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) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

44–663 PDF 2008

S. HRG. 110–517 

WATER ISSUES IN THE GREAT PLAINS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

TO

RECEIVE TESTIMONY ON THE BUREAU OF RECLAMATION’S IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RURAL WATER SUPPLY ACT OF 2006, AND THE STATUS OF IMPLEMENTATION OF AUTHORIZED RURAL WATER PROJECTS 

IN THE GREAT PLAINS REGION 

SIOUX FALLS, SD, MAY 27, 2008 

( 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico, Chairman 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

RON WYDEN, Oregon 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

KEN SALAZAR, Colorado 

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey 

BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

JON TESTER, Montana 

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico 

LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska 

RICHARD BURR, North Carolina 

JIM DEMINT, South Carolina 

BOB CORKER, Tennessee 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon 

JIM BUNNING, Kentucky 

MEL MARTINEZ, Florida 

ROBERT M. SIMON, Staff Director 

SAM E. FOWLER, Chief Counsel 

FRANK MACCHIAROLA, Republican Staff Director 

JUDITH K. PENSABENE, Republican Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota, Chairman 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

RON WYDEN, Oregon 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

KEN SALAZAR, Colorado 

BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas 

JON TESTER, Montana 

BOB CORKER, Tennessee 

LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho 

JIM DEMINT, South Carolina 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon 

JIM BUNNING, Kentucky 

JEFF BINGAMAN and PETE V. DOMENICI are Ex Officio Members of the Subcommittee 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

STATEMENTS 

Page 

Bordeaux, Rodney, Rosebud Sioux Tribe, Rosebud, SD ....................................... 28 

Fitzgerald, Jake, Manager, West River/Lyman-Jones Rural Water Systems, 

Murdo, SD ............................................................................................................. 33 

Jandreau, Michael, Chairman, Lower Brule Sioux Tribe, Lower Brule, SD ...... 32 

Johnson, Hon. Tim, U.S. Senator From South Dakota ........................................ 1 

Larson, Troy, Executive Director, Lewis & Clark Regional Water System, 

Sioux Falls, SD ..................................................................................................... 18 

Munson, Dave, Mayor, Sioux Falls, SD ................................................................. 15 

Ryan, Michael, J., Great Plains Regional Director, Bureau of Reclamation, 

Department of the Interior .................................................................................. 4 

Steele, John, President, Oglala Sioux Tribe, Pine Ridge, SD .............................. 22 

Tester, Hon. Jon, U.S. Senator From Montana ..................................................... 2 

(1) 

WATER ISSUES IN THE GREAT PLAINS 

TUESDAY, MAY 27, 2008 

U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER, COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES, Sioux Falls, SD. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2 p.m. at Best 

Western Ramkota Hotel and Conference Center, 3200 W. Maple 

Street, Hon. Tim Johnson, presiding. 

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

FROM SOUTH DAKOTA 

Senator JOHNSON. I call to order this field hearing before the Energy and Natural Resources Water and Power Subcommittee. It is 

my pleasure to welcome everyone here today. 

I appreciate John Tester, who is from Montana, traveling to 

Sioux Falls to attend today’s hearing. I know that Senator Tester 

is interested in the topics to be covered today, and I believe he will 

add a valuable perspective to water development in the Great 

Plains. 

I also want to thank all the witnesses for traveling to Sioux Falls 

and being available to present testimony and answer questions. 

The purpose of today’s hearing is to receive testimony on the Bureau of Reclamation’s implementation of the Rural Water Supply 

Act of 2006 and to examine the implementation and status of the 

water supply projects in the Great Plains. 

The Great Plains face great water demands for adequate drinking water supplies. Population growth and economic development 

will further strain the gap between capital improvements needed 

for public water systems and the capability of governments to finance these new projects. Unfortunately under investment is not 

the only problem. 

Millions of Americans left without safe and reliable drinking 

water. Many of these individuals are served by small community 

systems. But regionally, our regionalized approach that water delivery could be more effective to distribute drinking water. 

To better address the outstanding drinking water needs of these 

communities the Congress passed the Rural Water Supply Act of 

2006. Now for the first time, the BOR has a water supply plan to 

construct new water development projects. We need to get this program up and running. I look forward to Regional Director Ryan updating the committee on this implementation. 

The second part of today’s hearing is to receive testimony on construction of ongoing water projects in the Great Plains region. I am 
2 

proud that South Dakota was the first State to harness the resources of the BOR to construct these regional water projects. Since 

the year 2003, I have helped secure about $347 million of Federal 

funds for the construction and operation and maintenance of South 

Dakota’s BOR drinking water projects. These projects are an example of how our partnership between the Federal and State governments and local sponsors can set the conditions for building our 

communities. 

Currently South Dakota has three ongoing projects in various 

stages of completion that serve diverse and private communities: 

the Lewis and Clark Regional Water System, Mni Wiconi Rural 

Water System, and the Perkins County Rural Water System. Unfortunately the continued progress and construction of these 

projects is threatened by the lack of support for funding from the 

current Administration. The BOR’s decision to recommend no funds 

in next year’s budget for Lewis and Clark, a regional solution for 

water supplies in several Eastern South Dakota communities including Minnesota and Iowa, is simply unacceptable. I’m sure that 

today’s witnesses will touch on the impacts of these cuts. 

We’re also making progress. Some systems are now completed 

and delivering water for municipal, agricultural and industrial purposes with other projects such as the Mni Wiconi near completion. 

We have several witnesses from these projects testifying today that 

can further explain their importance of seeing these projects completed. 

We have a full panel of witnesses today. So with that, I would 

like to recognize my colleague from Montana for his opening statement. Senator Tester, please go right ahead with your remarks. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JON TESTER, U.S. SENATOR 

FROM MONTANA 

Senator TESTER. I want to thank you, Senator Johnson. I am 

truly happy to be here today in Sioux Falls. I appreciate your leadership in holding this hearing because water is arguably the most 

important issue that faces the Great Plains and the West, especially here in South Dakota and also in Montana. 

I know that you have worked very hard on water issues in South 

Dakota for a long, long time. In a lot of ways in Montana we want 

to follow in your footsteps trying to get some of our rural water 

projects developed. 

I also appreciate Michael Ryan coming in today. I appreciate 

your sacrifice being here today, Mike. I look forward to your testimony. 

Unfortunately it seems like when it comes to these projects that 

folks with the biggest water problems are often those that are least 

able to finance them. We’ve got the greatest country in the world. 

Nobody should have to worry about safe, clean, affordable drinking 

water. Yet a lot of people do. 

Like South Dakota, Montana also has three Bureau of Rec 

projects that are in various stages of completion. All of them involve tribal nations. All of them have been voted on and approved 

by Congress. And Each one of them is badly needed. But in the last 

several years, none of them have ended up in the President’s budget. 
3 

Congress passed the Rural Water Supply of 2006 to clarify the 

role of the Bureau of Reclamation in developing rural water supply 

projects. The bill is supposed to lay out a plan to finish authorized 

projects and put down some guidelines for the projects into the future. I anxiously look forward to the report that is expected out 

later this year. 

But in the short term one thing that I am sure about is that 

these projects will never get completed if they aren’t funded at a 

level that is adequate. In Montana, the St. Mary’s Canal Project 

was built for irrigation purposes nearly 100 years ago. Twenty 

thousand people depend upon it for drinking water. 

The Canal is in such bad shape that failure is going to happen. 

It’s just when. If that canal goes, 20,000 people are immediately 

cutoff from water, and the Blackfeet Reservation, where the project 

is, has an environmental catastrophe on their hands. 

The Fort Peck-Dry Prairie System, another system, is in a race 

against time with a brine plume from old gas and oil production 

that is moving in the ground water toward the town of Poplar. 

Without this Fort Peck-Dry Prairie Water System getting up and 

running very, very soon that brine water is going to poison those 

folks as well, those folks’ water wells. 

The water around the north central water system, Rocky Boy’sNorth Central Water System is so bad that the EPA tells tribal 

members not to drink it. But the Federal Government hasn’t been 

helping them finish their system that would bring much needed relief. 

Mr. Ryan, I don’t envy the position you are put in. I know there 

are incredible demands put upon you. I know you fully realize the 

importance of these projects to the region. But we’re also relying 

on you to work with the Bureau of Reclamation to make clear the 

importance of rural water projects to Reclamation States and a 

plan for their completion. 

I look forward to your testimony. Of course, we’ll have some 

questions about South Dakota and Montana and other Reclamation 

States. How we finish up our ongoing projects and get some new 

ones started so our constituents can be guaranteed safe, clean, affordable drinking water. 

Once again, I do want to thank Senator Johnson for his leadership and for holding this field hearing. I look forward to the testimony. I too will have some questions. 

Senator JOHNSON. Thank you, Senator Tester. We will now turn 

to the first witness for today’s hearing. Representing the Bureau of 

Reclamation is Michael Ryan, a Regional Director for the Great 

Plains Region of the BOR. Welcome to Sioux Falls, Mr. Ryan and 

I appreciate your making yourself available. 

What I would like to do is from Mr. Ryan to deliver his statement after which Senator Tester and I will ask Mr. Ryan some 

questions. Once that is complete, we will go onto the next group 

of witnesses. 

That testimony as well as the written submission of all today’s 

witnesses will be made part of the official hearing record. 

Mr. Ryan, please go ahead with your statement. Following that 

we’ll have a question and answer period for you. 
4 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL J. RYAN, GREAT PLAINS REGIONAL 

DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF RECLAMATION, DEPARTMENT OF 

THE INTERIOR 

Mr. RYAN. Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Senator 

Tester and staff. My name is Mike Ryan. I am the Regional Director for the Great Plains region for the Bureau of Reclamation. I am 

pleased to provide the Department of the Interior’s views today on 

the status of rural water projects in the Great Plains region and 

a report on Reclamation’s implementation of the Rural Water Supply Act of 2006. 

This region has a total of six authorized rural water projects with 

an estimated remaining Federal cost of approximately $1.3 billion 

to complete them. Reclamation allocates funding for its rural water 

projects based on objective criteria which give priority to projects 

nearest to completion and that serve tribal needs. The fiscal year 

2009 budget request reflects Reclamation’s attempt to balance the 

many competing priorities for funding within the Federal Government and within Reclamation. 

Prior to the Rural Water Supply Act, Congress authorized several rural water projects. Funding in the amount of $39 million is 

included in the fiscal year 2009 President’s budget request for some 

of these rural water projects, specifically Mni Wiconi and the Garrison Diversion Unit. These rural water projects are separate and 

distinct from any projects that may be authorized in the future 

under the Act. Detailed information about the funding history and 

remaining amounts needed for completion of each of these six 

projects is included in my written statement. I will be happy to answer questions about any of these projects. 

Now allow me to provide a status report on implementation of 

the Rural Water Supply Act of 2006. Reclamation’s intention is to 

work cooperatively with rural communities across the West in a 

consistent manner to identify rural water supply needs and cost effective options for addressing those needs. Prior to enactment of 

this legislation Reclamation had no authority to get involved early 

in the process in the analysis and development of solutions for 

meeting the potable water supply needs of rural communities in 

the West. 

