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

30–279 PDF 2006

S. HRG. 109–712 

RED RIVER VALLEY WATER SUPPLY 

PROJECT 

HEARING 

BEFORE A

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

SPECIAL HEARING 

AUGUST 24, 2006—FARGO, NORTH DAKOTA 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi, Chairman 

TED STEVENS, Alaska 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania 

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico 

CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri 

MITCH MCCONNELL, Kentucky 

CONRAD BURNS, Montana 

RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama 

JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire 

ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah 

LARRY CRAIG, Idaho 

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas 

MIKE DEWINE, Ohio 

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas 

WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado 

ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia 

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont 

TOM HARKIN, Iowa 

BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland 

HARRY REID, Nevada 

HERB KOHL, Wisconsin 

PATTY MURRAY, Washington 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

J. BRUCE EVANS, Staff Director 

TERRENCE E. SAUVAIN, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES

CONRAD BURNS, Montana Chairman 

TED STEVENS, Alaska 

THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi 

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico 

ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah 

JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire 

LARRY CRAIG, Idaho 

WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont 

HARRY REID, Nevada 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland 

HERB KOHL, Wisconsin 

Professional Staff 

LEIF FONNESBECK

GINNY JAMES

REBECCA BENN

MICHELE GORDON

CHRISTINE HEGGEM

PETER KIEFHABER (Minority) 

RACHAEL TAYLOR (Minority) 

SCOTT DALZELL (Minority) 

Administrative Support 

DARREN BENJAMIN
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Opening statement of Senator Byron L. Dorgan ................................................... 1 

Statement of Represenative Earl Pomeroy ............................................................ 2 

Statement of Dennis Walakar, mayor, Fargo, North Dakota .............................. 4 

Statement of Dale Frink, Engineer, North Dakota State Water Commission ... 6 

Statement of Dave Koland, general manager, Garrison Diversion Conservancy 

District .................................................................................................................. 7 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 8 

Statement of Mike Dwyer, executive director, North Dakota Water Coalition .. 10 

Statement of Bruce Furness, chairman, Lake Agassiz Water Authority ............ 12 

Statement of Curt Kreun, city council member, Grand Forks, North Dakota ... 14 

Statement of Lance Yohe, executive director, Red River Basin Commission ..... 17 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 18 

(1) 

RED RIVER VALLEY WATER SUPPLY PROJECT 

THURSDAY, AUGUST 24, 2006 

U.S. SENATE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES, 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, 

Fargo, ND. 

The subcommittee met at 11 a.m., in the Fargo City Commission 

Chambers, 200 N. 3rd Street, Fargo, ND, Senator Byron L. Dorgan 

presiding. 

Present: Senator Dorgan. 

Also present: Congressman Pomeroy. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BYRON L. DORGAN

Senator DORGAN. Good morning. We will begin the hearing. This 

is a formal hearing of the subcommittee, the Interior Subcommittee 

of Appropriations of the U.S. Senate, and we are making a formal 

record of this hearing and a transcript of this hearing. I have invited my colleague, Congressman Pomeroy, who is in Fargo this 

morning, to join me and be a part of the hearing because the hearing is on the subject that is very important to all of our State and 

to this entire region, as a matter of fact. 

I would like to just describe a little of the background and then 

call on my colleague, Congressman Pomeroy, for a couple of comments. Let me point out that when we passed the Dakota Water 

Resources Act, that was a piece of legislation that was authored 

and worked on by myself, Senator Conrad, and Congressman Pomeroy. That became law, and there is a section in that law that directs the Secretary and the State of North Dakota to jointly prepare, I am quoting now, ‘‘jointly prepare and complete a draft environmental impact statement considering all feasible options to 

meet the comprehensive water quality and quantity needs of the 

Red River Valley and the options for meeting those needs, including delivery of Missouri River water to the Red River Valley.’’ As 

a result of that, that’s a portion of the legislation that we wrote, 

understanding that part of dealing with the broader water issues 

of North Dakota is the requirement to deal with the issue in the 

Red River Valley. The Red River has largely run dry in the past 

and will perhaps in the future, and the question is how will the development along the Red River from the southern part of our State 

to the northern part of our State on both sides of the river, how 

will that development continue to take place if you have a short 

supply of water? Development is not possible without water. It is 

the resource that determines whether the development will exist or 

not. So section 8 of the Dakota Water Resources Act anticipates 
2 

this process of evaluating how to connect an assured water supply 

to the Red River Valley. The Bureau of Reclamation, as you know, 

has been working on their requirement under section 8 doing studies. The studies have taken much, much longer than we had hoped. 

I have, in fact, held previous hearings in Fargo for the explicit purpose of kicking and re-kicking the Bureau of Reclamation to try to 

get them to meet their timelines but it is a big old agency. They 

have got a lot on their plate and they tend to stretch things out, 

but it is done and we now have what’s called the executive summary here in my hands of the draft environmental impact statement, Red River Valley Water Supply Project. At long last the Bureau of Reclamation provided a series of alternatives, and they are 

alternatives that have costs attached to them, saying here are the 

specific recommendations. There are eight potential alternatives, 

which includes an alternative called no action at all. Well, I think 

most of us would believe that is not a very good alternative. So of 

the other alternatives there have been discussions and meetings in 

the State by the Bureau of Reclamation and the State and local officials to discuss these various alternatives and what the alternatives might cost. 

There will be a Federal component of some type when the decision is made exactly which of the alternatives we pursue, and the 

purpose today is for us to evaluate what it is you want to do. I 

know from discussions and reports, the preliminary decisions about 

what alternative might be best for you, what will be the responsibility for those of us in Congress and for the Federal agencies if 

we pursue one of these alternatives, that’s what we hope we might 

understand today. Getting this information on the record is another 

step in trying to move towards completion of our goal to get water 

to the Red River when that water is needed. 

There will be an amended version of the environmental impact 

statement with another public comment period of 45 days, and the 

final EIS is to be published by December 2006. The BOR says that 

they intend to hold to that date. So there are a lot of issues that 

attach to this. This is in some ways controversial, in other ways 

difficult, likely to face legal challenges, funding challenges. It is not 

easy to do what all of us would like to see done, but doing things 

that aren’t easy is—if all that we ever did in life were the easy 

things, we would hardly ever breathe hard. Doing things that 

aren’t easy sometimes is critically important. You have to find a 

way to make it happen and that’s what we’re intending to do. 

Let me call on my colleague, Congressman Pomeroy, who, as I 

indicated, has been an integral part of all of this, and whatever we 

do at the Federal level will be responsible on the House side for 

making it work and making it happen. So, Congressman Pomeroy, 

thank you for joining us today. 

STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE EARL POMEROY

Mr. POMEROY. Thank you, Senator. 

It is a rare privilege for a House Member to participate in a Senate hearing, so I appreciate very much your allowing me to participate, and I want to note for the hearing the attendance of Governor 

William Guy. Forty-six years ago Governor Guy was elected to office, a young farmer from Casselton, North Dakota. During the 12 
3 

years that he served as the leader of our State, prudent statewide 

development of water resources was one of the clear enduring priorities of the Guy administration. Having his ongoing interest in 

his private life long after his governorship ended has really been 

a resource to our entire State. Forty-six years from now you will 

be talking about water because water and North Dakota are critically linked. What will happen to the future of our State depends 

upon how we will be able to sustain the water needs of growth. 

I think that this hearing, Senator, could not be more timely. We 

have so often referenced the water experiences of the 1930s in 

making the case for bringing water west to east—bringing water 

supply to the Red River Valley. This summer we have an incredible 

drought that we have experienced. The water utilization restrictions we have seen in the Fargo community are a much more recent demonstration of what’s at stake for eastern North Dakota in 

all of this. We have a dimension of growth unimaginable just a few 

years ago. Of course, the water needs to sustain it are more intense 

than ever. But the water availability and assurance is as uncertain 

as ever, as indicated by utilization restrictions as we have seen this 

summer. So I am interested in hearing from our experts in terms 

of water resource management, especially about the concerns that 

they had to manage through this summer and what’s before them 

that—without an extraordinary response—might impair everything 

we have now come to know and enjoy about development of the 

Red River Valley. 

Thank you, Senator. 

Senator DORGAN. Congressman Pomeroy, thank you very much. 

Let me echo—I was go to introduce Bill Guy, but Bill Guy’s service 

to our State had a lot to do with water, water policy, and I really 

appreciate seeing him here. He did spawn a generation of public 

service by others, including myself, much to the chagrin of some 

perhaps, I think we have been grappling with these water issues 

for a long, long time and origin of much of the intellectual bedrock 

for this has come back in the 1960s and with Bill’s work, so thank 

you for being here, Bill Guy. Thanks to all of you who have come. 

We will accept testimony, written testimony, by anyone who 

wishes to submit written testimony for 15 days after this hearing, 

and it will become a part of the permanent hearing record for the 

entire subcommittee of the Senate. 

