Little River Books - Speeches & Letters, Cook

Remarks of Harry N. Cook
President Of The National Waterways Conference, Inc.
2002 Annual Meeting at the Hilton Riverside Hotel
New Orleans, Louisiana
September 5, 2002

National values and priorities are changing. How many times have you heard someone make that statement? But it's probably more true today than in the past, or at least things are changing now at a faster pace, particularly with respect to environmental values. Poll after poll shows that the American people want cleaner air and water, less sprawl and congestion, more parks and wilderness, fish in every stream and birds in the sky above. Well, who doesn’t? We are all environmentalists; we care about the earth and its future. But we also care about the national economy, about jobs and incomes, and a rising standard of living.

The theme of this year’s Annual Meeting tries to capture these twin objectives: "Sustaining Environmental Values While Assuring Economic Security." In other words, how can we plan, build and operate navigation and flood control projects in a manner which is environmentally sustainable over the years and decades to come? It’s a subject which has been addressed in great detail during the last week at the United Nations-sponsored World Summit on Sustainable Development, which was held in South Africa.

Some 100 heads of state and 40,000 delegates wrestled with ways of increasing living standards around the world while limiting further destruction of rain forests, coral reefs, and other valuable natural resources. The focus was on developing countries, but the dilemma over the relative roles of the environment and the economy is one familiar to everyone in this room. And it may well be the defining issue facing this generation.

CHALLENGES: There is no dearth of vexing challenges. It seems that almost everything we want to do is contested on environmental grounds - maintenance dredging, deeper channels, replacement locks, flood control works, water supply reservoirs, or even continued navigation on existing waterways. We are not always sure whether challenges are based solely on noble causes like protecting threatened or endangered species or whether there is some hidden agenda, such as discouraging economic development in certain areas of the country, or fighting navigation modernization as a way of slowing down world trade and thus promoting the idea of national self-sufficiency. Perhaps flood control projects are attacked in order to advance a preference for nonstructural alternatives, or campaigns mounted to stop certain channel deepening projects, so as to disadvantage smaller ports in favor of large regional competitors (that is, picking winners and losers).

The challenges come from many different quarters and take various forms:

THE QUEST TO RESTORE THE NATURAL HYDROGRAPHIC CYCLE. Many critics of water resources programs want to alter water releases from upstream dams and reservoirs so as to mimic nature-creating springtime flooding followed by low water in the summer - ostensibly to benefit rare fish and shore birds. Although scientists disagree about whether increased minimum flows really benefit fish, river managers are now experimenting with such a practice on smaller streams. On major rivers, though, many other interests are affected by changes in river operations: farmers, ports and terminals, industries relying on barge shipping, hydroelectric generation, and water supply as well as houseboating and other water recreation. Concerns about species should not be allowed to negate consideration of the needs of others.

THE CAMPAIGN TO REMOVE DAMS AND LEVEES. Rather than just advocating the "re-operation" of dams to release water in a different annual pattern, there are many who advocate breaching dam structures to facilitate fish migration and spawning and, we are told, to resuscitate the river itself. Right now, a major campaign is brewing to remove the huge Glen Canyon Dam on the Colorado River. Flood-protecting levees on other rivers, including the Mississippi, are also under attack for keeping sediment from reaching the river bottoms. At several locations, large pumping stations have been installed to pipe fresh water over the levees. Yet levees and navigation dams on the larger rivers are absolutely vital to the continuation of essential water transportation and the protection of hundreds of thousands of homes, businesses and farms from flooding.

THE THREAT OF IMPENDING CLIMATE CHANGE. Widespread drought this summer coupled with devastating fires out West and extensive flooding last spring are cited as evidence of dangerous global warming and the need to take corrective action before it is too late. America, we are told, needs to conserve water, use less gasoline and burn less coal to limit harmful emissions, and prepare for periods of reduced rainfall adversely affecting agricultural production, river transportation and reliance on large reservoirs for water supply. Yet whose who advocate this line of thinking seldom acknowledge that barges are a cleaner mode of transportation, move more cargo with less fuel, and reduce the highway congestion that causes significantly more airborne emissions. Shouldn’t that make navigation part of the solution, rather than part of the problem?

