You scratch your head and ask yourself, you know, where's the common sense here?

we've still got a problem with debris and siltation that ought to be taken care of.

Nobody wants to go through this again.

The resources you have provided to us have done a great deal to mitigate the problem.

Is my understanding correct that there's been a reconnaissance study on that and to move to the next stage would require a local sponsor?

Is it likely that there will be a local sponsor for the following step?

Alright. Colonel, if a local sponsor is required to come up with local money for additional studies, I assume what Mr. Royse is referring to is that they would like to see something other than a study.

I was on the eastern side of the State when I received reports that the consequences of a significant action with a certain ice jam could have caused massive flooding in a significant part of Bismarck.

Has the operation of the Garrison Dam in any way contributed to the flooding problems experienced here earlier this year?

Is that the first time since the Dam was built that the releases were shut down?

That additional water has come in, and because the reservoirs have been so depleted they have not wanted to maximize the releases.

I'm hoping that the Corps will involve local and State officials in the process of some real formal processes.

I think tomorrow at the hearings and today there's going to be a commonality that we need a little more measurements along the river.

How do you get from point A to point C without going through point B, if point B is a legal requirement?

I still want to try to get to this understanding.

No, it's unlimited.

We need some type of computerized monitoring of the river system, not only the Missouri, but the Heart River system.

The other question was why is the Corps of Engineers relying on a gauge several miles upstream from the Fox Island area on which to base its response to ice jam flooding?