U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

97–093 PDF 2005

S. HRG. 108–758

WATER PROBLEMS ON THE STANDING ROCK

SIOUX RESERVATION

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

ON

OVERSIGHT HEARING TO RECEIVED TESTIMONY ON PROBLEMS THAT

HAVE BEEN EXPERIENCED BY THE STANDING ROCK SIOUX TRIBE

AND TRIBES SITUATED ALONG THE MISSOURI RIVER

NOVEMBER 18, 2004

WASHINGTON, DC

(
COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS

BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado, Chairman

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii, Vice Chairman

JOHN McCAIN, Arizona,

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico

CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma

GORDON SMITH, Oregon

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska

KENT CONRAD, North Dakota

HARRY REID, Nevada

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington

PAUL MOOREHEAD, Majority Staff Director/Chief Counsel

PATRICIA M. ZELL, Minority Staff Director/Chief Counsel

(II)
(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Statements:

Breitzman, Dennis, area manager, Dakotas Area Office, Bureau of Reclamation ......................................................................................................... 10

Claymore, Mike, chairman, Economics Committee, Standing Rock Sioux

Tribe ............................................................................................................... 1

Conrad, Hon. Kent, U.S. Senator from North Dakota .................................. 7

Dorgan, Hon. Byron L., U.S. Senator from North Dakota ............................ 5

Ferguson, Ron, director, Division of Sanitation Facilities Construction,

Indian health Services .................................................................................. 12

Grisoli, Brig. Gen. William T., commander and division engineer, Northwestern Division, Army Corps of Engineers ............................................... 9

Inouye, Hon. Daniel K., U.S. Senator from Hawaii, vice chairman, Committee on Indian Affairs ............................................................................... 1

Johnson, Hon. Tim, U.S. Senator from South Dakota .................................. 4

Murphy, Charles W., chairman, Standing Rock Sioux Tribe ........................ 1

Olson, M.D., Richard, director, Division of Clinical and Community Services, Indian Health Services ......................................................................... 12

APPENDIX

Prepared statements:

Breitzman, Dennis (with attachment) ............................................................ 69

Frazier, Harold, chairman, Cheyenne River Tribe (with attachment) ......... 73

Grisoli, Brig. Gen. William T. (with attachment) .......................................... 25

Murphy, Charles W. (with attachment) .......................................................... 30

Olson, M.D., Richard ........................................................................................ 29

(1)

WATER PROBLEMS ON THE STANDING ROCK

SIOUX RESERVATION

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 2004

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS, Washington, DC.

The committee met, pursuant to other business, at 10 a.m. in

room 485, Russell Senate Building, Hon. Daniel K. Inouye (vice

chairman of the committee) presiding.

Present: Senators Inouye, Johnson, Dorgan, and Conrad.

STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL K. INOUYE U.S. SENATOR FROM

HAWAII, VICE CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS

Senator INOUYE. The Committee on Indian Affairs meets today

to receive testimony on a series of problems that have been experienced by the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, as well as other tribes

whose reservations are situated along the Missouri River.

In order to effectively address these problems, it will require the

coordinated efforts of several Federal agencies. So that we may better understand the nature of the problems and the impact they

have had on the lives of the members of the Standing Rock Sioux

Tribe, I would like to call upon our first witness today, Charles

Murphy, chairman of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe. Chairman

Murphy will be accompanied by Mike Claymore, Tribal Councilman

of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe Council.

STATEMENT OF CHARLES W. MURPHY, CHAIRMAN, STANDING

ROCK SIOUX TRIBE, ACCOMPANIED BY MIKE CLAYMORE,

CHAIRMAN, ECONOMICS COMMITTEE, STANDING ROCK

SIOUX TRIBE; MR. PERRY, ATTORNEY; AND JIM GLAZE,

ATTORNEY

Mr. MURPHY. Senator, thank you very much. First of all, we

want to congratulate you for the election that happened a few days

ago. But first of all, we want to thank you from the Standing Rock

Sioux Tribe, because there are 18,000 enrolled members, and they

send their regards up here because you’re the Senator that helps

the tribes, the Standing Rock also. We appreciate that.

Also here to my left, Senator, I have Mr. Claymore, who is the

chairman of the Economics Committee. I have two of our attorneys

here, Mr. Perry and Jim Glaze.

Back in 1997, Senator, you visited our reservation. There are

some pictures here that I would like to show you. We had water

around the reservation here, such as this, when you flew in there.
2

We were talking about the erosion at that time. You were there,

we looked at the taken area, which was 1620, it was eroding the

highway and so forth. The Corps came in there and did some dike

work.

Now today, Senator, it is very serious. We don’t have the water

to provide for our people. One year ago today, or 1 year ago, it will

be 2 weeks, 5 days before Thanksgiving, we had approximately

10,000 people without water. These were Indian and non-Indian

people within our reservation of 2.3 million acres.

Senator we are also scared that if it freezes, what we could have

is like a delta. What’s going to happen is that it will not go right

into the intake. What’s happening, Senator, is that we have people

today that are scared because they don’t know if they’re going to

have drinking water the next day. The two largest districts in our

reservation will be without water if the water should shut off

today.

Senator, we also had a number of people, at the time we had lost

our water, we had to send people to Bismarck, ND, which is about

60 miles away, that were on dialysis. Those people did not have

transportation. We helped them with transportation, we helped

them with their rooms up in Bismarck. The tribe did all this. BOR

did not help, Corps of Engineers did not help, IHS didn’t help, the

BIA didn’t help. We footed the whole bill, Senator.

Senator, also we had tried to keep the IHS hospital open. They

didn’t even have water, they couldn’t even buy a bottle of water for

those people that were coming into the hospital. We had to provide

that water for them. We had to buy porta-potties for all those districts that were out of water.

Also, we were scared that our sewer systems were going to freeze

up also. Mr. Claymore will tell you a little bit more than I will get

back on another part, Senator.

Senator INOUYE. Mr. Claymore.

Mr. CLAYMORE. Thank you.

I am very humbled and privileged to speak in front of the Senate

committee today. Senator, we have a major problem out there with

the management of the Missouri River. Drought conditions have

changed the river’s status. Lake Oahe is to me no longer a lake,

it’s back to the Missouri River situation, which is very scary for us

as a people, because we don’t know what channel or where that

water line is going to go, where the river is going to channel next.

We have the communities of Cannonball, Fort Yates, and Porcupine on the North Dakota side. If things would have all been as

planned the Bureau of Reclamation would have had completed the

projects in the future and every community in Standing Rock will

be dependent upon this water source. That’s a very scary thing, because with all our communities depending on the rural water system, if it goes down there are going to be a lot more people affected.

I do have to say that it’s not just our issue, it’s a region issue.

The State of North Dakota, the State of South Dakota are facing

the same issues. They continue to have communities that have intake issues and they’re spending millions of dollars to address

these issues within their own system, within their own grounds.

Because there’s no way that anybody can say that this river is not
3

going to be lower. There’s no way to say that the lake is going to

come up, rising levels.

Back in 1948 or so, I wasn’t alive, but I can tell you, my grandma

will tell you that the people of Standing Rock thought there would

never be a water shortage. They couldn’t even imagine how that

water would disappear. And today we are in that situation to know

whether or not we can have a water shortage, and we do.

Go ahead, Chairman. Thank you.

Mr. MURPHY. Senator, also we have people yet today that are filling up their bathtubs every night, our elderly people filling up

their bathtubs every evening because they don’t know if they are

going to run out of water the next morning, because we don’t have

a way of knowing if the water is going to be shut off or whatever.

At the time it happened, it just happened, it happened that Sunday

night 5 days before Thanksgiving. We had people coming home,

school kids coming back from college and so forth, our kids were

without water. People without water.

The other thing was that we had people going around, we had

an elderly man with a 55-gallon drum driving from house to house

helping people. He was telling them that this water is only to be

flushed with, we had those types of people. People were working together, we had come together. We had the Senators from North Dakota and the representatives calling people to donate water to us.

We had that done, too, Senator. It’s very sad right now that we

don’t know if we’re going to have water next week or not.

[Prepared statement of Mr. Murphy appears in appendix.]

Senator INOUYE. Mr. Chairman, do we know what the cause of

the shortage is?

Mr. MURPHY. Senator, I think they’re holding water upstream,

they’re letting too much water downstream. What we were told is

that for them to keep those barges moving in the State of Missouri

they had to have more water down there so they could move those

barges up and down the river.

They are not worried about human consumption, but they are

worried about some barges, three or four barges that they have to

move up and down in the Kansas City area, and they’re not worried about the people that are running out of water. Right now, we

have another community, another Indian reservation, which you

might know, Senator Conrad and Senator Dorgan also, and the

representative from North Dakota also mentioned that Parshall,

ND, the Indian reservation up there has no water. I mean, they

have water now, but they run out of water because of the low

water tables, too.

Senator INOUYE. In your prepared testimony, you speak of the

construction of an inland reservoir at Fort Yates. Do you have any

estimate as to the construction costs?

Mr. MURPHY. The estimate was about $30 million, Senator. What

we’re going to have to do is we’re going to have to go further south

to put that inlet in, where the main channel will provide that

water, where it’s more narrow and so forth.

But right now, Senator, our inlet is right about in here. It’s probably about four-tenths of a mile out, maybe, or three-tenths of a

mile out. The inlet right here, Senator, this is Fort Yates here and

the inlet is right here. What’s happening is, what we’re scared of
4

is that this thing is going to change here, then we’re going to have

to change it clear out to here to chase that water.

The siltation, we had engineers out of the Minnesota area come

out and tell us how the siltation is moving. That doesn’t look very

good, either.

Senator INOUYE. Thank you very much.

Senator Johnson.

