Talk:Missouri River

Broken Reference
The first reference USGS GNIS: Missouri River is broken. I cannot figure out how to fix it. I believe the link should be: http://geonames.usgs.gov/pls/gnispublic/f?p=gnispq:3:::NO::P3_FID:756398 -- The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brentl99 2009-06-23 14:40 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the info. The reference is fixed. --HYC (talk) 01:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Tributaries
In the picture next to the Tributaries section there is the caption: "The James River, a Missouri River tributary, in Jamestown, North Dakota" but in the list of tributaries in North Dakota the James river is not listed. Looks like the list is incomplete. -- The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.162.51.213 on 2008-08-09 04:26 (UTC)

Map
I like the geographic map at the top, but I'd also like to see a map of the river with state borders so I can quickly graphically see what states it goes through. --zandperl 15:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Longest River?
Missouri the "longest". See: List of rivers by length for discussion of considerations taken into account. Jerry picker 18:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC) 72.40.135.7 22:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)uuuuuuuuuuuuuuh72.40.135.7 22:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

What is the longest river in the United States, the Mississippi or Missouri? Two different Wikipedia articles have different answers:

The Mississippi? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississippi_River; "is the longest river in the United States; the second-longest is the Missouri River, which flows into the Mississippi")

The Missouri? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri_River; "it is the longest river in the United States ")

The United States Geological Survey, a bureau of the Department of the Interior and official surveyor of the U.S. Government says it's the Missouri: ("http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/riversofworld.html").

georgephawley@comcast.net 216.241.240.30 22:08, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course, the reason for this discrepancy rests in the underlying assumptions. When these assumptions are laid out, the reader can decide for themselves according to which basic principles they choose to subscribe. An absolute distinction is somewhat arbitrary and academic; it is clear that the Missouri is either the longest or second longest river in the US, and the difference is so close that it comes back to which set of criteria one wishes to apply. It is more educational and to-the-point to lay out these criteria for the sake of a thoughtful and applied geographical consideration of the question. The current language has been chosen with this in mind: "At about 2,315 mi (3,725 km) in length, it drains approximately one-sixth of the North American continent. Depending on whether its length is reckoned from the headwaters of its sources (as the Mississippi's length is reckoned from Lake Itasca, Minnesota), or from their confluence where the Missouri is first so-named (at Three Forks, Montana), it is currently either the longest or second-longest river in the United States. Prior to the Pick-Sloan Program and channelization, it was unquestionably the longest river in the US." Jerry picker 02:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Discharge?
The article lacks actual stats on the average discharge of the Missouri, something that most of the articles on major rivers seem to have (rather just having unquantified comparisons with the upstream Mississippi and the Ohio). Can anyone provide? Alai 22:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

According to a statement from the Army Corps of Engineers, "In an average year, the Missouri River provides about 45 percent of the flow of the Mississippi past St. Louis. During times of drought, that contribution could rise to as much as 70 percent." http://www.ibjonline.com/print_reducing_river_flow_levels.html Jerry picker 22:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC) =)

Confluence of Missouri and Mississippi above vs. north of St. Louis
This has been changed back and forth several times between "above" and "north of". Please note that one formal definition of "above" (prep.) is "upstream of", which may more accurately describe the geographical situation of the Mississippi at its debouchement by the Missouri.Jerry picker 23:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * "Debouchment"?  Wow....I thought I had a pretty good vocabulary, but you just sent me scurrying to my dictionary....   :-)
 * -- The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.6.66.193 on 2007-04-06 15:39 (UTC)