I am going to call on the following folks for opening presentations 

and then we will have questions. I am going to call on the mayor 

first, Mayor Dennis Walakar, Fargo, North Dakota, and then I will 

call on Dale Frink, the State engineer of the State Water Commission, then followed by Dave Koland, general manager of the Garrison Conservancy District, Mike Dwyer, executive director of North 

Dakota Water Coalition, and then Bruce Furness, chairman, Lake 

Agassiz Water Authority and former mayor, of course, of Fargo, 

and Grand Forks city council member, Curt Kreun. So Curt is 

down at the end. Let me thank the mayor for allowing us to use 

your city council chambers and congratulate Fargo’s new mayor 

and welcome him to the world of—well, I shouldn’t say that—he 

has been involved in water problems for a long, long time as well, 

but welcome to the hearing, and Mr. Mayor, thank you very much. 

Why don’t you provide us your testimony? 
4 

STATEMENT OF DENNIS WALAKAR, MAYOR, FARGO, NORTH DAKOTA 

Mayor WALAKAR. Good morning. I am Fargo Mayor Dennis 

Walakar. It is my pleasure to welcome the U.S. Senator Byron Dorgan and the U.S. States Representative Earl Pomeroy to the Red 

River Valley. 

Since the 1800s the Red River has been the lifeline to our city 

by serving as a primary water supply, providing means of barge 

and steam boat transportation for pioneers and fulfilling various 

recreational needs. The Red River continues to serve as our primary water supply. It is critical to sustain this current and for the 

future economy of the city of Fargo and basically for the future of 

the State of North Dakota. 

Our history shows the droughts in the valley can lead to serious 

water shortages. Add to that the growing population of our area 

and the potential for problems multiply. You can see on the first 

slide there of our earlier part of the city, and, you know, that’s why 

we’re here. I mean we are here because the railroad came through 

here and the Red River was our water supply and so forth. That’s 

not the way it is today, but that’s the way it was in the early settlement of our city. 

The city of Fargo has experienced steady growth for the last 50 

years. A fairly consistent population growth of 2 percent per year 

has occurred with accelerated growth starting in the 1970s and 

continuing through the year 2000. To plan for future needs several 

population projection studies have been completed over the past 

few years and each utilizing different assumptions and methodologies. Such efforts resulted in projected populations ranging from 

165,000 as a low to 240,000 to 243,000 as a high by the year 2050. 

Regardless of method or result, it is certain the city will continue 

to grow and it is Fargo’s intent to be prepared for the associated 

increase for the demand of water through participation in the Red 

River Valley Water Supply Project. 

On a nationwide basis, residents of North Dakota use water 

much like their demographically similar neighbors. North Dakotans use considerably less than those in many other States because 

we try to conserve water. However, historical analysis of the water 

demand data suggests the residents of the Red River Valley recognize the value of water as a natural resource and use water in a 

very efficient manner. 

With an increase in population for the city of Fargo, the demand 

for water is anticipated to increase accordingly. Since 1995 the city 

has been working with U.S. Bureau of Reclamation to address Fargo’s future water needs. Based on the range of population projections, methodology utilized by the Bureau of Reclamation to estimate future water needs during a drought the city of Fargo could 

potentially need 30,000 to 45,000 acre feet of water per year. 

Existing and future industrial water demands are a critical component of the economy of the Red River Valley and were considered 

in the Red River Valley Water Supply Project. To address the 

issue, the North Dakota State University Department of Agri-Business and Economics was retained by the Bureau of Reclamation to 

complete an Industrial Water Needs Assessment. Industrial water 

production methodology and approach involved a review of historical crop productions and industrial water usage rates. Consider-
5 

ation of economic development scenarios and evaluation of factors 

attracting supply-oriented agricultural processing industries to the 

Red River Valley. The results of the study indicated that industrial 

needs attributed to the agricultural economy could increase to 

35,000 acre feet per year, and up to 13,000 acre feet of additional 

water per year is estimated to be needed in the Fargo by the year 

2050. 

Occurrence of severe low flow conditions in the Red River Valley 

at Fargo is chronic. Flows in the Red River at Fargo are highly 

variable by looking at this approach here. That is the history basically of the flows of the Red River here in Fargo. This year was 

extremely unusual. Most of us had estimated that we were not 

going to have a serious flood after a wet fall and a wet spring and 

we still didn’t feel we were going to have a major flood, and we did, 

and that can happen basically as the winds of the weather. 

Between 1932 and 1940, according to a report that our Director 

of Public Works had done in 1940, there were 800 days when the 

Red River ceased to flow. That’s an average of 100 days per year 

between 1932 and 1940. During that time Fargo’s population was 

32,580. If that happened today we have 94,000 residents as we 

speak. 

The occurrence of a significant drought is not a future concern. 

It is a concern today. If a drought of similar duration and magnitude as that of the 1930s happened in the present day, the city 

of Fargo would experience a water supply shortage during each 

year of the drought without a reliable and sustainable, supplemental water supply. The city of Fargo will be forced to suffer socioeconomic consequences associated with an inadequate supply of 

water. 

The impact of a drought would be devastating to the city of 

Fargo. Hydraulic modeling efforts completed by the Bureau of Reclamation indicate that the water supply shortages experienced by 

the city of Fargo would overwhelm our efforts to reduce water use 

through the city’s recently adopted Drought Management Plan. According to 2005, water demands in a 1930s drought scenario is estimated that half the municipal, rural, and industrial demand in the 

Red River Valley would be unmet on a worst month basis. As 

would be expected, a vast portion of this shortage is identified for 

Fargo, meaning the extent of the local shortages would be magnified significantly. The grim water shortage projections need to be 

addressed through the implementation of a reliable Red River 

Water Supply Project alternative. 

Fargo fully supports the construction of a pipeline from the Garrison Diversion Unit to Lake Ashtabula to deliver water via the 

Sheyenne. This is the least expensive option and the one that affords us the most flexibility. 

What are the next steps in this process? We must determine 

local costs, how to finance the project. Then we can make a final 

commitment to the pipeline. After that we will work with the Lake 

Agassiz Water Authority to develop an operational plan. We will 

also continue to work with other metropolitan communities on 

strategies for treating and distributing the water the pipeline 

would supply. 
6 

The drought conditions we experienced this summer have magnified the significance of this project. After we had water here in 

the Valley, probably more than anything could use for years and 

years and years, but right now after a wet fall, a wet spring we 

haven’t had—we are about 5 inches below normal right now. 

It is my hope we can move forward in the near future with this 

plan to provide our water supply needs. 

Thank you for the opportunity to present our concerns. I would 

be happy to answer any questions you have. We have staff present 

here to address the technical matters. 

Senator DORGAN. Mr. Mayor, thank you very much. We appreciate those thoughts. 

I would like to next call on Dale Frink who is the State engineer 

of the State Water Commission. Dale. 

STATEMENT OF DALE FRINK, ENGINEER, NORTH DAKOTA STATE 

WATER COMMISSION 

Mr. FRINK. Thank you. 

Senator Dorgan, Congressman Pomeroy, former Governor Bill 

Guy, Governor Guy was governor when I started with the Water 

Commission, so that’s—I have been around a long time, so welcome. 

I am Dale Frink. I am the North Dakota State engineer with the 

North Dakota State Water Commission, and thank you for the opportunity to testify today. 

Development of the environmental impact statement for the Red 

River Valley Water Supply Project is in its fifth year and that is 

a long time, but one of the things that I have noticed over these 

5 years is a change in people’s attitude and how people understand 

the need for the project. You know, initially I heard things like, 

well, the water—the project just isn’t needed. We don’t need the 

water. But I think as more and more studies have gone on, that 

has changed and, you know, kind of the next step we took, well, 

you don’t—you’re not going to need the water if you adjust and control growth. Of course, I am not sure if that’s ever—you know, how 

that is going to happen. But even more recently I think it gets into 

what the mayor was just talking about. We’re short of water even 

with the existing populations. If you get into a 1930s drought, 

we’re short of water even today. I think that is at least partially 

responsible for some of the more recent statements in that people 

are now calling for the allocation of the waters of the Red River. 

I see Lance Yohe is here of the Red River Basin Committee, and 

that is one of the things we’re looking at. You know, the bottom 

line there is if you have jurisdictions in North Dakota, Minnesota, 

and Manitoba and everybody, you know, in a dry period wants 

their share but, you know, the important thing there is if you get 

into a 1930s drought and you divide zero by three, you end up with 

three goose eggs, and we need something better than that. 

So today we’re here to talk about some of the involvement of the 

Federal Government as the way I see it. If you look at all the alternatives that have been addressed in the EIS, all of them are very, 

very costly. To get a supplemental water supply for Fargo and the 

Red River Valley is costly, and it is going to take a tremendous involvement from the local level. It is going to take involvement from 
7 

the State level and it is going to take involvement from the Federal 

level. I note specifically today in terms of the Federal, you know, 

the first thing that comes to mind is the Dakota Water Resources 

Act includes $200 million for the Red River Valley Water Supply 

Project, but that is reimbursable, which means basically it is a loan 

that has to be repaid by the user. I think that is going to play a 

very important role in this project, but the project does need a 

grant. You know, I think you could get grant possibly by converting 

the reimbursable to non-reimbursable, and Dave Koland and Mike 

Dwyer are going to talk about this a little later, you know, we have 

been talking about maybe we can provide or allocate some of the 

State’s MR&I dollars to the Red River Valley Project. So they are 

going to go into that in a little more detail, I believe. But at some 

point we need some Federal grant into this project to make it go. 

