On December 2nd 1999, Senators Tom Daschle, Tim Johnson of South Dakota,  Max Baucus of Montana, Byron Dorgan and Kent Conrad of North Dakota  wrote to urge the Corps of Engineers to select the split navigation season alternative.  It wasn't  the letter set out on the  American Rivers web site  <http://www.amrivers.org/missouridamaction.html>, but it was awfully close.

Tom Daschle of South Dakota is the Senate Minority Leader, and  Baucus of Montana is the ranking minority member of the Environment and Public Works Subcommittee that takes actions on Corps  civil works funding.

The only real advantage to the upper states messing up navigation on the lower river every year would be that the draw down would be slowed down a little in the first year of a drought through each season, which will keep reservoir levels more acceptable during the drought, particularly in the first year of the drought.  Actually during the time they are saving water, the reservoirs are normally near their highest levels which occurs about July 1st..

They claim that the Corp's study of the split season alternative "... indicates greater hydropower revenues, equivalent flood control benefits, equivalent water supply benefits, and fewer losses to flood plain farmers due to interior drainage problems.  The split season alternative will permit farmers to use the Missouri River when they need it most, during the spring, when fertilizer is moving upstream and during the fall, when commodities are moving downstream.  Additionally Missouri River barges need water most from the Missouri River in the fall.  The split season will meet that need."

The Senators do an excellent job of conveying the merits of their plan without pointing out the real source of the benefits and without pointing out the pitfalls associated with their plan. For example, the split season actually reduces the gains that the conservation measures accrued.  The split season redistributes energy production so that there is less power to sell during July and August, the peak season.  The benefits accrue to the overall plan in the drought periods when the higher conservation associated with the split season alternative keeps the lake levels higher and provide higher capacity potentials, one of the two hydropower components included in the economic analysis of hydropower. A 2 % gain is all they get out of destroying navigation. 

Another area of power generation that is at issue is that the four power plants in Nebraska that depend on the Missouri River for the discharge of heated wastewater would have to cutback on generation each summer during the split season to meet their National Pollutant Discharge Permits.  American Rivers counters by saying that it would make sure the discharge permits are eliminated.  The permits are there to protect the river environment for fish. We all thought that the environment for fish was important to American Rivers.  

Complying without the National Pollutant Discharge Permits might help the wildlife more than the lower water.  Another trouble with the split season is that during the low flow period the Corps will not be able to generate as much power at Gavins Point,  Randall, Oahe, and Garrison.  It will have to resort to generating more power from Fort Peck.  The river below Fort Peck is where they are having the spring rise and planned to have a reduced flow during the summer to improve the wildlife habitat.   Under the split navigation season scenario they will have to have greater releases from Fork Peck to Garrison during the low flow period below Gavins Point.  This would impact a large setion of the Missouri River in Montana and a small section in North Dakota. 

Even during the split season, the young fish are not going to have a good life out in the middle of the river.  They need to be on the sides of the river.