The picture downstream to the south showing the confluence of the Mississippi & Missouri rivers is NOT the confluence. It is the I-270 bridge & the old Chain of Rocks bridge (US 66) crossing the Mississippi from Illinois to Missouri several miles south of the confluence. There is a fine picture of the actual confluence in the Wikipedia article on the Mississippi river looking upstream that clearly shows the Missouri flowing into the Mississippi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cngresick (talk • contribs) 14:13, 2 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Is the picture being referred to this one: File:Missouri-Mississippi confluence.jpg? If so, that is the Missouri-Mississippi confluence. Same imagery, USGS DOQs, via ACME Mapper here. Pfly (talk) 23:37, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Canadian drainage into the Gulf of Mexico
Note: I've made a relatively minor edit to the main article to correct a misunderstanding that although the Milk River is the only river in Canada that drains into the Gulf of Mexico via the Missouri, it is not the only watershed in Canada that drains into the Gulf. The Poplar River (Saskatchewan-Montana) watershed extends into Canada even if the river itself does not. See also http://www.swa.ca/Maps/ (Saskatchewan Watershed Authority) Dzubint 20:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC) JeNnIiEe fErGgHy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.242.255.48 (talk) 05:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Correctness
Wow. This article is pretty well written. It looks pretty good. The picture describes the article. (Well) :) Atm153 00:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I found a slight problem in the opening paragraph, but I don't see an edit link there. Maybe someone who knows how to make the change will read this.

The first paragraph says that the Missouri River drains 1/6 of the land area of the North American continent. There's no way that can be correct. Indeed, when you click on Footnote 1, the original government source says "1/6 of the United States." -- Bill B. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.112.86.189 (talk) 21:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Fixed. The edit link for the whole article is found at the top of the page. --HYC (talk) 01:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

True source
I understand the logic behind the idea -- that a river's "true source" is that of its longest contributing tributary. But the term "true source" strikes me as odd. Many or even most rivers begin at a confluence of headwater streams. Perhaps it is the word "true" -- implying that the statement that the source of the Missouri is the confluence of the Jefferson and Gallatin is false. The atlas I have in front of me says right at the confluence "Missouri Headwaters". As a counter-example, is it false to say the Tennessee River begins at the confluence of the Holston River and French Broad River? Or better yet, is the "true source" of the Mississippi River Brower's Spring. Anyway... I almost edited the statement to be less absolute, without the word "true", but couldn't think of a good way to phrase it at the moment. Thoughts? I know it is a bit pedantic, but there must be a better way to say it, no? Pfly 05:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * This is Wikipedia...just say what YOU believe is the most accurate, and let the vox populi editors decide! Jerry picker 12:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I gave it a quick try, calling it the "hydrologic source" and moving it down in the article. I'm inclined to think that the spring is best discussed in the "course" section, so that the intro/summary will make clear to the reader that the main topic discussed in the article is the river that begins at the Jefferson/Gallatin confluence.  Does this help? --Malepheasant 14:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, the statement that 'the source of the Missouri is the confluence of the Jeffferson and Gallatin' is false! A river source is defined as  'the farthest point of the river stream from its estuary or its confluence with another river or stream' (with exceptions sometimes being where one confluence starts higher than another. The 'source' of the Missouri as given now is simply a tradition based on the fact that someone decided not to call the Jefferson the Missouri. But this is normal, because when tributaries are named often nobody knows which one will lead to the source. Compare the Amazon whose source is on the Ucayali river. Nobody would consider the source of the Amazon the point at which the Ucayali joins it. The same here. As a test, wade into the rive at the confluence of the Gallatin and the Jefferson and you'll find you can wonder a few more meters up the river :-) So in fact we should call the Brower's Spring just the source and the confluence as the traditional source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.133.86.108 (talk • contribs)


 * The page river source seems clear to me. The first sentence is "The source of a river or stream is the origin of water flow that initiates the subject watercourse." On the subject of the watercourse named the "Missouri River", its source is the water flowing into the watercourse named "Missouri". That it is the confluence of other streams rather than water springing out of the ground doesn't matter. The source of the river called "Missouri" is that confluence, just as the source of the Ohio River is the confluence of the Allegheny and Monongahela rivers. This is the normal meaning of the term "source". When people calculate a river's total, longest length, regardless of the names of the upper tributaries, the term "source" is often used the way you describe. That usage is the exception, and when used one ought to mention the names of the upper streams. I agree that this kind of "total length" calculation is common for the longest rivers of the world or of a continent, like the Amazon and the Missouri. Still, just because the Missouri is very long does not change the normal meaning of "source". Just for fun, using your definition of "source", can you tell me where the source of the Potomac River is? How about the Tennessee River? The Mobile River? Pfly 22:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * A river is defined as a linear geographic feature, with only one mouth and only one source.