The second requirement from the Federal Government involves 

water treatment and the Dakota Water Resources Act does make 

treatment for biota transfer a Federal responsibility. So that is 

something that we’re going to have to work on. You know, the cost 

for biota treatment, no matter what type of treatment, it is going 

to be costly but it is something that we have to work on. We continue to work with the Bureau of Reclamation and the Environmental Protection Agency on biota treatment, not only for this 

project but for the NAWS project in north central North Dakota. 

While there, there are many inter-basin transfer projects throughout the United States, and I am not aware of any of them that provide water treatment. Most of them are just raw water treatments 

from one major basin to another. You know, we are proudly getting 

to the point right now where it just—it just makes environmental 

sense to provide the biota treatment and to set a precedence in regard to this. 

I think in this project it is important that we develop or come 

up with a biota treatment process that is affordable, reasonable, 

and provides the safeguards necessary. 

We have made considerable progress in the last 5 years, and I 

congratulate all of you that have worked so diligently in getting us 

to where we’re at. I am confident that the need that we have been 

talking about and I have been talking about and the mayor has 

been talking about, that need is going to be the driving force behind this, and I think because of that, we will—our dream for adequate water supplies for the Red River Valley will become a realty. 

So thank you. 

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

Next we will hear from Dave Koland, general manager of the 

Garrison Diversion Conservancy District. 

STATEMENT OF DAVE KOLAND, GENERAL MANAGER, GARRISON DIVERSION CONSERVANCY DISTRICT 

Mr. KOLAND. Mr. Chairman, I commend you for holding this 

meeting in North Dakota. The importance of providing a reliable 

water supply for the Red River Valley is only magnified by the 

drought that has descended on our State this summer. 

Under the very best of conditions it will be at least 6 years before 

we can provide a supplemental water supply for the Red River Val-
8 

ley. So the next steps are critical to facilitate the timely construction of the Red River Valley Water Supply Project. 

I will summarize my written testimony that I submitted, but I 

want to make a point before I get into those summaries that the 

Dakota Water Resources Act said that the selection will be made 

by the Secretary, in consultation and coordination with the State 

of North Dakota, in coordination with affected local communities. 

Throughout this process, North Dakota has strived to include water 

systems up and down the Red River Valley in this process. The affected communities, we have had a process that we have worked 

through in the State to arrive at the preferred alternative selection 

that started at the local level and then proceeded to be endorsed 

as we moved up until the governor finally submitting to the Secretary North Dakota’s preferred selection. 

The next step for the Department of the Interior is to submit a 

report to Congress that outlines a detailed description of the proposed features of the project, a summary of the major issues in the 

environmental impact statement and the likely effects, if any, on 

Missouri River States and Minnesota and how the features will 

comply with the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909. 

Congressional authorization is needed for any project feature 

that would provide water from the Missouri River or its tributaries 

to the Sheyenne River water supply and release facility. Congressional appropriations, as Dale has pointed out, are needed for the 

construction of the water treatment and related facilities that are 

attributed to meeting the requirements of the Boundary Waters 

Treaty of 1909. 

We will need congressional appropriations for the $200 million 

that’s indexed that’s authorized in the Dakota Water Resources Act 

for the Red River Valley Water Supply Project. 

North Dakota needs to enter into a cooperative agreement with 

the Secretary to construct the feature or features authorized by the 

legislation and execute a master repayment contract with the Secretary and a water service agreement with the Lake Agassiz Water 

Authority. The State will need a financial plan to provide funding 

for one-third of the project costs. 

PREPARED STATEMENT

Garrison Diversion remains committed to working with our partners at the Federal, State, and local level to find the best solutions 

for the citizens of North Dakota while respecting all of our neighbors. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DAVE KOLAND

My name is Dave Koland, General Manager of the Garrison Diversion Conservancy District (Garrison Diversion). I live in Carrington, North Dakota, where Garrison Diversion has its headquarters. The mission of Garrison Diversion is to provide a reliable, high quality water supply for the benefit of North Dakota. Over 77 

percent of our state’s residents live within the boundaries of the 28 member counties 

that comprise Garrison Diversion. Garrison Diversion represents the State of North 

Dakota as the joint lead with the Bureau of Reclamation on the preparation of an 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) [DWRA Section 8(c)] for the Red River Valley Water Supply Project [Section 8(a)]. 
9 

Mr. Chairman, I would like to commend you for holding this hearing in North Dakota. The importance of providing a reliable water supply for the Red River Valley 

is only magnified by the drought that has descended on our state this summer. 

Under the very best of conditions, it will be at least six years before we will be able 

to provide a supplemental water supply to the Red River Valley. 

The next steps are critical to facilitate the timely construction of the Red River 

Valley Water Supply Project. 

Upon completion of the EIS, the Dakota Water Resources Act of 2000 (DWRA) addresses the process for the selection of an alternative. Four reports are required to 

be delivered to Congress if the Secretary selects a project feature that provides 

water from the Missouri River or its tributaries to the Sheyenne River water supply 

and release facility [Section 8(e)]. 

Section 8(d)(1) provides that after reviewing the Final Report on Red River Valley 

Water Needs & Options [Section 8(b)] and the Environmental Impact Statement, 

the Secretary, in consultation and coordination with the State of North Dakota in 

coordination with affected local communities, shall select 1 or more project features 

described in subsection (a) [Red River Valley Water Supply Project] that will meet 

the comprehensive water quality and quantity needs of the Red River Valley. 

The ‘‘affected local communities’’ are represented by the Lake Agassiz Water Authority, and the State of North is represented by Garrison Diversion in the preparation of the EIS for the Red River Valley Water Supply Project. 

The Lake Agassiz Water Authority is governed by a board of ten locally elected 

officials representing five cities and five water districts in the Red River Valley. 

These five cities are Fargo, Grand Forks, Grafton, Valley City, North Dakota and 

Moorhead, Minnesota. The five water districts are Cass Rural Water, Grand ForksTraill Water, North Valley Water, Agassiz Water Users, and Southeast Water 

Users. 

The Draft Environmental Impact Statement identified North Dakota’s Preferred 

Alternative as the Garrison Diversion Unit (GDU) Import to Sheyenne River Alternative. The state identified this alternative because it provides the water needed to 

sustain the region, as well as benefits to the natural environment without any significant negative impacts. 

The state’s preferred alternative selection process included 20 meetings of the 

Lake Agassiz Water Authority Technical Advisory Committee before they recommended, on October 4, 2005, the selection of the GDU Import to Sheyenne River 

Alternative to the Lake Agassiz Water Authority board of directors. The Lake Agassiz Water Authority board voted unanimously on October 4, 2005, to select the alternative as their preferred alternative. 

The Public Relations/Red River Valley Committee of the Garrison Diversion Conservancy District recommended the alternative to the Garrison Diversion board of 

directors on October 4, 2005. The Garrison Diversion board of directors voted unanimously on October 7, 2005, to select the alternative as their preferred alternative. 

The North Dakota State Water Commission voted unanimously on November 1, 

2005, to endorse the GDU Import to Sheyenne River Alternative as the state’s preferred alternative. North Dakota Governor John Hoeven conveyed the state’s selection to Secretary of the Interior Gale A. Norton on November 1, 2005. 

Additional guidance is provided in Section 8(a)(3)(A) if the Secretary selects a 

project feature under this section that would provide water from the Missouri River 

or its tributaries to the Sheyenne River water supply and release facility or from 

the Missouri River or its tributaries to such other conveyance facility as the Secretary selects under this section. No later than 90 days after the completion of the 

final environmental impact statement, the Secretary shall transmit to Congress a 

comprehensive report which provides: 

—A detailed description of the proposed project feature; 

—A summary of major issues addressed in the environmental impact statement; 

—Likely effects, if any, on other States bordering the Missouri River and on the 

State of Minnesota; and 

—A description of how the project feature complies with the requirements of section 1(h)(1) of this Act (relating to the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909). 

Section 8(a)(3)(B) further provides that no project feature or features that would 

provide water from the Missouri River or its tributaries to the Sheyenne River 

water supply and release facility or from the Missouri River or its tributaries to 

such other conveyance facility as the Secretary selects under this section shall be 

constructed unless such feature is specifically authorized by an Act of Congress approved subsequent to the Secretary’s transmittal of the above reports. If the Secretary selects a feature or features using only in-basin sources of water to meet the 

water needs of the Red River Valley identified in the Report on the Red River Valley 

Water Needs and Options, such features are authorized without further Act of Con-
10 

gress. The Act of Congress referred to in this subparagraph must be an authorization bill, and shall not be a bill making appropriations. 

Section 8(a)(3)(C) states that the Secretary may not commence construction on the 

feature until a master repayment contract or water service agreement consistent 

with this Act between the Secretary and the appropriate non-Federal entity has 

been executed. 

Section 8(d)(2) provides that if the Secretary selects only in-basin sources of 

water, not later that 180 days after the record of decision has been executed, the 

Secretary shall enter into a cooperative agreement with the State of North Dakota 

to construct the feature or features selected. If the Secretary selects an option that 

would require a further Act of Congress, not later than 180 days after the date of 

enactment of legislation the Secretary shall enter into a cooperative agreement with 

the State of North Dakota to construct the feature or features authorized by that 

legislation. 

