In June, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) revealed its intentions to disregard its obligations to alter the operations of its dams on the Missouri River. According to "talking points" circulated to journalists, the Corps of Engineers will try to muscle the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to withdraw or modify a Endangered Species Act "biological opinion" that calls for modifications to a river management scheme that is responsible for jeopardizing the existence of several threatened species which make their homes on America's longest river. In a meeting with conservation leaders the previous week, White House environmental advisors had indicated that the Corps would be acting at their direction on the Missouri River.

Biologists for FWS have given the Corps a 2003 deadline to alter dam operations to prevent the extinction of three species and to begin restoring the river. Specifically, they called on the Corps to begin releasing a "spring rise" to raise river levels for two weeks in May and to begin dropping river flows in late July and early August (known as the "Flexible Flow Alternative"). To balance ecological and human needs along the river, the FWS's river experts only called for a spring rise during normal water years, once every three years on average -- and not in years of drought or flood.

The National Academy of Sciences, which noted in its January report that although the "smallest benefits among authorized purposes along the mainstem [of the Missouri River] come from irrigation and navigation," the barge companies and agribusinesses in a small portion of the flood plain "wield great political influence and may resist changes to traditional management policies."

The Corps action comes in spite of several mitigating factors. First, the science is sound. Two years of study went into the Science Academy report, which concluded that "degradation of the Missouri River ecosystem will continue unless the river's natural water flow is significantly restored." It said that just restoring riverside habitat, in the absence of dam reforms, will be insufficient to halt the river's decline. In addition, natural resource professionals working for all of the states along the river concur with the FWS's water flow recommendations.

Second, the law is clear. Unless the Corps adopts the FWS's flow targets by spring 2003, the agency will be in violation of the Endangered Species Act. The Corps has been on notice since 1990 that its current plan jeopardizes the continued existence of at least three native river species.

Third, the economy would benefit. The Science Academy concluded that Missouri River dam reforms will "enhance the valuable fishery resources...increase waterfowl populations...attract more anglers to the region... and result in marked increases in user-days for recreational fishing" and therefore may be "justifiable solely on the grounds that it represents an economic improvement" over current dam operations. Barge operations on the lower Missouri (from St. Louis to Sioux City, Iowa) represent an economic impact of less than $7 million annually. In contrast, it costs between $7 million and $8 million annually to maintain this stretch of the Missouri River for barge operations.

And finally, the public supports change. Out of 55,000 comments submitted to the Corps during a public comment period that ended Feb. 28, over 54,000 supported the restoration of more natural flows to the Missouri. Since January, eight Missouri River basin newspapers have editorialized numerous times in favor of restoring more natural flows to the Missouri. Six of the eight governors in the Missouri River basin have formally recommended experimenting with flow changes to restore the river.

It cannot be repeated enough times that casually allowing the extinction of threatened species is unethical and unwise. Scientists have recognized that we are in the midst of the most profound mass extinction since the time of the dinosaurs. Yet we willingly look the other way, assuring ourselves that the loss of these threatened species won't mean anything to us. Our disregard for the natural world, as demonstrated by the callous way we treat it (to paraphrase author Daniel Quinn, our world view can be summed up as: "The world was created for us; it is ours to do with as we wish, with no possible negative consequences"), is a recipe for disaster. This can only go on for so long before the natural systems which support us become less able to do so. The time has come for us to demand a first step, for the Corps to recognize its legal obligation to protect the Missouri River's threatened and endangered species. The time has come to implement the Flexible Flow Alternative.