For an example, please note how the Mississippi River and Missouri River sources are officially defined: Yes, the current length is actually shorter than most officially-published lengths due to channelization. LeheckaG (talk) 12:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * , Length: 2340 mi, Source: 47.23944°N, -95.20806°W
 * , Length: 2540 mi, Source: 45.9275°N, -111.50806°W


 * My recommendation is to cite the origin or source (of the river) as the officially-published (USGS) one. Within the text of the article, someone can elaborate about the origin or source of the river-system or watershed.  For the Missouri River: the USGS made an official determination that the Missouri River source is the (Gallatin-Jefferson-Madison) confluence.  The reasons why are both geographic (directionality) and hydrographic (water flow volume).  LeheckaG (talk) 13:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Montana Dams
There are more dams on the Missouri than just the Ft. Peck Dam. Great Falls, MT has five dams near the city; the Black Eagle Dam, Rainbow Dam, Cochrane Dam, Ryan Dam, and the Morony Dam. Upstream of Great Falls are the Holter Dam, Hauser Dam, Canyon Ferry Dam, and the Hosten Dam. See List of crossings of the Missouri River.Andercee 23:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Contradiction of definition of Source
Here is the Wikipedia article on river source:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source_(river_or_stream)


 * "More specifically, a source is defined as the most distant point (from the river mouth) in the drainage basin from which water runs year-around, or, alternatively, the furthest point from which water could possibly flow. [1] This latter definition includes sometimes-dry channels and removes any possible definitions that would have the river source "move around" from month to month depending on precipitation or ground water levels. This definition, from geographer Andrew Johnston of the Smithsonian Institution, is also used by the National Geographic Society when pinpointing the actual source of rivers such as the Amazon or Nile.


 * Other authoritative geographic definitions agree, stressing that a river source is never a confluence but is in a location that is the farthest, along water miles, from where that river ends."

I think that makes it pretty clear that the source of the Missouri is not the confluence of 3 rivers but likely to be Brower's Spring —Preceding unsigned comment added by Macgroover (talk • contribs) 08:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Reassessment
This article is too developed to be a Start Class. It should be reassessed to a C or B Class. serioushat 06:57, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

St. Louis
Sort of a minor issue - but should St. Louis be listed among the other cities in the infobox? I realize the river's proximity and importance to the development of the city, but the Missouri's mouth looks like it's 5 or 10 miles north of the city. Alexius Horatius  17:10, 21 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't know -- the Missouri River does flow through the metro area of St. Louis but passes a few miles north of downtown. I think 5-10 miles is an acceptable distance, but for instance 50 miles would not. Feel free to change as you wish - I'm not sure about this... Shannon talk   contribs   17:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)


 * That's fine - I'm cool with leaving it in, just thought I'd mention it and see what others thought. I was trying to think of a good comparison and couldn't at first - maybe it's like saying Houston is on the Gulf coast - it technically isn't but essentially is, sort of. Either one is fine with me. Alexius  Horatius  18:56, 21 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I realize I’m very late to this debate, but one of St. Louis’ defining characteristics, and the reason it was founded, is it’s location at the confluence of the two rivers. In addition St. Louis is the city with the most historical importance to the whole Missouri River catchment, as there defacto capital of the fur trade in the 18th and 19th centuries then as the major departing point for the west in general, the Missouri River and associates land trails were the the reason for this and the cities nickname “Gateway to the West”. Grey Wanderer (talk) 22:42, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Geology
Yikes! The geology section has major issues. I will rewrite it, as the amount of time I would spend here on everything would be more than it would take for me to do it. But I want to know: what is the overall goal of the geology section? Currently it tries to say that vast regions were one thing, which is where it hits some factual issues.

