CORPS TO START OVER ON MISSOURI RIVER PLAN -- A GOOD MOVE

"I believe that further Master Manual study is necessary."

With that terse bureaucratic declaration, Col. Michael Thuss of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers this week sounded retreat on the corps' controversial plan to alter the flow of the Missouri River. The stated purpose was to benefit endangered wildlife and boost reservoir recreation upstream, but the corps plan ignited tremendous controversy, including opposition from residents of downstream states and from public figures such as Missouri's senior Republican senator, Kit Bond.

The change of heart by the corps is, according to Bond, "a partial victory for all of us who fought so feverishly to prevent the corps plan from being adopted." Bond is to be commended along with Rep. Pat Danner, the Democrat from Northwest Missouri who formed a task force to oppose the original plan. She said interested people will have another opportunity to have input into the operations of the Missouri River. Another round of public hearings will likely be held.

This is all to the good. At issue here is the economic use of the Missouri River, a portion of one of the world's largest river systems and a vital lifeline in mid-America. The federal government had, through the Corps of Engineers, decided to imperil the economy of the lower Missouri River basin to provide additional recreational opportunities for upstream states and boost the corps in its goal to become another environmental agency.

The corps wanted to use its dams to release more water in the spring and less in the fall in an attempt to mimic what was once the river's natural flow. The purpose, said the corps, was to provide more water for reservoirs in states such as Montana and improve habitat for wildlife, including the pallid sturgeon and the interior least tern. One wonders: If the goal is to return the river to its natural flow, why not dynamite all the corps' dams and levees, since they are manmade and by definition unnatural?

Bond, Danner and many others representing downstream states and interests strongly objected. Bond, especially, mobilized opponents, including Kansas City Mayor Emmanuel Cleaver, the Missouri Farm Bureau, local levee and drainage districts, the Natural Resources and Agriculture departments in Gov. Mel Carnahan's administration, and Marc 2000, a coalition of grain producers, shippers and transportation interests.

Missouri Natural Resources and Agriculture officials marshaled their arguments: DNR charged the plan was flawed in its purpose of improving wildlife habitat and might even worsen pollution. Agriculture knew the plan would devastate crop farmers and the industries and communities that rely on grain by driving up costs and hurting quality.

Mayor Cleaver said of Bond that this grass-roots movement of downstream opponents needed a general and that in Bond they found him. Kudos to Missouri's senior senator for a job well-done. Missourians and other downstream opponents of the original corps plan will be closely watching as the Corps of Engineers goes back to the drawing board.