Senator: Rock removal on Mississippi to start soon

Wednesday, December 12, 2012

ST. LOUIS (AP) — Crews might be allowed to begin destroying two rock pinnacles impeding barge traffic on the Mississippi River as early as next week, more than a month ahead of schedule, a senator said Tuesday, cautioning that further steps may be needed to ensure the vital shipping route remains open.

U.S. Sen. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., and two river industry trade groups said Tuesday they were informed by the Army Corps of Engineers that blasting could start next week, although it wasn’t clear what day it would start or how long the work would take. The corps didn’t respond to several messages seeking comment.

Removal of the rocks is an important step in keeping the river open to barge traffic. Months of drought have left water levels up to 20 feet below normal along a 180-mile stretch of the river from St. Louis to Cairo, Ill. The problem was made worse last month when the corps cut the outflow from an upper Missouri River dam by two-thirds — meaning far less Missouri River water flows into the Mississippi.

Officials with the trade groups American Waterways Operators and Waterways Council Inc. said expediting the rock removal will help, but they maintain that the corps also needs to restore some of the Missouri River flow.

“The release of sufficient water from Missouri River reservoirs during the time this rock pinnacle work takes place is essential to preserving a 9-foot channel on the Mississippi River that will sustain commercial navigation and the movement of our nation’s critical commodities and exports,” said Michael J. Toohey, president and CEO of Waterways Council Inc.

Blunt agreed.

“The corps is finally heeding my calls to expedite rock removal & help prevent a river crisis,” Blunt wrote on Twitter. “Water releases from the MO River must be next.”

The corps removed many rock pinnacles in the southern Illinois area more than two decades ago. Sonar wasn’t as advanced in the late 1980s and new technology recently revealed formations they missed near the towns of Thebes, Ill., and Grand Tower, Ill.

The corps originally planned to hire contractors to get rid of those pinnacles starting in February. Army Assistant Secretary Jo-Ellen Darcy met with senators from Mississippi River states about two weeks ago, and at their request ordered the process expedited. Corps officials moved the timeline up, initially to early January, now to December.

The river depth on Tuesday was at about 12 feet in St. Louis. The U.S. Coast Guard has said that if it dips to around 9 feet, further restrictions on barges may become necessary. The National Weather Service has forecast that the river will drop to the 9-foot level late this month, barring significant rainfall.

More like this story

Paroquet 5 months, 1 week ago

The industry needs to make plans to adapt. Wider craft with shallower draft, lighter loads, increased transport time to allow for fuel conservation by using natural drift or wind to offset fuel consumption. Do they do this? No. They seek to adapt nature to their preference. They're past the point where they can without detrimental effects to some industries or others. Now tie this in with the idea of water being exported over the Great Divide.

Anybody else see a great big train-wreck waiting in the wings if things continue to be done as they always have?

John 5 months, 1 week ago

Do you have any idea as to just how shallow of a draft these vessels already have (including their barges)? I did not think so. . .

As to speeds: You are aware in all of your expertise the a craft moving DOWNstream MUST travel FASTER than the current, otherwise they will have no steering capability? I did not think so.

You are aware that craft going UPstream barely move as it is? I did not think so.

I wonder if you are willing to pay the extra charges for craft carrying lighter loads than they were designed? These companies, just like the airline industry, carry as much load as they legally and safely may carry.

Some of you all on here just make wild statements without having a clue as to what you are writing about.

Paroquet 5 months, 1 week ago

Their draft is such they need a 9ft channel depth. Only thing I'm on the outs of is the maintained channel width. How wide would a conventionally loaded barge need to be to make safe way draft in 7ft of water, hmm?
Oh---but you'd have to buy new barges...or load existing ones lighter. Volume is the same, profits go down, unless increased volume compensates. That would entail expanding one's market. All good business.

The load limit is related to the displacement of the vessel and the draft conforming to such as the channel will safely allow. Increase width, same load bearing capacity, less displacement. As for no navigation when riding the current downstream...you clearly have never traveled in a canoe, or operated a vessel underway what needed such things as sea-anchors, or employed otterboards or nets.

The extra charges? Pfft. They'll be paid one way or the other. The USA-COE handles the dredging and contracts for such. Where's their money come from? Gonna pay it either way mate; except one way, the suppliers front their fair share; by changing design, operations, and logistics, or absorbing the cost (welfare) for keeping their business as status-quo. When the status-quo changes, you adapt smartly, change habits, or perish. It's just good business.

The mastadon didn't change in response to conditions either. Seen any lately?

Are my statements wild? If you're stuck in a rut, I'd imagine they are.