Y'know what? I'll take a stab at it until I fall asleep. But please, let's iterate on what is wanted here. Awickert (talk) 07:31, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, the section was written by me, and I'm not a geologist, I'm just a student not planning to major in geology. Could cut down with some of the earlier things, but some of those explain how the river actually formed first... I'm not really sure, as there are no articles I found that specifically describe the geology of the river. Shannon talk   contribs   00:44, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


 * No worries - it is hard when you can't find good sources, and there are surprisingly few recent ones about the geologic history Missouri. And I think it's great that you're tackling this article!
 * I think that the most logical place to start would probably be the raising of the Rockies; we could go back to the Western Interior Seaway with a sentence, since it's there already. I have a few books in my office that I could look at for more info, though I don't know if I'll be back there before Monday. Awickert (talk) 01:17, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Done; hope it looks all right to you. Awickert (talk) 10:04, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Much better, but we lost my fav sag & stuff. Vsmith (talk) 20:19, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I know :(. I was going for speed, and the sag wasn't on the tip of my brain and I'm not sure where I put the papers about it. You should put it back in! Awickert (talk) 20:23, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe I will ... later. I've checked your ref verif notes -- shifted one to better loc. and added P.B. King's Evolution of North America as it covers several of the points (bit dated 1971, but good; plus I have a copy:) ... onward. Vsmith (talk) 22:16, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that! I have a couple good old books and some more recent papers in my office that I'll check out this coming week as well. Awickert (talk) 02:47, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Confusing picture
This photo, File:Missouri River joins the Mississippi River.JPG, is a bit confusing. The caption was just changed to what I think it probably correct, but it is still confusing. The small stream in the foreground stands out as the subject of the photo, but as far as I can tell the Missouri is across the Mississippi, almost invisible (at least in thumbnail size). The identity of the foreground stream is a mystery. From looking at a topo map I'm guessing is it the "Cahokia Diversion Channel", and the photograph was in the Lewis and Clark State Memorial Park. In any case, I'm wondering if maybe this photo is too confusing and should not be included on the page? Pfly (talk) 23:58, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Oop, just noticed the photographer is still active, so I just asked him about it. Pfly (talk) 00:02, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The picture in question was taken from the Illinois State Park, where Camp DuBois existed. The last place in the U.S. before setting off, up the Missouri River.  The river in the forground may be the modern division ditch, but oringally it was Wood River on the Mississippi, across from the mouth of the Missouri.  The nature of the two rivers, i.e., the Mississippi (from right to left) and the Missouri (center back), is hard to see from ground level.  An additional 20 feet higher would make it more apparent, but that wasn't possible without special equipment.  A less confusing image may be possible from the west bank of the river junction, but there is no public land, nor a public road within a mile or two of that spot.  It shows the expanse of water at the junction, but if the group feels it's too confusing, I can accept it's removal.
 * Note: the small stream was included to provided a forground and some depth to the image. --Chris Light (talk) 20:49, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Labels on bar charts
I notice that the bar graph showing the monthly discharges at Herman and that showing the average discharges at selected cities do not have labels on the Y axis. Why? Surely labels and units would improve the graph. I've created figures with labels using the timeline routines – see Lake Faguibine and Bani River (bottom figure – other is a svg created before I understood the software) Aa77zz (talk) 17:37, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Adding paragraphs on recent National Research Council report
I'm proposing adding the following paragraphs to the "Ecology and Human Impacts" section. The paragraphs are about a 2010 National Research Council report on sediment in the Missouri. The report is called Missouri River Planning: Recognizing and Incorporating Sediment Management and can be downloaded here: http://dels.nas.edu/Report/Missouri-River-Planning-Recognizing-Incorporating/13019


 * The numerous dams and river bank control projects constructed along the Missouri River and its tributaries in the early and mid-twentieth century have significantly reduced the volume of sediment transported downstream by the river, and ultimately delivered to coastal Louisiana wetlands and the Gulf of Mexico. This has transformed the landscape in many stretches of the river, and affected the habitat of some native fish and bird species.


