White River

White River Irrigation Project
The White River/Grand Prairie Irrigation project is still on hold for now.  The injunction issued by the Honorable William R. Wilson under the Endangered Species Act remains in effect.   Judge Wilson was fairly specific in issuing the injunction in pointing out what the Corps of Engineers and the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service need to do to comply with the Endangered Species Act.  First, he ordered that more study should be conducted around the pump station site to determine if the Ivory-billed Woodpecker would be effected by construction or operation of the pump and initial part of the delivery system.  Second, Judge Wilson found that the Corps should study those parts of the river basin which were effected by “significant” water withdrawals impacting trees 12” inches in diameter at breast height (dbh) or greater.

The Corps and the WRID recently announced that the studies which they claim will satisfy the requirements of the ESA have been done.  They announced that they have studied around the pump station and, while finding some nesting cavities that could be Ivory-billed Woodpecker nests, they found no evidence of the Ivory Billed Woodpecker.  They further said that an area across from the pump station was studied to determine the impact to bottomland hardwoods, particularly trees 12” dbh or greater.  The announcement concluded by saying this report would be presented to Judge Wilson “in the next couple of months”.  The Corps and the WRID were confident that the injunction would be lifted and construction on the pump station re-started.

In 2006, the Arkansas Legislative Council directed the Arkansas Natural Resources Commission to take another look at the costs of the White River/Grand Prairie Irrigation Project.  All parties, including the Corps and The Natural Resources Commission, agreed that the costs had increased from the $319 million figure from 1999. Some officials commented that it might be as high as $700 million but wanted the Natural Resources Commission to engage an “independent evaluation of the costs” in order to provide a true and clear picture of the costs.    The legislature was adamant that the study be independent and objected and directed The Natural Resources Commission to spend up to $250,000.00 if necessary to commission such a study.

Earlier this year, the WRID and The Natural Resources Commission announced that the study had been conducted and the costs had increased.  This supposedly independent study said the costs had increased from between $390 million to as high as $435 million.  The study was done by an economics professor at the University of Arkansas.   He stated that the study was done by taking the Corps numbers from 1999 and adjusting them for inflation.  No effort was made to determine if the Corps numbers from 1999 were accurate or if the cost estimate included everything that needed to be included.    The author went on to state that even with the elevated cost, the project was still feasible because of the increase in the price of farm commodities resulting in higher farm gross income.  However, the study was not independent and did not meet the mandate of the Legislative Council.  It remains to be seen if that body will hold The Natural Resources Commission’s feet to the fire and demand the study.

Because it is clear the costs have increased, The Natural Resources Commission submitted legislation to the General Assembly in the 2007 session asking that a measure be put on the 2008 General Election ballot increasing their bonding authority from $300 million to $600 million in General Obligation Bonds and allowing them to issue up to $100 million of these bonds without legislative authority.  This $100 million would be earmarked solely for irrigation projects, i.e. Grand Prairie, Bayou Meto, Beouff-Tensas and others.  The measure passed and is slated for the 2008 ballot.

On the federal level the U. S. House of Representatives did not include any money for the White River/Grand Prairie Irrigation Project.  The Senate version does include money for the project and the matter now goes to the Joint Budget Conference Committee for the differences to be worked out.   In years past the amount that makes it into the final appropriation is either less than the Senate amount or completely eliminated.

While it is on hold, the White River/Grand Prairie Irrigation Project is alive and well and awaiting release from the injunction to move forward.   After that, only massive amounts of taxpayer money stand in the way of it being completed.

The Lower White River Navigation Channel Improvement Project
A 250-mile navigation channel is presently maintained on the Lower White.  It provides for an 8-foot deep channel to Augusta, Arkansas, and about 4.5 feet to Newport. Since the original project was finished 30 years ago, barge interests and the Corps have been promoting the creation of a nine-foot deep channel, similar to other large navigable waterways. Even though barge traffic is minimal on the river, navigation interests want to spend millions more dollars to make the channel deeper. First, they promoted a plan to dredge the shallow areas. The public and politicians responded quickly and successfully stopped the plan from going through. It was even de-authorized by Congress in 1988.

Then in 1996, the study was re-authorized to examine the potential for deepening the channel through the use of more than a hundred wing dikes scattered at more than 30 locations along the river. The study has received some funding from Congress, but it has often-times slowed because of intense opposition from Arkansans. The expanded navigation project is opposed by virtually every major conservation group and the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. Thousands of citizens have signed petitions calling for the de-authorization of this project. On four occasions in the winter and spring of 2001, Arkansas' state legislators failed to pass bills that would have provided money to construct the deeper channel.

The dikes and some continued dredging would negatively impact wildlife refuges on the river, would impact sloughs and oxbow lakes, and other hydrologic changes would occur. The ecologically valuable habitat of the channel would disappear forever, taking spawning habitat with it.  Reduced flooding of bottomland forests, important wetland habitats, will cause drastic changes in plant community structure, thus impacting ducks, fish and other species that depend on these plants. These natural resources are important to a nature based economy in the region contributing millions of dollars annually.