OMINOUS VISIONS: Climate change, lifeless rivers and vanishing species constitute a bleak picture of life in the years to come. But it embodies the more radical vision of some of our critics. You can read it between the lines in their frequent statements and news releases. Their view of the world to come generally falls in one or more of the following categories:

ENVISIONING A SELF-SUFFICENT NATION. The United States doesn’t need to upgrade its inland navigation system or deepen harbor access channels because our economy shouldn’t be based on world trade, they say. We should use our grain to fatten our own beef and produce useful by-products. A renaissance of family farms would encourage migration from cities to rural areas, so that we wouldn’t need as many imports, or cars, or highways. People would live off the land. Gradually, ours would once again become an agrarian economy.

CONTEMPLATING A LIFESTYLE IN TUNE WITH NATURE. Some of our opponents tell us not to worry. They say the loss of river shipping should not be a matter of concern. Revenue losses will be more than offset, they confidently predict, by tourists spending many millions of dollars for recreation: fishing, rafting and white-water canoeing, as well as hunting and trapping. Or, as Chad Smith of the conservation group American Rivers said recently, "If we can... get the Missouri River’s ecosystem functioning again, get people hunting and fishing, it really could be a model around the country."

FOCUSING ON AN ECOLOGICAL SOCIETY. If global warming forces gas-guzzling automobiles and trucks off the roads and curtails the use of coal, who would benefit? Lester Brown of the Earth Policy Institute and others envision an "eco-economy" dominated by wind turbines, solar panels, hydrogen cells and, yes, bicycles. In my view and hopefully that of most Americans, however, this demonstrates an alarmist concept, a tunnel vision that fails to comprehend all the positive environmental developments which are taking place all around us. And it’s this "big picture" on which we should be fixing our sights.

A robust economy: Those who advocate radical changes in the American lifestyle would like to impose their ideological conceptions on the rest of us. They are trying to force-feed us, and we are resisting because we believe our view of the 21st Century is more realistic.

We foresee higher agricultural production, increased farm exports, more trade and commerce, better intermodal transportation with a vibrant waterways component, a higher standard of living for all of our citizens, continually improving environmental quality, and a better life for all throughout the world. And it takes a strong economy, we passionately maintain, to ensure advances in ecological well-being.

Economic growth is not incompatible with a healthy environment; it’s actually good for the environment. "Nations with the most robust economies have the best record of environmental protection," according to the Pacific Research Institute. "Today, a growing number of environmentalists are acknowledging that economic growth is the main prerequisite for an improving environment." In fact, the Institute goes so far as to proclaim that America’s environmental advances constitute "perhaps the greatest public-policy success story of the last generation." It is also worth noting that the world’s worst ecological disasters are in the Third World, where day-to-day survival trumps the more nebulous idea of protecting the ecosystem.

The "Wall Street Journal" recently quoted a team of scholars led by Robert Costanza of the Institute for Ecological Economics as estimating that coastal estuaries, wetlands, forests, rivers and Mother Nature’s other "services" were collectively worth about $33 trillion a year. That total was based on how much they figured people were willing to pay for clean air and water, abundant fisheries, climate regulation, the esthetics of the great outdoors, etc. "What’s different now," Dr. Costanza says, "is that we are running out of nature and what’s left has a higher marginal value." But in reporting this story on National Public Radio, the commentator observed, "A hawk on the wing over the Grand Canyon may be worth a lot more if you are comfortable but a lot less if you are hungry."

So environmental value may lie partly in the eye - or perhaps in the stomach - of the beholder. That’s a great argument, I submit, for economic growth paralleling environmental progress. It may be impossible, in fact, to separate the two. Humans now have a real chance to begin balancing economic development and sustenance of ecological networks. That’s the view of Dr. William C. Clark, a biologist at Harvard who heads an international effort to advance human endeavors without diminishing prospects for future generations. So all is not hopeless.

WATER POLICY: There are, as always, wide ranging opinions on what lies ahead. Even the American people are divided when it comes to the specifics on what kind of future they want. Sure, they favor both a strong economy and a healthy environment, but how do you go about achieving these two grand objectives?

Unfortunately, our policy-making structures are designed to focus on single components, rather than comprehensive solutions. In the Federal government, for instance, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service deals with most endangered species in the rivers and the interior regions of the country, and the National Marine Fisheries Service is charged with protecting other endangered species in coastal and connecting waters. The Environmental Protection Agency is concerned with air and water quality. The Council on Environmental Quality at the White House coordinates the government's environmental programs. Regrettably, there are no Federal agencies which espouse economic growth with the same fervor.