STATEMENT OF HON. TIM JOHNSON, U.S. SENATOR FROM

SOUTH DAKOTA

Senator JOHNSON. Thank you, Vice Chairman Inouye, for holding

this hearing, and thank you also for all you have done for our great

plains tribes and the people of North and South Dakota.

I understand that this is your last hearing as official leadership

of the Committee on Indian Affairs, and I want you to know that

your leadership will be missed. But knowing your passion for the

issues, I’m confident that you will continue to provide important

leadership for Indian country. I thank you for your great service.

I also congratulate my colleague, Senator Dorgan from North Dakota, on the leadership role that he is going to begin to play on this

committee.

I want to welcome Chairman Murphy, Councilman Mike Claymore and other witnesses to the hearing. I also want to thank the

representatives from Minnesosi and Chairman Frazier of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe for being here today. I’m glad that we have

an opportunity to specifically address the water problem at Fort

Yates. I share the concerns of my North Dakota colleagues regarding the issue.

I’d like to take just 1 moment to address a similar problem we

are facing farther south along the Missouri River. It’s probable that

in the fall of 2005 the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe could be experiencing similar acute water shortages now facing the Indian tribes

and communities of North Dakota. The consequences, however,

could be even more pronounced, negatively impacting 17 communities and 14,000 people.

The latest Corps of Engineers 2005 spring runoff forecast is predicted to be only 16.52 million acre feet compared to a normal

spring runoff of 25 million acre feet. If the Missouri River reservoirs were not already at record low storage levels, such a paltry

runoff forecast would not be a dangerous omen for 2005. However,

the Missouri River reservoir system contains a total of only 37 million acre feet of water, a full 3 million acre feet less than the total

reservoir impoundment in the fall of 2003.

The cumulative impact of successive drought years has left these

giant reservoirs 21 million acre feet below average, a record. So I

implore the Federal Government to take a serious look at the failures at Parshall, ND, Fort Yates, ND, and this potential crisis that

would affect the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe in South Dakota.

We need to look at a preventative fix rather than just focusing

on the crisis of the moment. One can only imagine the outcry if the

same number of people in large urban areas of America lost their

water for 10 days. This is a situation we would not tolerate in

major cities and cannot allow to happen again anywhere in the
5

country, whether here in Washington, DC or in Fort Yates, ND or

White Horse, SD.

It’s particularly disconcerting given the treaties that bind the

Federal Government’s responsibilities to our tribes in North and

South Dakota. The particular water needs in North Dakota that is

being described so ably by the chairman here today involves the

municipal, rural and industrial water system that is operated pursuant to the Garrison Diversion Reformulation Act of 1986, and the

Dakota Water Resources Act of 2000. Under the Dakota Water Resources Act, the Department of the Interior is mandated to construct, operate, and maintain an MR&I water supply system for

the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation. Legal title to the water system is held by the Bureau of Reclamation.

To have this failure at this point and not to have a permanent

fix underway is a cause of great concern. We need to end the crisis

mentality and approach this from a permanent fix mind set. I am

confident that this committee can play a key role in helping us to

do that for both our friends in North and South Dakota.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator INOUYE. Thank you very much.

Senator Dorgan.

STATEMENT OF HON. BYRON L. DORGAN U.S. SENATOR FROM

NORTH DAKOTA

Senator DORGAN. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.

First of all, we appreciate your holding this hearing. I appreciate

Chairman Murphy and Mr. Claymore, thank you for being here

and thanks for your statements.

This is a vexing problem, difficult, wrenching for the people who

are affected. We are talking today about the Standing Rock Reservation and the citizens of Fort Yates and the surrounding area.

But this also affects Parshall, Fort Yates, ND, and Wakpala, SD,

this is a significant issue. When the water was lost over Thanksgiving, the folks in Fort Yates canceled their Thanksgiving plans,

they spent all their time trying to figure out how to get safe water

for their families to drink.

Let me commend the chairman and the tribal council for the extraordinary work you did during a real crisis. Losing water is a

real crisis. I have previously said to Dennis Breitzman, who we will

hear testify in a few minutes, that the folks who work at the Bureau, they just picked up and over the whole Thanksgiving period

they were down there working to try to put in a temporary line.

And we owe them a debt of gratitude for the work they did. They

worked through the holiday, day and night, and put in that line.

But I was down there 2 weeks ago. Mr. Chairman, I think you

have this sheet, three graphs or three slides, rather, from the end.

You will see where the old intake was, you will see where the new

intake is. As of 2 weeks ago, it is quite clear, that they are going

to be out of water, even the new intake is not going to provide

water for those people.

So the question is, what is going to happen here? How is this

going to be resolved? Because this river is shrinking and drying up.

When you stand on the bank where the old intake used to be and

just look out, this is a puddle. This river has become a puddle right
6

at Fort Yates where the intake is. And I am convinced that these

folks are going to lose water again.

Now, there are a lot of reasons for all of this. Probably the most

important is that we’ve had less snow pack and less water in the

entire reservoir system. But that is not the only reason. I regret

to say that the Corps of Engineers has been extraordinarily hard

headed on the issues of dealing with the water in the entire Missouri River system. The upper reaches of that system have been

systematically cheated in the manner in which that river has been

managed. I use that word fully understanding what it means. We

have been systematically cheated for a long period of time.

As you can see from these slides, we are going to need to find

water to assure municipal water supply, not just for Fort Yates, especially for Fort Yates, however, and we need to do so quickly.

That is why I am pleased that we have the Corps here to testify.

Let me also say that the tribe spent a great deal of money, of

its own money, trying to respond to this crisis. Some of those resources, $2.8 million, my colleague and I asked Commissioner

Keyes to reprogram some money so we got some money back to the

Tribe to recompense them for that expenditure. But they are still

out a lot of money as a result of this crisis. We also need to work

with the Bureau and the Corps to try to respond to that.

But let me conclude by saying this. Senator Conrad and Congressman Pomeroy and I have been fighting this battle for a long,

long while. And it is one of the most frustrating fights that we have

had. As all of you know, the water policies are very controversial.

How the reservoir systems and the river, the Missouri River, are

managed, is critical for a whole range of issues, for the minnow of

a barge industry, the whale of the recreation, tourism, and fishing

industry up north, and yes, it is a minnow to a whale and yet we

manage the river for the benefit of the minnow.

It is just enormously frustrating for us. Somehow, some way, we

need to resolve it. I do not intend to be partisan at all, but let me

observe that this fight that we’ve had, especially dealing with the

State of Missouri, is a fight that has not resulted in a fair use of

water in this river system when we are short of water. And at least

one part of that is because the President, campaigning in Missouri,

said, I am with you on this water fight. So did the Vice President.

As a result, we have been systematically blocked here in Congress in resolving this issue. That’s not partisanship, that is just

the fact. My hope is that the President, the Congress, Republicans,

and Democrats, and all of us, can understand that when you run

out of water, that is a human crisis. We need finally to resolve and

address this issue.

My colleagues, Senator Johnson and Senator Daschle, have

worked enormously hard on this. I have worked with my colleagues

Senator Conrad and Congressman Pomeroy. All of us are determined to fight this to the end so that we get a result that is fair

to everybody who lives on that river.

Mr. Chairman, I am sorry I took as much time as I did. But I

think this is a critically important issue.

Senator INOUYE. Senator Conrad.
7

STATEMENT OF HON. KENT CONRAD, U.S. SENATOR FROM

NORTH DAKOTA

Senator CONRAD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Before I address the issue at hand, I want to thank you, Senator

Inouye, for your long leadership of this committee. I must say, I’m

in my 18th year here. There is no better Senator than Senator

Inouye. Your compassion and your courage and your really exceptional leadership of this committee is deeply appreciated. I don’t

know of anybody that made the extraordinary effort that you have

made to go all over this country to understand better the needs of

Native people.

Your record and your legacy will be written in the record books

of the U.S. Senate and in the history books of this country. You

will have a very proud position.

I also want to thank you very much for holding this hearing, as

perhaps your last act as the vice chairman of this committee before

you go to become the Ranking Member of the very powerful Commerce Committee. I know you will still be here as our member, but

you will be passing the leadership torch to my colleague, Senator

Dorgan. Again, I just want to say how deeply we appreciate the

quality of your leadership.

I want to extend a welcome to Chairman Murphy and Councilman Mike Claymore from Standing Rock. I regret I was not here,

I was doing the C–SPAN broadcast this morning. All of us are

asked to do that from time to time, as you know, Members of Congress, so that people around the country can ask questions of us.

And of course, the debt limit of the United States was extended

yesterday, so I was asked in my role on the Budget Committee to

visit with people around the country this morning.

Imagine if you can, what would happen if you got up in the

morning and turned on the spigot and nothing comes out. You

think of how disruptive it is just to not have hot water. Think of

what it’s like to have no water. That’s what happened to the people

in the communities of Fort Yates, Cannonball, and Porcupine just

days before Thanksgiving last year.

This is the sign that greeted people that came to the hospital.

This is the headline from our newspaper: Without Water. Schools,

clinics, tribal offices, and hospital closed. This is the sign that was

at the hospital, at the hospital: Hospital is closed, no water. That’s

a disaster. That is an absolute disaster.

The Standing Rock Tribe relies on an intake along the Oahe Reservoir to supply drinking water to their communities. The Oahe

Reservoir now is down 32 feet, 32 feet. What’s the reason? Well,

obviously the biggest single reason is drought, a lack of water.

That’s the fundamental reason.

But mankind has contributed to the problem by the mismanagement of the reservoir. This reservoir is being managed under rules

that were written 50 years ago. The world has changed. The running of the reservoirs up and down the river system in this part

of the country has not changed.

This is all overwhelmingly managed for the benefit of the barge

industry downstream. Because when they started this process they

thought the barge industry was going to be a much more dominant

economic player. That proved to be wrong. Things changed. Trans-
8

portation systems changed. The management of the reservoirs has

not changed.

