Does the Missouri River Need More Sediment

by David Casaletto

Ozarks Water Watch - Executive Director

While the Missouri River is far outside the Upper White River Basin Watershed, the decision whether or not to allow the Corps to put a large amount of sediment into the river is becoming more twisted than the river channel itself. The Corps finds itself in the center of trying to comply with two federal laws that appear to be in conflict: the Endangered Species Act versus the Clean Water Act. This story illustrates how complex these issues can become.

The Corps is proposing to build an additional mile-long shallow water habitat chute in Jameson Island located in Arrow Rock bottoms on the Missouri River. The project is in cooperation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on their existing public land to mitigate a portion of aquatic habitat that was lost as the result of the construction of the Army Corps' Missouri River Bank Stabilization and Navigation Project through construction of a side channel chute and a backwater. The project would restore the dynamic river processes for the benefit of native fish and wildlife species, including the endangered pallid sturgeon. At issue, however, is what to do with the soil excavated after building the 200-foot wide chute. The Corps plan includes four alternatives, but the Corps recommends the fourth alternative: excavating the soil, incorporating it into a slurry mix and integrating it into the river.

Endangered Pallid Sturgeon.

Back in 2008, the Clean Water Commission had ordered the Corps to quit putting soil into the river. At the time, the commission expressed concerns the nutrients, such as phosphorus, would exacerbate nutrient and sediment pollution both within the river and the Gulf of Mexico. The corps then halted the project in Missouri and commissioned a National Academy of Science study to look into the affects of dumping soil into the river. The study found the Missouri River carries only 20 percent of the sediment load it once did, causing loss of habitat for native fish and bird species, including the pallid sturgeon and least tern. The study also said the dumping did not have a significant impact on hypoxia in the gulf. As a result of the study, the Corps is requesting to resume the project.

Jameson Island, Missouri River .

At a joint public hearing in Jefferson City Monday, June 11, the Missouri Clean Water Commission and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers listened to over 30 speakers address the corps' request for a water quality permit that would enable the Corps to dump soil from the new chute extension at Jameson Island into the Missouri River. While almost all of the speakers were in favor of the project moving forward, they were divided on the issue of how to handle the excavated soil.

In an interesting twist, most of those speaking at the hearing against the Corps plan to put excavated soil back into the river represented agriculture. They feel the plan is a double standard, allowing the Corps to dump soil that is naturally rich in nutrients such as phosphorous into the river when the same act by a private citizen would be considered illegal. Most of those speakers proposed the Corps use the third proposed alternative, which includes broadcasting the excavated soil on part of the 1,800 acre site and seeding it down so the soil does not end up in the river. While this alternative seems to make sense, a representative from the Corps said alternative three, which calls for clearing 800 feet of forest and wetlands and placing two 15-feet high stockpiles on either side of the chute, would be "more environmentally damaging to riparian timber, wetlands and fish and wildlife resources."

Jameson Island Chute, Missouri River.

Many of those speaking in favor of the Corps plan represented environmental groups that included the Sierra Club, the Missouri Parks Association, the Audubon Society and the Missouri Coalition for the Environment. Many cited the National Academy of Science study as support for their opinions. Lorin Crandal, the clean water director for the Missouri Coalition for the Environment stated, "The river is sediment starved and that is a scientific fact."

Quote of the Week

"You must be the change you wish to see in the world."

  ________________________________________

CAUTION: Energy Saving Light Bulbs

Subdivision Trustees - St. Louis Metro Area Blog 

By now, we have all seen them. We probably all have some in our homes. We most certainly have come into contact with them in the homes to which we respond. I am talking about energy-saving light bulbs. They have many different names; compact fluorescent lamp (CFL), compact fluorescent light, and compact fluorescent tube, all describe a fluorescent lamp designed to replace an incandescent lamp. Compared to their incandescent brothers producing the same amount of visible light, CFLs consume less power (from 1/5 to 1/3) and have a longer service life (8 to 15 times). 

To read more, Click: HERE.

WaterSense 2011 Annual Accomplishments Announced

WaterSense, an EPA partnership program that helps Americans protect the nation's water supply by offering people simple ways to save water, is announcing its 2011 program accomplishments.  Since the program's inception in 2006, WaterSense-labeled products have helped Americans save $4.7 billion in water and energy bills and 287 billion gallons of water.  That amount of water could supply all the homes in Georgia or Arizona for a year.  WaterSense-labeled products have also saved 38.4 billion kilowatt hours of electricity since 2006 by reducing the amount of energy needed to heat, pump, and treat water.  That's the equivalent amount of electricity needed to power more than 3.6 million homes for a year.  With these energy savings, WaterSense has helped eliminate 13 million metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions, the equivalent of planting nearly 350 million trees.  WaterSense owes this success to the more than 2,600 utility, government, nonprofit, manufacturer, retail, distributor, builder and irrigation partners who joined with EPA to help promote the WaterSense label and spread the word about the importance of water efficiency.  

To visit EPA website, Click: HERE.