Section 1(h)(1) provides that prior to construction of any water systems authorized 

under this Act to deliver Missouri River water into the Hudson Bay basin, the Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, must determine that adequate treatment can be 

provided to meet the requirements of the Treaty between the United States and 

Great Britain relating to Boundary Waters between the United States and Canada. 

Section 1(h)(2) states that all costs of construction, operation, maintenance, and 

replacement of water treatment and related facilities authorized by this Act and attributable to meeting the requirements of the treaty shall be nonreimbursable. 

In summary: 

The Secretary of Interior in consultation and coordination with North Dakota 

shall select one or more project features to meet the comprehensive water quality 

and quantity needs of the Red River Valley and then report to Congress within 90 

days after completion of the Final EIS: 

1. A detailed description of the proposed feature, 

2. A summary of major issues in the EIS, 

3. Likely effects, if any, on Missouri River states and Minnesota, and 

4. How the feature complies with the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909. 

Congressional authorization is needed for any project feature that would provide 

water from the Missouri River or its tributaries to the Sheyenne River water supply 

and release facility. Congressional appropriations for the construction of the water 

treatment and related facilities that is attributable to meeting the requirements of 

the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909. Congressional appropriations of the $200 million (indexed) authorized in the DWRA for the Red River Valley Water Supply 

Project. 

North Dakota needs to enter into a cooperative agreement with the Secretary to 

construct the feature or features authorized by the legislation and execute a master 

repayment contract with the Secretary and a water service agreement with Lake 

Agassiz Water Authority. The state will need a financial plan to provide funding for 

one third of the project cost. 

Garrison Diversion remains committed to working with our partners at the federal, state, and local level to find the best solutions for the citizens of North Dakota 

while respecting all our neighbors. 

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

Mike Dwyer, executive director of the North Dakota Water Coalition. Mike. 

STATEMENT OF MIKE DWYER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NORTH DAKOTA WATER COALITION 

Mr. DWYER. Senator Dorgan, I also would like to thank you for 

holding this field hearing on really North Dakota’s most critical 

water issue. 

I, too, had the privilege of working with Governor Guy on water 

issues, and I have always considered myself one of the younger 

people working in water in North Dakota and still do, but Bill said 

you’re looking a little older. But we were reminiscing about our disappointments in the 1984 Garrison Diversion Unit Commission but 

also about the dream that some day water might be delivered to 

eastern North Dakota. 
11 

I represent, as you indicated, I am the executive vice president 

of the North Dakota Water Users, but I am also representing the 

North Dakota Water Coalition, which consists of about 30 organizations statewide who are committed to water development in North 

Dakota. Through the water coalition we are able to provide a 

united front for North Dakota’s water community for water, water 

supply, and our water needs. The water coalition is unanimously 

and vigorously in support of the Red River Valley Water Supply 

Project and providing for each of North Dakota’s water needs 

through this project. 

The subject matter that I will address here is the issue of funding. I would like to thank the congressional delegation for the support that you provided to North Dakota through the Federal Government for the infrastructure that we’ve had. We have a unique 

circumstance in our State where major infrastructure has all come 

together at the same time. We have had the Grand Forks Flood 

Control Project, Devils Lake, Southwest Pipeline, NAWS, Missouri 

River irrigation, and they have all come through through circumstances of nature and other issues at the same time. We thank 

you for the support that the delegation has provided, that the Federal Government has provided because we are nearing completion 

of the Grand Forks Flood Control Project. Southwest Pipeline is 

nearing completion of the original phase, about $70 million of the 

original $200 million State MR&I program were allocated to the 

Southwest Pipeline to provide water to over 3,000 homes, rural 

homes in western North Dakota plus 24 or 25 cities, including the 

city of Dickinson. It’s interesting to note that normally the Southwest Pipeline delivers about 120 million gallons of water a month, 

and this summer it is delivering about 180 million gallons a month. 

So it is quite a remarkable note of the need for good, quality water. 

Anyway, we have serious funding issues in that the 2000 Dakota Water Resources Act provided $200 million for State MR&I, $200 

million for Indian MR&I, and $200 million for the Red River Valley 

Water Supply Project. At that time we felt that the timing would 

be fairly decent in that we would be well along the way for providing the funding for the $200 million State MR&I and $200 million Indian MR&I so that when the Red River Valley Supply Water 

Supply Project came on line, those things would, as I said, we 

would be well under way with those things and then we would be 

able to provide a significant amount of revenues to the Red River 

Valley Water Supply Project; however, if you look at the funding 

that North Dakota has received for MR&I, rural water, from 2004 

to 2007, it has been about $10 million a year. That $10 million, it 

is $10 to $12 million a year, and that $10 to $12 million is split 

50/50 with the Indian MR&I and the State MR&I program. Now, 

the Garrison appropriation has been larger, but some of that has 

to go for maintaining the canals and some other operation and 

maintenance that is required for the Garrison project. So about $10 

to $12 million is allocated for Indian and State MR&I, and we do 

have serious needs. The NAWS project, the Southwest Pipeline, 

rural water systems, the central, south central, Indian MR&I, as 

I said, the circumstances of nature and drought and other things 

have brought all of these critical infrastructure together at the 

same time. Because of the shortage of Federal revenues in this 
12 

area, the State has advanced about $17 million for NAWS and 

other projects just so those projects could be moving forward. 

The Garrison Diversion Conservancy District provided for fiscal year 2007 needs in the amount of $36 million for State and Indian 

MR&I without the Red River Valley Water Supply Project being 

part of that. So you can see if the Red River Valley Water Supply 

Project comes on line, construction of this project is able to move 

forward, as Dave Koland said, the soonest we could provide water 

would be 6 years, but a lot of that, of course, depends on funding. 

But if the Red River Valley Water Supply Project comes on line, 

in addition to the $36 million for the State MR&I and the Indian 

MR&I, which those projects are critical needs and they have to continue to move forward, we can’t fund the Red River Valley Water 

Supply Project and then provide zero funding for those other critical needs. So when the Red River Valley Water Supply Project 

comes on line, there is going to have to be funding somewhere in 

the neighborhood of $50 million a year for the MR&I, Red River 

Valley, Indian MR&I components. It is such a critical issue because 

if we’re able to get through the steps of congressional approval of 

a preferred alternative and authorization, then that funding will 

have to be there in order for us to provide the water supply. 

As I said, in the shortage of funding there is a lot of reasons, and 

certainly by bringing this up is not to affix blame anywhere. It is 

just to say that in the future, the delegation, the President, the 

Governor and others are going to have to work together to make 

sure that we have adequate funding to complete our agreement 

providing a water supply to eastern North Dakota. 

Senator, thank you very much. 

Senator DORGAN. Mr. Dwyer, thank you very much. We appreciate you being here. 

Former mayor Bruce Furness who is chairman of Lake Agassiz 

Water Authority. Bruce. 

STATEMENT OF BRUCE FURNESS, CHAIRMAN, LAKE AGASSIZ WATER 

AUTHORITY 

Mr. FURNESS. Thank you. Good morning. 

Senator Dorgan, thank you for having this hearing here in North 

Dakota. Congressman Pomeroy, thank you for being part of it, and 

I want to acknowledge also Senator Conrad and all three of you as 

a delegation for all of your support on this issue over a long, long 

period of time. 

I would also like to acknowledge Bill Guy, who when I first got 

involved with water about 12 years ago gave me some very valuable historical perspectives from his point of view as to what had 

occurred. I want to acknowledge Mayor Lindgren is here. He, of 

course, had been involved in water for many, many years as well. 

A lot of us have been working a long time to make this happen. 

I am here today representing the Lake Agassiz Water Authority. 

Dave Koland used the term, ‘‘affected local communities’’. That is 

Lake Agassiz Authority. That’s us. We are the local part of this. 

Our motto, our slogan or vision, maybe you could call it is planning 

today for tomorrow’s water. So what we want to have accomplished 

is have water when we need it. We are concerned about both the 

quantity of water as well as the quality of water. 
13 

Lake Agassiz Water Authority is represented of or consists of 13 

eastern North Dakota counties plus three cities in Minnesota along 

the Red River Valley. The area includes 27 water districts and, of 

course, lots of towns and cities. We have a board of directors of 10 

people, 4 represented by North Dakota Cities, 1 from Moorhead 

and 5 represented from the water districts. Our purpose is to purchase water from Garrison Diversion and, second, to distribute that 

water to the end consumer. 

We have talked a little bit of the studies. I would like to summarize those. The Needs and Options Report that Senator Dorgan 

talked about actually unequivocally determined that there is a 

need and that need is substantial. They also talked about the analysis of the seven options, plus the do nothing option. That was an 

important part of this whole process is to do that analysis, but it 

has been done. It is completed, and it speaks for itself. 

Environmental impact is ongoing but the results to date show an 

insignificant impact on the environment on any of the solutions 

and, in particular, the solution that is the preferred option. The 

preferred option, as Mayor Walakar indicated, was the Garrison 

Diversion import to the Sheyenne River. The need for that has 

been identified. It is the least costly process. It has the least environmental impact, and was selected by the Lake Agassiz Water Authority as its preferred option on October 4 of last year. 