I believe this dire situation at Fort Yates underscores the strong

need for change in the management of the Missouri River. We can’t

afford this any longer. People’s lives are at risk without water.

What could be more clear?

The dramatic drain of Lake Oahe has created a river that is constantly shifting and changing course. Therefore, I believe the Corps

has a responsibility to help fix it. I am concerned, as I know the

tribe is, about whether they will lose water again. We can’t afford

to wait until another disaster strikes before taking action.

I want to particularly commend the tribe, especially Chairman

Murphy and the Bureau of Reclamation, for their quick response

to this crisis. They worked around the clock and through the

Thanksgiving holidays, overcoming tremendous odds, not to mention freezing conditions, to restore service.

Again, Senator Inouye, our very distinguished vice chairman,

thank you so much for holding this hearing. It’s just critical that

we find a way to resolve this crisis.

Senator DORGAN. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to ask just one question, just to have something on the record from the chairman and

the councilman. The Missouri is one of the great rivers in America.

I was told when I was there 2 weeks ago, I believe by you, Chairman Murphy, that there is a spot north of Fort Yates where you

can walk across the Missouri River and not get your hips wet.

Mr. MURPHY. Right.

Senator DORGAN. Can you describe that?

Mr. MURPHY. Sure, Senator. It’s north of Fort Yates about 4

miles. They call it Battle Creek Bay. And there is a place where

you can actually walk across and get on the other side of the river,

it’s probably no wider than from here to you.

And what we’re scared of there, Senator, is that if that should

freeze up in that area, what’s going to happen? That’s where that

delta is going to happen, then the water will not flow into our intake. We’re lucky right now that the weather has been holding up

to like 60 degrees back home. Very unusual for this time of year,

when it’s supposed to be about 30 degrees.

Senator DORGAN. Again, this is one of the great rivers in America. And the chairman describes a location, I have not seen it, but

I was in the area 2 weeks ago, just south of there. An area of 15,

20 feet wide where it is sufficiently shallow so that you can easily

walk across it.

Mr. CLAYMORE. Senator, may I? At the time that Lewis and

Clark came through there, they didn’t even drop their boat in there

because it was so sandy there that they couldn’t even make it up,

they had to clear to Bismarck to drop their boat in. They took it

out at Mobridge and went around the whole reservation to get the

boat up north.

Senator DORGAN. Mr. Chairman, thank you.

Senator INOUYE. I thank you very much.

Chairman Murphy, I thank you. I can assure you that under the

leadership of these gentlemen, something will be done. Thank you.
9

Mr. CLAYMORE. Thank you, Senator, and thank you, Senator

Johnson, Senator Dorgan, and Senator Conrad. Thank you very

much.

Senator INOUYE. Our next panel consists of the commander of

the Northwest Division of the Army Corps of Engineers, Brigadier

General William T. Grisoli; the area manager of the Dakotas Area

Office, Bureau of Reclamation, Department of the Interior, Dennis

Breitzman; the director of the Division of Clinical and Community

Services, Indian Health Service, Department of Health and Human

Services, Richard Olson, accompanied by Ronald Ferguson, director

of the Division of Sanitation Facilities Construction.

I now call upon General Grisoli. Welcome, sir.

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM T. GRISOLI, BRIGADIER GENERAL,

COMMANDER AND DIVISION ENGINEER, NORTHWESTERN

DIVISION, ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

Mr. GRISOLI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name is William T. Grisoli and I am the commander

and the division engineer of the Northwestern Division of the Army

Corps of Engineers.

I am pleased to be here today to testify on the matter of water

supply issues at the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe Reservation and on

the Corps’ role and efforts on managing the Missouri River

mainstem reservoir system in this time of severe drought throughout the basin.

As you know, the Missouri River basin is currently in its fifth

consecutive year of drought. Since 2000, below normal snow pack,

rainfall, and runoff have resulted in record low reservoir levels behind the three large upper dams. Fort Peck is currently drawn

down over 34 feet, Garrison over 24 feet, and Oahe over 32 feet.

All congressionally authorized purposes for which the system was

built are presently being impacted, except of course for flood control.

We recognize that the continuing drought conditions have resulted in hardships for the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and other

tribes and to many of the other water users in the Missouri River

basin. The drought has impacted water intakes all along the river,

including intakes that serve the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe at Fort

Yates, ND. Additionally, the drought has caused problems related

to noxious weed control, boating and reservoir access, exposure of

cultural resources and increased fire threat.

Last fall I testified before this committee about the Corps’ efforts

to improve the management of the Missouri River system during

the times of extended drought and discussed the involvement and

consideration of basin tribes in that process. I listened to the committee and I listened to the tribes’ concern over the past management and actions in operating the mainstem project. Since then, we

have improved our ability to serve the basin and I am pleased to

provide you an update on our actions from last year.

In March 2004, we issued a revised Missouri River master water

control manual, the guide used by the Corps to regulate the six

dams on the mainstem of the Missouri River. This signing culminated a 14-year effort of analyzing numerous alternatives and effects on important economic uses and environmental resources in
10

the basin. The revised master manual includes more stringent

drought conservation measures and provides greater reliability and

predictability.

In addition, in April of this year, the Corps co-signed a

programatic agreement under the National Historic Preservation

Act, along with 16 Indian tribes, State and tribal historic preservation officers, the National Trust for Historic Preservation and the

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. We are committed to

work collaboratively to preserve cultural resources that are exposed

due to the drought conditions and reservoir fluctuations, and to operate and manage the system in compliance with the NHPA.

The Corps also continues to work with Federal agencies and with

State, local and tribal governments to mitigate the short term effects of the ongoing drought. When the Fort Yates raw water intake failed in November 2003, the Corps assisted Bureau of Reclamation by managing water releases and operations during intake

construction activities and providing equipment and technical assistance during the emergency. We also granted emergency permits

to place fill material in the Oahe reservoir in conjunction with the

construction of access roads and the placement of water supply intake lines.

Over the past year we have proactively continued to provide

technical assistance to the Bureau at their request by making design recommendations, providing surveys of the problem areas and

evaluating contingency plans and technical reports. The Corps has

also assisted other communities throughout the basin with water

supply and other problems triggered by the drought, including

Parshall, ND.

In closing, we recognize that the continuing drought conditions

have resulted in hardships for the Standing Rock and other tribes

along the basin, as well as other water users in the Missouri River

basin. The Corps remains committed to working with our Missouri

River basin partners to mitigate those impacts to the extent possible, meet our responsibilities to federally recognized tribes, serve

the congressionally authorized project purposes, balance the competing needs of the basin and comply with environmental laws.

I appreciate the opportunity to be here today and I look forward

to listening to the other testimony and to other ideas on how the

Corps may improve their service to the public and to the Missouri

River basin.

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my testimony. I would be happy

to answer any questions you or any other members have.

[Prepared statement of General Grisoli appears in appendix.]

Senator INOUYE. I thank you very much, General.

May I now call on Mr. Breitzman.

STATEMENT OF DENNIS BREITZMAN, AREA MANAGER,

DAKOTAS AREA OFFICE, BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

Mr. BREITZMAN. Good morning, Senator.

I’m Dennis Breitzman, I’m Reclamation’s area manager for the

Dakotas Area Office. I’m located in Bismarck, ND. I’d like to summarize the written testimony I submitted on Wednesday.

Senator INOUYE. Without objection, the full statement will be

made part of the record.
11

Mr. BREITZMAN. Reclamation has worked with the Standing Rock

Sioux Tribe for almost 20 years on the development and operation

of a rural water system to distribute water to about 16,000 residents throughout the reservation. The tribe has prepared a final

engineering report, which is the tribe’s plan for completing construction of the reservation-wide system.

We have also been working with the tribe to construct a water

supply system to deliver Missouri River water for the irrigation of

2,380 acres of crop land. These projects are being designed and

built, and in the case of the rural water system, operated and

maintained by the tribe through contracts with Reclamation under

Public Law 93–638.

Reclamation’s work over the past year on the Standing Rock reservation focused on water supply intakes from the Missouri River.

These include the Fort Yates intake, the Wakpala intake, and the

Cannonball irrigation intake. The Fort Yates and Cannonball intakes are located on the Missouri River at the upper end of Lake

Oahe, and the Wakpala intake is located in Lake Oahe near the

mouth of the Grand River.

Fort Yates’ raw water intake is an integral part of the Standing

Rock rural water system, transmitting river water to the treatment

plant located in Fort Yates. It is the primary source of drinking

water for a population of over 3,400, including the communities of

Fort Yates, Cannonball and Porcupine, as well as Prairie Knights

Casino and Lodge.

On November 24, 2003, low water conditions and shifting water

sediment combined to disable the Fort Yates intake. Normally this

intake is safely submerged in 30 to 40 feet of reservoir water. With

the continuing drought in the Missouri River watershed, the intake

is now in a river channel in a delta at the upper end of Lake Oahe.

Without a water supply, the tribe closed schools, hospitals and tribal offices. Working day and night in severe weather conditions,

Reclamation and tribal crews, assisted by State agencies, restored

water flow by the afternoon of November 26 by using temporary

pumps and above-ground piping assembled across the mud flats of

the river channel.

In consultation with the Environmental Protection Agency, a precautionary boil water advisory went out and remained in effect

until December 2. This allowed for flushing of the distribution system and water quality sampling in the system. Reclamation secured supplementation operation and maintenance funding from

within the agency to cover the immediate costs of restoring the

water supply.

In December 2003, work focused on making the temporary pump

system more reliable during the freezing water conditions. This included construction of an access road and installation of a pipeline

below the frost line. The Army Corps of Engineers coordinated releases and operation of the reservoir during the construction activities. And by March 2004, a new interim intake sump structure

with a submersible pump assembly was operational. That pump remains operational today.