 * Declines in populations of these species prompted the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to issue a biological opinion in 2000 (amended in 2003) recommending restoration of river habitats for federally endangered bird and fish species. In response, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers began constructing restoration projects along the lower Missouri River in the early 2000s, remobilizing some of the sediments that had been trapped behind bank stabilization structures. The restoration projects prompted concerns that nutrients carried with the re-introduced sediments could exacerbate nutrient and sediment pollution, both locally and downstream in the northern Gulf of Mexico.


 * The 2010 National Research Council report Missouri River Planning: Recognizing and Incorporating Sediment Management assessed the roles of sediment in the Missouri River, evaluating current habitat restoration strategies and alternative ways to manage sediment. The report found that a better understanding of sediment processes in the Missouri River, including the creation of a “sediment budget”—an accounting of sediment transport, erosion, and deposition volumes for the length of the Missouri River— would provide a foundation for projects to improve water quality standards and protect endangered species.

Please let me know if anyone has any comments/suggestions on this. Thanks, Earlgrey101 (talk) 15:10, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Might be good, except that the first paragraph seems to repeat some of the info already in the section. Also the references need formatting. Shannon +  º   !  17:15, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I see what you mean--it is quite repetitive with the last paragraph of the section, but I was trying to bring out the point about the reduction in the flow of sediment. I’ll think about how to fix this.


 * The last sentence of the section mentions restoration of riverside floodplains – is this the same U.S. Army Corps of Engineers work I’m mentioning, or something different? Thanks for your input. Earlgrey101 (talk) 18:32, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


 * To avoid repetition, I've tried merging the last paragraph of the current Ecology and human impact section with the text I wanted to add.


 * Channelization of the lower Missouri waters has made the river narrower, deeper and less accessible to riparian flora and fauna. Numerous dams and bank stabilization projects have been constructed to facilitate the conversion of 300,000 acres (1,200 km2) of Missouri River floodplain to agricultural land. Channel control has significantly reduced the volume of sediment transported downstream by the river and eliminated critical habitat for fish, birds and amphibians. By the early 21st century, declines in populations of native species prompted the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to issue a biological opinion recommending restoration of river habitats for federally endangered bird and fish species.


 * The USACE began work on ecosystem restoration projects along the lower Missouri River in the early 21st century. Because of the low use of the shipping channel in the lower Missouri maintained by the USACE, it is now considered feasible to remove some of the levees, dikes, and wing dams that constrict the river’s flow, thus allowing it to naturally restore its banks.[203] As of 2001, there were 87,000 acres (350 km2) of riverside floodplain undergoing active restoration.


 * Restoration projects have re-mobilized some of the sediments that had been trapped behind bank stabilization structures, prompting concerns of exacerbated nutrient and sediment pollution locally and downstream in the northern Gulf of Mexico. A 2010 National Research Council report assessed the roles of sediment in the Missouri River, evaluating current habitat restoration strategies and alternative ways to manage sediment. The report found that a better understanding of sediment processes in the Missouri River, including the creation of a “sediment budget”—an accounting of sediment transport, erosion, and deposition volumes for the length of the Missouri River— would provide a foundation for projects to improve water quality standards and protect endangered species.