It falls to the Army Corps of Engineers, then, to balance the views of the American people as expressed through the Administration and the Congress. And the stated goals sometimes conflict, as we witnessed during the summer when the Endangered Species Act took preference over Congressionally authorized navigation service on the Missouri River. In trying to sort out these controversies, the Corps of Engineers uses a scientific approach to analyze each situation, taking economic, environmental and other factors into consideration. And it’s not easy to balance all the competing demands and needs within the budget limitations which have been set.

As Brig. Gen. David A. Fastabend of the Northwestern Division recently testified: "The Corps of Engineers is placed squarely in the middle of a wide range of multiple, divergent stake- holders... The Corps cares only about one thing... The Corps cares only about executing the will of the American people, as expressed by their elected representatives here in Congress, as directed by the national command authorities, and as sanctioned by the courts. That sounds simple, but the challenge is that the people of the United States have, over time, told us to do many, many things..."

A national dialogue has been scheduled later this month to tackle the question of just what kind of national water policy the American people really want. In charge of the invitation-only inquiry will be Dr. Gerald E. Galloway, Jr., of the International Joint Commission and a former District Engineer at Vicksburg. The three-day dialogue to be held in Washington, D.C., will address national policy issues facing the entire water resources spectrum - flood control, domestic supply, agricultural and industrial needs, environmental protection, and energy requirements, as well as navigation.

SPECIES PROTECTION: Any discussion of national water policy is bound to lead to a review of the Endangered Species Act and how it is being enforced. Preserving species through Federal law seems to be popular, regardless of the fact that there are practically no checks and balances on this practice. Federal enforcement agencies take advantage of a "precautionary approach" enunciated in a Congressional report which they claim takes precedence over consideration of the "best scientific and commercial data available," as the law requires. As a result, "biological opinions" have become almost irrefutable. Except that now some courts and scientific panels have begun to raise serious questions about certain protective actions.

In Oregon, for instance, a National Academy of Sciences panel found "no clear connection between water levels in Upper Klamath Lake and conditions that are adverse to sucker [fish and] likewise, there is no scientific justification for increased minimum flows in the Klammath River to protect coho salmon." And some courts have begun to challenge the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service policy of disregarding nursery-raised fish and considering only "wild" fish in its species protection plans. As a result, farmers and ranchers in Western states have begun to attack the Endangered Species Act as well- intentioned but flawed. "It was created with the intent of protecting species," says the Pacific Legal Foundation, "but the way it’s written, it has not done much to accomplish that and it doesn’t take into account the needs of people."

Many conservationists blame dams and reservoirs for damaging a river’s ecology and causing its native fish to disappear. But Capt. Bill Beacom of Sioux City disagrees. On the Missouri River and its tributaries, he points to the continual introduction of "sport fish" like walleyes, rainbow smelt, small-mouth bass and other non-native species to satisfy the demands of fishermen. These fish are really hungry predators, he says, and they are feeding on such native fish as the sicklefin chub, sturgeon chub, blue darter, sauger, spoonbill catfish and even the pallid sturgeon. Of the 52 fish species in the Upper Missouri Basin, only 13 are native species. In fact, Capt. Beacom cites official sources as confirming that the introduction of non-native fish has been a contributing factor in the extinction of 77 percent of the fish which have disappeared over the last 100 years.

When it comes to endangered species, and what’s to blame for their declining numbers, Capt. Beacom doesn’t believe in playing defense. He points straight to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and their role in introducing non-native species solely to enhance sport fisheries. That’s just another commercial enterprise, he charges, and one which is detrimental to the natural environment that the Fish and Wildlife Service professes to advance.

SUSTAINABILITY: In a series of operating principles announced earlier this year, Lt. Gen. Robert B. Flowers, Chief of Engineers, pledged that his agency would "seek balance and synergy among human development activities and natural systems by designing economic and environmental solutions that support and reinforce one another." Since issuing these principles, the Corps of Engineers has entered into two "partnerships" with environmental groups. The first, with the Nature Conservancy, is a collaborative effort to improve the management of 13 dams on nine rivers, including four on the White, Black and Little Red rivers in Arkansas and Missouri. Can these dams be operated in a more environmentally sustainable manner - such as delaying water releases in the fall (to get ready for heavy winter rains) until after the spawning period for certain fish and mussel species? Can other adjustments in operating procedures be made to aid fish and wildlife without disrupting project purposes? That’s the ultimate objective. The second partnership, with Ducks Unlimited, is aimed at better protecting, restoring and managing wildlife habitat, particularly in backwater areas and wetlands.