Concerned about the continuously changing river conditions, the

tribe requested that Reclamation prepare backup water supply

plans. Reclamation is working with the Standing Rock rural water
12

office on finalizing emergency response plans to address potential

problems caused by low water levels. If the intake fails or the river

channel shifts and the water supply is cut off, a backup pumping

plan has been developed. Recent field exercises held just the week

before last proved that we can restore water supply to the treatment plant well before all system storage is fully depleted. This

plan will hopefully avoid future interruptions.

Reclamation and the tribe are also planning a groundwater well

to provide a backup water supply independent of the river. This

groundwater source would only serve as an emergency backup

water supply, because of poor water quality and limited quantity.

This backup water source should also be completed before the end

of the calendar year.

The Wakpala intake on the reservation also has been affected by

low water levels in Lake Oahe. The Wakpala intake provides water

for a population of about 1,600 people, including the community of

Wakpala and the Grand River Casino. The Lake Oahe water forecast for the spring of 2004 indicated the Wakpala intake would

likely become inoperable in the summer of 2004. Lowering the intake screen was a short term solution enabling the tribe to maintain a water supply throughout the summer.

Concerned about continuing reservoir decline, the tribe secured funding, including $200,000 from Reclamation, to construct a replacement intake that will be approximately 9 feet lower than the

existing intake. This new intake should be completed this fall.

Finally, to address potential intake problems in the event of long

term low water conditions for both the Fort Yates and Wakpala

service areas, Reclamation and the tribe are actively investigating

a horizontal well system near Fort Yates. The Cannonball intake,

constructed to provide a water supply to irrigate about 800 acres

of crop land near the community of Cannonball, has also been impacted by low water levels. This area is upstream of Fort Yates and

the receding water levels in Lake Oahe left this intake high and

dry during the 2004 irrigation season. The tribe used project funds

to install a portable pump to provide a temporary water supply

during this period.

That concludes my comments, Senator. I thank you.

[Prepared statement of Mr. Breitzman appears in appendix.]

Senator INOUYE. Mr. Breitzman, I thank you, sir.

May I now recognize Mr. Olson.

STATEMENT OF RICHARD OLSON, M.D., DIRECTOR, DIVISION

OF CLINICAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICES, INDIAN HEALTH

SERVICES, ACCOMPANIED BY RON FERGUSON, DIRECTOR,

DIVISION OF SANITATION FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION,

INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE

Mr. OLSON. Good morning, I’m Dr. Rick Olson. I’m the director

of the Division of Clinical and Community Services for IHS at our

Rockville office. I’m accompanied by Ron Ferguson, who is the director of the Division of Sanitation Facilities Construction at IHS

headquarters.

We’re here today to discuss the impact of the failure of the Fort

Yates municipal water system on our IHS hospital located in Fort

Yates, ND. Because the water system failed so quickly, local offi-
13

cials were unable to provide advanced warning to the public, and

since then, as we have just heard, the Bureau of Reclamation has

made certain improvements to the water intake system. In addition, the IHS has successfully drilled and installed a well on IHS

hospital property grounds that could keep our boilers and furnaces

in operation and provide water to bathroom facilities. However,

this water is not of sufficient quantity or quality that would be

suitable for medical use or human consumption.

I would like to provide to the committee background on the

events of last year that left the Standing Rock community without

water, and particularly its impact on our health care facility and

our ability to provide health care services to the Standing Rock

tribal community. Late on Sunday night, on November 23, service

unit staff were informed that there were problems with the water

system and that the water lines were losing pressure.

Quickly, steps were taken to deal with issues of patient safety at

the Fort Yates hospital. Fortunately at that time there were no inpatients at the hospital. This is a low acuity hospital with around

three to five patients normally. Also, since it was late at night,

there were no emergency patients in the emergency department. So

without potable running water, we made the decision to send the

inpatient nursing staff home and then the service unit leadership

met with the tribal ambulance officials and advised emergency

medical technicians to take patients to Bismarck rather than bring

them to the IHS facility.

Dialysis services, as we have heard already, had to be closed. Dialysis requires a large amount of very pure water in order to be

provided. The emergency room staff was then sent home and the

hospital was essentially closed other than the maintenance staff,

who were kept there to keep the boilers and furnaces up and running. The furnaces were kept running by hauling water from a private well 4 to 5 miles away from the hospital.

The next morning, on Monday, November 24, after conferring

with the tribe, the decision was made to keep the hospital closed.

Public statements on radio stations were used to inform the public

of the water supply problem, the closure of the hospital and advising them where to seek medical services. Arrangements were made

to transport dialysis patients into Bismarck. Medical staff from the

Fort Yates hospital were sent down to the McLaughlin, SD Indian

Health Service clinic, which is located about 25 miles south of Fort

Yates, to assist in seeing outpatients at that clinic, because it was

anticipated that we’d see more patients down there because of the

closure of the hospital.

By Wednesday, we were able to open up a general walk-in clinic

at the Fort Yates hospital, but had limited services and restrooms

were functional because of the use of hauled water to them. The

Fort Yates Indian hospital returned to full operation the following

week, the first week in December, after running water was restored by the tribe and the Bureau of Reclamation and the water

was determined to be safe by the Environmental Protection Agency.

That concludes my remarks, and I would be happy to answer any

questions.

[Prepared statement of Dr. Olson appears in appendix.]
14

Senator INOUYE. I thank you very much, Dr. Olson.

Because of the nature of the problem being discussed in this

hearing, I would like to begin the questioning with the members

of the delegation from North Dakota, Senator Dorgan.

Senator DORGAN. Senator Inouye, thank you very much.

First, let me ask Brigadier General Grisoli about the priorities

with respect to the use of water in the Missouri River system. In

managing the dams and reservoirs along the mainstem of the Missouri River, the question is how does the Corps determine which

water uses have the greatest priority? For example, under the current management plan, does the Corps consider the availability of

drinking water to be the top priority in terms of water use?

Mr. GRISOLI. Senator, we look at all the congressionally authorized purposes, and we try to balance the requirements between

those purposes that we’ve been given, plus comply with the environmental laws and meet our treaty and trust responsibilities.

Senator DORGAN. But as you assess the congressional mandates,

tell me where does drinking water fit in? Is drinking water in your

assessment of these mandates a higher or lower priority than other

uses?

Mr. GRISOLI. We always look at, obviously, life and limb and

those types of things as the highest priority when we look at our

balancing. Drinking water, to make sure it’s available, and we feel

that the revised current master manual provides the availability.

It is very difficult, as you know, when it’s a river versus a reservoir, to draw water out of that. We recognize that.

Senator DORGAN. I am trying to get to something more specific.

As you evaluate the management of the river under the current

congressional mandate, is the assured supply of safe drinking

water for citizens who receive that water from the river a higher

priority than other priorities, or is it simply equivalent to others?

Mr. GRISOLI. All the purposes, except for flood control, we look

at trying to balance those.

Senator DORGAN. Including safe drinking water?

Mr. GRISOLI. We provide adequate water supplies as it goes by,

and it is all calculated as we move water through the system to ensure it is there and available.

Senator DORGAN. But the issue of whether someone has a water

supply would not be necessarily balanced against whether someone

else for 12 consecutive months had an opportunity to take water

for irrigation, would it? I understand what you are saying, that

there is a management plan, and I am trying to ask with respect

to the specifics of how you get to that, the management of the mandate that comes from Congress with respect to the assured supply

of water for human consumption. I assume when you talk about

that that has to be the highest use.

Is that not right?

Mr. GRISOLI. It always has to be available.

Senator DORGAN. So availability of water for human consumption

is the highest use?

Mr. GRISOLI. Which is, Senator, we need to balance all of them.

We have several authorized purposes. That is one of the ones, just

like all the others, that has to be available. Navigation has to be
15

available. Recreation, flood control, they have to be available to the

users.

Senator DORGAN. Let me ask it in a different way. What if, in

order to make available sufficient water available for navigation in

the downstream reaches of a relatively small navigation industry,

less than $10 million a year, what if in order to make that water

available, you understood and knew that it was jeopardizing the

availability of water for human consumption upstream? What then

would be the response of the Corps of Engineers?

Mr. GRISOLI. I think that, Senator, when you look at that, we’ve

incorporated in our plan, a revised plan, stringent drought conservation measures to ensure that when you got to a certain level

in the reservoirs. For example, we’ve raised the preclude to navigation to 31 from 21. That’s 10 million acre feet. Therefore, we recognize the need to have that water supply. You have to have a basic

amount of water in the system for those types of things you’re saying.

So when you get down to a certain amount of water, you need

to draw the line, and we’ve drawn that line. We were able to raise

that and add more stringent capabilities above and beyond the preclude. So if we continue to go down, we stop navigation, we stop

some congressionally authorized purposes. And we’ve coordinated

that on serving that purpose. So you do have that water supply,

that continues.

What we’ve tried to do in this new revised manual is cause any

sort of drought to mitigate those impacts and reduce the drawdown. Unfortunately we are right in the middle of a drought. So

when we started this plan, it wasn’t in the beginning, which would

cause us to come down a lot slower, we’re in the middle of it. That

was all recognized and considered within the plan itself.

Senator DORGAN. Is there roughly 37 or 38 million acre feet in

the system at this point?

Mr. GRISOLI. Senator, I believe there’s approximately 35.8.

Senator DORGAN. So close to 36 million acre feet in the system

at this point, and we’re in the middle of a drought, is that correct?

Mr. GRISOLI. Yes.

Senator DORGAN. And you drew the line at 31 million acre feet?

Mr. GRISOLI. Thirty-one.

Senator DORGAN. Why would you draw the line at 31 million acre

feet if we’re in the middle of a drought with 36 million acre feet

in the reservoir system?