It was endorsed by the Garrison—or also selected as the unit by 

Garrison Diversion as a unit representing the State of North Dakota 3 days later and has been endorsed by the State Water Commission. So all that has happened. 

What is next? Well, the next option or the—one of the next 

things to do is to get the preferred option selected by the Department of the Interior and LAWA would certainly encourage and 

hope that they come up with the same alternative that the State 

and local users have selected. 

Once that is done there are still some other hurdles. There are 

Canadian concerns obviously. There are Minnesota concerns. There 

are downstream State concerns. We have a pricing conundrum of 

the situation where the price of the water is going to determine the 

participation of people using the water. At the same time the participation of the people using the water is going to depend on the 

price, so it is sort of a chicken and egg thing that we are currently 

working through right now at LAWA. Mr. Dwyer mentioned the 

funding issue. In simple terms what we’re hoping for is a funding 

formula that is one-third local, one-third State, and one-third Federal. As Mr. Frink mentioned, the Federal portion would be wonderful if we could somehow make that a grant as opposed to being 

reimbursed. 

What I would like to leave you with are three mental images. 

The first if you think of the outline of the State of North Dakota 

and then think of that outline representing the amount of water 

that the Missouri River contributes to the State of North Dakota 

and its blue in color, that blue color would fill that entire outline 

up of the State of North Dakota except for 4 percent. That little 

corner down here in southeast North Dakota would be white. 

That’s how much water the Missouri has in it, how much relative 

to the rest of the water in the State, 96 percent of the water, sur-
14 

face water, in the State of North Dakota is in the Missouri River. 

So it just makes sense to us local people that that’s where we 

would go to get the water. 

The other thing is, and I have used this before, if you think of 

all the water in the Missouri River as being represented by a pail 

of water, a gallon of water, what we’re talking about taking out of 

that pail is less than half a thimble full. Actually it is .02 percent 

of the water in the Missouri is what we’re talking about taking out. 

So we think perhaps the downstream States’ concerns are not too 

serious. 

The other point I would make, the other image I would make is 

that the city of Kansas City, Missouri, is called the city of Fountains, and they use in their fountains more water from the Missouri River than we’re talking about taking out to use for 

consumable use in the Red River Valley. 

Over the past 12 years of my involvement in the water, I have 

become convinced that this project can happen. I am concerned 

that this project must happen for North Dakota to continue to 

grow, and I at this point am confident that the project will happen. 

We have all heard the affirism what the mind of man can conceive 

and believe, it can achieve. 

The promise of water to eastern North Dakota was conceived 60 

years ago. The promise is believed now by a lot of the people in this 

room, and this promise needs to be achieved in the near future. I 

hope I don’t have to wait another 12 years to see this come to fruition. 

Thank you once again for this opportunity. I don’t have this in 

a pro’s form, but I can certainly provide you with this outline if you 

would like that. 

Thank you. 

Senator DORGAN. Thank you very much, Bruce. We appreciate 

you being here. 

Finally, a city council member from Grand Forks, Curt Kreun, is 

here with you. Thank you for coming down. 

STATEMENT OF CURT KREUN, CITY COUNCIL MEMBER, GRAND 

FORKS, NORTH DAKOTA 

Mr. KREUN. Thank you for the opportunity, Senator Dorgan and 

Congressman Pomeroy and also Governor Guy. I didn’t have ability 

or time to work with any projects but I did go to school with his 

son. I don’t know if that counts for anything or not, at Mayville. 

But anyway, my name is Curt Kreun and I am the Ward 7 council 

person from the city of Grand Forks. I also do chair the Safety and 

Service Committee there, and I am a member of the Lake Agassiz 

Water Authority, representing the city of Grand Forks. I would like 

to thank you for the opportunity to testify on behalf of the city of 

Grand Forks because this is a very important project to us as well. 

Even before I was elected to the city council in Grand Forks, I 

had a strong interest in water. One of the businesses I did own was 

a water supply business that delivered water to people with inadequate water availability. I know firsthand how difficult and expensive it can be to provide good, quality water in quantities sufficient 

to meet the community needs. I have also seen the impact upon 

businesses and individuals when those needs cannot be met. Par-
15 

tially because of those interests, I agreed to represent the city of 

Grand Forks on the Lake Agassiz Water Authority. I have heard 

the reports from professionals about the climatic swings we can expect from the Dakotas. It isn’t a question if there is going to be a 

drought. The question is when will the drought occur and how severe will it be? 

The technical details of population projections, future water demands, historic river flows, and projected shortages for Grand 

Forks are contained in the needs and option reports and the draft 

environmental impact statement prepared for this project. I would 

request that this document or these documents be incorporated into 

my testimony by reference. 

Senator DORGAN. Without objection they will be incorporated. 

[NOTE: The Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Red 

River Valley Water Supply Project and other documents are available at http://www.rrvwsp.com.] 

Mr. KREUN. Thank you. 

Grand Forks is perhaps a bit more fortunate than our neighbors 

to the south because of the greater drainage upstream. We have 

fewer periods of low flow or no flow in the Red River; however, the 

studies have shown that there will be times where there will be no 

flow in the Red River or the Red Lake River. If there is no water 

in the rivers there is no water for us to process and to distribute 

to our customers in Grand Forks. Grand Forks is a regional hub 

for a variety of services. Altru Clinic and Hospital is a regional 

supplier for health care. The Columbia Mall and myriad of other 

retail stores provide the material needs for the area. Grand Forks 

is a hub for regional agricultural processing. Simplot provides 

value added products for the potatoes. This is not only a large employer at the processing plant but it is critical to potato growing 

industry which supports numerous family farms in the area. Similarly, Crystal Sugar in East Grand Forks supports and adds value 

to our processing of sugar beets as well. Grand Forks customers 

also include State facilities such as the University of North Dakota, 

the Dakota Mill and Elevator. A water shortage in Grand Forks 

would have direct statewide and Federal impact. We deliver water 

to Federal facilities such as the Grand Forks Air Force Base and 

regional border patrol offices. All of these facilities provide invaluable services and employment throughout northeastern North Dakota and northwestern Minnesota. 

As you can see, impacts to the water supply for Grand Forks has 

impacts far beyond the actual city limits of Grand Forks. All of the 

facilities noted above rely on a clean, dependable supply of water. 

What would happen were there to be no flow from the rivers to 

process through our water treatment plant, this question has 

weighed heavily on my mind, as well as the minds of our local leaders. It is obvious to us that the answer to the question lies in a 

regional solution. Independent actions by individual communities 

would prove detrimental to the local agricultural community, not to 

mention being too costly and likely too late. 

We are grateful at the Federal level we have people like Senator 

Dorgan who recognize the potential for problems and has taken action. The Red River Valley Water Supply legislation makes the possibility of a regional solution a reality. We have found what we 
16 

think is the best solution available, which is the Garrison Diversion 

Unit import to the Sheyenne River alternative, say that 10 times 

real fast each time. This alternative would provide a reliable source 

of water to meet the needs of the valley. One of the issues with this 

alternative is that it is an inter-basin transfer of water. We do not 

feel that this type of transfer would be an impediment to moving 

forward. There are numerous examples throughout the United 

States and Canada of inter-basin water transfers. Water technology 

is available to treat source water to a reasonable degree in order 

to address harmful biota. 

Are there still outstanding questions? Yes, there are. These 

issues are being worked on through the environmental impact 

statement. For instance, we recognize that during the drought of 

the Red River will become affluent dominated. For Grand Forks 

that raises questions as to the quality of water that will be available for treatment. We may find that downstream users need to include water treatment plan upgrades as a part of the overall 

project. Those types of issues will need to be worked out as part 

of the project details. However, we’re confident that there are reasonable solutions to this issue and others that may arise during the 

project development. 

Of the alternatives reviewed, the Garrison Diversion Unit import 

to the Sheyenne provides the best combination of low cost, high environmental benefits, and reasonable operating parameters. We 

need to remember that this solution does not provide the level of 

service of many major water projects. This project does not provide 

a continuous source of water treatment, nor will it provide water 

to the tap of the end users. Costs will likely dictate that this 

project will only provide the minimum level of water service necessary for community survival. 

During a drought, Grand Forks will lose a lot of the robust recreational opportunities that the river provides. You will no longer 

see the record 20- and 30-pound catfish pulled out of the Red River 

that we just had at our popular fishing tournament. During the 

drought we will have not have the water availability for lawns and 

gardens. No longer will we see the abundance of the flower beds 

to improve the look and feel of our community. The quality of life 

in Grand Forks and throughout the Valley will not be at a level 

to which we are accustomed to today. 

The point is, in other words, this water supply project represents 

basic needs to minimize direct economic impacts and has little or 

no provision for wants. Even though the water supply is a critical 

issue, much of the population of Grand Forks is still concerned 

with too much water, as was brought out before, and not too little. 

This spring we saw the fifth highest flood in recent history. As a 

community we are still focused on the completion of our flood control project. This means support will be highly dependent on cost 

to consumers. To a large degree this will be looked at as an insurance policy. How much is the consumer willing and able to pay for 

insurance? Remembering that we are also asking our citizens to 

pay a part of the flood control project for the next 20 years, which 

adds up to about $80 million out of our residents. The answers to 

these questions will need to be addressed through community debate; however, it is clear that the Federal participation contained 
17 

in the Red River Valley Water Supply legislation is critical to making a regional solution a reality. 

