottom line," said Dan Overby, executive director of the SEMO Port Authority. "It could flood us in the spring and dry us out in the summer."

Realistically, the altered water levels would not have a significant effect during most years, Overby said. But in some years when river water is already high in the spring or lower than normal in the summer, it could make bad situations worse.

"It could hit us when we need it least," Overby said.

Overby said it has been estimated that it would bring in 1-2 feet more water to the Mississippi during the spring and reduce the water by the same amount in the summer. When it gets low, barges can't carry as much and if it gets too low, they can't go at all.

And barge travel is important to farmers, Overby said. One barge equates to 18 rail cars or 60 truck loads, he said. To put that in perspective, he said a typical barge tow of 35 barges carrying 52,500 tons would equate to 525 rail cars as a part of five trains or 2,100 trucks.

"It's real efficient," he said. "They burn less fuel because they're floating and that's less air pollution and fewer accidents."

The SEMO Port Authority sees a lot of commodities transported along the Mississippi River. Last year, Overby said, there was more than 900,000 tons of fertilizer, wheat, corn, soybean, milo, salt and coal transported by barge.

While the debate has been going on for years, it seems to be coming to a head. This year, the corps made a new proposal, offering for public comment six alternatives, four of which involve higher spring flows and lower water in summer. In May, the corps will chose one of the plans, which also includes one option of keeping things the way they are now.

A meeting was held in Cape Girardeau last week and opponents turned out to express concern. Those opposed include U.S. Sen. Kit Bond, U.S. Rep. Jo Ann Emerson and Gov. Bob Holden. Not to mention many businesses in the area.

Russ Mothershead is owner of several river-related Cape Girardeau businesses, including a wholesale fertilizer company called Midwest Agri-Chemico, First Missouri Terminals and Midwest Grain and Barge.

"It would be just a terrible negative effect on our business," he said. "We wouldn't be able to do much of anything if they lower the water. It would negate barge movement. It would be terrible."

Mothershead said it would hurt farmers because barges wouldn't be able to bring in fertilizer and it would also cost the farmers more if they had to pay to transport their goods by rail or truck.

"They want to choke off the river for one ugly fish and two birds," Mothershead said. "People don't understand how this will impact us river people."

Missouri Barge Lines port captain Cary Lewis admits to being concerned as well.

"The river is crucial for navigation between St. Louis and Cairo," he said. "If you decrease that water, we won't have the depth to run our tows down through here. It's very important to us."

Washed-out homes

It could also lead to more flooding in an area that's already infamous for doing just that. Little River Drainage District handles the levee and flood-control drainage in parts of seven counties in the Bootheel.

"It could add water to our already flooded situation," Little River executive vice president Larry Dowdy said. "They're trying to create a so-called controlled flood. We don't believe that's what we need. It needs to be left the way it is. They want to defeat the purpose of what those dams were built for -- to prevent flooding."

Even the Missouri Department of Natural Resources opposes the Fish and Wildlife Service's proposals.

"We're not going to approve of anything that would flood out people live on the Missouri or Mississippi rivers," said Mike Wells, chief of water resources." We're not going to support, and the governor's not going to support, anything that would create low flows or high flows so much that it would have an adverse impact on the Mississippi or Missouri."

Reece Sanders said that no one's really sure what the higher and lower water would mean.

"It's really just an experiment," Sanders said. "But it's one that could hurt an awful lot of people."

smoyers@semissourian.com

335-6611, extension 137