Mr. GRISOLI. Senator, as you know, that has been a challenge for

over 14 years, as far as where that preclude line should be. Modeling was done, public discussions were done all up and down the

basin to determine a 31.

I would offer that when I came on board and I spoke to both of

you gentlemen about the different issues on the Missouri River

basin, back in 1999, seven out of the eight States offered up a

modified conservation plan that said 31 preclude is about the right

answer. So one of the areas that I took on and wanted to provide

for the basin was a 31 preclude. So we were able to get that 31

preclude.

Senator DORGAN. And the one State that did not agree with that

was Missouri, as I understand, is that correct?
16

Mr. GRISOLI. That’s correct.

Senator DORGAN. And the 31 at that point was 5 years ago. Since

that time, of course, we have had even greater protracted drought.

The reason I am asking this question is that I understood you to

say there is a drought, I understood you to say that you drew a

line at 31 million acre feet to respond to a drought, and because

in a drought we now have 36 million acre feet in the system, the

31 million acre feet line that you have described as something that

would relate to drought measures is largely irrelevant with respect

to your day to day activities, is that not correct?

Mr. GRISOLI. Senator, I would not say that it’s not relevant, in

the fact that we’re still able to provide water. The difficulty and the

risk is higher, I agree. But the water is still available and passing

by at this particular point. But it’s more of a challenge to obtain,

yes.

Senator DORGAN. Mr. Grisoli, I have laid eyes on this spot at

Fort Yates where they have the intake just 2 weeks ago. I must

say to you that when we talk about water, this mighty river is fast

becoming a puddle where we’re trying to get water for human consumption. I was heartened somewhat by Mr. Breitzman’s description of the alternative, so that you might, when this line, not if but

when this line plugs up or when this line does not have availability

of water to deliver that you are going to have, in the storage system, sufficient time to go to this alternative.

But the fact is, we have a full scale drought in my judgment, a

drought emergency. We asked Mr. Breitzman’s organization to

come in and work through the Thanksgiving period and cobble up

some way to get some water out of part of this river. But with respect to the management of the river, I recognize there is less

water in the system, therefore there are problems.

But I also believe that the Corps of Engineers has created a circumstance where you describe a drought and then describe a remedy for responding to the drought that will never be employed. Of

what value is a remedy that will never be employed? Thirty-one

million acre feet, as you know, is not going to reguire you to do

anything, because we are at 36 million in a drought. Senator Burns

and I have put in an appropriations bill a 40-million acre trigger

which is much more realistic. We are in a drought. We ought to be

employing triggers immediately, especially for the highest priority,

which is water for human consumption.

This is a debate that will go on longer than this hearing, General. I respect the work of the Corps, but I profoundly disagree

with what the Corps is doing and has done and likely will do unless we continue to light as big a fire as is possible under the Corps

of Engineers to respond to the management of the river in the right

way. In my judgment, the management of the river must understand that the first and most important priority is to make certain

that we don’t have people cutoff from an adequate supply of water.

As Senator Conrad’s chart illustrates, when you show up at a hospital and see a sign that says, no water, we are talking about a

human crisis here.

So I appreciate your coming to the hearing, but the 31 million

acre feet trigger means nothing to me, and it means nothing to the

Fort Yates area, nothing to Parshall, nothing to Wakpala, nothing
17

to anybody upstream that I think has been cheated by the management of the river, General. You and I will, I was just reelected, and

I am not boasting about that, I am just observing, I am probably

going to be here for a while, and you are going to be around for

a little while. So you and I are just at this point a fuse and a

match.

So we will try to get closer together and see if we can find a way

to explode this 31 number so that we have some realistic way of

managing the river to deal with this issue of human consumption.

I have taken more time than I intended. But if I might make one

final point. Mr. Breitzman, again, and Mr. Olson, and all the others who are unnamed at this hearing, thanks for the work that you

have done. We still have significant reimbursement issues. I am

going to submit questions to Mr. Keyes and to you, Mr. Breitzman,

in the hope that on these reimbursement issues to the tribes that

we will get some better answers.

Thanks for the cooperation so far. Thanks to your men and

women for the work they have done. General, thank you for being

here, but let’s hope that we can find a way to begin creating solutions for these issues, and that this never happens again. Thank

you very much.

Senator INOUYE. Senator Conrad.

Senator CONRAD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Grisoli, if I could, first of all, let me say, I think you are an

excellent person. I think you are here, I think you’ve been sent

here to represent a policy that really doesn’t hold up much under

the light of day. You and I have had intense discussions previously

about this, you know we have very strong feelings. This does not

reflect on you personally, let me start with that.

What was the reservoir level in the early 1990’s when we had the

previous dramatic drought?

Mr. GRISOLI. Could I check on that point before I answer that

question? I think it was around 40.

In the drought of the 1980’s and early 1990’s, it was about 41

million acre feet.

Senator CONRAD. 41 million. Now we’re at 36 million.

Mr. GRISOLI. Yes, Senator.

Senator CONRAD. How much was the navigation season reduced

in that earlier period when the reservoir levels were higher?

Mr. GRISOLI. I’d like to come back officially on the record on that.

But I know that they were reduced significantly.

Senator CONRAD. Five weeks.

Mr. GRISOLI. But it wasn’t part of the master manual plan at

that particular time.

Senator CONRAD. Well, let me just, would it surprise you to know

that the navigation season was reduced by 5 weeks?

Mr. GRISOLI. That’s approximately what I’ve heard.

Senator CONRAD. How much was the navigation season reduced

this last year?

Mr. GRISOLI. This has been reduced 47 days.

Senator CONRAD. The previous year?

Mr. GRISOLI. Reduced 13 days.

Senator CONRAD. Reduced 13 days. And how about the year before that?
18

Mr. GRISOLI. I’d have to ask someone.

Senator CONRAD. Seven days?

Mr. GRISOLI. I’d have to come back on the record, Senator, on

that.

Senator CONRAD. I’d like to get that. The point here is very simple. We’ve got less water in the reservoir now than we had in the

late 1980’s and early 1990’s. And yet you reduced the navigation

season far more then than now. And it just, it so profoundly angers

people that this reservoir is being managed for a barge industry

that generates less than $10 million a year of economic activity and

part of the result is people are left without water.

Now, let me just—and I’m not talking about, the sign there says

it all, without water, hospital is closed, no water. So we’ve got to

get serious here about dealing with this situation.

Let’s talk about what’s to come. Based on your projections for

next year, what’s the Corps’ forecast on the level of Lake Oahe?

Mr. GRISOLI. The level of Lake Oahe? I’ll have that in 1 minute,

Senator.

If I may offer one comment, reference the analogy of what happened last year and what happened this year, as you saw, there

is a big difference. If we had not changed the master manual from

last year, it would have only been 17 days this year. But because

we revised it, it was 47 days.

Senator CONRAD. And that is a step in the right direction. Absolutely. The problem is, we’re in the midst of this horrendous problem.

Mr. GRISOLI. Right.

Senator CONRAD. But let me, I really want to get to where we’re

headed. I think that’s critically important. Can you give us what

the forecast is?

Mr. GRISOLI. The challenge, Senator, is it would rise slightly in

the spring, about a foot. Then it depends on the runoff and what

we think the runoff would be, et cetera., as far as what it’s going

to end up around this time of the year, which is the worst time of

the year, obviously, after the runoff is gone. It really does depend

on, do we have 16.8 million acre feet runoff or do we have 25 million acre feet runoff on what it’s going to be.

Senator CONRAD. And do you have a forecast?

Mr. GRISOLI. If we have a medium flow, it will be about 5 feet

higher. If we have a low flow, we think it’s going to be somewhere

between the medium and the low, it’s not going to be high, it will

be 10 to 12 feet lower.

Senator CONRAD. Well, that’s what I was afraid of. What would

the impacts of that level be on the water and irrigation intakes at

Standing Rock?

Mr. GRISOLI. Well, at Standing Rock, Senator, it’s hard to determine what I think is the real problem, which is, it’s on a river.

There will still be adequate water passing through, but it’s the

ability to draw that water. Because it’s a river and it’s dynamic.

So as we work these fixes and we work with the Bureau of Reclamation, it will be very key, just like in Bismarck, we have to

draw out of the river. There’s no reservoir there. We have to have

a good system that we fall back on that can handle a river.
19

Senator CONRAD. Well, let’s get to that question, because that

really is the question.

What action steps have you taken to prepare for that projected

water level to prevent their being a water interruption again?

Mr. GRISOLI. We continue to work with, I think the key is the

Federal agencies work together with the State and tribe. I think

that’s number one. And we communicate.

Number two is that we offer and we pay attention to the water

levels, the possibility of the shift, which is the greatest worry of the

tribe. Obviously the next one is the icing issue. Work with the Bureau of Rec on any permits they might need, and equipment and

engineering advice.

It’s a team effort, really.

Senator CONRAD. Okay. Well, let’s talk to the whole team. Mr.

Breitzman and General Grisoli, can you assure this committee that

you are prepared to take the steps necessary to prevent an interruption of the water supply again?

Mr. BREITZMAN. Senator, we share the concerns mentioned by

the General. I think the concern we have is a shift in the channel

near Fort Yates, or ice-up conditions.

Senator CONRAD. I know the concerns. That’s not my question.

My question is very clear and very specific.

Mr. BREITZMAN. I understand.

Senator CONRAD. Can you assure this committee that you are

prepared to take the steps necessary, whatever the conditions are,

to prevent an interruption of water again? That’s the question. And

that’s what I’m going to insist on an answer to.

Mr. BREITZMAN. Senator, as I mentioned, we’ve worked with the

tribe on an emergency response plan in the case of low water conditions worse than we had last year. And we’ve done two things. We

have purchased the pipe and the pumping material on the trailer.