We are working hard to implement this new program in a timely 

manner. Our focus is to ensure a thorough analysis of rural water 

needs and options to address those needs through the completion 

of appraisal and feasibility studies. As studies are completed Reclamation is required to submit a feasibility report to Congress and 

to make a recommendation as to whether the project is technically 

and economically feasible. 

Further, the report must make a recommendation on whether 

Congress should authorize Federal involvement and construction of 

the project. The report must also make a recommendation on the 

appropriate non-Federal share of construction costs which must be 

at least 25 percent of the total construction costs. While we expect 

great interest in this program, Reclamation will not be able to get 

involved in every project that is presented to us as any efforts to 

implement projects under this program must compete with other 

Reclamation projects for finite resources. 
5 

The Act envisioned the establishment of consistent and objective 

criteria to help make those choices. Reclamation is currently working to establish programmatic and eligibility criteria for participation in the program and prioritization criteria to articulate how 

Reclamation will select projects to support. The Act requires that 

we promulgate and publish the program’s rules and criteria in the 

Federal Register. This is being done through a rulemaking process 

in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act. Will provide 

opportunities for public review, involvement and comment prior to 

being finalized. 

We anticipate publishing the rule in the Federal Register this year. The President’s fiscal year 2009 budget request includes $1 

million for Administrative work for the program. That funding 

would allow us to begin to work with communities on study proposals and then carry out and support studies that are selected 

based on the criteria. 

During our initial efforts to scope this program we have held conversations with various stakeholder groups throughout the West. 

Also, as part of the rulemaking process, we plan to hold public and 

tribal meetings to gather comments and answer questions. We will 

continue that outreach and dialog throughout the process of implementing this new program. 

We see this program as an opportunity to provide a clearly defined process for Reclamation and rural communities throughout 

the West to work together to identify options for meeting potable 

water supply needs in a technically feasible, environmentally responsible and cost effective manner. With all of this work underway we look forward to working closely with the large base of 

stakeholders on implementation. 

Thank you for the opportunity to appear today. This concludes 

my verbal remarks. I am pleased to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ryan follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MICHAEL J. RYAN, GREAT PLAINS REGIONAL DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF RECLAMATION, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Good afternoon Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee. My name is 

Mike Ryan and I am the Regional Director for the Great Plains Region for the Bureau of Reclamation. I am pleased to provide the Department of the Interior’s views 

today on the status of major authorized rural water projects in the Great Plains Region, and separately, report on Reclamation’s implementation of Title I of Public 

Law 109-451. 

Reclamation is proceeding with the design or construction of several rural water 

projects in the Great Plains region. Below is a summary on the status of the major 

projects under consideration by the Subcommittee today. While my testimony today 

includes specific reference to these major projects, I think it is important to note 

that the Great Plains Region has a total of six authorized rural water projects with 

an estimated remaining Federal cost of approximately $1.4 billion to complete these 

six projects. Finally, my statement concludes with a status on the newly authorized 

rural water program under development this year. 

Before discussing the individual projects, it is important to note that the Bureau 

of Reclamation allocates funding for its rural water projects based on objective criteria, which gave priority to projects 1) nearest to completion; and 2) that serve tribal needs. These projects also received funding based on amounts needed for ongoing 

work. The FY 2009 budget request reflects Reclamation’s attempt to balance the 

many competing priorities for funding within the Federal Government and within 

Reclamation. 

Prior to the authorization of the ‘‘Rural Water Supply Act,’’ Congress authorized 

several individual rural water projects. Funding in the amount of $39 million is included in the FY 2009 President’s budget request for some of these rural water 
6 

projects, which are separate and distinct from any projects that may be authorized 

under the Act. 

LEWIS & CLARK

The Lewis & Clark Rural Water System was authorized in the 106th Congress 

by P.L. 106-246. Construction activities began in 2004. The project has expended 

over $75 million, and was approximately 23 percent complete as of September 30, 

2007. Funds have been used for preconstruction activities, including National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and National Historic Preservation Act compliance, 

Value Engineering studies, field data collection, and preparation of plans and specifications. Lewis & Clark has constructed 50 miles of the 61 mile main transmission 

pipeline in South Dakota, 8 miles of raw water pipeline and 9 miles of treated water 

pipeline in Iowa. Six wells were installed in the Mulberry Point Well Field with associated facilities and bank stabilization commencing this year. The Federal cost 

ceiling (FY 2008) is $362 million and the corresponding non-Federal cost-share is 

$100 million for a total project cost of $462 million. As of January 1, 2008, Federal 

appropriations totaled $101 million with a remaining Federal balance of approximately $261 million. When completed, Lewis & Clark will address regional concerns 

regarding the low quality, contamination vulnerability, and insufficient supply of existing drinking water sources throughout the project area. Currently, 20 existing 

water utilities are members of Lewis & Clark, which will eventually serve more 

than 300,000 people in South Dakota, Minnesota, and Iowa. 

MID-DAKOTA RURAL WATER SYSTEM

The Mid-Dakota Rural Water System, P.L. 102-575, Title XIX, dated October 30, 

1992, authorized the construction of the Mid-Dakota Rural Water System. The MidDakota Rural Water System utilizes water pumped from an intake located on Oahe 

Reservoir. The project brings a dependable supply of good quality drinking water 

to more than 29,000 people and more than 600,000 head of livestock. More than 

3,000 rural water users and 17 cities have paid good intention fees to be included 

in the system. A wetland component is included in the project and is being funded 

by a Federal grant. The Mid-Dakota project was completed in FY 2006. Total Federal cost of the project was $148 million. 

MNI WICONI

The Mni Wiconi Rural Water Supply Project was authorized under P.L. 100-516 

and other authorizations to serve three Indian Reservations and one non-Indian 

sponsor in South Dakota. The Indian sponsors are the Oglala, Rosebud and Lower 

Brule Sioux Tribes and the non-Indian sponsor is West River Lyman-Jones. The 

sunset date for the project has been extended to the end of 2013. In addition to the 

annual construction costs, as facilities are completed additional funds are required 

to support Tribal operation and maintenance (O&M) activities, since P.L. 100-516 

required that the operations and maintenance of the tribal components be a Federal 

obligation. The FY 2009 budget for construction is over $16 and $10 million for 

O&M. Mni Wiconi is one of two rural water projects included in the FY 2009 President’s Budget Request. The Federal cost ceiling (FY 2008) is $452 million with a 

corresponding non-Federal cost-share of $17 million. As of January 1, 2008, Federal 

appropriations totaled $360 million with a remaining Federal balance of approximately $92 million. The project was approximately 74 percent complete as of September 30, 2007. The project will serve 40,000 on-reservation, as well as 12,000 offreservation residents. 

The project was initially authorized for construction through 2003, based on projected appropriations. In 2002, the Act was amended to extend the sunset date to 

2008 and to authorize an additional $58 million to cover costs not considered in the 

original authorization as well as the added administrative costs for a five year extension. Since the project was not completed by the amended date of 2008, Congress 

extended the sunset date again, this time to 2013 through enactment of P.L. 110- 

161. 

NORTHWEST AREA WATER SUPPLY PROJECT (NAWS)

The NAWS project is a component of the larger Garrison Diversion Unit. The 

rural water component in North Dakota was authorized by the Garrison Diversion 

Unit Reformulation Act of 1986. The authorizing legislation established two rural 

water components—the State maintenance rehabilitation and improvement (MR&I) 

grant program and the Tribal MR&I program—both of which have been under construction since the late 1980s. The Tribes included in the authorization are the 
7 

Standing Rock Sioux, the Three Affiliated Tribes, the Spirit Lake Sioux, and the 

Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewas. The NAWS project is a component of the State 

MR&I addition to the Garrison Unit and when complete will deliver water from the 

Missouri River to communities and rural water systems in North Dakota located in 

the Hudson Bay Basin. Construction of NAWS began in April 2002, but was halted 

as a result of litigation filed by the Province of Manitoba, alleging that the environmental review under NEPA was insufficient. 

In response to that complaint, in March 2006 Reclamation initiated the preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS). The focus of the EIS is to evaluate 

additional water treatment alternatives that could further reduce the risks of transfer of non-native species from the Missouri River Basin to the Hudson Bay Basin. 

Treatment would take place within the Missouri River Basin and two of the four 

alternatives would meet treatment goals recommended by the Province of Manitoba, 

Canada. Increased costs of the newly considered alternatives range from approximately $10 million to $90 million. The United States is responsible for both construction and operation and maintenance of the treatment plant. A Federally preferred alternative has not been identified in the draft EIS. 

The draft EIS was issued for a 60 day public review and comment in December 

2007, which was later extended to March 26, 2008. Three public hearings were held 

to receive testimony from the public. All comments received will be considered in 

preparing the final EIS. At this time Reclamation anticipates completing the final 

EIS by the end of the calendar year. Upon completion of the final EIS a record of 

decision will be prepared. 

The authorizing legislation requires that the Secretary make a determination on 

adequate treatment to meet requirements of the Boundary Waters Treaty in consultation with the Environmental Protection Agency and the State Department. 

Reclamation will continue working with these agencies on a recommendation for a 

Secretarial determination that includes an appropriate treatment process. 

The Federal cost ceiling for the State component (FY 2008) is $461 million with 

a corresponding non-Federal cost-share of approximately $154 million. For this component of the project, as of January 1, 2008, Federal appropriations totaled $230 

million with a remaining Federal balance of $231 million. The Federal cost ceiling 

for the Tribal component (FY 2008) is approximately $311 million with no non-Federal cost-share. From the same date, Federal appropriations for this component totaled $80 million with a remaining Federal balance of $230 million. The project was 

approximately 61 percent complete as of September 30, 2007. 

PERKINS COUNTY

The Perkins County Rural Water System Act of 1999, P.L. 106-136, dated December 7, 1999 authorized $15 million for the construction of the Perkins County Rural 

Water System (PCRWS). The PCRWS is a buried, pressurized pipeline distribution 

system that delivers treated drinking water to communities, rural residences and 

pasture taps in Perkins County, South Dakota. Perkins County is the second largest 

county (2,866 square miles) in South Dakota and is located in the northwest corner 

of the State. The area is characterized by widely separated towns and ranches. 

Groundwater has been the predominant water source, but many residents of the 

area haul water for domestic use because of inadequate quantity and poor water 

quality. The PCRWS will purchase treated water from the Southwest Pipeline 

Project (SWPP) in North Dakota and distribute that water to its customers through 

a network consisting of 515 miles of pipe, 5 booster stations, and 3 storage reservoirs. The SWPP was constructed as a feature of the Garrison Diversion Unit 

under the State MR&I program. 

The Federal cost ceiling (FY 2008) is over $24 million with a corresponding nonFederal cost-share of $8 million. As of January 1, 2008, Federal appropriations totaled approximately $14 million with a remaining Federal balance of approximately 

$11 million. The system was approximately 65 percent complete as of September 30, 

2007. 

