You have reached iGreens.org.uk.  In December 2006 we moved to iGreens.org with faster servers and discussion boards.  Click here to follow us.  

Locks' future still in state of flux

Mississippi River pilot Jack Raley gripped the rudder of the towboat John M. Rivers a bit tighter when he saw the upcoming railroad bridge.

The passage under the Hastings, Minn.-bridge is a lot wider now, but he remembered the days when the barges strapped to his towboat had only a couple of feet to spare on either side and barely cleared the bridge without rubbing.

"It usually takes five cigarettes to get through this bridge," said the 39-year river veteran. "Now it only takes one."

The river's continual twists and turns required Raley to deftly manoeuvre the 12 barges his towboat was pushing. The empty containers were bound for Winona, Minn., and he paid constant attention to shallow-water buoys to avoid running aground.

Raley is hopeful that he'll be able to move his loads faster in the future if proposed renovations to the aging locks and dams go through. But while there are indications that those interested in river commerce and those interested in river protection might be able to agree on an appropriate development plan, the battle is far from over.

Lifetime on the water

Raley and boat Capt. Mike Keesee talked about how they have spent the better part of their working lives on the river.

"You just start out deckin'," said Keesee of his five deckhands who watch over the lashed-together barges. "After about a year, you get hung."

The deckhands' job of breaking apart barges when a towboat approaches one of the river's 27 locks is at the center of a swirling debate about improving the river's man-made infrastructure.

Having to do so slows the trip down; it took more than 80 minutes to get the 12 empty barges through the Hastings lock. That time could be halved if the locks were doubled in size - which is reason enough for many to claim that the 70-year-old system desperately needs $1.3 billion in improvements. Lock chambers slated for expansion are located down the Mississippi River.

The oft-maligned proposal is championed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and is heralded by barge and agribusiness interests; conversely, environmental and public interest groups characterize the plan as harmful to river ecology and as more money bound for an already heavily subsidized industry that Raley and Keesee's employer - Ingram Barge Co. - represents.

Much of the criticism was the Corps' own doing: An earlier study fell flat when it was revealed that Corps' officials had tinkered with data by overstating future river traffic volume and thus inferring a need for improvements. That furore has somewhat subsided, but Corps' chief Lt. Gen. Robert Flowers re-stoked the fires when he recently stated that his workers were merely "great soldiers" doing a task fraught with unreal expectations.

A political shoot-out is certain to come as commercial, ecological and recreational interests again weigh in on any long-term plan for the river.

But some believe that recent overtures by the Corps will lead to a better plan. Jeff Stein of the conservation group American Rivers said there is reason for optimism as the Corps rekindles its lock and dam study.

"I think the one thing that stands out from my perspective is a level of collaboration we haven't seen in the past," he said.

Part of the problem for activists like Stein is that he believes the river can't handle the ecological stress of added barge traffic.

"The river is clearly in a state of ecological decline," he said. "Adding more barges to the river ... could be the straw that breaks the camel's back."

Towboat engine intakes suck in and grind up nearby fish, Stein said. Stirred-up sediment ends up settling in far away backwaters, which inhibits naturally fluctuating water levels. And while the locks near Red Wing aren't under consideration for expansion, bigger chambers downstream could lead to increased traffic upstream and drag with it all the above adverse effects.

He advocates better timing to avoid scheduling logjams at locks and the placement of mooring cells in the river so waiting boats don't stir up riverbank sediment as their engines idle.

During the John M. Rivers' trip between Hastings and Red Wing, Pilot Raley was forced to shove in close to a riverbank and wait for several towboats to clear out. He said the wait could be several hours. Lock and Dam 3 typically handles less than a dozen barges daily during this harvest season, although pleasure boaters enjoying fall weather jam the locks on the weekend.

Disrupting nature 

The fact that the river is not allowed to naturally flood and shrink is the real problem with the locks and dams, said Dean Rebuffoni of the Sierra Club.

"That's not the way God designed the Mississippi," he said. "It needs to be in flood at times of the year."

High water in spring helps aquatic vegetation flourish; low water in late summer and fall allows for terrestrial plants to take root, thus stabilizing the river bottom. He explained that when that process is interrupted, once prolific species die off and the backwaters become sterile and inviting for noxious species such as Eurasian water milfoil or purple loosestrife.

Rebuffoni said that when he canoes in the backwaters between Locks 2 and 3, once-prolific plants he notes that such as wild rice, arrowhead, wild celery and duck potato are gone or barely hanging on. And silted up backwater channels choke good fish habitat.

Because of its natural ebb and flow, the Mississippi River had been notoriously tough to navigate; the fluctuating levels once left unseen sand bars and tree snags that wreaked havoc on passing steamships long ago. But Big Muddy is now one of America's hardest working rivers and is a vital transportation corridor for commodities coming to and from the Midwest.

Raley and Keesee know that their job is an important link between the Midwest farmers and distant markets. It's the best way to ship the massive amounts of grain and beans that travel down the river, and coal and fertilizer that move up the river, they said. One towboat pushing 15 barges is equal to approximately 900 tractor trailers or 225 railroad box cars. Faster lock chambers would translate into more money in the pockets of farmers, they said.

As the river slips by at a languid pace of 6 mph, the two veteran river pilots said the waterway they work on looks better than ever and questioned current environmental concerns.

"The biggest problem we have on the river is environmentalists," Raley said.

He remembered that burning barrels of trash were once dumped overboard, and how the poison-laden Illinois River never seemed to ice over in winter.

"If you had a man overboard, you'd take him to the emergency room," Raley said.

Farmer benefits unsure

Some agricultural policy experts said it might be policies - not the locks and dams - that need revamping.

Mark Muller of the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy wonders if it still makes sense to send grain downriver to New Orleans if it eventually ends up in Asia. He doubts that the alleged benefactor of the Corps' plans - farmers - will actually reap the benefits. The few remaining agricultural conglomerates like Cargill and ADM have a stranglehold on commodity traffic and it is doubtful they will pass the saving on, he said.

"People always say its in the name of the farmer," Muller said. "In the end we always forget them."

But the final decision will be made far away from the Mississippi: Congress is guardian of the project's purse strings.

"We need the lock and dam system ... and it is in need of repair and replacement," said U.S. Rep. Gil Gutknecht, whose district includes Red Wing and all of Minnesota's Mississippi River towns to the south.

The Rochester Republican said he believes that Congress will ultimately find the money for the project.

"Action has consequences and price tags," he said. "So does inaction."

You have reached iGreens.org.uk.  In December 2006 we moved to iGreens.org with faster servers and discussion boards.  Click here to follow us.  

Send mail to enquiries@igreens.org.uk  with questions or comments about this web site.
Last modified: October 19, 2005