Max Baucus: “I reemphasize the first point made by my friend from South Dakota. He is entirely accurate. We hear about the specter of…”

“I reemphasize the first point made by my friend from South Dakota. He is entirely accurate. We hear about the specter of floods. If you look at the facts, this amendment has nothing to do with floods. Why do I say that? It is because of the Army Corps of Engineers' own analysis. Looking at the alternatives, the current master manual, compared with the spring rise/split season, there is no statistical, no difference--it is 1 percent--in the flood control benefits between the two alternatives. None. One percent is statistically insignificant. So you hear on the floor those protecting a dying industry using another scare tactic, and that is floods. That is totally inaccurate. In addition, the proposal of the spring rise/split season will be used in only 1 out of every 3 years. And the proposal also provides that if it looks as if there might be a wet year, or more precipitation in the year a spring rise might otherwise occur, there would be no spring rise. Why? Because the primary goal of the Corps of Engineers is flood protection.”