FORT PECK/DRY PRAIRIE

The Fort Peck Reservation Rural Water System Act of 2000 (P. L. 106-382) authorized $287 million (FY 2008) for the construction of the Fort Peck Reservation 

Rural Water System (FPRRWS). The Fort Peck Tribes (Tribes) and the non-Indian 

Dry Prairie Water Authority (DPWA) are the project sponsors. Public Law 106-382 

authorizes the appropriation of the funds over a period of 10 years. Reclamation has 

a cooperative agreement with DPWA under the Federal Grants and Cooperative 

Agreements Act for the construction of the off-reservation portion of the system. 

Reclamation has a cooperative agreement with the Tribes under Title I of P.L. 93- 
8 

638 for the construction of the reservation portion of the system and the water 

treatment plant and transfers funds each year through an annual funding agreement under that cooperative agreement. The Federal cost ceiling (FY 2008) is approximately $263 million with a corresponding non-Federal cost-share of $24.512 

million. As of January 1, 2008, Federal appropriations totaled $48 million with a 

remaining Federal balance of approximately $215 million. The project was approximately 16 percent complete as of September 30, 2007. 

NORTH CENTRAL MONTANA/ROCKY BOYS REGIONAL WATER SYSTEM

The Rocky Boys/North Central Montana Regional Water System Act, P.L. 107- 

331, dated December 13, 2002, authorized the construction of the North Central 

Montana Regional Water System, in coordination with the Chippewa Cree Tribe 

(Tribe) and the North Central Montana Regional Water Authority (Authority). The 

Rocky Boy’s/North Central Montana Regional Water System will serve an estimated 

population of 43,000 at full build-out. Operation, maintenance, and replacement for 

the core and on-Reservation systems will be funded by a $20 million trust fund 

through Bureau of Indian Affairs appropriations. The non-Tribal systems will fund 

their operation, maintenance, and replacement separately without Federal assistance. The Federal cost ceiling (FY 2008) is $273 million with a corresponding nonFederal cost share of $36 million. As of January 1, 2008, Federal appropriations totaled approximately $15 million with a remaining Federal balance of approximately 

$258 million. The project was approximately 5 percent complete as of September 30, 

2007. 

RURAL WATER PROGRAM

I would now like to provide a status report on Reclamation’s implementation of 

Title I of Public Law 109-451, the Rural Water Supply Act of 2006. 

In December 2006, the Rural Water Supply Act of 2006 (Act) was enacted and 

signed into law. Title I of this Act authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to create 

a rural water supply program (Program) to address rural water needs in the 17 

Western United States. The intent of this Program is to enable Reclamation to work 

cooperatively with rural communities across the West in a consistent manner to 

identify rural water supply needs and cost effective options for addressing those 

needs. Prior to enactment of this legislation, Reclamation had no authority to get 

involved—early in the process—in the analysis and development of solutions for 

meeting the potable water supply needs of rural communities in the West. We are 

working hard to implement this new Program in a timely manner. 

Title I of the Act requires Reclamation to: (1) develop programmatic criteria determining eligibility for non-Federal entities to participate in the Program and for 

prioritizing requests for assistance; (2) develop criteria for what must be included 

in both the appraisal and the feasibility studies that are to be completed under the 

Program, in terms of data, alternatives, and level of analysis; (3) complete an assessment of the rural water programs that exist in other Federal agencies to ensure 

that we are filling an unmet niche and to ensure that we coordinate with other 

agencies and leverage resources; and (4) complete an annual report of Reclamation’s 

staff costs for carrying out the Act. The assessment also will include a report on 

the status of rural water projects that are already authorized for involvement by 

the Bureau of Reclamation. As we have begun to work on implementation of this 

Program, there was some confusion among some of our customers and stakeholders 

about the Program’s scope. I would like to address that issue with the Committee. 

Title I of P.L. 109-451 authorized Reclamation to complete appraisal and feasibility studies for rural water projects in the 17 western states. It does not authorize 

the design and construction of those projects. 

The focus of the Program is to ensure that there is thorough analysis of rural 

water needs and options to address those needs through the completion of appraisal 

and feasibility studies that meet program criteria. As studies are completed, Reclamation is required to submit a feasibility report to Congress. In the report, the 

Secretary (through Reclamation) will make a recommendation as to whether the 

project is technically and economically feasible, and whether the project is in the 

Federal interest. Further, the report must make a recommendation on whether Congress should authorize Federal involvement in construction of the project. The report must also make a recommendation on the appropriate non-Federal share of 

construction costs, which must be at least 25 percent of the total construction costs. 

Reclamation is committed to working with its customers, states, tribes, and other 

stakeholders to find ways to balance and provide for the mix of water resource 

needs in the future to meet their responsibilities. 
9 

While we expect great interest in this program, Reclamation will not be able to 

get involved in every project that is presented to us, as any efforts to implement 

projects under this program must compete with other Reclamation projects for finite 

resources. The Act envisioned the establishment of consistent and objective criteria 

to help make those choices. As such, before the Rural Water Program can be implemented, the Secretary (through Reclamation), must establish programmatic and eligibility criteria for participation in the Program and prioritization criteria to articulate how Reclamation will select projects to support. The Act further requires that 

we promulgate and publish the program’s rules and criteria in the Federal Register. 

This is being done through a rulemaking process in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). This APA process provides opportunities for public review, 

involvement and comment and Reclamation plans to closely adhere to these requirements. 

We anticipate publishing the Rule in the Federal Register this year, and the President’s FY 2009 budget request includes $1 million for administrative work for 

the program. That funding would allow us to begin to work with communities on 

study proposals and then begin to carry out and support studies that are selected 

based upon the programmatic and prioritization criteria. 

During our initial efforts to scope this Program, we have held conversations with 

various stakeholder groups throughout the West. Also, as part of the rulemaking 

process, we plan to hold public and tribal meetings to gather comments and answer 

questions. We will continue that outreach and dialogue throughout the process of 

implementing this new Program. 

We see this Program as an opportunity to provide a clearly defined process for 

Reclamation and rural communities throughout the West to work together to identify options for meeting potable water supply needs in a technically feasible, environmentally responsible, and cost effective manner. P.L. 109-451 gives Reclamation 

authority to review, evaluate, and make recommendations to the Congress regarding 

the feasibility of proposed rural water projects such as the ones discussed here 

today. 

With all of this work underway, we look forward to working closely with the large 

base of stakeholders on implementation. 

Thank you for the opportunity to appear today. This concludes my statement. I 

am pleased to answer any questions from the Subcommittee. 

Senator JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Ryan. As you know prior to 

enactment the Rural Water Supply Act of 2006 authorization for 

BOR Rural Water Projects was a hopscotch of separate authorities 

tacked into Appropriation bills are missing on these authorization 

bills. For example, Lewis and Clark Regional Water System was 

added as an amendment to the Fiscal Year 2001 military construction Appropriations bill. 

There is apparently a need for a uniform set of criteria to evaluate projects along for the Bureau to recommend to the Congress future projects for authorization and construction. That was what 

was intended in the Rural Water Act. Please turn your attention 

to the funding chart showing the gap between the proposed and enacted funding for the Great Plains Water Projects. It is clear that 

recent BOR recommendations differ widely. 

Inconsistent budget recommendations seem to frustrate the Bureau’s goal of construction of the municipal, rural and the districal 

water systems. Please explain how the BOR will achieve its goal 

of constructing these systems when the Administration’s budget 

recommendations are so inconsistent from 1 year to the next. 

Mr. RYAN. Thank you, Senator. One of the things that I can do 

as an engineer is to help the policymakers understand what types 

of criteria I would bring to the selection process for projects or for 

funding proposals for projects. You see now that the Administration as we approach this, we have the two criteria that we lean on 

very heavily. One is how far along the project is to completion. The 

second is to what extent does that project help serve Native American needs. 
10 

It’s been our experience that the needs within those tribal communities are sometimes the most severe, the most dire of situations. So we use those as guidelines to get started on which 

projects to direct our funding. One of the frustrating things for all 

of us in the time that we live is that more money would accomplish 

more good things. 

In recent years Congress has enacted budgets, in addition to 

what the President has proposed or requested, and that helps the 

projects move along more quickly. I am thankful for that. 

Senator JOHNSON. Mr. Ryan, I think the BOR suffers from a perception in South Dakota that there is no rhyme or reason as to how 

budgets are formulated. In 1 year Lewis and Clark project is 

deemed a priority and is recommended to receive $15 billion then 

the next year, nothing, no funding at all. This weakens confidence 

in the BOR. 

How can the BOR improve the budget process so that projects receive a more consistent recommended level of funding? 

Mr. RYAN. Senator, I believe that consistency does help as communities are planning long term, not only for what their needs are 

and how they’re going to meet those needs but how they’re going 

to find answers for those. That’s why I do advocate using the criteria that we’ve developed to date. Additional criterias envisioned 

under the Rural Water Supply Act because I think that helps 

brings back some predictability to the situation. 

Another thing that we can do to help, I believe, is that as we understand the technical requirements on the jobs and many of them 

are site specific or project specific, working with the project sponsors we can help reach a meeting of the minds at least on the technical level of what the cash-flow requirements are to complete 

projects, do the calculations to try to get things done as economic 

and efficiently as we possibly can. In recent years we’ve been 

thrown a bit of a curve ball with the price of some of our components for constructing the systems. But we have to take that into 

account. We have to move forward. 

But my experience has been the more predictable or the more 

consistent that we can be as a partner, the better that is for our 

remaining partners as they make their plans on how to proceed. 

Senator JOHNSON. I’d like now to turn to one project in particular, the Mni Wiconi System. Recently you met the Oglala Sioux 

Tribe on how to improve coordination between tribal sponsors and 

the BOR. What is the quality of that relationship between the BOR 

and the tribe? How can it be improved? 

Mr. RYAN. I would characterize our relationship as very strong 

and improving. This last week when I visited with some representatives from the tribal membership one of the things that we were 

talking about was improving the communications by having more 

frequent, regularly scheduled sessions. Making sure that we’re approaching things, not just in a technical aspect, but in a true government to government aspect. 

So we have our technical folks working together, managers working together and then tribal leaders and myself as the Administration’s representative working together. It’s, as I characterized it to 

someone that I work with, it’s like a ladder. You have the rungs 
11 

and you have the styles and they need to be working at all different levels and across, from side to side, in order to be effective. 

So that’s something, I think, would help us, especially now as 

we’re nearly finished and we have this sunset date of 2013 to complete. So we need to make sure that we finish this race. We need 

to be strong to the finish. 

Senator JOHNSON. For now I would like to wrap up my questions 

for Mr. Ryan and ask Senator Tester to proceed with any questions 

he might have. 

Senator TESTER. Yes, thank you, Senator Johnson. Once again, 

thanks for being here, Mike. 

Mr. RYAN. Yes, sir. 

Senator TESTER. I appreciate your testimony. As per the Rural 

Water Supply Act of 2006 and that assessment, in your testimony 

you said it would be finished this year. Can you be more specific 

than that? 

Mr. RYAN. We expect, Senator, to formulate interim rules and 

regulations. Have those by the fall of this year. We still have to go 

through the more formulized, final rules and regulations process. 

