Mississippi River Expansion Project Will Not Help Farmers

By Mark Muller And Dennis Keeney

LOCKS AND DAMS

OL' MAN RIVER just keeps rollin' along, but around this magnificent resource swirls much controversy. The waters of the Mississippi River may be muddy, but the politics are just as murky. Recent revelations portray an Army Corps of Engineers so determined to justify a $ 2 billion renovation

project for the Mississippi that it skewed a cost-benefit analysis that originally determined the project wasn't necessary.

The Corps has spent seven years and more than $ 54 million to study the worthiness of expanding a series of locks and dams on the river. But when Corps Economist Don Sweeney determined that the project could not be justified, he was pressured by his superiors to produce a positive report. When Sweeney refused, he was replaced. Late last month, the Office of Special Counsel independently corroborated Sweeney's assertions. It appears that the Corps would not take "no" for an answer.

But even before the Sweeney revelations were made public, the Mississippi lock and dam project was already awash in controversy. Grain traders and major food conglomerates want low-priced bulk commodities to feed their pipelines to processing plants and feedyards around the world. Ecologists, environmentalists, hunting and fishing groups, and tourism businesses want to preserve the viability of a declining river. In the middle stand U.S. taxpayers and the farmer -- whose plight is the alleged justification for the project.

The Corps argues the project will ease barge traffic on the river -- and increase grain exports. But the Corps has not adequately investigated other options. Incredibly, no traffic coordination takes place between barges. It's as if we decided not to use traffic signals -- of course traffic jams would occur! But traffic coordination doesn't produce political pork nor soothe the agribusiness giants.

Unfortunately, the renovation project is another example of special interests prevailing over the interests of farmers and rural communities.

The Corps' scheme was facilitated by grain traders, who want bigger locks to export large volumes of grains at the least cost. The project will do little to alleviate farmers' woes in the rural Midwest. The most optimistic projections predict that some farmers near the river may receive a couple of cents more per bushel if the project goes through. What benefit does that provide when grain prices are 50 cents or more below the cost of production, and are predicted to stay that way in the coming decade?

Farmers are told that the solution to the farm crisis is exporting more grains below the world market price. But this has only led to larger, more industrialized farms, and comes at the expense of small farmers and once-thriving rural communities. The creation of this grain superhighway has eliminated the geographic advantage Midwest processors used to enjoy. Instead of keeping the grain in the Midwest for value-added processing (foods, vegetable oils, livestock, or ethanol), raw grains are increasingly shipped to Europe, China, and Japan, where they are processed. The Midwest benefits when grains -- and money -- are retained in local communities, adding to the local economy, not by competing with Brazil and China to become the cheapest producer of raw commodities.

Furthermore, the demand for U.S. grain is in serious question. China is a major exporter of corn, and South American countries are gearing up to be major players in the world market. The assertion that Midwest corn and

soybeans are "feeding the world" is a myth. Instead, we are in an economic race to provide the cheapest grain for Europe and a few wealthy Asian countries. It's a contest to see who can sustain the most environmental damage and pay their farmers the least.

There are better ways to spend $ 2 billion. We can promote local, environmentally sound, value-added processing of grains. Incentives can be created for farmers to produce benefits the marketplace doesn't recognize, such as clean air and water, wildlife habitat, scenic landscapes, and strong rural economies. Antitrust legislation can help ensure that farmers have competitive markets and that consolidation of agribusiness is addressed.

Sen. Christopher Bond recently stated that, regardless of the recent controversy, the Mississippi renovation project should go forward. But it's hard not to look at the project and see that the gains are small and for the few, while the losses to the people of the Mississippi River watershed, its wildlife, and its soils and waters are large. Let Ol' Man River roll along as best he can. He's having a hard enough time as it is.