 * Any comments or suggestions on this would be appreciated. Earlgrey101 (talk) 15:01, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Numbers right?
In the article's subsection headed "Passage to Sioux City," the length of the river's navigation channel -- from Sioux City to St. Louis -- is given as 735 miles. In the same subsection, the channel's portion from Kansas City to St. Louis is given as 553 miles. Unless I'm missing something, that makes the difference -- i.e., the portion from Sioux City down to Kansas City -- less than two hundred miles (735 minus 553); but even in a straight line -- i.e., without consideration of bends in the river -- the distance between those cities appears to be at least two hundred fifty miles (closer to three hundred) on Google Maps.108.36.209.26 (talk) 19:41, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * You are correct. The Missouri River mile marker (which is based on the length from the mouth) at the Kansas River in Kansas City is 367.  Adding insult to injury is that the mile marker for Sioux City is 753 (not 735 as described) although the river is technically navigable all the way to the Gavins Point Dam and Mile Marker 811.  It seems like a lot of factual errors have been introduced into this article since I last extensively edited.  They are serious enough that this article may not deserve "Good Article" status.Americasroof (talk) 20:34, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your prompt and thorough reply. I'd been wondering, too, about that additional question, i.e., how far above Sioux City the river is navigable.  Without getting into details, I'll say I can sympathize with your distress at the disruption of an article with which you've taken care.  I'll leave you to make the changes, if any, you think necessary in response to my question.108.36.209.26 (talk) 21:39, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, the mile 735 marker is a little upstream of Sioux City, I don't know how you guys got a figure of 753 miles, but I got mine from the USGS topo map of the area. Sioux City sits straight on mile 732. And yes, it's the figure from Kansas City to the mouth that's wrong. The Kansas River comes in at mile 368. Shann ºn 07:38, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * For the record: I didn't "get" any figures at all.  I just asked a question.108.36.209.26 (talk) 02:40, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