But we can begin acting under the interim rules and regs. 

We expect to be in that situation this fall. So that as we get our 

funding for fiscal year 2009, this fall, we can hit the ground with 

our feet running. 

Senator TESTER. When will it be ready for public consumption? 

Mr. RYAN. We’ve had some informal conversations with some of 

our stakeholders to date to help us as we’ve prepared what’s in 

these interim drafts. I expect that in the late summer, early fall, 

we’ll have a public draft available for review and comment. But I 

think that when people, when the larger public sees it, they will 

be impressed with the amount of effort that we’ve put into it. We’re 

trying very hard to do a good job. 

Senator TESTER. Ok. As Regional Director, you talked about a 

criteria being, percentage of completion. 

Mr. RYAN. Yes, sir. 

Senator TESTER. What the impacts are on the Native population. 

Mr. RYAN. Yes, sir. 

Senator TESTER. Are there any others? First of all, did the Regional Directors, play a role in general when these projects came 

down the line as far as funding levels, as far as recommendations? 

Mr. RYAN. Yes, sir. In the Bureau of Reclamation our budget requests are built from the ground up. So that people in our field offices, in this instance with rural water, the people in the field offices will visit with the project sponsors and develop budget requests. 

My job is then to make a recommendation to our Commissioner. 

The Commissioner will then contemplate the different recommendations that come to him. He makes the recommendation to 

the Secretary of the Interior. From that it goes to the Office of 

Management and Budget for preparation in the President’s request. 

Senator TESTER. Not to put you on the spot, but it would seem 

to me that they’re built from the ground up. There’s a lot of these 

projects that were zeroed out when they went by your desk. 
12 

Mr. RYAN. As I’m sure you can appreciate, not everything I recommend is agreed to. But it’s also, I think too fair to say for the 

process that the needs are so great that as we formulate the budget 

and I take a look at all of my needs for funding requests, requirements within the region, taking care of existing infrastructure as 

well as developing new water supply infrastructure, it calls for 

some very difficult decisions. 

Senator TESTER. Yes and as I look at the chart it would actually—the purple is the amount that was asked for in the President’s budget? 

Mr. RYAN. Yes, sir. 

Senator TESTER. We see a decrease in that area. So it appears 

some decisions were made, I think, at a different level that has it 

at a different priority. You don’t have to answer that. That’s just 

my opinion. 

Mr. RYAN. Thank you. 

Senator TESTER. Do you feel that the input you have is sufficient 

to ensure that these projects will be done in a timely manner? 

Mr. RYAN. I believe, beginning with our Commissioner and going 

up through the Department and into OMB, that the information 

that we’re able to provide and their visits with the project sponsors 

helps them to make as informed decisions as possible. We try very 

hard to interpret sometimes complex technical issues into, you 

know, real world language so that they can make as an informed 

decision as they can. 

Senator TESTER. Let’s go back to this Rural Water Supply Act 

2006. Once it gets done and we’re able to utilize it in next year’s 

budget, do you think it will have significant impacts on funding 

levels for projects? 

Mr. RYAN. I think that it has the potential, Senator. Because I 

believe that it will bring to the public eye something that several 

folks believe they see right now in that the need is great for systems like this and in places in addition to the projects that have 

been authorized to date. I believe that will take some people aback 

when they see what the needs are. 

Senator TESTER. Ok. I mean one of the reasons I asked that 

question, and I think it’s been alluded to here several times this 

afternoon, is that some of these funding levels aren’t even keeping 

up with inflation. 

Mr. RYAN. That’s right. 

Senator TESTER. So if there isn’t more of a priority put on them 

within the budget they’ll never get completed. 

Mr. RYAN. Right. 

Senator TESTER. So that’s really the issue. I mean, we’ve invested some real dollars in some real projects in both North and 

South Dakota and in Montana and quite frankly if these funding 

levels continue the way they are, at least in this region we’re losing 

ground, not gaining. 

Mr. RYAN. With the cost of indexing, you know, the rising cost 

of the materials needed to construct the systems. It’s very difficult 

to make head way. 

Senator TESTER. Yes. That’s probably not going to change much, 

with the price of fuel at four bucks. New projects. Are you going 

to be recommending new projects? 
13 

Mr. RYAN. Right. What we’ll do is work through the process that 

the legislation envisions in doing either appraisal or feasibility 

studies and then make the report to Congress. I would envision 

that some of the reports to Congress will be favorable and some 

will be not. But I think it would be pre-decisional right now for me 

to try and select which ones would be. 

We know we need to do our work and go through them and scrub 

thenumbers and be able to make our recommendation to the Congress. 

Senator TESTER. Yes, ok. I just wondered with the way the dollars are going, unless there’s more of an emphasis on these 

projects. Trust me, we’ve got projects in Montana that have not 

been approved yet that are critically important. But how do you get 

to a point where you can fund the old ones and take care of the 

new ones? 

Mr. RYAN. Yes, sir. It’s a challenge. 

Senator TESTER. Just a second here, real quick. You’ve got a loan 

guarantee program. What’s the status of that? 

Mr. RYAN. In the second title within the Rural Water Supply Act 

had to do with the Loan Guarantee Program. The Bureau of Reclamation prepared the rules and regulations, drafted the rules and 

regulations for implementing the loan program. They were submitted to the Office of Management and Budget in May 2007, so 

about a year ago. 

The Office of Management and Budget had some differences with 

Reclamation and the Department of the Interior about how many 

dollars in Appropriations would need to be made in order to effectuate the program. So Reclamation, Interior and OMB right now 

are sitting down trying to come to a common understanding of 

what those rules and regs should be so we can get them out and 

get going. 

Senator TESTER. Those rules and regs, I mean, those are the criteria for the loan? 

Mr. RYAN. Yes, sir. 

Senator TESTER. When do you anticipate that criteria or those 

regs will be done? 

Mr. RYAN. I’ve visited with my Commissioner about this subject 

and he’s expressed an interest in having rules and regs out by the 

time we get into the fall or early winter. I know he’s working hard 

to make that a reality. I’m hopeful that he’s successful because I 

know several communities that are anxiously awaiting them. 

Senator TESTER. Yes. If you can find out a time for that, that 

would be good because I think this is an important funding mechanism. 

Mr. RYAN. Yes, sir. 

Senator TESTER. Back in the day Commissioner Keys testified on 

the Rural Water Supply Act of 2005. He stated that the Office of 

Management and Budget had done a review of Reclamation’s rural 

water activities and determined that the program was not demonstrating results. Specifically the review noted that Congress had 

authorized projects that may not be in the best Federal interest. 

As a result of the OMB review the Bush Administration recommended eliminating most of the funding for rural water projects. 

Based on what you know about the projects here in South Dakota 
14 

and the importance they offer the communities and Native Americans in this state, do you believe that these projects are not in the 

best Federal interest? 

Mr. RYAN. Senator, I’ve been to, not all, but many of these 

projects. I’ve seen the source water that these families have now. 

I’ve seen what projects like this can do in providing safe and certain potable water for children and for communities. I can’t help 

but think that’s in the interest of my government to do that. 

Senator TESTER. Well, I appreciate that response. Just in closing, 

I want to thank you again, Senator Johnson for getting Mr. Ryan 

here. I do appreciate you sacrificing to be here at the committee 

here today. 

Mr. RYAN. Thank you, sir. It’s an important topic. 

Senator TESTER. What’s that? 

Mr. RYAN. It’s an important topic. I’m pleased to be here. 

Senator TESTER. It is an important topic. I just want to close on 

one question. I know that Senator Johnson and myself and others 

in this region fight hard for dollars for water projects. But when 

the President’s budget zeros them out it really puts us behind the 

eight ball. 

Mr. RYAN. Yes, sir. 

Senator TESTER. Do you see anything that you can do to put a 

little common sense in this equation? 

Mr. RYAN. One thing that I can specifically help do, Senator, is 

make sure that the folks that I work with within the Administration are as fully informed as possible. That means not only providing written information but whenever schedules and their own 

budgets allow getting them to the locations to see the work and to 

visit with the people who are benefiting from these projects. That 

helps me because it improves understanding. So I think that’s helpful. 

I think another thing that’s helpful is when we work with the 

project sponsors on the engineering aspects trying to make sure we 

squeeze as much good out of every dollar as we can. But then also 

have a common understanding of what additional capabilities we 

may have should funding become available that we could put to 

good work. You know that’s the reason why I became a public servant years ago when I graduated and got my engineering degree. It’s 

some of the most rewarding work that I do. 

Senator TESTER. Good. I appreciate, you know, getting the most 

bang for the buck and then making sure the engineering meets the 

needs and is lean and mean in that process. I would tell you that 

I would offer our help in getting anything that we can do to help 

facilitate these folks out here because I agree with you. 

We can get people within the bureaucracy to come out and see 

first hand what’s going on. Come and see first hand, as you have. 

As you’ve said, you have had to see first hand what’s going on as 

far as inadequacies in rural America in this region. I think it helps 

us all. 

Mr. RYAN. Yes, sir. 

Senator TESTER. Makes our job a bit easier. 

Mr. RYAN. Yes, sir. 

Senator TESTER. So thank you very much, Mike. 

Mr. RYAN. Thank you, Senator. 
15 

Senator JOHNSON. Mr. Ryan, in conclusion I don’t understand the 

priorities of this Administration. For instance $1 billion would 

make a huge difference in the water funding for America. It costs 

$200 billion a year in Iraq. 

I don’t understand that as a set of priorities at all. But I don’t 

expect you to answer that. Thank you for coming. 

Mr. RYAN. Thank you, sir. 

Senator JOHNSON. Thank you, Senator Tester. Now I’d like to 

move onto to the second group of witnesses. We have a good list 

of witnesses from South Dakota who can provide their views on the 

importance of BOR’s meeting the water supply needs of the State. 

We’re joined today by Mayor David Munson of Sioux Falls, South 

Dakota. Troy Larson, Executive Director of the Lewis and Clark 

Regional Water System. President John Steele of the Oglala Sioux 

Tribe. President Rodney Bordeaux of the Rosebud Sioux Tribe. 

Chairman Mike Jandreau of the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe and Jake 

Fitzgerald, manager of the West River/Lyman-Jones Water System. 

Welcome to each of you. Mayor Munson, please go ahead with 

your statement. We’ll then proceed with the other witnesses. After 

all of you have completed your statements we’ll proceed with questions. 

Mayor Munson, go right ahead. 

STATEMENT OF DAVE MUNSON, MAYOR, SIOUX FALLS, SD 

Mr. MUNSON. Mr. Chairman and Senator Tester, my name is 

Dave Munson, Mayor, city of Sioux Falls, South Dakota. It is my 

pleasure to welcome you to our city. I thank you for bringing this 

field hearing to Sioux Falls. For the opportunity to testify before 

your committee regarding the need our city has for Lewis and 

Clark Regional Water System. 

Sioux Falls is the largest city in South Dakota. Last year our 

population exceeded 150,000 people. By the year 2035 we estimate 

Sioux Falls will have 271 citizens. If you combine the city with our 

four county area our population will approximately 400,000. 