We’ve put an agreement together with the Garrison Conservancy

District to assist us to place that piping and pump if need be. We

exercised that the week before last. We were very successful. We

actually had water running to the treatment plant in less than 1

hour.

In addition to that, we are working with the tribe to drill a

groundwater well, which would be independent of the river. And

the bids closed on that well drilling, I believe it was this Monday,

sir. And we’re hopeful that will provide an adequate quantity of

water for an emergency situation only. It’s not great water quality,

but we’re putting a chlorination system in. It will be hooked up to

the treatment plant and yes, sir, we believe that we can’t think of

anything else to do. We think that will address any situation we

will encounter this coming water year.

Senator CONRAD. So, and let me ask General Grisoli, do you believe that you are prepared to meet any eventuality to assure that

there is not a break in water supply?

Mr. GRISOLI. Senator, the Corps is committed to all these basin

cities and tribes along the river to do everything within our authorization to assist.

Senator CONRAD. Wait 1 minute. That’s not my question. I’m not

asking about every—I’m asking a very specific question here.
20

Mr. GRISOLI. At Fort Yates, we are prepared and we are very

well tied into Chairman Murphy and into the Bureau of Reclamation to fill our role and to help and do everything we can.

Senator CONRAD. Okay, but that’s not the answer to my question.

I want to know from you and from Mr. Breitzman whether you are

testifying to this committee that you are prepared to prevent any

breakdown in the delivery of water to the tribe. That’s the question.

Have you taken the steps necessary to assure this committee

there is not going to be an interruption in the water supply to the

people of that tribe?

Mr. GRISOLI. I believe we have taken the steps necessary within

our authority to try to make sure there is no interruption. We have

got our folks watching very closely to support the efforts of the Bureau of Reclamation. It’s very hard when your support, it’s very

hard to say it won’t happen, because I rely on a team.

Senator CONRAD. Well, let’s ask Mr. Breitzman.

Mr. GRISOLI. We are prepared to do whatever necessary.

Senator CONRAD. Okay. I’m taking you at your word, and I trust

you. I think you are honest. I disagree very much with the position

of the Corps on the management of this reservoir. I trust you personally. I think you’re an honorable person and I’m taking your

word.

Mr. Breitzman, I feel the same way about you. I’ve dealt with

you for many years. You’re an honorable person. I appreciate the

extraordinary work that you did last time there was an interruption.

But it’s important for us to know, have all steps necessary been

taken to assure there is not an interruption again in the water supply?

Mr. BREITZMAN. Senator, without repeating, I think the steps

we’ve taken, we believe we’ve taken the only steps we know to take

to assure a water supply this winter. I can speak for myself and

my staff, we’re confident we can bring water to Fort Yates this winter.

Now, to qualify that statement, there is still a need to address

the long term intake issue at Fort Yates. That is being addressed

by the tribe in their final engineering report. Because of the emergency we encountered last year, I think that the intake options

that the tribe is examining have changed. I mentioned earlier in

my comments that they’re looking at, and we’re working with them

looking at a horizontal well system which won’t be as dependent

on the flows in the river. That’s an option.

Senator CONRAD. What’s the cost of that option?

Mr. BREITZMAN. The only cost I’ve seen, and it’s a rough estimate

by the tribe’s consultants, that’s around $30 million.

Senator CONRAD. $30 million?

Mr. BREITZMAN. Yes, sir.

Senator CONRAD. What would be the source of that funding?

Mr. BREITZMAN. That would be, I believe it would be Dakota

Water Resources Act. That would be a portion of the ceiling of that

Act allocated to the Fort Yates water system.

Senator CONRAD. And do you recall what the ceiling is that was

allocated to them?
21

Mr. BREITZMAN. $80 million, sir, for Standing Rock.

Senator CONRAD. So $30 million of the $80 million would go just

for that purpose?

Mr. BREITZMAN. That would be for a well system and for a new

treatment plant. That would replace both the Fort Yates and

Wakpala intakes.

Senator CONRAD. That is really sobering. I must say that $30

million estimate, that’s stunning to me.

Mr. BREITZMAN. Yes.

Senator CONRAD. That is truly stunning.

I have other questions, Mr. Chairman, but I don’t want to prevail

on your patience any further. I do have questions I would like to

submit to the record with respect to Bureau of Reclamation reimbursement of the tribe, some $400,000 to provide meal services to

those individuals repairing the intake. Has that been reimbursed

to the tribe?

Mr. BREITZMAN. Senator, I’m not sure about that specific cost.

We have reimbursed some costs to the tribes, and in some cases

I’ve been advised we don’t have the authority to reimburse some

costs.

Senator CONRAD. I’d like, and very specifically, I’ll submit this

question for the record, and if you could respond in writing as to

whether or not they have been reimbursed, and if not, why not. I

would also like to submit to the Corps in writing questions about

the legal obligation to the tribe, what I think is an irrefutable right

to water in the basin, under the Winters doctrine and the priority

that is given within the plan to the tribe. I think very clearly the

commitment is there. I want to find out if the Corps shares that

view. Maybe you could just tell me, General Grisoli, if you do share

that view under the Winters doctrine, that the tribe is assured

right to water.

Mr. GRISOLI. We recognize the reserve water rights, Senator, yes.

Senator CONRAD. Where in the priority list does that fall?

Mr. GRISOLI. It’s equal to the things we have to do. We look at,

as I had mentioned, we have congressionally authorized purposes,

we have to comply with ESA and we always look at meeting our

trust and treaty responsibilities.

Senator CONRAD. Let me just say to you, when I hear you say

this, it reminds me of what my grandmother used to say to me. She

said, Kent, if everything is a priority, nothing’s a priority. When I

hear you say everything is equal, I don’t see it that way. I don’t

see floating a barge as equal to the right of a tribe to have water

for consumption that’s necessary to preserve human life. I don’t see

how that’s equal.

Mr. GRISOLI. Senator, let me clarify the point about when the

water, if the water is quantified and ratified by Congress, and

there is a certain amount of million acre feet, obviously that will

be fulfilled directly. As it stands right now, that has not been done.

We try to meet the trust and treaty responsibilities by providing

access to water.

Senator CONRAD. Well, I’m not going to go further. I would just

say to you, this is a very serious obligation. The Federal Government has made promises. We’ve entered into treaties. Those treaties have been ratified by Supreme Court determinations. It’s just
22

as clear as a bell to me that we’ve got that obligation and that responsibility.

I thank the Chair.

Senator INOUYE. I thank you very much.

I have a few questions, if I may ask. General, is there anything

you would have done differently to avoid the problems experienced

last November and December, if you had to do it again?

Mr. GRISOLI. Senator, I’m glad you asked that question. I will tell

you that across the board, I think the team didn’t anticipate well

enough the issues along the reserve. I will tell you that this year,

that’s a little different. We’ve been more proactive, Federal agencies trying to work with State and tribe.

Last year, it wasn’t that way. We were anticipating some problems, but I don’t think it was proactive. I think that’s a fair statement to say across the board to everyone. You see the changing of

the reservoir system and yet, I’m not sure if we were as proactive

as we should be.

Senator INOUYE. In the statement of Chairman Murphy, he

spoke of an inland reservoir, or a manmade lake, costing about $30

million. Is there any construction plan for this project, or is it just

an item of discussion?

Mr. GRISOLI. At this time, Senator, I have no information as far

as it being a particular plan or study. That’s just an initial idea or

concept.

But I believe also, I offer that the Bureau of Reclamation would

be authorized to work that project. It wouldn’t be a Corps project.

But I could be wrong.

Senator INOUYE. Mr. Breitzman, is that or feasible idea? Is it

practical?

Mr. BREITZMAN. Senator, I also don’t know. I must admit this

morning is the first time I’ve heard of the inland reservoir proposal. We’d have to look into that.

Senator INOUYE. General and Mr. Breitzman, can you sit down

with Chairman Murphy and his council and see if something can

be done? As a member of the committee, I would like to see that.

And if it is feasible and practical, I am on the Appropriations Committee, so maybe we can do something about it.

Mr. BREITZMAN. We will do that, Senator.

Mr. GRISOLI. We will do that, Mr. Chairman.

Senator INOUYE. I realize that a problem of this nature cannot

be fully and guaranteed controlled, because after all, there is such

a thing as nature and the Good Lord. He has His own ideas.

But I would just like to note that when our troops entered Baghdad, the people there received us with cheers and with huzzahs,

they tore down the statute of Saddam Hussein, there was much joy

and merriment in that city. But we noted that within 1 week, these

same faces became faces of anger. And in our hearings, we noted

that there were many causes for this.

One of the major causes was that we did not have plans to repair

the damaged water systems and the damaged sewer systems. We

had the finest troops in the world, but they were war fighters.

They were not water system repairers and sewer system

repairers.
23

And the Indians here, I think, have been very patient all these

years, because they know that you’re trying your best. So I hope

that you will try a little harder. Let us come up with this plan, if

it is feasible, if it is practical, maybe that is the solution. But I think it might cost more than $30 million. But we will see.

But before I adjourn the hearing, I would like to indicate that

the record of this hearing will be kept open for 2 weeks. For all the

witnesses, if you wish to supplement your testimony or clarify your

testimony, please feel free to do so.

This will be my last meeting in which I will be presiding as vice

chairman. I will continue to serve as a member of the committee,

but I will be taking over another leadership role on the Commerce

Committee.

Before I do, I would like to just note a few things. When I became a member of this committee 26 years ago, there were only 5

members. It was a select committee, it was not an important committee. Today there are 15 members. And I am happy to say that

my colleagues in the Senate now seek membership on this committee.

Second, we have been given much praise and credit for what we

have done. It is true that this committee has considered more legislation and passed more bills than any other committee in the Senate. It is hard to believe that, but this has been a very busy committee. But it would not have been done were it not for the staff,

and I would like the record to show these are the staff people.