In Grand Forks we are supportive of the Lake Agassiz Water Financing Project, which includes participation of local, State, and 

Federal governments. As a council person, I hear concerns every 

day about the cost of taxes and services. Many people are on a 

fixed income, struggle to meet expenses. Any model that can minimize costs to our local populus and industry will be beneficial. 

In summary we support the process of the regional water supply 

solution. We support the State preferred alternative and we support the concepts of the cost sharing solution. 

I would like to thank Senator Dorgan and Congressman Pomeroy 

again for having this hearing in Fargo and in North Dakota and 

appreciate the opportunity to testify. If there is any questions, I 

would be glad to answer them. 

Senator DORGAN. Thank you very much. We appreciate that. 

Finally, I am going to call on Lance Yohe of the Red River Basin 

Commission to describe a letter they have sent to Dennis 

Breitzman, Bureau of Reclamation, just briefly, and then I am 

going to ask a series of questions and ask Congressman Pomeroy 

to inquire as well. 

STATEMENT OF LANCE YOHE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, RED RIVER 

BASIN COMMISSION 

Mr. YOHE. Senator Dorgan, Congressman Pomeroy, former Governor Guy, panel members, thank you for the opportunity to share 

some things that we think are important from not only the local 

perspective in North Dakota but also the larger basin perspective, 

including Manitoba and Minnesota. South Dakota really doesn’t get 

too involved in this issue because of the head waters down there. 

When we look at this from a basin perspective it becomes evident 

that this is not just a North Dakota concern. It’s a concern all over 

the basin, and the issue of too much water in the spring and a 

drought now that we have experienced this year is going on everywhere in the basin. Southern Manitoba has as much water supply 

problems as eastern North Dakota does. So when we looked at that 

from a basin perspective we realized that drought for the future is 

there. Some kind of drought will be there. How long it will last, 

what the need will be, those are the unanswerables and the study 

the Bureau of Reclamation is working on with the C district will 

help address some of those concerns in terms of helping us understand that. But what we do about that and how we get there, that’s 

the question. From our perspective, the sooner we do it, the better. 

Time is of the essence because this drought could go on next year, 

the year after. Could be another 1930’s drought or it could be a 

century’s long drought like this region experienced back in the 

1100s. We don’t know, but we know we need to address the future. 

We need to look at what we can do, and with that in mind we have 

sent a letter, which you have a copy of, that has two points to it. 

One is that drought is not just an issue that focuses on one area 

alone. It is something we need to look at together as a basin and 

we need to look ahead as a basin. So we’re working with the group 

of technical advisors from each of the jurisdictions now to look at 

that to see if there is something that we can look at for the future 
18 

to prepare for a drought where we could look at this resource and 

figure out what we’re going to need, where it is going to be needed, 

and how we’re going to deal with it. That strategy for basin-wide 

look at it from a drought planning perspective we think is important because particularly related to the differences in water laws 

between the jurisdictions. Dale Frink made reference to it. We have 

got nothing but conflict ahead of us if we don’t get ahead of this 

curve. We have got to figure out how we are going to deal with 

this. Talking now, the only consensus agreement now, it will certainly be a lot better for us than having conflict and legal challenges later. Again, time is of the essence and that will just slow 

the process down. 

The second point we’re concerned about is downstream interest 

and has been made references of several times here. What are the 

downstream interests exactly? What are people really concerned 

about? It has been made reference to water quality, biota, the 

things that are in there, and the need to do something about that. 

I think everybody is starting to realize something needs to move 

forward on that. The question is how far do we have to go? Where 

is the line on the treatment? What is the cost going to be? What 

kind of a precedent does it set? Those are important questions. If 

we can get some kind of consensus and agreement on that on that 

and where the line is and we can define the costs, then we’re in 

a position to have everybody working on this together, the cooperation across the boundaries that will make this happen and allow 

us to get it done in a timely fashion, so we think that is important. 

We’re working on that. If we can get that before the record of decision we will provide that to Bureau of Reclamation C District and 

hopefully that will become part of the process in deciding a final 

solution. 

Thank you. 

Senator DORGAN. Thank you very much. We will include your 

statement as part of the formal hearing record and the letter of the 

Commission to Dennis Breitzman, the Bureau of Reclamation. 

[The information follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF LANCE YOHE

Senator Dorgan, Congressman Pomeroy, members of the panel and those in attendance, I appreciate the opportunity to present today and bring the water supply 

issue into focus from a broader (Red River) basin-wide perspective. 

Background.—The Red River Basin Commission (RRBC) is a registered 501(C)(3) 

tax-exempt organization in the United States and a registered Charity in Canada. 

The forty-one (41) board of directors are representatives of local, state, provincial, 

and tribal governments and citizens in Manitoba, Canada and Minnesota, North Dakota and South Dakota in the United States. 

The Vision of RRBC is a Red River Basin where residents, organizations and governments work together to achieve basin wide commitment to comprehensive integrated watershed stewardship and management. 

The Mission of RRBC is to develop a Red River Basin integrated natural resources framework plan, to achieve commitment to implement the framework plan, 

and to work toward a unified voice for the Red River Basin. 

Statement.—Water supply in the Red River Basin is Goal #10 in the Red River 

Basin (RRB) Natural Resource Framework Plan (NRFP). The goal reads: Ensure the 

appropriate use and sustainability of the Basin’s surface and ground water. There 

are three objectives identified to meet this goal: a basin wide strategy to meet current and projected water supply needs; water supply emergency management plans 

for contamination, drought, and flooding; and to develop an understanding of the ap-
19 

proaches and differences in minimum in-stream flow criteria. The RRBC and others 

are working to achieve these objectives to meet this basin goal. 

The RRBC in reviewing the Draft EIS for the Water Supply Project underway by 

the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) and the Dakota Water Resource District highlighted the following: 

—In basin solutions fit best with the basin NRFP goals. 

—The RRBC is working with the jurisdictions of Manitoba, Minnesota, North Dakota, and South Dakota to determine what the downstream concerns would be 

if an out of basin supply option is the preferred alternative in the current water 

supply project. This information, when identified, will be provided to see if these 

concerns could be addressed in the final recommendations. 

—The RRBC is also exploring with the jurisdictions what basin wide drought 

planning might include and if there is a desire to explore a basin wide drought 

plan. This plan could include needs and strategies to meet those needs, as well 

as a basin strategy to utilize water in an extended drought without an adequate 

supply to meet all needs. 

The RRBC letter to the BOR is attached for reference. 

There is a growing consensus from around the basin that water supply is one of 

the major problems that we will face in the future. North Dakota is concerned 

enough to embark on a multi-year project to bring more water to the North Dakota 

portion of the Red River Basin. Minnesota is concerned enough to include major cities along the Red River in the North Dakota Study and to begin looking at the supply issue for the other portions of Minnesota in the Red River Basin. Southern 

Manitoba is concerned enough to have a current project exploring expansion of their 

water co-op network to forested lands many kilometers east of the Red River. And 

Winnipeg is concerned enough to explore safeguarding and protecting its usually 

stable supply of water. Everyone is concerned. Everyone anticipates a need in the 

future that will stress current supplies and practices. How we approach these anticipated needs together as we look to the future will determine if there is conflict or 

harmony. The RRB–NRFP identifies the need to use a basin wide approach in seeking solutions to the land and water problems in the Red River Basin. Water supply 

is one of those problems where a basin wide approach would go a long way in addressing everyone’s needs and maximizing resources. RRBC will continue to build 

consensus toward a basin wide approach to address the water supply issue. 

Thank you, for the opportunity to present the RRBC basin wide approach. 

RED RIVER BASIN COMMISSION, 

410–283 BANNATYNE AVE., 

Winnipeg, MB R3B 3B2, February 9, 2006. 

DENNIS BREITZMAN, 

Area Manager, Bureau of Reclamation, Dakotas Area Office, P.O. Box 1017, Bismarck, ND. 

The Red River Basin Commission (RRBC) is a non-profit international organization that operates in Canada and the United States in the Province of Manitoba and 

the States of Minnesota, North Dakota, and South Dakota. The RRBC 41 member 

board represents local, provincial, state, and tribal leaders in the area as well as 

ex-officio representation from federal agencies and legislators at all levels. 

Recently, RRBC has completed a Red River Basin (RRB) Natural Resources 

Framework Plan (NRFP). The NRFP is enclosed with this letter. This NRFP has 

13 basin wide goals of which water supply is #10. 

Goal #10 is: Ensure the appropriate use and sustainability of the Basin’s surface 

and ground water. 

The 2 Objectives under this Goal are: 

—Objective 10.1: Develop a basin-wide strategy to meet current and projected 

water supply needs. 

—Objective 10.2: Develop water supply emergency management plans for contamination, drought and flooding. 

Each goal has objectives and an action agenda that reflect actions by others and 

RRBC that address the Goals and Objectives. The BOR’s water supply study relates 

in part to Objective 10.1 in NRFP. 