Our city is striving for many reasons. We believe we found an excellent balance between cost of living and quality of life. For three 

straight years a major national publication has ranked Sioux Falls 

the best small city in America for businesses and careers. 

In 2007 the value of our building construction exceeded a half 

billion dollars, a number you usually find in cities the size of 

Omaha or Des Moines. Our housing market is stable. In 2007 alone 

we constructed over 1,700 dwelling units which was much higher 

than in the last several years. 

Our unemployment rate is extremely low. Our major industries 

are diversified with an excellent medical community, a very strong 

financial sector and continued ties to our agricultural roots. But we 

know that for Sioux Falls to continue to grow and fulfill its potential we need to secure a future water supply. 

For 20 years the city has been committed to working as a regional partner to develop the Lewis and Clark Water System. In 

2007 our city Council approved the largest bond issuance in the 

city’s history. We committed $70 million to pre-pay the city’s share 

of the Lewis and Clark project. 
16 

Our debt will be repaid over 30 years through increases to our 

resident’s water rates. We believe it is critical to show our Federal 

partners that the citizens of Sioux Falls are sharing in the cost of 

this critical need for our community. 

When Lewis and Clark is completed Sioux Falls will be able to 

access 27 million gallons of water a day. This will provide enough 

supply to meet the needs of not just our residents, but the many 

businesses that draw thousands of regional employees and customers. They help make Sioux Falls an economic engine for the entire State of South Dakota and the surrounding region. 

Since 2000 the Sioux Falls Metro Area has added more than 

12,000 jobs. This accounts for more than half of all the new jobs 

added to the entire State of South Dakota in that time. Taxable 

sales in Sioux Falls also account for more than 25 percent of all 

sales in the State. 

It makes sense that a growing city has many needs from road 

improvement to features like parks and libraries that improve our 

quality of life. But as we prioritize these needs in Sioux Falls, 

water consistently rates as our top priority. Without it, we simply 

cannot sustain our positive growth. 

Sioux Falls has a geographic room to expand. We continue to invest in our critical infrastructure, including streets, sanitary sewer 

systems and storm drainage facilities. Without an adequate water 

supply, however, this well planned growth simply cannot continue. 

When new businesses and industry visit Sioux Falls a major factor determining their move is the availability of water. The expanded Lewis and Clark pipeline will provide water resources for 

Sioux Falls to meet its growth for the next 40 to 50 years if properly managed. While we are clearly very focused on growing our 

available water supply we are also committed to conserving this 

precious resource. 

I am proud to say that Sioux Falls is leading the way in our 

State and Region when it comes to responsible water use. For several years we have restricted water use between noon and five 

when demand was highest on the system. We also have 

transitioned residents into watering on odd/even days of the week 

and recently made that change year round instead of only in the 

summer months. 

We offer water conservation kits to residents with items like low 

flow shower heads, hose nozzle and lawn watering gauge. We also 

provide rebates for purchasing efficient washing machines, rain 

sensors and irrigation timers. To date we have rebated back nearly 

$1.4 million to our residents and have lowered our per capita use 

of water by nearly 10 gallons of water per person per day. 

Sioux Falls is not simply waiting for a supplemental supply of 

water. We are working hard to become a more sustainable community now and well into the future. In Sioux Falls we truly recognize 

the value of our natural resources. 

We are grateful that our Federal partners continue to support 

our infrastructure needs through the Lewis and Clark Regional 

Water System. I assure you that you’re investing in an excellent 

city. That future generations will benefit from your support for decades to come. 
17 

I want to thank you again for the opportunity to present at this 

important hearing. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Munson follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DAVE MUNSON, MAYOR, SIOUX FALLS, SD 

My name is Dave Munson, Mayor of Sioux Falls, South Dakota. 

It is my pleasure to welcome you to our city. And I thank you for bringing this 

field hearing to Sioux Falls and for the opportunity to testify before your Committee 

regarding the need our city has for the Lewis and Clark Regional Water System. 

Sioux Falls is the largest city in South Dakota. Last year, our population exceeded 

150,000 people. By the year 2035, we estimate Sioux Falls will have 271,000 residents. 

If you combine the city with our four-county area, our population will be approximately 400,000. 

Our city is thriving for many reasons. We believe we’ve found an excellent balance 

between cost of living and quality of life. 

For three straight years, a major national publication has ranked Sioux Falls the 

best small city in America for businesses and careers. 

In 2007, the value of our building construction exceeded half a billion dollars, a 

number you usually find in a city the size of Omaha or Des Moines. Our housing 

market is stable. In 2007 alone, we constructed over 1,700 dwelling units, which 

was much higher than the last several years. 

Our unemployment rate is extremely low. Our major industries are diversified, 

with an excellent medical community, a very strong financial sector and continued 

ties to our agricultural roots. 

But we know that for Sioux Falls to continue to grow and fulfill its potential, we 

need to secure our future water supply. 

For 20 years, the city has been committed to working as a regional partner to develop the Lewis and Clark water system. 

In 2007, our City Council approved the largest bond issuance in the City’s history. 

We committed 70 million dollars to prepay the City’s share of the Lewis and Clark 

project. Our debt will be repaid over 30 years through increases to our residents’ 

water rates. We believe it is critical to show our federal partners that the citizens 

of Sioux Falls are sharing in the cost of this critical need for our community. 

When Lewis and Clark is completed, Sioux Falls will be able to access 27 million 

gallons of water a day. 

This will provide enough supply to meet the needs of not just our residents, but 

the many businesses that draw thousands of regional employees and customers. 

They help make Sioux Falls an economic engine for the entire state of South Dakota 

and the surrounding region. 

Since 2000, the Sioux Falls metro area has added more than 12,000 jobs. This accounts for more than half of all the new jobs added to the entire state of South Dakota in that time. 

Taxable sales in Sioux Falls also account for more than 25 percent of all sales 

in the state. 

It makes sense that a growing city has many needs, from road improvements to 

features like parks and libraries that improve our quality of life. But as we 

prioritize these needs in Sioux Falls, water consistently rates as our top priority. 

Without it, we simply cannot sustain our responsible, positive growth. 

Sioux Falls has the geographical room to expand. We continue to invest in our 

critical infrastructure including streets, sanitary sewer systems, and storm drainage 

facilities. Without an adequate water supply however, this well-planned growth simply cannot continue. When new businesses and industries visit Sioux Falls, a major 

factor in determining their move is the availability of water. 

The expanded Lewis & Clark pipeline will provide water resources for Sioux Falls 

to meet its growth needs for the next 40 to 50 years if properly managed. While 

we are clearly very focused on growing our available water supply, we’re also committed to conserving this precious resource. 

I am proud to say that Sioux Falls is leading the way in our state and region 

when it comes to responsible water use. 

For several years, we have restricted water use between noon and five, when demand was highest on the system. We have also transitioned residents into watering 

on odd and even days of the week, and recently made that change year-round instead of only in the summer months. 

We offer free water conservation kits to residents with items like a low flow 

showerhead, hose nozzle and lawn watering gauge. And we also provide rebates for 
18 

purchasing efficient washing machines, rain sensors and irrigation timers. To date, 

we have rebated back nearly $1.4 million dollars to our residents and have lowered 

our per capita use of water by nearly 10 gallons of water, per person, per day. Sioux 

Falls is not simply waiting for a supplemental supply of water; we are working hard 

to become a more sustainable community, now and well into the future. 

In Sioux Falls, we truly recognize the value of our natural resources. We are 

grateful that our federal partners continue to support our infrastructure needs 

through the Lewis and Clark Regional Water System. 

I assure you that you’re investing in an excellent city, and that future generations 

will benefit from your support for decades to come. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to present at this important hearing. 

Senator JOHNSON. Thank you, Mayor. 

Mr. Larson. 

STATEMENT OF TROY LARSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, LEWIS 

& CLARK REGIONAL WATER SYSTEM, SIOUX FALLS, SD 

Mr. LARSON. I’m Troy Larson. I’m the Executive Director of the 

Lewis and Clark Regional Water System. I’m honored to have the 

opportunity, Mr. Chairman, Senator Tester, to be before you. As 

Executive Director of Lewis and Clark I hope to convey to you the 

importance of the Federal Government’s commitment in helping to 

address the critical water needs of the tri-state region through the 

development of this vitally important water project. 

Lewis and Clark is a unique cooperative effort among 20 member 

cities and rural water systems. The States of South Dakota, Iowa 

and Minnesota as well as the Federal Government. Also unique is 

the project’s regional approach to address common water problems 

in the tri-state region in a more effective and cost efficient way 

than each member could even attempt to do alone. 

Regional water problems include shallow wells and aquifers 

prone to contamination, compliance with ever tightening Federal 

drinking water standards, population and economic growth stifled 

due to inadequate water supplies and insufficient resources to replace aging facilities. When completed the project will be a wholesale provider of water to its 20 cities and rural water systems. 

Lewis and Clark will not connect individual homes and businesses. 

Through its members Lewis and Clark will provide a desperately 

needed source of quality, reliable drinking water from a series of 

wells adjacent to the Missouri River to over 300,000 people in 

South Dakota, Iowa and Minnesota. The following chart to my left 

shows the service area of Lewis and Clark which represents the 

size of Connecticut. We haven’t informed Connecticut of this yet, 

but they’re an official unit of measurement now for Lewis and 

Clark. But it gives you a perspective of its scope. 

Lewis and Clark was incorporated in 1990. In 2000 the project 

was authorized by Congress and signed into law. The project is 

owned and governed by the 20 local members with construction 

oversight provided by the Bureau of Reclamation. 

Construction got underway in 2004. So we are in our fifth season 

of construction. Currently the project has 90 miles of primarily 54- 

inch diameter pipe either completed or under construction along 

with seven wells. 

In the picture to my right puts in perspective the 54-inch diameter pipe. For those in the audience I believe there’s some copies of 

my testimony that you’ll be able to see some of these pictures and 
19 

* Pictures and graphs have been retained in subcommittee files. 

graphs.* For you, Senator Tester, for your benefit I should note 

that a $30.7 million pipeline project was just awarded last week to 

a firm headquartered out of Bozeman, Montana. So they’ll be doing 

some work for us. 

Senator TESTER. Thank you. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. LARSON. A couple other pictures of our construction. On my 

right here is a typical cross section of our pipeline construction. 

There is six foot of fill that goes on top of the pipeline. The picture 

on my left shows a 50-foot long section of the 54-inch diameter pipe 

being lowered into the trench. I just share these pictures to give 

you a little bit of perspective on the size of the pipeline. 

The following chart summarizes the progress being made. The 

red lines represent construction that has been completed. The 

green lines are construction that is underway. In addition the first 

phase of the water treatment plant will be bid this summer. The 

maximum capacity of the plant will be 45 million gallons a day. 

Today’s field hearing comes at an exciting time for Lewis and 

Clark. On May 1, Lewis and Clark celebrated a momentous occasion as we put into operation the first segment of pipeline. The 

nine miles of pipe between Sioux Center and Hull shown over here 

were built several years earlier than planned to serve as an emergency connection for Hull which is facing water shortages. 

