Restructured Upper Mississippi River-Illinois Waterway Navigation Feasibility Study Public Meeting: La Crosse, WI June 9^th, 2004

By: David C. Wilson, UMBSN Staff

6/10/04

On the evening of June 9^th, 2004 the US Army Corps of Engineers hosted the third in a series of public meetings to present recommendations from the latest version of their controversial twelve year navigation study. Approximately 100 concerned citizens representing themselves and a variety of farm, trade, environmental, navigation, and lobbyist groups were present. Representatives from resource management agencies including the USDA, USGS, Wisconsin DNR, and local Soil and Water Conservation Districts were also present.

In short, the recommendations of the revised navigation study are identical to the plan put forth in October before scathing reviews of the faulty economic models and unrealistic traffic scenarios used to justify lock expansion were released by the National Academy of Science’s NRC review committee. The current proposal by the COE is for a directive of dual management authority to pursue both structural navigation improvements and environmental remediation to protect the critical wetlands and habitat that attract not only wildlife, but billions of dollars in tourism and recreation revenue each year.

The plan was presented by the COE as a compromise between navigation and environmental needs, and does promise both the navigation infrastructure improvements sought by agri-business, industry, and shipping interests and the investment in environmental restoration favored by conservation and resource management groups. However, representatives of the Audubon Society, The Nature Conservancy, and the UMBSN pointed out that funding and appropriations for the construction of new 1200 foot locks do not guarantee that the promised funds for environmental protection will materialize. Essentially, the plan proposed by the COE provides a giant loophole for budget hawks in Washington to renege on the funding of projects needed for environmental restoration after the locks have been installed. Without guarantees of commensurate funding, the compromise could easily become a very one sided tool for pushing through lock expansion with minimal environmental remediation.

Several comments from conservation minded groups recommended maximum spending for environmental restoration. The need for restoring river habitat that has been degraded by 70 years of management for navigation was cited as the primary impetus for pursuing environmental alternative E. Many speakers pointed out the immense economic benefit that is derived from spending on recreation and tourism as another reason to invest in environmental restoration. Recreation and tourism account for about $21 billion dollars in revenue on the river as a whole, and 344,000 jobs. By comparison, navigation generates about $7 million in revenue and creates 35,000 jobs, while agriculture produces just under $12 billion in revenue and creates 197,000 jobs. The Nature Conservancy recommended concentrating on floodplain rehabilitation, a component of the most expensive alternative (E), while cutting back on some of the island building and rip-rap projects proposed in less expensive alternatives. Such a hybrid plan would be similar in cost to the preferred plan (alternative D), but would reap many of the benefits of the more comprehensive restoration set forth in alternative E.

Many farmers organized by the Farm Bureau, Corn and Soybean Growers Associations, Marc 2000, and, indirectly, multi-national agribusiness interests spoke in favor of the plan for extended locks. Navigation efficiency and the need for transporting massive amounts of subsidized grain to the international market in a timely fashion were the primary reasons cited in support of lock expansion. While crumbling infrastructure was cited by some as another reason to go ahead with lock expansion as soon as possible, the fact that most of the locks slated for upgrades in the current plan have been recently refurbished at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars calls this assertion into question. Representatives of several resource management agencies also spoke in favor of the proposed plan because it lays out a framework for providing much needed funds for environmental restoration while addressing the concerns of navigation interests.

Opponents of lock expansion created a strong presence at the meeting. Jeff Falk of Fountain City, WI and Reggie McCloud of Winona, MN called the COE to task for failing to respond in any meaningful way to criticisms of their economic models submitted by the NRC review committee, and for relying on the same faulty estimates and traffic scenarios discredited in the wake of the Don Sweeny whistle blowing incident.

The sustainability of continued subsidies for the production and shipping of American agricultural products was also brought into question. Several speakers including Victor Ormsby, Guy Wolf, and Jeff Falk pointed to a recent World Trade Organization decision against US subsidies for cotton as an indication that the current system of using massive subsidies for farmers and shippers to artificially lower the market price for agricultural products is nearing its end. Without these production subsidies, the demand for shipping on the river will decline rather than rising dramatically as projected by the COE. Mr. Wolf also spoke strongly of the need for keeping wealth in our local communities by growing and producing more products that are used locally, rather than sending our equity downstream in the form of subsidized grain being sold to the world at artificially low prices. Wolf used the example of the Organic Valley Family of Farms near Stoddard, WI to show how sustainable farming and marketing practices used to bring fresh food and other products to local communities actually creates wealth for farmers by creating a product that can be sold locally at a fair market price. This business model not only protects the environment and benefits the local economy to the tune of $200 million a year in sales, but nearly eliminates the need for expensive subsidized shipping and contributes to a situation where the world market will allow third world growers to obtain a fair price for their grains, eliminating poverty both at home and abroad. With the prices that American farmers are currently able to get for their products (adjusted for inflation) being lower today than they were in 1960, such a change in paradigm should not be a very tough sell. We all would like to work smarter instead of harder.

While updated navigation infrastructure and environmental improvements may be compatible goals, the need for longer locks remains questionable with many indications that demand for river transport may actually decline from levels that have been stagnant for twenty years. Additionally, the risk posed by political maneuvering and the potential for appropriations committees to cut environmental funding after new locks have been installed should raise many red flags in the environmental community. A vigilant eye will need to be kept on those charged with administering the dual management mandate and ensuring that appropriate funding is procured.