The Majority Staff Director and Chief Counsel, Paul Moorehead.

The following are the counsel to Chairman Campbell; David

Mullon, John Tahsuda, Perry Riggs, Rhonda Harjo, and Jim Hall.

Professional Staff Member, Lee Frazier.

The Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel is Patricia Zell.

The following are the counsel to the Vice Chairman; Janet

Erickson, Carl Christensen, Diana Kupchella, and Colin Kippen.

The Chief Clerk of the Committee, Marilyn Bruce; Computer Systems Administrator, Dawson Ford; Office Manager, Tana Towney;

Receptionist, Sarah Fluhart; and Printing Officer, John Mogavero.

I cite these names because there will be a major change in the

leadership of this committee.

Chairman Campbell will now go into the private sector, and I

will be on another committee. So many of these staff members may

not be back with us, but I wanted to thank them for all the work

they have done with us. I hope that the succeeding staff will continue the work that we have established over the years.

I am sorry to have taken up this time, but General, Mr.

Breitzman, Mr. Olson, I thank you very much for your testimony.

We look forward to a report coming in from what you have concluded.

One final question, Mr. Olson. Mr. Murphy said that as a result

of this recent drought, you incurred an extra cost of $300,000, is

that correct?

Mr. OLSON. The information I have is that most of that relates

to lost services. We had staff that had to be put on administrative

leave and of course be paid, and services were not provided to tribal members during that period of time. So that was not extra expenses that the Indian Health Service had to pay, except for over-
24

time for maintenance staff and some additional contract health dollars and some lost revenue. But the bulk of it had to do with staff

that was not able to provide services to the tribal members.

Senator INOUYE. Have you applied for compensation for this loss?

Mr. OLSON. Sir?

Senator INOUYE. Have you applied for reimbursement for this

loss?

Mr.OLSON. Not that I’m aware of.

Senator INOUYE. Why do you not?

Mr. OLSON. Yes, sir.

Senator INOUYE. Once again, I thank you very much. And the

hearing stands at recess.

[Whereupon, at 11:25 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
(25)

APPENDIX

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

PREPARED STATEMENT OF WILLIAM T. GRISOLI, BRIGADIER GENERAL, COMMANDER

AND DIVISION ENGINEER, NORTHWESTERN DIVISION, U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am Brigadier General William

T. Grisoli and I am Commander of the Northwestern Division of the U.S. Army

Corps of Engineers [Corps]. I am pleased to be here today to discuss our roles, responsibilities, and efforts on managing the Missouri River Mainstem Reservoir System and on the matter of water supply issues at the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe Reservation.

The Missouri River basin is currently in its fifth consecutive year of drought.

Since 2000, below normal mountain snowpack, rainfall and runoff have resulted in

record low reservoir levels behind the large upper three dams: Fort Peck is currently drawn down over 34 feet; Garrison, over 24 feet; and, Oahe over 32 feet. Currently, all Congressionally authorized purposes for which the System was built are

being negatively impacted except for flood control. We recognize that the continuing

drought conditions have resulted in hardships for the Standing Rock Sioux, other

tribes, and to many of the water users in the Missouri River Basin.

The drought has negatively affected many river and reservoir water intakes including the water intake that serves the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe at Fort Yates,

ND. Lower pool levels at the upper three reservoirs have also caused problems related to noxious weed control, boating and reservoir access, exposure of cultural resources and increased fire threat.

The System is comprised of six dam and reservoir projects authorized by the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1935 and the Flood Control Act of 1944 to operate as an

integrated system providing for flood control, navigation, irrigation, hydropower,

water supply, water quality, recreation, and fish and wildlife. On this river system,

the Corps of Engineers follows the Missouri River Master Water Control Manual

[Master Manual], which guides how we regulate the flow of water at the six dams

on the mainstem of the Missouri River: Fort Peck, Garrison, Oahe, Big Bend, Fort

Randall, and Gavins Point. First developed in 1960, the Master Manual was first

revised in 1975 and 1979, to make changes in flood control regulation criteria.

With input from affected interests and other agencies, the Corps formulates and

publishes Annual Operating Plans, which inform the public of expected operations

over the coming year. The Draft Annual Operating Plan for 2005, which presents

our planned regulation of the Mainstem System under a wide range of water supply

conditions, was recently released for public review. Seven public meetings were held

throughout the basin in October to review the Draft, take comments and answer

questions regarding the plan. The details of the plan were also presented at the Mni

Sose Intertribal Water Rights Coalition meeting in late September. After taking into

consideration comments received on the Draft, we expect to release the Final Annual Operating Plan in December.

It was 1 year ago I testified to this committee regarding our efforts to improve

our management of the System during times of ongoing and extended drought. I discussed the involvement and consideration of tribes in this process. I listened to the
26

committees’ and tribes’ concerns over our management and actions in operating the

Mainstem projects. Since that time, we’ve improved our ability to serve the Basin,

and I am pleased to provide you with an update of our actions since that prior testimony.

On March 19, 2004, I signed a Record of Decision and issued a revised Master

Manual that includes stronger drought conservation measures. This culminated a

14-year effort that included an analysis of alternatives and their effects on the economic uses and environmental resources in the basin. Our efforts involved extensive

coordination with stakeholders, public input, workshops and hearings across the

basin. We also consulted with the Missouri River Basin Tribes, and included tribal

workshops, and meetings with tribal chairmen and tribal members. We received

comments from tribes, States, and others on the alternatives. The revision increases

reliability and predictability for the Basin. The revised Water Control Plan meets

our Tribal Trust and Treaty responsibilities, complies with Federal law and achieves

a balance among the interests on the river.

We are committed to working collaboratively to preserve cultural resources that

are exposed due to the drought conditions and reservoir fluctuations. In April 2004,

we co-signed a programmatic agreement with the 16 American Indian Tribes, two

Tribal Historic Preservation Officers, four State Historic Preservation Officers, the

National Trust for Historic Preservation, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and other parties, that commits to the operation and management of the Missouri River Mainstem System in compliance with the National Historic Preservation

Act. The Omaha District is now spending approximately $3 million dollars a year

for cultural resources. In fiscal year 2004, we worked on projects to protect four high

priority cultural sites, and we have plans to protect three additional sites in 2005.

We will continue to seek additional opportunities to preserve cultural resources

along the Missouri River.

We continue to work with the Bureau of Reclamation, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the U.S. Geological Survey, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, American Indian Tribes, and State and local governments

to address the effects of the current drought. We are taking actions to help relieve

the drought’s effects, including its effects on the water supply of the Standing Rock

Sioux. When the Fort Yates raw water intake failed in November 2003, we assisted

the Bureau of Reclamation by managing water releases and operations during intake construction activities, and providing equipment and technical assistance during the emergency. We also granted emergency authorization pursuant to section 10

of the Rivers and Harbors Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act to place fill

material into Oahe reservoir in conjunction with the construction of access roads

and the placement of a water supply intake line. Over the past year we have

proactively continued to provide technical assistance to the Bureau of Reclamation

at their request, including making design recommendations, providing surveys of

the problem area, and evaluating contingency plans and technical reports.

Further, the Corps has assisted other communities with water supply problems

brought on by the drought. In anticipation of required regulatory permits associated

with drought-related challenges to water supply intakes in Fort Yates and Mandan,

ND and Wakpala, SD, the Corps coordinated with appropriate Federal and local

agencies. In September 2004, we awarded a contract to extend and lower the municipal water intake for Parshall, ND using our authority under Public Law 84–99 to

supply municipal water in emergency drought situations.

The Corps has also spent more than $2 million over the past 2 years extending

and relocating boat ramps on the upper three reservoirs. The Corps has also expanded its efforts to control noxious weeds at the upper three projects, which now

involve expenditures of approximately $500,000 per year.

The impacts of the current drought are not only being felt around the upper three

System reservoirs. Water intakes for municipal and industrial water supply, including thermal powerplants, on the lower Missouri River Basin below the System from

Yankton, SD to St. Louis, MO, have been negatively impacted in the river reach.

Several intake owners have had to modify their facilities to deal with the lower river

flows caused by the drought. More specifically, three intakes in the Kansas City vicinity owned by the Kansas Board of Utilities, Water One [Johnson County KS] and

Kansas City, MO have added low water intakes to ensure continued operation at

those intakes. Navigation and river recreation in the lower river has also been negatively impacted by lower releases and shortened navigation seasons.

We recognize that the continuing drought conditions have resulted in hardships

for the Standing Rock Sioux and the other tribes, as well as for many other of the

water users in the Missouri River Basin. We remain committed to address those impacts where possible, to meet our responsibilities to federally recognized tribes, to

serve the authorized project purposes, to balance the competing needs of the Basin,
27

and to comply with environmental laws including the Endangered Species Act. We

will continue to work closely with you and all the Missouri River Basin stakeholders

in that effort.

We appreciate having the opportunity to be here today, and I look forward to

hearing the testimony from Tribal Leaders, and any ideas they may have to improve

our service to the public of the Missouri River Basin.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I would be pleased to answer any

questions you or the members of the committee might have.

MISSOURI RIVER BASIN WATER MANAGEMENT DIVISION

January 14, 2005.

Hon. DANIEL K. INOUYE, Vice Chairman, Committee on Indian Affairs,

U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

DEAR SENATOR INOUYE: Thank you for your letter of November 22, 2004 as vice

chairman of the Committee on Indian Affairs. In that letter you requested written

responses to a number of questions regarding problems with a water supply intake

at Fort Yates, ND on the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation. Please find responses

to each of those questions in the attached document.

I appreciated the opportunity to testify before the committee on November 18,

2004 and to provide this additional clarification requested in your letter. If you have

any further questions or comments, please feel free to contact me.