In addition to the NRFP, RRBC has underlying Guiding Principles. The Guiding 

Principles are also enclosed with the letter. The basic theme of the Guiding Principles is to work on problems in the basin together and do no harm to others as 

solutions are implemented. Additionally, the guiding principles identify that ‘‘Conservation is a primary consideration in meeting water supply needs identified in the 

basin.’’ 
20 

At recent Plan Management Committee meetings, the DEIS was discussed. As 

part of the discussion RRBC members presented jurisdictional and personal concerns and identified matters that require further work and consideration. RRBC has 

encourages the members who provided these comments to evaluate them against the 

DEIS and to provide comments, as necessary to the BOR. RRBC encourages the 

BOR to give due consideration to these comments. 

RRBC recognizes that there are water supply needs in Eastern North Dakota and 

Western Minnesota, and also Southern Manitoba. We also recognize that each jurisdiction has the responsibility to address its legitimate and reasonable water supply 

needs. 

RRBC considers in-basin options the most consistent with its Guiding Principles 

and NRFP goals and objectives. If out-of-basin options are the only reasonable 

means possible to address the identified needs, then any alternative must adequately protect downstream interests. 

RRBC is in the process of developing a strategy to address Objective 10.2 in the 

NRFP: to facilitate the development of a basin drought plan. In addition RRBC will 

facilitate discussion between the jurisdictions to address the concerns of downstream 

interests, such as the identification of what adequate treatment would be in the 

event that an out-of-basin alternative is selected. RRBC is working to complete 

these two initiatives before the ROD. RRBC asks that the BOR consider input from 

these two initiatives in determining its recommendation on a preferred water supply 

option and finalizing its ROD, if the information is provided before the ROD is finalized. 

The RRBC would invite the BOR, the Garrison Conservancy District, and other 

interested parties to participate in these two initiatives. 

Sincerely, 

DAN WILKENS, 

Chair of RRBC. 

LANCE YOHE, 

Executive Director, RRBC. 

Senator DORGAN. We thank all of you for being here and presenting some information. The first question, I guess, I would ask 

is perhaps of Dale and the mayor and others. The option that the 

State has selected, and the option I believe all of you have suggested as the preferred option, an agreement that you have reached 

almost by unanimous consent? Or are there others who believe 

there should have been other options selected? 

Mr. KOLAND. Senator Dorgan, in my written testimony I outlined 

the procedure that we went through, starting with the Technical 

Advisory Committee of the Lake Agassiz Water Authority. That 

committee made a recommendation to the Lake Agassiz Water Authority, and the Garrison Diversion had a committee that was monitoring all the meetings that were going on with the Lake Agassiz 

Water Authority called the Public Relations and Red River Valley 

Committee. That committee made a recommendation to the Garrison Diversion Board. Then the State Water Commission, we held 

special briefings for the State Water Commission. We kept them up 

to date as we were going through the process. The point I am getting to to answer your question is that every vote at each of those 

committees and each of those boards was a unanimous vote. Now, 

that’s not to say that we did not seriously discuss other ways of 

getting water to the Red River Valley because there are other 

ways; for instance, putting water in the James River and then 

bringing it over to the Red River is a way. But the Dakota Water 

Resources Act, when that deal was struck, specifically eliminated 

in our viewpoint the option of putting water in the James River. 

So the other options, there are other options that we could look at, 

would require us to go back and ask Congress for authorization to 

implement those type of options. That was just one of the options. 
21 

There are the various pipeline versions. I would say that within 

each of these organizations there are people that lean toward the 

pipeline. I know a number of the water districts would favor what 

we call the replacement option, to provide a replacement water 

supply to every water system in the Red River Valley. We looked 

at that because we wanted to know what that would cost. It’s billions of dollars. It just simply, yes, we would like to do it, but it 

is simply not affordable for the water users or for the State or for 

the Federal Government, for that matter, to pursue that option. So 

yes, we considered many different options and I would say that if 

you ask any number of people that, well, here is my favorite if 

someone else will pay for it, but it got down to which option could 

we meet the needs of the Valley and do the least amount of environmental impact to our system. 

Senator DORGAN. What is the condition of McClusky Canal at 

this point? 

Mr. KOLAND. The McClusky Canal has been maintained under 

contract with the Bureau of Reclamation. We use it to deliver 

water. We have water contracts with some of the Federal agencies 

to deliver water for wildlife management areas. So in my opinion 

it is in very good condition. There is some work in one of the regions of the canal that will have to be addressed. There are slides 

in some of the areas and that will have to be addressed. If that’s 

the option that is selected, we will then take a look at what it will 

to correct those. 

Senator DORGAN. One of more of you mentioned a new authorization is needed by the Congress if, in fact, the choice of moving Missouri River water to eastern North Dakota is made, and if that selection is determined to be the case, then the Congress will have 

to pass a new authorization. You also pointed out correctly that the 

$200 million is reimbursable. You would like it to be nonreimbursable. Let me ask the question. Anticipating that we certainly would 

be working on those issues, what if, in fact, the $200 million continued to be reimbursable, what does that do to the cost of water 

delivered to the Red River Valley from the Missouri River? 

Mr. KOLAND. It is somewhat problematic to answer it specifically 

because it depends on how the repayment contract would be negotiated, but a typical repayment contract calls that repayment is 

based on the amount of water that you use. So theoretically, viewing it that way, that you would not be making payments until you 

had to call on the supplemental water source. Typically those are 

over a 40-year period and typically also extended so that it is a 80- 

year repayment period. So while it is reimbursable, typically it can 

be negotiated to what would be favorable terms for the water users. 

Senator DORGAN. One of the things that exists in government 

and perhaps in all of our lives is it is much easier to respond to 

a crisis because you can see it, feel it, there is an urgency to it, 

and so it is always a circumstance where it is easier to respond to 

a crisis than it is to respond earlier on to prevent a crisis. I ask 

the question, you know, the folks in the communities and the Red 

River Valley who will pay for this or pay for some of this project 

at least, what kind of opinion exists in the communities with respect to the need for this, the support for it and the urgency of it? 
22 

Perhaps Mayor Walakar and Mayor Furness might answer and 

Curt as well. What is your sense of what the people are saying? 

Mayor WALAKAR. Well, after going through the wet period that 

we have gone through for the last 10 years or more, this was kind 

of a shock to our people. If you look at the crops and so forth in 

the Red River Valley, they look pretty good. Why do they look 

good? Because of our soil and so forth. I think small grains did fairly well and we did get a little bit of rain for the row crops. But we 

get a lot of calls at the office about the water restrictions and so 

forth, and there is a concern. All you have to do is—we have five 

dams on the Red River that the city maintains and we have restructured three of them and we are going to try and restructure 

the other two that provide reservoirs and so forth in case we go 

into a drought, but that is just a short-term process. I think the 

time is right, to answer your question about the reimbursable $200 

million, I think that would be difficult because the process of, you 

know, I like the formula of one-third, one-third, one-third. I think 

that makes the most sense. As far as reimbursing that over 80 

years, I guess I don’t have to worry about that, but the process gets 

to be that if we are going to be partners, that seems like to be a 

very good scenario to fund the project when you look at the project 

when you were talking originally it was $800 million to $1 billion. 

That’s an awful lot of money. Even $600 million is an awful lot of 

money, but to me this alternative that we have in the process is 

very respectable. I think it is something that can be sold, but what 

people get down to really, Byron, is what is it going to cost me? 

What is going to be on our water bill on a monthly basis to provide 

that? The people came forward in the city of Fargo with a sales tax 

because it was a good deal. I mean it was a good process for us 

to fund flood protection and things like that and infrastructure, but 

it is going to be interesting. This would be the year to continue forward as far as I am concerned because water has not been a real 

serious problem here since 1989. 

Senator DORGAN. Bruce Furness. 

Mr. FURNESS. I think the average person has not thought much 

about this. Maybe now this year with the start of potentially a 

drought they are more concerned, but they really won’t get concerned until they turn the tap and nothing comes out. We have always said, and we haven’t really sampled this in any way, but if 

we could deliver water to the citizens of Fargo, assure them that 

they would have this additional water, supplemental water supply, 

for something in the area of $10 a month additional, that that 

would be a sellable thing to the citizens. I have presented that at 

various times when I have spoken at service clubs and things like 

that and gotten a positive response, but it is certainly not any kind 

of scientific study that was made of this. But we think if we can 

get it down less than that it would be better, but that’s sort of what 

we—you know, $100 a year we think people would view as the insurance payment to assure that they have water. 

Senator DORGAN. Curt, what is your assessment of the Grand 

Forks citizenry? 

Mr. KREUN. Actually our residents haven’t given it a lot of 

thought at this point. We have been trying to bring up the awareness of the studies that have shown that we will have a problem. 
23 

We have had some media coverage that has been very positive. The 

residents then have responded from the media coverage to indicate, 

yes, we should be looking at this. It does become an issue of how 

long do we pay the insurance policy before we see the benefit? I 

guess that is kind of what I stated in there. They view it as an insurance policy, but it is definitely an insurance policy that I think 

most people when they look at this in depth will see that it is 

worthwhile as an insurance policy because there will be a point in 

time, as I stated, it is not if we have a drought, it is just when and 

how severe. So we have to bring that forward as a governmental 

body to indicate how this will be affecting their amount of money 

that they would pay for the insurance policy. But it is slowly taking 

hold right now. It was very difficult in the beginning to bring this 

forward but it is starting to take hold right now in Grand Forks 

to understand because of the dry conditions that we’ve had in 

Fargo and the western part of the State. So it is coming. 

