Deliberating on Missouri River Water Diversions in Congressional Committee Hearings

We examine the discursive influence of competing interest groups and how and when U.S. federal legislators use empirical evidence to consider Missouri River diversion projects originating in the relief, recovery, and reform thinking behind President Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal. Twelve U.S. Congressional committee hearings that occurred between 1944 and 2006 are content analyzed to demonstrate the nature of instrumental arguments in legislative deliberations. Members of Congress in favor of diversion projects used more economic-based, instrumental arguments than interest group representatives sharing their views while members of Congress opposed to the diversion projects consistently used less science-based, instrumental arguments than did interest group representatives sharing their stance. As a percentage, more instrumental arguments were made in field hearings than in Washington, D.C. hearings. While more economic-based, instrumental arguments were made in Senate-related hearings than in House of Representatives related hearings, in the House more science-based, instrumental arguments were made than in the Senate.