On a temporary basis until Lewis and Clark water arrives, Lewis 

and Clark will purchase water from Sioux Center. Resell it to Hull 

as a band aid approach to buy time for that community. As our 

Chairman, Red Art noted, who’s with us today, ‘‘It took 18 years, 

but we’re finally selling water, nine miles down, only 328 miles to 

go.’’ 

A similar emergency connection is being built sooner than 

planned for the rapidly growing communities of Tea and Harrisburg, South of Sioux Falls. That’s this segment of pipe right here. 

That is being built earlier than anticipated as well. 

In the short term water will be purchased from Sioux Falls on 

a temporary basis and resold to Tea and Harrisburg. We hope to 

have this second emergency connection in operation this summer. 

These emergency connections demonstrate the critical water needs 

in the region and the extent Lewis and Clark is going to try to buy 

time for these communities until Lewis and Clark water arrives. 

Another demonstration of the critical water needs is the pre-payment being made by the local members and 3 States. Generally 

speaking the cost break down for this project is 80 percent Federal 

funding, 10 percent from the 3 states and 10 percent from the local 

members. The exception is Sioux Falls which has a higher cost 

share. 

To help keep construction on track and reduce the impact of inflation, 17 of Lewis and Clark’s 20 members have pre-paid their entire share of the project. As you will see on this chart, to date the 

members have paid a total of $106.5 million which represents close 

to 99 percent of the member’s commitment. It’s important to note 

and I can’t stress this enough that many of the members are prepaying millions of dollars, decades or more, before they will see a 
20 

single drop of water. That’s putting your money where your mouth 

is. 

As has been noted by some in Congress, this took a lot of guts 

and demonstrates not only the strong local support, but how important it is for the project to be completed in a timely manner. In addition on the chart you will see the States of Iowa and Minnesota 

have paid 100 percent of their commitment which totals $12.4 million. The South Dakota legislature approved $6.4 million for Lewis 

and Clark this year which is one-third of Governor Round’s plan 

to pre-pay the State’s remaining share by 2010. 

By contrast, the Federal Government has paid $102 million to 

date which represents just over 28 percent of the Federal Government’s commitment. Now it’s important to note that we are very 

grateful for the funding that has been appropriated thus far. We 

are especially grateful to our elected officials who have fought so 

hard for every penny that has been allocated for Lewis and Clark. 

In particular last year’s record $26.5 million for the project would 

have never happened without the leadership of Senators Tim Johnson, John Thune and Representative Stephanie Herseth Sandlin. 

Given the tight budget constraints Congress was facing last year, 

securing a $5.5 million increase over last year was nothing short 

of a Herculean effort by our tri-state congressional delegation. Unfortunately that great news was short lived, lasting only 5 weeks 

until we learned that Lewis and Clark has received a recommendation of $0 dollars in the Bureau of Reclamation’s budget for fiscal 

year 2009. 

Thirty-five million dollars is what Lewis and Clark needs to keep 

construction on schedule which is already close to 4 years behind 

schedule. At $35 million, the earliest the project would be completed is 2020 which is shown by the blue line on this chart to my 

right which highlights the impacts of inflation. At $35 million a 

year the total project cost would be just over $525 million. 

However, if hypothetically the project only receives $15 million 

each year, which is what the Administration proposed last year, it’s 

estimated the project would not be completed until 2045 as shown 

by the green line and would have an overall price tag of just over 

$700 million. This assumes, I want to stress, a very conservative 

4 percent rate of inflation. We haven’t seen 4 percent rate of inflation for some time. So these numbers will likely be higher. 

In summary, rural water projects, like Lewis and Clark are vitally important to improving the quality of life and expanding economic development opportunities for the people they serve. Projects 

like Lewis and Clark simply cannot be completed without the cooperation and assistance from the Federal Government. However 

the longer it takes to receive the necessary Federal funding for 

these projects, the more expensive they become as a result of inflation. The longer critical water needs go unmet. 

It’s very important that rural water projects under construction 

be completed in a timely manner. Thank you very much for you 

time and consideration. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Larson follows:] 
21 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF TROY LARSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, LEWIS & CLARK

REGIONAL WATER SYSTEM, SIOUX FALLS, SD 

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I am honored to have the opportunity to appear before you to discuss the Lewis & Clark Regional Water System 

(L&C). As Executive Director of L&C, I hope to convey to you the importance of the 

federal government’s commitment in helping to address the critical water needs of 

the tri-state region through the development of this vitally important water project. 

L&C is a unique cooperative effort among 20 member cities and rural water systems, the States of South Dakota, Iowa, Minnesota, and the Federal Government. 

Also unique is the project’s regional approach to address common water problems 

in the tri-state region in a more effective and cost-efficient way than each member 

could even attempt to do alone. Regional water problems include shallow wells and 

aquifers prone to contamination, compliance with ever tightening federal drinking 

water standards, population and economic growth stifled due to inadequate water 

supplies, and insufficient resources to replace aging facilities. When completed, the 

project will be a wholesale supplier of water to its 20 cities and rural water systems. 

L&C will not connect individual homes and businesses. Through its members, L&C 

will provide a desperately needed source of quality, reliable drinking water from a 

series of wells adjacent to the Missouri River to over 300,000 people in South Dakota, Iowa and Minnesota. The following chart shows the service area of L&C, 

which represents the size of Connecticut. 

L&C was incorporated in 1990 and in 2000 the project was authorized by Congress and signed into law. The project is owned and governed by the 20 local members, with construction oversight provided by the Bureau of Reclamation. Construction got underway in 2004, so we are in our fifth construction season. Currently, 

the project has 90 miles of primarily 54’’ pipe either completed or under construction, along with seven wells. For Senator Tester’s benefit, I should note that a 

$30.7M pipeline contract was awarded last week to a firm headquartered in Bozeman, MT. 

Here are a few pictures that show the 54’’ pipe being constructed. 

The following chart summarizes the progress being made. The red lines represent 

construction that has been completed and the green lines are construction that is 

underway. 

The first phase of the water treatment plant will be bid this summer. The maximum capacity of the plant will be 45 million gallons a day. 

Today’s field hearing comes at an exciting time for us. On May 1st, L&C celebrated a momentous occasion as we put into operation the first segment of pipeline. 

The nine miles of pipe between Sioux Center and Hull, Iowa, were built several 

years earlier than planned to serve as an emergency connection for Hull, which is 

facing water shortages. On a temporary basis until L&C water arrives, L&C will 

purchase water from Sioux Center and re-sell it to Hull as a band-aid approach to 

buy time for that community. As our Chairman, Red Arndt, noted, ‘‘It took eighteen 

years, but we’re finally selling water. Nine miles down, only 328 miles to go.’’ 

A similar emergency connection is being built sooner than planned for the rapidly 

growing communities of Tea and Harrisburg, with water to be purchased from Sioux 

Falls on a temporary basis. We hope to have this second emergency connection in 

operation this summer. These emergency connections demonstrate the critical water 

needs in the region and the extent L&C is going to try to buy time for these communities until L&C water arrives. 

Another demonstration of the critical water needs is the pre-payment being made 

by the local members and three states. Generally speaking, the cost breakdown for 

this project is 80% Federal funding, 10% from the three states and 10% from the 

local members. The exception is Sioux Falls, which has a higher cost share. To help 

keep construction on track and reduce the impacts of inflation, 17 of L&C’s 20 members have pre-paid their entire share of the project. As you will see on this chart, 

to date, the members have paid a total of $106.5M, which represents close to 99% 

of the members’ commitment. It’s important to note that many of the members have 

pre-paid millions of dollars a decade or more before they will see a single drop of 

water. That’s putting your money where your mouth is. As has been noted by some 

in Congress, this took a lot of guts and demonstrates not only the strong local support, but how important it is for the project to be completed in a timely manner. 

In addition, the States of Iowa and Minnesota have paid 100% of their commitment, which totals $12.4M. The South Dakota Legislature approved $6.4M for L&C 

this year, which is one-third of Governor Rounds’ plan to pre-pay the State’s remaining share by 2010. By contrast, the Federal government has paid $102M to date, which represents 

just over 28% of its commitment. It is important to note that we are very grateful 
22 

for the funding that has been appropriated thus far—and we are especially grateful 

to our elected officials who have fought so hard for every penny that has been allocated to L&C. In particular, last year’s record $26.5M for the project would have 

never happened without the leadership of Senators Tim Johnson, John Thune and 

Representative Stephanie Herseth Sandlin. Given the tight budget constraints Congress was facing last year, securing a $5.5M increase over last year was nothing 

short of a Herculean effort by our tri-state delegation. Unfortunately, that great 

news was short-lived, lasting only five weeks until we learned that L&C had received a recommendation of zero dollars in the Bureau of Reclamation’s budget for 

FY09. 

$35M is what L&C needs to keep construction on schedule, which is already close 

to four years behind schedule. At $35M, the earliest the project would be completed 

is 2020, which is shown by the blue line on this chart that highlights the impacts 

of inflation. The estimated cost of the project would be just over $525M. However, 

if hypothetically the project only receives $15M each year, which is what the Administration proposed last year, it is estimated the project would not be completed until 

2045, as shown by the green line, and would have an overall price tag of just over 

$700M. This assumes a very conservative 4% rate of inflation, so the numbers will 

likely be higher. 

In summary, rural water projects like L&C are vitally important to improving the 

quality of life and expanding economic development opportunities for the people 

they serve. Projects like L&C simply cannot be completed without the cooperation 

and assistance from the Federal government. However, the longer it takes to receive 

the necessary Federal funding for these projects, the more expensive they become 

as a result of inflation and the longer critical water needs go unmet. It is very important that rural water projects under construction be completed in a timely manner. Thank you very much for your time. 

Senator JOHNSON. Mr. Steele. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN STEELE, PRESIDENT, OGLALA SIOUX 

TRIBE, PINE RIDGE, SD 

Mr. STEELE. We don’t all have to go to Washington to—I don’t 

like that place over there. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. STEELE. But Senator, I’d like to say that yourself, you’ve 

been involved in just about every one of these projects since their 

inception. I think you’ve done the most while you were in the 

House of Representatives and the Senate to see these projects to 

where they are now. Senator Tester, I thank you for coming to 

South Dakota and welcome. 

Senators, we not only thank you for holding this hearing here. 

We, from the Oglala Sioux Tribe, and the Mni Wiconi Project would 

endorse and support each and every project on that board up there. 

The Lewis and Clark, the Mni Wiconi, Perkins County, Garrison 

Diversion, the Fort Peck and Rocky Boy’s because we realize the 

need for water, not only to today for the health needs and the economic development for the future development. 

Our area here is very—some of it, especially my area, like Mr. 

Larson said here, the quality of the water, the water table going 

down, the concentration of minerals. It’s costing the Federal Government more, Senator Johnson, the longer we wait for the completion of these projects. Our project was to be completed in 2003 and 

because of the inadequate funding over the years, we’re now at a 

sunset year of 2013. 