How long is a mile?
This article (which is great) says the Missouri "is joined by the Gallatin a mile (.6 km) downstream." I'm not sure what the actual facts are, but I'm pretty sure this is wrong. Could someone check?  · rodii ·  22:19, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, it was wrong. I've thought it was weird for a while, I just fixed it Shann ºn 23:59, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh, 1.6., duh! Thanks.  &middot; rodii &middot;  01:35, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Missouri River. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20111028003613/http://www.uv.es/EBRIT/micro/micro_468_15.html to http://www.uv.es/EBRIT/micro/micro_468_15.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 12:01, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 00:12, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Missouri River. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721045843/https://dnrc.mt.gov/wrd/water_proj/factsheets/toston_factsheet.pdf to http://dnrc.mt.gov/wrd/water_proj/factsheets/toston_factsheet.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:02, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Missouri River. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111015012701/http://egsc.usgs.gov/isb/pubs/booklets/elvadist/elvadist.html to http://egsc.usgs.gov/isb/pubs/booklets/elvadist/elvadist.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cec.org/naatlas/img/NA-Watersheds.gif
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080513163803/http://nationalatlas.gov/articles/geology/a_continentalDiv.html to http://nationalatlas.gov/articles/geology/a_continentalDiv.html
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/66gupqQDM?url=http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/ to http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070410230512/http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/site/english/learningresources/facts/lakes.html to http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/site/english/learningresources/facts/rivers.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120325153036/http://www.ussdams.org/uscold_s.html to http://www.ussdams.org/uscold_s.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120513111658/http://www.nwo.usace.army.mil/lake_proj/fortpeck/index.html to http://www.nwo.usace.army.mil/lake_proj/fortpeck/index.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080917075113/http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/fish/othrfish/overview.htm to http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/fish/othrfish/overview.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:40, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Missouri River. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111017063318/http://www.mostreamteam.org/Documents/Fact%20Sheets/FactSheet2WWW.pdf to http://www.mostreamteam.org/Documents/Fact%20Sheets/FactSheet2WWW.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110723140325/http://www.grha.net/site/programs/river-study/ to http://www.grha.net/site/programs/river-study/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:47, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 26 external links on Missouri River. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051231072634/http://www.sage.wisc.edu/riverdata/scripts/station_table.php?qual=32&filenum=2845 to http://www.sage.wisc.edu/riverdata/scripts/station_table.php?qual=32&filenum=2845
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120513201159/http://dnr.mo.gov/pubs/pub2018.pdf to http://dnr.mo.gov/pubs/pub2018.pdf
 * Added tag to http://www.sage.wisc.edu/riverdata/scripts/station_table.php?qual=32&filenum=1454
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20130121114819/http://apps.detnews.com/apps/history/index.php?id=180 to http://apps.detnews.com/apps/history/index.php?id=180
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100725181555/http://www.pplmontana.com/producing+power/power+plants/Hauser+Dam.htm to http://www.pplmontana.com/producing+power/power+plants/Hauser+Dam.htm
 * Added tag to http://www.mbmg.mtech.edu/gmr/lewis_clark/lewis_clark-gates.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110515083058/http://www.dnr.state.ne.us/floodplain/mitigation/mofloods.html to http://www.dnr.state.ne.us/floodplain/mitigation/mofloods.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120305153218/http://www.nwk.usace.army.mil/pa/History/timeline-1938-1947.pdf to http://www.nwk.usace.army.mil/pa/History/timeline-1938-1947.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130120022019/http://www.msaconline.com/Missouri%20River%20Basin%20Project%20-%20The%20System.htm to http://www.msaconline.com/Missouri%20River%20Basin%20Project%20-%20The%20System.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110703062111/http://140.194.76.129/publications/eng-pamphlets/ep870-1-42/c-4-2.pdf to http://140.194.76.129/publications/eng-pamphlets/ep870-1-42/c-4-2.pdf
 * Added tag to http://www.ndstudies.org/resources/IndianStudies/threeaffiliated/historical_1900s_garrison.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721001909/http://gf.nd.gov/multimedia/ndoutdoors/issues/2003/jun/docs/garrison-dam.pdf to http://gf.nd.gov/multimedia/ndoutdoors/issues/2003/jun/docs/garrison-dam.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120513111808/http://www.nwo.usace.army.mil/lake_proj/MasterPlan/OaheMP.pdf to http://www.nwo.usace.army.mil/lake_proj/MasterPlan/OaheMP.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120513111703/http://www.nwo.usace.army.mil/lake_proj/bigbend/powerdam.html to http://www.nwo.usace.army.mil/lake_proj/bigbend/powerdam.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120513112006/http://www.nwo.usace.army.mil/lake_proj/fortrandall/powerdam.html to http://www.nwo.usace.army.mil/lake_proj/fortrandall/powerdam.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120513111735/http://www.nwo.usace.army.mil/lake_proj/gavinspoint/powerdam.html to http://www.nwo.usace.army.mil/lake_proj/gavinspoint/powerdam.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100831064632/http://www.rivers.gov/waterfacts.html to http://www.rivers.gov/waterfacts.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100528112204/http://ago.mo.gov/newsreleases/2006/072606.htm to http://ago.mo.gov/newsreleases/2006/072606.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100528115526/http://ago.mo.gov/pdf/2006/MartinLetter072606.pdf to http://ago.mo.gov/pdf/2006/MartinLetter072606.pdf
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20130119163513/http://www.columbiamissourian.com/stories/2011/07/23/missouri-river-flooding-closure-impacting-barge-industry/ to http://www.columbiamissourian.com/stories/2011/07/23/missouri-river-flooding-closure-impacting-barge-industry/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111005204635/http://www.feow.org/ecoregion_details.php?eco=142 to http://www.feow.org/ecoregion_details.php?eco=142
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111005204635/http://www.feow.org/ecoregion_details.php?eco=142 to http://www.feow.org/ecoregion_details.php?eco=142
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111005204643/http://www.feow.org/ecoregion_details.php?eco=146 to http://www.feow.org/ecoregion_details.php?eco=146
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111012155902/http://www.swc.state.nd.us/4dlink9/4dcgi/GetSubCategoryPDF/201/TodaysMissouriRiver.pdf to http://www.swc.state.nd.us/4dlink9/4dcgi/GetSubCategoryPDF/201/TodaysMissouriRiver.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120516053936/http://snr.unl.edu/gpcesu/PDFs/Shipwrecks_missouri.pdf to http://snr.unl.edu/gpcesu/PDFs/Shipwrecks_missouri.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120103073836/http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/content/mt/en/fo/umrbnm.html to http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/content/mt/en/fo/umrbnm.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110727085905/http://www.missouribreaks.org/PDFs/twsmap2.pdf to http://www.missouribreaks.org/PDFs/twsmap2.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120510141616/http://www.blm.gov/mt/st/en/fo/umrbnm/ftbenton.html to http://www.blm.gov/mt/st/en/fo/umrbnm/ftbenton.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110606053726/http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail.cfm?ResourceId=436&ResourceType=Site to http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail.cfm?ResourceId=436&ResourceType=Site

