Flooding on the Mighty Mo: Lessons Re-learned

Lowering the pools is the least expensive, least intrusive way to reduce flood risk on the MR. It involves no new construction or design, just adjustments to the new pool levels. Such as, water conservation will have to become a higher priority, and since navigation wastes the most water, it will have to be given lower service levels. "50 is the new 40". (That's MAF, indicating pool levels at which nav. service is severly reduced.) Lowering pools--the next best thing to decommissioning dams. Of course, if Americans choose not to lower the pools, their choices then run to: higher spring releases; higher, much higher levees below the dams, basically building and maintaining a huge trench from Gavins Point through St. Louis; and widening the river/moving out of the floodplain below the dams. Because the next flood could be even bigger--imagine 1993 conditions combined with 2011. My summary review of 2011 is this: Montana Floods Nebraska--This Is News?

Here is a letter I wrote to S. Dakota's Gov. Daugaard on Dec. 28. I'm trying to get a conversation started on the ramifications of lowering pools on the upper Missouri River--and, I should add, the consequences for not doing so. I've been involved in river politics for over 20 years. As an environmentalist, lowering the pools is a no-brainer. We'll get more of the original channel back, on average--think of the reach below Garrison Dam, extending farther into the former Oahe Reservoir. As a test, think back to 1944, the year the System was authorized by Congress. If you could go back and testify against the dams and reservoirs, would you advocate for pools as high or as low as possible? Finally, once you examine the data and see how detrimental high pools and consequent high releases are for terns and plovers, you begin to see how beneficial lowering pools might be for the birds' recovery. M. Melius, Hermosa, SD December 28, 2011 Governor Dennis Daugaard 500 East Capitol Pierre, SD 57501 Dear Governor Daugaard: I am writing today to ask you to please consider convening a public meeting to discuss the ramifications of lowering the pools in the Missouri River (MR) reservoirs. The idea of lowering the pools is not new; the 55 MAF alternative (representing the annual March 1 target for water level) was modeled and seriously considered during the Corps of Engineers' EIS process for its Master Manual Revision over ten years ago. In the wake of this year's flooding, the idea has been raised seriously again: ~There is federal legislation calling explicitly for more flood storage capacity (H.R. 2942, S. 1795). South Dakota's representative is a co-sponsor on the House side. (Source: Thomas.gov website) ~The Corps has initiated a technical analysis to determine how much more reservoir space might be allocated for flood control. (Corps' press release, 11/4/11) ~The recently released report of the MR Independent Review Panel recommends "a review of System storage allocations for floods like 2011 and possible modification of Master Manual procedures to take into account different storage amounts for dry and wet periods and to adjust to varying climatic extremes." (Report at page 83) Apparently, after this year's flooding, people are more open to the idea of lowering the pools. Perhaps the irony of enduring flooding immediately below huge flood-control dams, as we saw in the Pierre area, has helped people focus on this possibility. It is a common-sense solution, one that almost anyone can grasp at its simplest: to reduce flood risk, leave more room at the top of the pools for high run-off events. But of course the idea isn't simple in its application. Lower pools means less water for other purposes such as hydropower, public water supplies and fisheries/recreation. I believe the public deserves an open and intelligent discussion of these consequences. At this date, perhaps few scientists, engineers, policy makers and business interests in the MR basin have much information specific to this subject, but that's all the more reason to begin planning a public forum now, knowing it will take time for people to gather data and prepare arguments, materials and such. Pierre is a logical place to hold such a forum. It is central on the river. Being in the midst of the dam system, local people are affected by dam management both for flood control and water storage, the two great conflicting purposes of the system. There is plenty of expertise in the area: engineers with the Corps, fisheries and other biologists, and representatives of affected businesses like recreation. With participation from federal, tribal, state and local representatives throughout the MR basin, such a meeting could go a long ways towards opening up the public discussion about lowering pools on the river, while heading off misunderstandings and friction among interest groups. March 1st would be a good date to aim for, that being the target date the Corps uses to determine the amount of flood zone storage available. That might be too soon to prepare for, but I do think we shouldn’t wait too long to get leaders and citizens discussing this option in a serious, public way. My own interest in this is as a lifelong South Dakotan, just old enough to remember the river west of Gettysburg before it was dammed. I’ve been to Oahe Reservoir and other sites on the river many times over the years to fish, camp, and study birds and other wildlife. I became involved in the Corps’ Master Manual Revision process early on, in 1990. Over time, the survival of the two threatened and endangered birds on the river, the least tern and piping plover, became a primary concern for me. By 1999, I was advocating for lower pools, since it appeared from the Corps' published data on the birds that high pools and the associated high releases for flood zone evacuation were a significant yet avoidable threat to the birds' recovery. Apparently what’s good for these birds, lowering the pools, is also good for flood control. In my opinion, lowering the pools alone would be an unfair sacrifice for citizens of the upper river. The losses that will result from lower pools could be lessened if the Corps’ management were also adjusted to make water conservation more of a priority during droughts. That is, dam releases would need to be more conservative, which would mean less support for navigation on the lower river, e.g., lower flows over a shorter season. In this way, the sacrifices would be borne fairly throughout the basin—slightly lower pools on the upper river out of respect for wet years, slightly lower flows below the dams in a drought. That’s just one opinion on the future of the Missouri River. With lowering the pools now a serious option for management of the dams, I hope you will use the expertise in your administration and other state offices to host an appropriate public forum to educate the public about the ramifications of this option. Sincerely yours, Michael Melius 24644 Prairie View Road Hermosa, SD 57744 605.255.4766