Sincerely,

WILLIAM T. GRISOLI, Brigadier General,

U.S. Army, Division Engineer.

Question 1. In 1908, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that when the Indian reservations were created and reserved, the right of the tribes to use the water was

also reserved. The Court noted, ‘‘fundamentally, the United States as a trustee for

the Indians, preserved . . . the title to the right to the use of water which the Indians had ‘reserved’ for themselves. . . ’’ This decision became known as the Winters

Doctrine.

The Corps of Engineers cannot ignore the clear and indisputable fact that the

tribe has an irrefutable right to water in the basin. It is a right that has existed

for more than 100 years when the tribes signed treaties with the United States and

it is a right that was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court 96 years ago. Those rights

are never forfeited.

Based on this doctrine, does the Corps in its management of the dams and reservoirs afford the tribe’s use of water a higher priority than the other authorized

purposes? If not, why not?

Answer 1. As indicated in our testimony before the committee, tribal water rights

may be quantified through adjudication or by compact with the affected State, ratified by Congress. Most tribes within the Missouri River basin, however, have not

yet sought to quantify their reserved water rights under the ‘‘Winters Doctrine,’’ although several tribes in Montana and Wyoming are at various stages of the quantification process. The Corps does not have the responsibility to define, regulate, or

quantify water rights, or any other rights that the tribes are entitled to by law or

treaty. Unless specifically provided for by Federal statute, quantification of water

rights does not entail an allocation of storage at Corps reservoirs. The Corps recognizes, however, that the tribes have claims to reserved water rights, and will, to the

extent possible, continue to operate the Mainstem Reservoir System [System] based

on that recognition.

Question 2. In your testimony you indicate that the Corps is meeting its trust

obligation to the tribe.

Please reconcile for me how the Corps can state that it is meeting its trust obligation if it fails to ensure that adequate water is maintained in the reservoir to ensure

the tribe has access to water as was reserved in the treaties and confirmed by the

Supreme Court?

Answer 2. The System was authorized by Congress to serve eight purposes, including water supply, over a wide range of runoff conditions. To accomplish this, a

large portion of the storage in the upper three reservoirs is used to hold water that

is used during extended drought, like the drought currently being experienced in the

basin, to continue service to authorized purposes. Releases from Garrison Dam will

continue to be adequate to serve the water supply needs of the community, and we

will continue to work with the Bureau of Reclamation to ensure intake access. As
28

indicated above and in our testimony before the committee, most tribes within the

Missouri River Basin have not yet sought to quantify their reserved water rights

under the Winters Doctrine and allocations of System storage for their claims to reserved water rights have not been made.

Question 3. At what point did the Corps become aware of the potential threat

to the tribe’s water supply last year? When the Corps became aware, what specific

action steps were taken to either avert the loss of water or respond to the loss?

Answer 3. The Corps first became aware of the problem at the Fort Yates intake

on November 25, 2003 when a staff member from Senator Dorgan’s Bismarck office

contacted us. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation [BOR] operates and maintains the

Fort Yates intake, and has the authority to assist rural water systems in both an

emergency repair and a permanent remedy of the problem. At the request of the

BOR, releases from Garrison Darn were adjusted by the Corps to facilitate the repair of the intake. The Corps also issued emergency permits, loaned equipment and

provided technical assistance as requested. Because the BOR has the lead role in

regard to this rural water system intake, the Corps has, and will continue, to support their efforts through timely issuance of required permits, as well as equipment

loans and technical assistance as requested. We will also continue to work with the

BOR and others on the development of a contingency plan and a long-term solution.

The Bureau of Reclamation’s contingency plan for the Fort Yates intake includes installing a portable pump in the river and bringing it online within 9 hours, should

a problem with the intake occur. Longer-term solutions are being studied by the

BOR, but in the interim, the Corps will continue to work with the BOR to keep the

existing intake functional.

Question 4. On Tuesday of this week, the Omaha District office issued a press

release citing its work to extend the intake system at Parshall as an example of

the Corps’ efforts to offset the drought conditions.

What specific actions has the Corps taken at Standing Rock to offset the impacts

of the low water levels? Has the Corps developed any action steps to help avert the

loss of water again at Standing Rock?

Answer 4. The Corps initiated a multi-agency contingency planning effort with a

meeting at Fort Yates on December 13, 2004. Meeting participants examined the

authorities, roles and responsibilities of the various Federal, tribal, and State agencies that can help if another emergency arises. The meeting also helped to establish

lines of communication between the various agencies and participants committed to

work together on the Fort Yates intake problem and other drought issues. The

Corps is currently assisting in the preparation of an Emergency Action Plan for the

Fort Yates community. The plan will present a list of actions necessary to provide

relief for the Tribe during an emergency associated with their water supply system.

Question 5. Based on your projections for next year’s potential run-off scenarios,

what is the Corps’ preliminary forecast on the level of Lake Oahe and the impacts

of that level on the water and irrigation intakes at Standing Rock? What steps are

being taken to ensure the tribe will not lose access to water based on those projections?

Answer 5. Absent significantly above normal runoff this year, Lake Oahe is not

likely to refill substantially in 2005, and Fort Yates will continue to experience river

conditions at their intake. Releases from Garrison will be adequate to serve the

water supply needs of the community. As described above, the Corps is currently

working with the Bureau of Reclamation to develop an Emergency Action Plan to

respond to any emergency associated with their water supply system.

Question 6. How many Missouri River intakes and/or inland reservoirs has the

Corps constructed, operates and maintains?

Answer 6. The Corps has constructed a total of 51 reservoirs in the Missouri River

basin including the six System reservoirs and 45 tributary reservoirs. In recent

years, the Corps has constructed three intakes along the lower Missouri River to

pump water into environmental restoration sites. The Corps does not own, operate

or maintain any municipal, rural, industrial or private intakes on the Missouri

River; however, we have provided emergency assistance to municipalities, such as

Parshall, ND, for water intakes that fall under the authorities of the Public Law

84–99, Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies.
29

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RICHARD OLSON, M.D., DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF CLINICAL

AND COMMUNITY SERVICES, INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH

AND HUMAN SERVICES

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee:

Good morning, I am Dr. Richard Olson, director, Division of Clinical and Community Services, Indian Health Service [IHS]. I am accompanied by Ronald Ferguson,

director, Division of Sanitation Facilities Construction, Indian Health Service. We

are here today to discuss the impact of the failure of the Fort Yates municipal water

system on the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation in November and December 2003

and its impact on the IHS hospital at Fort Yates, ND service unit.

Because the water system failure happened quickly, local officials were unable to

provide advance warning to the public. Since that time, the Bureau of Reclamation

[BOR], has made certain improvements to the water intake system. In addition, we

have successfully drilled and installed a well on the IHS hospital property grounds

that could keep our boilers and furnaces in operation and provide water to bathroom

facilities. However, this water would not be suitable for medical use or human consumption.

I would now like to provide to the committee background on the IHS and the

events of last year that left the Standing Rock Community without water and particularly its impact on the IHS health facility’s ability to continue to provide health

care services to the Standing Rock tribal community.

The IHS, an agency in the Department of Health and Human Services, delivers

health services to more than 1.6 million federally recognized American Indians and

Alaska Natives (AI/ANs) through a system of IHS, tribal, and urban [I/T/U] operated facilities and programs based on treaties, judicial determinations, and Acts of

Congress. The mission of the agency is to raise the physical, mental, social, and

spiritual health of AI/ANs to the highest level, in partnership with the population

we serve. The agency goal is to assure that comprehensive, culturally acceptable

personal and public health services are available and accessible to American Indian

and Alaska Native people and communities.

On Sunday November 23, 2003, the Service Unit staff was informed that the intake pump and water line into the Missouri River was either plugged with silt or

frozen or both. The water fines were rapidly losing pressure as the municipal water

storage tanks were rapidly being depleted.

Immediate steps were taken to make sure the safety of patients was not compromised and to implement backup plans to maintain the operation of the Fort

Yates Indian Hospital. At this time, there were no in-patients in the Hospital and

no patients being seen in the emergency department. Without potable running

water, we made a decision to send the in-patient nursing staff home. The service

unit leadership conferred with the tribal ambulance staff and advised the emergency

medical technicians to transport patients directly from the pick-up sites to hospitals

in Bismarck, ND, and to cease delivery of patients to the Fort Yates Indian Hospital. Dialysis services also had to be closed until it was again safe to run the dialysis units at the Hospital. Emergency staff was sent home and the Hospital closed

entirely except for the maintenance staff who remained on duty to keep the boilers

and furnaces up and running. The furnaces were kept running by hauling water to

the Hospital from a private well located approximately 4–5 miles from the Hospital.

On Monday November 24, due to complete shut-down of water services to the city

of Fort Yates, the decision was made to completely close the hospital after conferring with the tribe. Public statements by radio stations were used to inform the public of the water supply problem, the closure of the Fort Yates Indian Hospital, and

where to seek medical services. Arrangements were made to transport dialysis patients to the, Med Center One Hospital in Bismarck, ND. All necessary medical staff

reported to the Indian Health Service Clinic in McLaughlin, SD, which is located

25 miles south of Fort Yates, ND, to assist in the added number of patients resulting from closure of the Hospital. We operated under this plan for 2 days.

By Wednesday, November 26, 2003, we were able to operate a general walk-in

clinic for non-invasive procedures using local antiseptic hand-washing procedures

and limited restroom facilities with the use of hauled water to the restrooms. The

Fort Yates Indian Hospital returned to fall operation during the first week of December after running water was restored by Tribal Officials and the Bureau of Reclamation, and the water was determined to be safe by the Environmental Protection

Agency.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. Thank you for this opportunity to

discuss this health related matter. We will be happy to answer any questions that

you may have.
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79Æ