Also unlike some of the projects out there I would like to say that 

the treaty that we have with the U.S. Government, the Treaty of 

Peace, the Federal Government then promised us adequate health 

care. This, today, is needed on Pine Ridge. We can show it, Senator, in some of the statistics now. But we would like to say, Sen-
23 

ator, that we have a very good team. The Lyman-Jones/West River, 

Lower Brule and Rosebud along with the Oglalas are getting the 

project done. 

I would like, Mr. Ryan and I liked his testimony. But I think 

that BOR needs to step up to the plate a little more. I would like 

to meet with Mr. Ryan to tell him he’s looking at cost efficiency 

and the cost effective manner in which to get the projects done. 

But I don’t know if Mr. Ryan knows the history, the Appropriations of 1871 saying that no more treaties would be made with Indian tribes. Hereafter they would be dealt with, with acts of Congress. But nothing in these acts would or could change anything in 

the existing treaties. That the U.S. Supreme Court in several cases 

ruled that the treaties are to be interpreted as the Indians interpret them. 

The Act of 1877, they call it, I don’t know what the right name 

of that is. But a lot of people refer to it back at home. When the 

Federal Government realized that they’d killed off all of the buffalo 

and the Act of 1877 is sort of a social services act that established 

the rations. In general it says to sustain that individual Indian. 

Senators the rations came out of that surplus commodity program. We’d like to interpret that to mean in keeping of the Federal 

Governments treaty language and the healthcare to show them 

how the existing infrastructure of the pipeline, right now, has affected these statistics and these numbers. It’s affected the cost to 

the Federal Government and how, yet today, the chemicals, especially arsenic. 

EPA is temporarily letting us use some wells, Senator, with the 

understanding that this river water is going to reach Pine Ridge. 

This arsenic is causing cancer. There’s a high cost to that, Senator. 

It can be affected with the completion of our project in Mni Wiconi. 

We need to talk to someone to show them this documentation so 

that the government will—and we also have some posters, Senator. 

The first one is the pipe trenching between Kadoka and the Reservation. I would like to introduce the individual standing there, 

Senator and say that Mr. Frank ‘‘Popo’’ Means, when I was Vice 

President. 

I believe, Pope, that was between 1984 and 1986. He was on the 

Tribal Council. He went up to Karoake and met with Senator 

Abner had a meeting up there. That was the first time that the 

non-Indian and the Indian got together on our water needs. 

We had been thinking of the same thing back in the 1950’s, we 

understand, on usage of that Missouri River water. So that’s when 

we actually got together, testimony was developed. Now, Mr. 

Means is the Executive Director of our whole program, the Mni 

Wiconi Project, the construction from the river to the Reservation 

and inside the Reservation, the distribution system. But the pipe 

trenching is the connecting between Karoake and Pine Ridge which 

we will realize this fall. 

The other picture is, we call it one of the most modern treatment 

plants in the whole United States, very computerized. Oglala Sioux 

Tribal members are in charge. They’re operating the intake and the 

water treatment plant. Everything is going good in the communities we’re supplying right now. We do have a reservoir there. We 
24 

* Exhibits have been retained in subcommittee files. 

have reservoirs, pumping stations that the Oglala Sioux Tribe operates and maintains. 

The last picture on the end over there is what is labeled water 

hauling. This is an ongoing thing on Pine Ridge that we have 

homes that have to haul water for domestic use, for drinking, for 

washing dishes, for cooking. We get into it with the Bureau because they don’t like the project of hauling water to people’s homes. 

We have to argue with them over a budget for that so that we 

can at least the household by delivering water to their homes until 

the pipeline and distribution system does get to them. But that’s 

water hauling. We’ve got quite a number of them yet on Pine Ridge 

that we haul water to their homes. 

I’m taking too much time up, Senator. Will be able to answer 

questions. But I did provide you with some written testimony, Senator and would like to have that included in the record, please. 

Senator JOHNSON. It will be received. 

Mr. STEELE. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Steele follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN STEELE, PRESIDENT, OGLALA SIOUX TRIBE, SIOUX

FALLS, SD 

Mr. Chairman, my name is John Steele, and I am president of the Oglala Sioux 

Tribe. I am pleased that you extended an invitation to present testimony on the status of rural water projects. I am representing the Oglala Sioux Rural Water Supply 

System, which was created pursuant to the Mni Wiconi Project Act of 1988, 

Pub.L.100-516. 

The Oglala Sioux Rural Water Supply System serves as the backbone of the Mni 

Wiconi Project. It diverts raw water from the Missouri River near Fort Pierre, South 

Dakota, treats the water in a state-of-the-art processing facility manned by members of the Oglala Sioux Tribe and delivers water through 4,200 miles of pipeline, 

when completed, to the Lower Brule, Rosebud and Pine Ridge Indian Reservations 

and parts of nine counties in southwestern South Dakota served by the West River/ 

Lyman-Jones Rural Water System (See Exhibit 1).* It is the largest rural water 

project in the world. Each of these interconnecting systems will present testimony 

separately. 

HISTORY OF THE GEOGRAPHICAL AREA SERVED

The Oglala Sioux Tribe and other Sioux tribes fought a war called the Potter 

River War (Red Cloud’s War) from 1866-1868, which culminated in the signing of 

the 1868 Fort Laramie Treaty, 15 Stat. 635. Article II of the Fort Laramie Treaty 

of 1868 established the area west of the ‘‘east bank’’ of the Missouri River as the 

Great Sioux Reservation, a permanent reservation for the signatory tribes. This was 

the homeland of the Lakota people. Our leadership recognized the importance of the 

Missouri River and embraced both banks and the full course of the stream within 

our Treaty area. Our water treatment plant, 200 miles east of the Pine Ridge Indian 

Reservation, relies on this source of water that was so important to our forefathers. 

In 1876, Congress attempted to purchase the Black Hills portion of the Reservation but could not obtain the requisite number of signatures needed from the Indian 

people to constitute a cession by agreement. Congress resolved its perceived impasse 

by enacting the agreement into law as the 1877 Act, 19 Stat. 254. Under Article 

5 of the 1877 Act, Congress promised all aid to civilization to the signatory tribes 

as part of the quid pro quo for the confiscated territory. We view the Mni Wiconi 

Project as a part of this promise. It will, when fully implemented, provide a safe 

supply of water to the Oglala and other Sioux project sponsors. 

In 1889, Congress admitted South Dakota as a new member of the United States. 

Congress also created smaller reservations out of the Great Sioux Reservation, including the Pine Ridge, Lower Brule and Rosebud Reservations. 25 Stat. 888. Settlement by non-Indians was permitted west of the Missouri River. 
25 

When the Mni Wiconi Project Act was signed into law in 1988, five generations 

of the Lakota and white settlers had coexisted in the project area, but great prejudices existed between the two peoples. Our people had existed in deep poverty, and 

bad feelings predominated with the farmers and ranchers outside the Reservation. 

Our people initially refused to accept the Project, suspicious of the intentions of the 

United States and skeptical that the benefits of the project as proposed would ever 

reach the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation. Many felt that the Tribe was being used 

to deliver water to people off the Reservation, and water would never reach us. 

The poverty has not abated. The Pine Ridge Indian Reservation remains the lowest per capita income region in the Nation, but the Mni Wiconi Project has brought 

an element of hope and faith in the future. Through the Mni Wiconi Project we have 

had to meet our neighbors, settle age-old differences with them and pull together 

for a common purpose of building a magnificent project that will improve the quality 

of life for everyone in Western South Dakota, non-Indian and Indian alike. 

From the standpoint of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the project 

must conform to all federal regulations and be built as efficiently and cost-effectively 

as possible within a constrained budget and without consideration of the social benefits. But from our standpoint, great divides have been crossed, and a reconciliation 

of social differences between peoples with vastly different backgrounds has been 

achieved. This is not to say that differences do not exist, but the Mni Wiconi Project 

has brought a mutual level of respect between the Indian and non-Indian water 

users. The Oglala Sioux Tribe has demonstrated that it can operate the common facilities beginning at the Missouri River and deliver the water of life to non-Indian 

neighbors within the West River/Lyman-Jones service area and to our relations on 

the Lower Brule and Rosebud Indian Reservations.Oglala Lakota tribal members 

have developed and demonstrated the skills, qualifications and competence to operate a highly sophisticated engineering project for the mutual benefit of everyone. 

This is a great honor to the people of the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation. 

EXTENDED SCHEDULE OF CONSTRUCTION

While there is pride in the project and hope for the future, we have been afflicted 

by an inadequate level of funding appropriated by Congress. This problem begins 

with a chronically low allocation from OMB for the rural water program of the Bureau of Reclamation in the President’s annual budget proposals. Congress has consistently worked to increase the level of funding for our project, but the funds have 

been inadequate to advance at the rate of construction contemplated in the authorizing legislation and within the sponsors’ capability. Our original statutory completion date was 2003. In 2000, Congress extended the completion date through 2008, 

and last year Congress extended the completion date through 2013. These amendments have been necessary because Congress has not been able to provide funds 

that would permit us to complete the project on schedule. Congress needs an adequate budget request from which to work. It has consistently worked hard to enact 

funding as much as possible over the requests, but with a higher floor from the 

President, it could be able to achieve enacted levels much closer to the level of annual need. Rather than completion in one decade, the project has been extended 

through two full decades, and the benefits have been delayed. 

The Pine Ridge Indian Reservation is the furthest location from our water treatment plant on the Missouri River. The Oglala Sioux Tribe will not receive Missouri 

River water until late in fiscal year 2008, 15 years after the start of construction. 

All of our effort prior to FY 2008 has been to build the intake, water treatment 

plant and pipelines used for the common benefit of the Lower Brule, Rosebud, Pine 

Ridge and West River/Lyman-Jones service areas. As those common pipelines have 

been constructed westward, the Bureau of Reclamation has authorized the building 

of the distribution systems that could receive Missouri River water. It did not, however, authorize the building of the distribution systems on the Pine Ridge Indian 

Reservation in advance that would receive Missouri River water. We have been able 

to deliver all water requirements to the Lower Brule Sioux Indian Reservation. 

Likewise, the Rosebud Sioux Indian Reservation has been able to connect to our 

pipelines and receive Missouri River water. The West River/Lyman-Jones service 

area now receives Missouri River water in most areas except its far western portion. 

(See Exhibits II and III for examples of constructed facilities). 

Most of the remaining construction will and must focus on the distribution system 

on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation. The remaining 40% of the population to be 

served by the Missouri River water treatment plant resides on the Reservation. Missouri River water will finally be delivered to the northeast corner of the Pine Ridge 

Indian Reservation and the community of Wanblee in late 2008. While we are 

pleased that it is coming, much work remains before we can provide water to our 
26 

1 Ancient winds deposited sand over the seabed sediments in this area, and the Tribe inherited more suitable water quality in the southeastern regions of the Reservation. 

people throughout our Reservation. We continue to haul water by truck to hundreds 

of households on the Reservation (See Exhibit III, for example). 