Senator DORGAN. All right. I am going to call on Congressman 

Pomeroy to inquire, but I did want to mention we have another 

former I see in the audience, Jon Lindgren, Jon welcome. Thank 

you for being here. 

Congressman Pomeroy. 

Mr. POMEROY. I think it is very interesting as you talk about 

public awareness about the drought. I mean the searing water 

events we have had are floods. I am still shaking my head, hearing 

Denny Walakar talking about not enough water. You know, it’s a 

distinct turn of events although a lot more of a focus this year certainly. 

I want to ask Mike a question. I was very interested to see that 

Southwest water supply demand is up by 50 percent over normal. 

How is that obviously related to drought? What is causing the additional draw on that water? 

Mr. DWYER. It is the drought of the summer. Obviously south of 

Interstate 94 is a very intense dry period, you know. You know, 

north of the interstate, you know, we have got some rainfall, but 

in the southwest part of the State it has been extremely dry, so it 

is attributed to the drought. 

Mr. POMEROY. Would we have had municipal water shortages potentially without Southwest water supply with the summer we 

have had? 

Mr. DWYER. Absolutely. If you remember early back in the 1980s 

when the Southwest Pipeline was first authorized, Dickinson was 

out of water and they were recycling their lagoon water for water 

back then. So Dickinson and a whole number of the other communities would not have had water. 

Mr. POMEROY. Dale, you want to elaborate on that? 

Mr. FRINK. The Southwest Pipeline started to pump water in 

1991 and that winter, if that pipeline wouldn’t have been completed at that time Dickinson would have been out of water in that 

winter and they would have been out of water essentially for 2 

years. So, yes, Southwest Pipeline made a very huge impact right 

out of the chute. 

Mr. POMEROY. We in North Dakota talk about the critical link 

between a pipeline for water supply assurance versus the prospect 
24 

of literally running out of water. We have got living, breathing examples of this in North Dakota. 

Mr. FRINK. Yes, we do. 

Mr. POMEROY. Lance, you mentioned consensus many times. As 

I look at your board, Manitoba is represented in equal numbers. Is 

there a developing consensus on need? That we’re not just faking 

it? We’re not just wanting some Cadillac water deal—that we face 

the prospect of not having water for Fargo? I guess, as you have 

mentioned, that there would also be participation by southern 

Manitoba as well as cities from Minnesota that are part of the commission. Is there developing consensus on need? 

Mr. YOHE. Congressman, yes, I believe there is, and we have 

talked about that at our board meeting, and there is a general feeling that we’re in a period where we really need to take a look at 

that. The difference has become how great the need is and how we 

address that need, but the need issue, there seems to be consensus 

it is there. Southern Manitoba right now all the way from the border to Winnipeg is looking all over southern Manitoba for a new 

source of water because they are to the point where they feel they 

can’t rely on the Red River because there is nothing in place. So 

up in that area it is certainly there. 

Mr. POMEROY. You know, once there is a developed consensus on 

need or a spoken consensus on need then there are other ways to 

continue the debate. Cost is a very effective way to kill a project 

without saying you are out to kill a project. I have seen it done 

many times. Mike, I thought your testimony was interesting in 

terms of the kind of dollars we’re going to have to put behind this 

so the financials work. If you don’t get the financials to work, none 

of it works. Would you care to elaborate a little more on that point? 

Mr. DWYER. Well, you know, we certainly need to recognize 

whether the $200 million Federal component is grant or loan, it 

still has to be provided. So the $50 to $60 million a year is going 

to be essential in order to be able to move this project forward. I 

also might add that there is a State MR&I component of $200 million and it may well be that North Dakota will allocate a share of 

that to this project. I suspect it will. So those Federal dollars are 

going to have to be forthcoming in order for us to move this project. 

Mr. POMEROY. Federal dollars required depends on design of the project. Is the $50 to $60 million estimate based upon the consensus alternative that has been supported? 

Mr. DWYER. That is based on just a general $600 million project 

with $200 million being local, $200 million being State, and $200 

million being Federal. So if we change that and went to a $1.2 billion project, obviously those numbers are way different, but it is 

based on the $600 million amount. 

Mr. POMEROY. I think that that’s an important point. In terms 

of talking about design, let’s talk about design. Let’s look with an 

open mind at the alternatives, but in the end let’s understand that 

a $100 million a year funding requirement is unlikely to be committed by the Federal Government at this point in time and that 

a design that takes you to that dollar figure is essentially a nonstarter. So you can talk about how it is not going to happen which 

is the same as opposing it outright. I think that we’re going to have 

to reflect long and hard at what appears to be thorough work done 
25 

by you all in evaluating the alternatives and arriving at the preferred one that you did. Some are suggesting you jumped the gun 

a little, you moved up prematurely, picking one alternative when 

the Corps is still mulling around. If we’re to get this thing on track 

there are finite options. There are a finite number of options. You 

have done some due diligence in looking at them. I think you have 

brought us some very good work. 

Thank you. That is the end of my questions, Senator. 

Senator DORGAN. I want to—first of all, let me say Valerie 

Gravseth is here in the back with Senator Mark Dayton. Valerie, 

where are you? Thank you. Your being here reminds us again that 

while we are on the North Dakota side and talking about principally our North Dakota cities, this issue relates to our region. I 

think, Lance, your comments are certainly correct about that. 

Congressman Pomeroy raised the issue of funding. All of us are 

committed, very committed to doing what is necessary to authorize 

what we decide to do here, to try to find ways to provide whatever 

funding is achievable. Obviously the fiscal policy in our country has 

deteriorated substantially, and in this oncoming year the increase 

in Federal indebtedness, not what is advertised in news on what 

the Federal deficit will be but the increase in indebtedness in the 

coming fiscal year will be about $600 billion. That’s just for the 

budget debt. The trade debt will be about $750 billion at least. So 

we have a pretty grim financial picture with respect to budget policy, and I think, as Congressman Pomeroy I think is correct, it is 

not as easy as it would have been perhaps a decade or two decades 

ago to achieve all the funding that is necessary. But we have a 

commitment here in Federal legislation. This entire commitment, 

including this issue is a part of the bargain that was struck going 

back to the Pick-Sloan plan, and as a result of that and modifications of that along the way there is a plan that includes benefits 

to North Dakota, including resolving the issue of a water supply, 

an assured water supply on the eastern side of our State. It is our 

responsibility, all of us, to make sure that that commitment is 

kept. So, you know, I pledged, my colleagues, Senator Conrad and 

Congressman Pomeroy, pledged to do all we can to try to realize 

this dream of not being held hostage to a river that runs dry some 

day. That would have dramatic consequences for our largest metropolitan area in this region, and many other areas as well up and 

down the river. We have folks here from Pembina and other areas. 

The consequences are very significant for a pretty substantial part 

of our population. 

I would also like to say, as we conclude today, that there are perhaps those with other viewpoints that wish to express them as we 

move forward, and we will accept as a part of the formal record any 

and all additional viewpoints that wish to be submitted by individuals or groups and that will become a part of the record. The development of a record here is very important. I specifically asked that 

we begin to develop a record in the Appropriations Committee because it is—while we don’t have authorization issues, it is also the 

case that the Appropriations Committee will at some point be required to take a look at this, and I want the record to have been 

developed on it as well, and that is the purpose of calling today’s 

hearing. I know that a number of you have driven a long ways 
26 

today to come with—to be part of this as well and we appreciate 

that. 

[The information follows:] 
27 
28 
29 
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 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 
92 
93 
94 
95 
96 
97 
98 
99 
100 
101 
102 
103 
104 
105 
106 
107 
108 
109 
110 
111 
112 
113 
114 
115 
116 
117 
118 
119 
120 
121 
122 
123 
124 
125 
126 
127 
128 
129 
130 
131 
132 
133 
134 
135 
136 
137 
138 
139 
140 
141 
142 
143 
144 
145 
146 
147 
148 
149 
150 
151 
152 
153 
154 
155 
156 
157 
158 
159 
160 
161 
162 
163 
164 
165 
166 
167 
168 
169 
170 
171 
172 
173 
174 
175 
176 
177 
178 
179 
180 
181 
182 
183 
184 
185 
186 
187 
188 
189 
190 
191 
192 
193 
194 
195 
196 
197 
198 
199 
200 
201 
202 
203 
204 
205 
206 
207 
208 
209 
210 
211 
212 
213 
214 
215 
216 
217 
218 
219 
220 
221 
222 
223 
224 
225 
226 
227 
228 
229 
230 
231 
232 
233 
234 
235 
236 
237 
238 

CONCLUSION OF HEARING

Senator DORGAN. With that, Congressman Pomeroy, thank you 

for being a part of this. I thank all of you for being here and thanks 

to the witnesses who testified. The hearing record will remain open 

for 15 days for those who wish to submit additional testimony. This 

hearing is concluded. 

[Whereupon, at 12:25 p.m., Thursday, August 24, the hearing 

was concluded, and the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene 

subject to the call of the Chair.] 

Æ