Nebraska Water Users Radio Scripts - 2003

January 8, 2003
SAN FRANCISCO - An Alaskan businessman at the center of a controversial $100 million plan aimed at easing California's growing water problems said on Saturday he is looking for other ways to move excess water from Northern California to the arid southern end of the state.

Ric Davidge, president of Alaska Water Exports, said he withdrew an original plan to move water from two Northern California rivers to San Diego using giant poly-fiber bags after intense local and state opposition and learning the plan would need to undergo expensive environmental studies.

"We withdrew our application with the state Friday morning after we received information that the plan would require environmental studies that would cost $1 million for each river," Davidge told Reuters by telephone from his home in Anchorage.

"But we're in discussions with a number of other water sources in California and the region and hopefully by summer we will have other sources lined up," he said.

Alaska Water Exports' decision to withdraw its plan came amid the California Coastal Commission's unanimous vote on Friday to protest the proposal.

The plan by Alaska Water Exports, a member of World Water, SA, an international corporation registered in Luxembourg, is one of several plans that have surfaced in recent years to meet California's rising demand for water and ease the state's loss of excess water from the giant Colorado River.

California, one of seven U.S. states and Mexico to share water from the river, is being forced to begin cutting its use of excess Colorado River water by January because of the growing demands of neighboring states, including Nevada.

More water storage facilities, desalination plants, and water transfers from farms to urban areas are among several other plans being considered to meet the growing water supply and demand imbalance in the nation's most populous and leading agricultural state.

THE PLAN

Davidge said Alaska Water Exports' plan was aimed at using excess water supplies held by municipal water districts which have lost big customers in recent years after local mining and pulp and paper companies closed operations.

The demise of several companies in parts of Northern California have left some local water districts with excess water that some analysts say could be used in areas of Southern California, where annual rainfall is often far less than in the north.

But Alaska Water Exports proposal faced widespread opposition from environmental groups and local and state lawmakers who said taking millions of gallons of water from the two rivers would likely damage local fish and wildlife.

Foes of the plan, which has been in the works for about eight years, also said the roughly 360,000 gallon (1,360,800 litre) bags that would be filled and transported by tugboats from Northern California to San Diego could also harm whale migration.

Each bag would be about 850 feet long and about 100 feet wide, Davidge said.

Some opponents have also seen the plan as a step that could open the state up to wider privatization of water resources, a touchy subject for Californians following its bungled attempt at deregulating its electricity sector.

Davidge, who served under U.S. President Ronald Reagan as a sub-cabinet official in the Department of Interior, acknowledged concerns about the impact on the environment of removing water from the rivers, but said the plan could be conducted in "the most ecologically responsible way."

Davidge also pointed to similar bulk water projects in Turkey, Cyprus, Italy and Greece that he said have been successful and maintained environmental protections.

Story by Spencer Swartz
REUTERS NEWS SERVICE

February 7, 2003
NewsRelease
Coalition to Protect the Missouri River
Rt. 1, Box 47 / Higbee, MO 65257 / hone (660) 273-9903 / Fax (660) 273-2124 / E-Mail moriver@socket.net
RANDY ASBURY, Executive Director
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: December 16, 2002

DISREGARD FOR MISSOURI RIVER USES FORCES PROPOSED LEGAL ACTION
HIGBEE, MO — Uncertainty regarding the future of all Congressionally-authorized uses of the Missouri River has forced Missouri River stakeholders to rally against the unproven science mandated by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) and implemented by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). The Corps' implementation of USFWS prescriptive mandates would disregard navigation, flood control, and other established uses of the Missouri River in favor of dubious methods intended to protect some species.

"This is government at its worst, pulling the strings based on unproven science that may help species recovery when we know that it will kill economic activity and increase flooding," stated Chris Brescia, chairman of the Coalition to Protect the Missouri River. "The National Academy of Sciences stated that no empirical evidence exists to support the Service's theories on species recovery. On top of that, we do know, however, that the environmental impacts of taking traffic off the river and shifting it onto other modes will be detrimental to all species — human and animal alike."

A Notice of Intent to Sue (NOI) the USFWS and Corps was forwarded to Secretary of Interior Gale Norton and Secretary of the Army Thomas White as well as three upstream Fish and Game agencies on behalf of twelve associations and companies representing thousands of farmers, navigators, municipalities, utilities, recreation interests and industry.

"These individuals and companies are prepared to go the distance in this battle to maintain a river that provides for all congressionally authorized purposes," said Randy Asbury, executive director of the Coalition to Protect the Missouri River. "Unjustified actions and failure to follow procedure by the USFWS and the Corps have caused unreliability and economic devastation long enough."

The NOI provides a sixty-day notice to the agencies of intent to sue for violations of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) including:

• Economic impacts were disregarded when designating critical habitat for the piping plover;
• The USFWS's alternative for operation of the Missouri River will eliminate navigation and materially interfere with power, water supply and flood control;
• The Corps and the USFWS must revise or remove operational mandates under the ESA since new information shows that endangered and threatened birds have rebounded and meet or exceed certain recovery objectives;
• There is no basis for a mandated spring rise since one already exists on most of the Missouri River;
• The management of the upstream reservoirs to support non-native fish for economic support of sport fishing is illegal; and,
• Hybrid sturgeon may have been caused by the stocking program rather than habitat concerns.

Actions mandated by the USFWS and implemented by the Corps during summer '02 created flows below minimum navigation service levels, inflicting economic losses on navigators, grain terminals, excursions lines and industry estimated in the millions of dollars. These "bird operations" occurred to protect 41 interior least tern and piping plover, birds listed as endangered or threatened under the ESA, though their population numbers have increased substantially and fledge targets have continually been met under current Missouri River management practices. For the first time in history, the mandates of the Biological Opinion (BO) disregarded authorized project purposes in lieu of conservation and unsupported science.

RiverBarge Excursions Lines, Inc. (REL), the only hotel barge company in the U.S., forced to cancel their '02 Missouri River excursion at a loss of $1 million due to the "bird operations", cancelled their 2003 Missouri River excursion schedule on December 13 due to "conflicts between the Corps and the USFWS…that could result in water levels that are not sufficient to support navigation on the Missouri River."

REL's press statement said, "The nature of REL's business is such that there needs to be a long-term reliability and reasonable certainty to navigation on the Missouri River."

"Flow unreliability continues to have adverse impacts on the Missouri River and would have critically affected Mississippi River commerce in 2000-2002 if the USFWS mandates had been implemented," stated Chris Brescia. "It's imperative that the President recognize that the unproven science of the BO dictates Missouri River management that's not in the best interest of this nation or those he has committed to support."

For more information, visit the CPR website at http://www.ProtectTheMissouri.com.

The Coalition to Protect the Missouri River (CPR) represents the diverse interests of agricultural, navigational, industrial, utility and business-related entities. CPR supports responsible management of Missouri River resources and the maintenance of congressionally authorized purposes of the river including flood control and navigation. CPR also supports habitat restoration for endangered or threatened species.