News

Message to USACE: ‘Don’t flood us out’

People along the Missouri River are concerned that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ management plan will result in either too much, or not enough river flow.  More than a dozen talked about those concerns in Kansas City Wednesday night, the fourth in a series of six hearings held by the Kansas City and Omaha Districts of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE).

The USACE is considering six alternatives to fulfil its tasks of flood control, and preservation of the pallid sturgeon fish and two bird species, among others, known as the Missouri River Recovery Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement.  Whichever of the six alternatives is chosen will establish USACE management policy for the 2,341-mile river for the next 15 years.

It is the rate of flow of the Missouri River that most worries members of the Coalition to Protect the Missouri River, according to Dan Engemann, its executive director.

“We don’t need it too low, because we need to float boats and move goods up and down the river,” Engemann told Brownfield Ag News Wednesday, before making comments at the hearing, “but also, we don’t need to impact agriculture and interior drainage on the river.”

Most of the individuals commenting at Wednesday’s hearing favor what the USACE calls its preferred alternative, although people near the river still have concerns about what that particular plan provides for flood control and navigation.  Northwest Missouri farmer Vernon Hart, speaking on behalf of the Missouri Farm Bureau, made clear what he wanted the corps to take from his comments.

“Our main message is just don’t flood us out,” Hart told Brownfield Ag News, before delivering his comments.  “Just get down to basic common sense,” he added, “What’s more important: people, or fish and birds?  That’s basically the way I look at it.”

USACE Missouri River Recovery Program Manager Mark Harberg, says he understands the concerns people have about flood control and navigation management, which are among the corps’ tasks, along with preserving endangered species.

“We understand there’s a lot of concern about flooding, flood risk management, interior drainage, navigation,” Harberg said, after hearing comments Wednesday, “and we have attempted to address those concerns in developing these alternatives with the Mister RIC [Missouri River Recovery Implementation Committee].”

“Hopefully,” added Harberg, “these meetings help everybody understand that that task is very difficult.”

A decision on which of the six proposed alternatives will be used is to be made next year.

AUDIO: Dan Engemann (3 min. MP3)

AUDIO: Vernon Hart (2 min. MP3)

AUDIO: Mark Harberg (6 min. MP3)

Add Comment

Your email address will not be published.


 

Stay Up to Date

Subscribe for our newsletter today and receive relevant news straight to your inbox!