Blogmaster's note: this is an editorial published in the Bismark Tribune about the MRAP study. Click here for more on MRAPS. Click here for other locations of public meetings and a link to download the draft scoping summary.
Originally published on March 24, 2011, in the Bismark Tribune
Click here for original link
by Brian Gehring
A few weeks ago the Army Corps of Engineers released its draft scoping summary report on the Missouri River management known as MRAPS.
It stands for Missouri River Authorized Purposes Study. The study got it beginning back a couple years ago when Sen. Byron Dorgan called for a review of how the river system was managed.
That management study was based on a document adopted in 1944 when the dams were built along the river.
Dorgan said it when he led the push to have Congress study how the river has been managed: things have changed since 1944.
The MRAPS draft study, all 340-some pages, is available online at www.mraps.org. For those who do not have Internet, the draft study is available at the Bismarck Public Library through April 30.
The draft is the culmination of public meetings that the corps hosted up and down the river last summer, giving the public and various state and tribal representatives the opportunity to comment.
There is another set of meetings scheduled to allow the public and others another chance to comment.
That meeting is coming up Tuesday at the Doublewood Inn. The format of the meeting is same with a presentation from the corps from 5 to 6 p.m. and then public comment afterward.
Things have changed along the river in 60-some years but it’s not just the river. Usage has changed on our two reservoirs that are a part of the system.
The eight original authorized purposes are flood control, hydropower, water supply, irrigation, navigation, recreation, water quality and fish and wildlife.
Water quality, irrigation and hydropower are still top issues as far as North Dakota is concerned. The same goes for water quality, recreation and fish and wildlife.
The area that has been questioned over the years is that of navigation. Little or no navigation of consequence happens downstream.
When dollars are compared to what the water generates from fishing and recreation and navigation, you would think one would have a difficult time arguing in favor of navigation and managing the river for that purpose.
We have water back in our reservoirs now but the thing with people’s memories is they can be short when times are good.
We don’t mind sharing our water when the need is there and justified. And, we don’t mind holding the water back when, as has been the case in recent years, there is too much of it downstream in the spring.
We just don’t want to be charged for storing water that is ours.
And when you think about it, the Missouri River, post-dam era, is still in its infancy when it comes to a river.
Sixty-some years is a mere drop in the bucket comparatively speaking when talking about the age of a river.
We are still learning a lot about how management practices are affecting the overall health of the river system and those who derive benefits from, and often rely on the river for survival.
We have seen how fish like pallid sturgeon and paddlefish and shore birds like terns and plovers have been negatively affected.
They are the first species to give an indication something may not be right. It takes us humans a bit longer to come around most times.
A lot has changed since 1944. And now we are in the position to be there as it changes and hopefully do something positive as it is happening.
If you have a stake or an interest in the river, this is one of those issues or causes, call it what you will, to become involved in. Or, at the very least, become informed about what is on the line.
No comments:
Post a Comment