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:54, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Contentious statement
The following statement has been repeatedly added by (an) IP editor(s) and then removed as not needed here, original research, unsourced commentary or as an unsupported claim by other editors, including me: "Depending on the time of year, the Missouri River basin often contributes more water to the Lower Mississippi River just north of St. Louis, than the Upper Mississippi River, meaning the Missouri River could and often is considered the true chief river, not the Mississippi River."

The IP(s) have not discussed the text except in a comment that states ''I added in a factual statement, which is backed up by the National Park system. https://www.nps.gov/miss/riverfacts.htm'', and another comment which is not pertinent to the content. I was unable to substantiate the claim in the reference given, and have brought the matter here for discussion. I ask that the IP does not add this text to the article again until some consensus can be reached in a discussion on this talk page.

My initial opinion is that if this text is actually relevant to the article, and it is not yet clear that it is, then it must be supported by a reliable source. Poltair (talk) 20:34, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Missouri_River#Navigation table
There is an issue with how the table in Missouri_River#Navigation is aligned with the text. The text seemingly sticks to the table. I don't know where the problem lies. Somebody who does know; please fix it. - thx! -- Isidor Welti (talk) 15:58, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Average Precipitation in the Watershed
The article currently says: Most of the watershed receives an average of 8 to 10 inches (200 to 250 mm) of precipitation each year. However, the western most portions of the basin in the Rockies as well as southeastern regions in Missouri may receive as much as 40 inches (1,000 mm). Both of these statements cite the same reference, a 2006 report by the US Army Corps of Engineers. But the relevant passage in that report appears to be: Normal average annual precipitation ranges from as low as 8 to 10 inches just east of the Rocky Mountains to more than 40 inches in the southeastern part of the basin and in parts of the Rocky Mountains.

It's much different to say 8 to 10 inches is the average than to say 8 to 10 inches is the lower bound of the precipitation range. (8 to 10 inches is quite dry, drier than the state average of Nevada, the driest state in the Union.)  128.187.112.28 (talk) 128.187.112.28 (talk) 20:42, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

"much longer" than the Mississippi?
The first paragraph states that the Missouri is much longer and cites geographical data that doesn't explicitly state it as such. The article, List of longest rivers of the United States (by main stem), has their length 1 mile, or 2 kilometers, apart. While the definition of the word "much" may be in question, I do not see evidence to suggest that the Missouri River is significantly longer than the Mississippi River. A better wording here may be "nominally larger." FortySeven90K (talk) 21:04, 27 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Change made by another Wikipedia user in April resolves this topic. FortySeven90K (talk) 17:04, 20 July 2023 (UTC)


 * This is late, but the Missouri is indeed much longer (by about 250 miles) if measured to the furthest source. The main-stem length is pretty similar, though, and I assume that's what is in question here. Shannon [ Talk ] 16:53, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Tributary of the Mississippi
If it's longer than the Mississippi and carries a comparable amount of water, as the lead states, why is the Missouri the tributary rather than the main river? Is there some hydrological definition that makes it so, or is it just historically so? Could the article explain this? Furius (talk) 23:20, 6 March 2024 (UTC)