In the same vein, Federal agencies are beginning to work together rather than only voicing objections toward each other. The Departments of Agriculture and Transportation, along with EPA and the Fish and Wildlife Service, are all assisting the Corps of Engineers in developing a new Upper Mississippi plan to improve both navigation and the environment. EPA and the Corps are tackling urban river restoration initiatives, and the Corps and five other agencies are searching for better technology transfer on environmental matters.

These partnership efforts encourage pooling of resources and expertise, putting economists and biologists as well as other disciplines to work together to achieve environmental progress along with economic growth. These are just the first steps, but they seem to be pointed in the right direction. And Corps of Engineers water management officials hope that these efforts move away from confrontation and lead instead to win-win solutions.

SUCCESS STORIES: They rarely get any national attention, but out in the field - in the Corps of Engineers’ Districts all over the country - a series of environmental initiatives is meeting with success. Most are relatively small efforts, but they are paying off with big returns:

On the Mississippi, Arkansas and Red Rivers, among others, notches are being cut in dikes and revetments in river channels, creating eddies and attracting lots of fish, to the delight of bass fishermen in particular. New dikes are being built lower and wider with fish weirs to accomplish the same purpose.
In Pool 8 on the Upper Mississippi, engineers have rebuilt more than four miles of islands which eroded from waves, ice and floods between 1939 and 1989. The project has created flat sand habitat which in turn has attracted aquatic vegetation and more fish and wildlife, including a 100-fold increase in the number of canvasback duck visitations.
On the Lower Mississippi, river bend cutoffs have long been popular with fish and fishermen alike. The Corps of Engineers is now modifying some of the cutoffs by installing water control structures to periodically flush them with fresh water and weirs at the lower end to keep all the water from draining out in periods of low river levels.
In the Chesapeake Bay, engineers are re-creating a wildlife oasis on Poplar Island, once a thriving 1,000-acre farming community but wasted away over the years to only a series of small mounds. The site was selected for disposal of dredged material from the Port of Baltimore access channel. Slowly, the island is again taking shape, complete with trees and vegetation and now the egrets, pelicans, ospreys and even turtles are back.
In the Cape Fear River basin in North Carolina, lockmasters at the three locks and dams have learned how to lock through American white shad, herring, striped bass, alewife, sturgeon and other migrating fish, giving them access to the upper pools. Some of the fish swim almost 100 miles inland to spawn, and the shad are back in greater numbers than seen in many years.

And, speaking of success stories, we should add navigation, flood protection and other water resources programs. Navigation provides an economical means of moving a large share of our fuels, farm crops and raw materials in a manner which promotes air quality and conserves fuel and other resources (requiring less steel per ton of carrying capacity, for example). One cannot ignore the massive amount of intercity freight, some 12 percent of the Nation’s total cargo volume, moving on domestic waterways. Shifting that volume of commerce to other modes would paralyze already congested highway and rail transportation networks. Navigation pools, upstream reservoirs and levee systems protect millions of people from the ravages of floods, which are also destructive to wildlife and their habitats.

BALANCE: As the global population expands and puts more pressure on the natural environment, it becomes imperative to pay more attention to the world around us. As was repeatedly expressed at the U.N. summit in South Africa, all of us need to lighten our footprint. But this does not mean we have to stop in our tracks. On the contrary, we must maintain a steady pace forward, ensuring orderly economic growth in a [manner] which is environmentally sustainable.

Some would have us believe that all development is destructive to the environment, but we know that is not true. Others passionately assert that dams and levees are so onerous that we should be embarking on the "Undamming of America," which is the title of a recent book. Any "undamming" of the major rivers would be America’s un-doing!

In my view, the future is not nearly so gloomy. We can have abundant wildlife and stately forests along with busy factories, productive farms and green pastures. The policy decisions which are now being made, almost without exception, envision both environmental quality and economic progress. These twin goals are not always easy to achieve, but Americans are an ingenious people. And public policy supports investment in both the economy and the environment. It’s hard to have one without the other.

Environmental nay-sayers capture the headlines with dire predictions of dying rivers and disappearing species. All the while, others are working to solve environmental problems, mostly in a quiet scientific manner. It doesn’t grab headlines, but it’s an approach which is based on restoring balance to decision-making. The National Waterways Conference’s job is to keep the environment and the economy from getting out of kilter, to show how they depend on each other, and to demonstrate that water resources programs can be a part of the solution to the world’s ecological dilemma. It is my pleasure to work for you and with you in this important endeavor.

National Waterways Conference, Inc.
1130 17th Street, Northwest
Washington, DC 20036-4676