McCaskill wants Interior Secretary out of long-running Missouri River ruckus
WASHINGTON — Sen. Claire McCaskill has learned in relatively short order that one of the functions of a Missourian in Congress is to keep an eye on those thirsty North Dakotans.
McCaskill, D-Mo., today sent a letter to Interior Secretary Ken Salazar asking him not to make a ruling that could have the effect of diverting water from the Missouri River.
A little background: For decades, North Dakota, a state afflicted by poor water and water in the wrong place, has angled toward diverting water from the Missouri River for irrigation, development and just plain drinking.
Missouri has steadfastly opposed sticking straws in Big Muddy, aligning with Minnesota and Canada who fear invasive species from transferring water out of the Missouri basin. The unlikely allies most significant success was stopping completion of Garrison Diversion, a huge ditch across the state known in some quarters as Dr. Strangelove’s Canal.
In 2000, after a secret deal a few nights before Christmas, North Dakota scored a success of its own by winning approval for something called the Dakota Water Resources Act. That legislation called for a series of studies that Missouri has monitored closely, and we’re at the point now where North Dakota wants the Inteior Department to help lock in a “preferred alternative” that could heighten chances of a Missouri River diversion of some sort.
Back to McCaskill and her letter, who is attacking the “ill-advised” plan on a variety of scores, including cost. The diversion, she wrote “would invite conflict about water usage between the states” and jeopardize Fish & Wildlife Service fforts to rescue the endangered pallid sturgeon.
“Lastly, but certainly not least,” McCaskill wrote, “it could lower water levels on the Missouri River. That would reduce access to water for users in the state of Missouri, by far the largest state in the basin. Users in Missouri rely on the river for drinking water, navigation, shipping and efficient power generation …”
“I do not begrudge the people of North Dakota a reliable water supploy. However, all of the proposals potential costs, benefits and impacts need to be thoroughly evaluated,” she wrote.
Stay tuned for what North Dakota has to say.
Mccaskill is a nobody an dwill always be a nobody.She doesn’t have the brains to do anything right.Ger her out!!
Gee, if only there was a book I could read that would provide a little more background on this issue. Oh well, who reads books anyway? Maybe a twitter tag. Then again, until the toilet won’t flush, most folks won’t notice.
Mr. Duke: Normally, your comment would be directed to the Shameless Commerce Book Dept., but since we don’t have one and because there clearly is a need for illumination in this tricky matter, I can point you to a book called Big Muddy Blues: True Tales and Twisted Politics Along Lewis and Clark’s Missouri River — that I happened to have written a few years back. (If your book store doesn’t have it, you might tell them you won’t be back until they do.)