John 5 months, 1 week ago

Actually you are very short-sighted. To maintain gross tonnage by increasing width would mandate bridge spans be widened on nearly every bridge on the navigable waterways -- also the locks and dams, from the Northern terminus to New Orleans. That is not only roadway bridges but also railway bridges.

Hmmmm -- dare not forget the unloading facilities as well, quite likely all the cranes would need to be lengthened.

Oh yeah, the pusher boats and notch tugs would have to have their bows widened along with the push-bumpers. All the ropes (that is wire cable for lubbers) would need to be lengthened.

All the ratchet systems would need to be redesigned as well.

As I wrote earlier. The primary function of the Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Coast Guard is to maintain navigable waterways; domestic and commercial -- 9 feet is fine.

Paroquet 5 months, 1 week ago

You're failing to foresee that might not always be possible. You are also leaving no room to change with conditions. You are maintaining "what will be, is as it always has been". My time on this little blue marble says otherwise.

Got snow?

asb 5 months, 1 week ago

Well cap'n John, except for the question about using wind and current variations to help (which they already do) Paroquat's questions are valid. Can you give limited answers to these rather than your snip? You sure can. Can you discuss the issues of the highly subsidized cost of using the river rather than the railroads running alongside them? Sure you can, you'd just rather not. Can you rudely paint other posters, who have good points and questions, as fools. Boy you sure can. If Mississippi river flows over the next 50 years happen to drop by 20-30%, would the present barge environment survive without massive government involvement? Nope. You clearly have a clue, but the value of your input is diluted by your high-held nose.

John 5 months, 1 week ago

Actually, I answered them very straight-forward. And if you do not understand that, then it is you who needs to do some studying. I hold a Master Mariners License. That is my credential in this matter. While I do not hold a River Pilot's license, I have studied for that ticket and am quite familiar with speed, manuevability, draft, and the balance of load v cost. My answer had nothing to do with subsidy. However, before going off on one of YOUR silly diatrribes, remember, if you do something to increase the cost of river shipping, you will simply increase the subsidies. As far as the railroad, the owners shot themselves in the foot many years ago after raping the income and NOT reinvesting it in their business. Oh, by the way, the railroads are subsidized as well.

And, for you info, 80% of goods in the U.S. are shipped by truck. Oh yeah, THEY are subsidized as well.

And, as far as the river goes, the Coast Guard is and always have been in charge of assuring adequate river channels for traffic; commercial and private

By the way, I painted nobody as a fool. I am simply tired of reading some of the carp being posted before the posters seem to even read what they are responding to. And your diatribes are right up at the top of the list. .

asb 5 months, 1 week ago

Yes, cap'n, all transport is subsidized, I mentioned river subsidies because of your oft stated disrespect for government. No, your answers weren't straightforward, they were belittling. Paroquet asked some reasonable questions and you skewered him. Good luck with your pilot's license, there's no comportment section so you should do fine.

John 5 months, 1 week ago

I have no disrespect for government, just for those who use government to abuse the citizens of this country.

My answers are absolutely straight-forward.

Once again, you simply want to win an arguement so you insist on playing your silly little games by restating a lie in hopes that you will win. Okay, you win.

Paroquet 5 months, 1 week ago

No john. Answering a question with a question when a challenge is imposed isn't straightforward. I might forgive you in such a case, but the waters won't. But, you knew that already, right?

I think barge traffic can adapt to changing conditions with a little forethought and most likely some sacrifice on the shipping, receiving, and consuming sides of the triangle.. You think it cannot. It must remain as it is!

Not gonna happen, sorry to say. The inevitable can only be delayed. In the meantime, all signs point at it only picking up speed.

Sound business models are flexible to changing conditions. The rigid can only eventually break.

John 5 months, 1 week ago

Yes, it is straightforward unless, of course, those who are being corrected simply hate to have their ideas proven short-sighted and economically unworkable.

Paroquet 5 months, 1 week ago

Heard that whole "economically unworkable" excuse before. Professionally, personally, and sideways. That's thinking with blinders on inside of a box. Empires have crumbled for the failing to change with the times. You know, it was once determined that the human body could not survive at speeds of over 20mph? Imagine if we hadn't dared to question something already determined?

Some don't want to change with the times. I have a fossil collection of things long extinct that speaks for themselves of such folly.

online_editor 5 months, 1 week ago

There are lots of good points being brought up, but let's please drop the personal bickering from the discussion and move forward with the issue-oriented part of the exchange. Thanks. --Rick Brown, online editor, News Tribune

Please review our Policies and Procedures before registering or commenting

Or login with:

OpenID

News Tribune