Delay in delivering Missouri River water to the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation 

has created great anxiety among the Oglala Lakota membership. Old suspicions 

have been renewed that water will never reach us, that Congress will withdraw its 

support for the project when the non-Indian service area has been largely completed. These concerns were elevated this winter by the drastic cut in the President 

’s Budget which reduced the Bureau-wide Rural Water Program from $55 million 

in FY 2008 to $28 million in FY 2009. The cut for the Mni Wiconi Project was severe. If not restored by Congress, the project cannot be completed by 2013. The delivery of water to the Oglala Lakota will be delayed, anxiety levels will rise and confidence in the project and the United States will diminish. 

HEALTH BENEFITS OF MNI WICONI PROJECT

The project area was formerly occupied by an ancient, inland sea. Dinosaurs surrounded its shores. Over many eons, salts accumulated in the sediments that were 

deposited. To the west in the Yellowstone Park area, volcanism contributed arsenic 

and uranium to the sediments carried by the streams reaching the ancient sea. 

When this ancient sea receded, the sediments were eroded and are now visible in 

the Badlands area of the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation. As wells were developed 

during the last century, the first problem was obtaining an adequate supply of 

water. The second problem was the poor quality of the meager supply. The high concentration of chemicals makes the water unfit for drinking in all but the southeastern portion of the Reservation. 

The high chemical content of the water and its general lack of suitability have 

made sanitation and ingestion a health issue for our tribal members. Before the Mni 

Wiconi Project enabled us to develop and distribute higher-quality groundwater 

from the southeastern portion of our Reservation,1 the Indian Health Service attributed high incidence of shigellosis, gastroenteritis, hepatitis C and other diseases to 

poor water quality. 

The Mni Wiconi Project was designed to develop 50% of our future supply from 

high quality groundwater sources. The remaining 50% will be derived from the Missouri River. The diseases listed above are rare since the replacement of individual 

wells and development and redistribution of our higher-quality groundwater 

sources. The remaining water supply from the Missouri River will vastly improve 

water quality and reliability, and these former diseases will be eliminated. 

There are other more indirect health benefits associated with the project. The Oglala Sioux Tribe has previously requested OMB and the White House to form a task 

force to gather and analyze mortality data in South Dakota among the Indian and 

non-Indian populations and the associated costs of healthcare to be borne by the 

Treasury in the future. Poverty on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation has an additional health-care cost, relative to the population not in poverty, estimated at $1.2 

billion for each 24,000 members of our population over the next 50 years. Mortality 

rates among the Indian people are shockingly high compared with the rest of the 

population. 

Death rates in the Indian population due to diabetes are 10 times the number 

of deaths in non-Indian regions for ages over 35 years. Similarly, deaths due to 

heart disease in the Indian population are 1.67 times the number in the non-Indian 

population for those under 35 years of age. Indian deaths attributed to heart disease 

were 2.10 times the number in the non-Indian population for persons between 35 

and 59 years of age. Cancer deaths of Indians greatly exceed those of the non-Indian 

population for persons aged 60 and over. 

Extra annual health-care costs for the Indian population were estimated using the 

national costs of health care as set out in the table below. Extra health-care costs 

are for mortality levels above that experienced in the non-Indian population of our 

region. For example, 1.25% of the Indian population over 60 died from diabetes between 1989 and 1997 as compared with 0.1% of the regional non-Indian population. 
27 

NATIONAL HEALTH COST INFORMATION 

Disease National 

Deaths 

National 

Indirect 

Costs 

(billion $) 

National 

Direct in 

Costs 

(billion $) 

National 

Total 

Costs 

(billion $) 

Cost 

Per 

Death 

Diabetes 72,112 $45.2 $46.4 $ 91.6 $ 1,270,246 

Heart 959,227 -- -- 286.5 298,678 

Cancer 539,533 $37.0 70.0 107.0 198,320 

Mortality is inversely correlated with income levels or directly correlated with 

poverty. As income levels decline, mortality increases. Other factors, such as genetics, clearly have an influence; but income level was shown to explain much of the 

difference in mortality rates between Indian and non-Indian people living in the 

same area. The Mni Wiconi Project is a part of the solution to these significant healthcare 

issues. The project is a foundation. It is intended to not only bring safe drinking 

water to our people, but commercial and industrial development and much needed 

employment. This will assist in raising income levels on the Reservation, a step toward bringing our people out of poverty. This will, in turn, bring a significant improvement in the health of the Oglala Lakota people, thereby reducing future 

health-care costs and, most of all, the agony of the families affected. 

Completing the project will have the effect of lowering mortality and health-care 

costs on our Reservation. To the degree that income levels have been raised, mortality and associated healthcare costs can be expected to decline. We need the appropriations necessary to complete the project in 2013 so that the Tribe, its members 

and can realize these benefits and the federal government can realize a savings in 

health care costs. 

The extra health-care cost estimates are of so great a magnitude that there is a 

pressing need to (1) fully evaluate and quantify differences in mortality between Indians and non-Indians; (2) correlate mortality with income levels; and (3) determine 

the impact of the Mni Wiconi Project on improving the economy of the Pine Ridge 

Indian Reservation and its role thereby in lowering health-care costs. These tremendous health-care costs in such a relatively small population of our Nation stand as 

an ongoing human tragedy which demands compassion to rectify. Moreover, these 

costs foretell a considerable drain on the federal Treasury that cries out for remedy. 

CONSTRUCTION COSTS

Costs of inflation and delays in funding have greatly increased the appropriations 

required to complete the project. Costs have risen from $257 million in 1993 dollars 

to $452 million in 2007 dollars. Much of the remaining project costs are for 

polyvinylchloride (PVC) pipe, which is manufactured from oil products that have 

risen from $35 to $130 per barrel over the past year. This has a dramatic impact 

on the price of pipe. The full level of inflation has not yet been realized. 

As shown in the table below, the project will be 81% complete at the end of FY 

2008. Construction funds remaining to be spent after FY 2008 will total $87.691 

million within the current authorization (in October 2007 dollars). PL 110-161 extended the project authorization from FY 2008 through FY 2013. Additional administrative and overhead costs of extending the project, additional construction costs, 

and accelerated inflation over the next 5 years are expected to increase remaining 

project costs to $137.167 million. 

Total Federal Construction Funding (Oct 2007 $) $ 451,707,000 

Estimated Federal Spent Through FY 2008 $ 364,016,000 

% Spent Through FY 2008 80.59% 

Amount Remaining after 2008 Total Authorized (Oct 2007 $) $ 87,691,000 

Overhead Adjustment for Extension to FY 2013 and Other $ 109,851,000 

Adjusted for Annual Inflation $ 137,167,000 

Completion Fiscal Year (Statutory FY 2013; PL 110-161) 2,013 

Years to Complete 5 

Average Annual Required for Finish $ 27,433,000 
28 

* Chart has been retained in subcommittee files. 

Cost indexing over the last five years has averaged 7.89% for pipelines. Pipelines 

are the principal components yet to be completed (see chart below)*. Assuming an 

average 7.89% inflation in construction costs in the remaining five years to complete 

the project, average annual funding of $27.433 million for construction is required 

to complete by 2013, the new completion date established just last year. The President’s budget of $16.24 million is grossly inadequate, departs significantly from recent budgets and threatens an undetermined delay in completing the project by 

2013. 

Section 2(a)(5) of the Mni Wiconi Project Act specifically finds that the United 

States has a trust responsibility to ensure that adequate and safe water supplies 

are available to meet the economic, environmental, water supply and public health 

needs of the Pine Ridge, Lower Brule and Rosebud Indian Reservations. We respectfully request that the United States remain mindful of this responsibility and ensure the project receives the funds necessary to finish by 2013. 

RURAL WATER SUPPLY ACT OF 2006

Our understanding of the intent of Rural Water Supply Act of 2006 was that the 

Secretary would prepare a plan on completion of projects, including the Mni Wiconi 

Project, that were authorized but not completed prior to 2006 (see extract below). 

The Oglala Sioux Tribe is anxious to work with the Bureau of Reclamation on that 

plan. We are not aware of any progress to date. Before the authorization of new 

projects, including the Red River Valley Project in North Dakota, we are hopeful 

that existing projects can be prioritized and completed. 

CONCLUSION

Thank you for the opportunity to present testimony. 

Senator JOHNSON. President Bordeaux. 

STATEMENT OF RODNEY BORDEAUX, ROSEBUD SIOUX TRIBE, 

ROSEBUD, SD 

Mr. BORDEAUX. Thank you, Senator. Senator Tester, Senator 

Johnson, thank you for this opportunity to be able to present testimony today. I am President of the Rosebud Sioux Tribe. The Reservation of the Rosebud Sioux Tribe encompasses up to a million 

acres and we serve over 20,000 tribal members. 

Having a safe, reliable supply of high quality water is taken for 

granted by most Americans. On the Rosebud Indian Reservation 

water is respected as a necessity for life and the health and welfare 

of our people. In the 1980s we developed a small rural water system that took water from the well field near the Rosebud community where high quality ground water is available and we provided 

this to the community of Parmelee which is located in Todd County. 

Our tribal leaders had to work with a variety of agencies including the Farmer’s Home Administration, now referred to as Rural 

Development and the Indian Health Service to expand the system 

to the other parts of the Reservation where good quality water was 

not available. However the funding was a major impediment. In 

1988 the Mni Wiconi Project was authorized and the Rosebud 

Sioux Tribe was not a part of that project initially. 

Representatives of the BOR met with tribal representatives and 

explained the project. They emphasized that the participation in 

the Mni Wiconi Project would not impact the reserved water rights. 

The Secretary of the Interior was responsible for paying the planning, design, construction, operation and maintenance of the system. 
29 

In the early 1990s our tribal leaders decided it was in our best 

interest to participate in the project because No. 1, water lines 

planned for West River crossed our lands. Number 2, it did not affect our reserved water rates. Number 3, it helped the United 

States meet the treaty obligations, 1868 Treaty. Number 4, no 

other source of funding was available to meet our water needs. 

I would like to stress the last point which there were pressing 

needs for quality water to improve the health and welfare of our 

Reservation. No program was available to meet those needs. So it 

was in the best interest of the tribe to become part of the Mni 

Wiconi Project. 

We completed a needs assessment in 1993 that identified a preferred alternative, excuse me, that would use a combination of 62 

percent surface water from the Missouri River and 38 percent 

ground water from the Oglala aquifer. Rosebud Sioux Tribe worked 

with the Oglala Sioux Tribe, West River/Lyman-Jones County and 

the BOR on the final engineering report for the project. Public Law 

103–434 was passed on October 1994 and that amended the Mni 

Wiconi Project Act to meet the full needs of the Oglala Sioux Tribe, 

West River/Lyman-Jones and added the Rosebud Sioux Tribe as 

well as Lower Brule Sioux Tribe. 

The inclusion of Rosebud Sioux Tribe would not have been possible without diligence and perseverance of the BOR, our congressional delegates and Senator Johnson, especially, and the other 

sponsors. We gratefully acknowledge that and show our appreciation. The Mni Wiconi Rural Water Project comprises service areas 

for both Indians and non-Indians alike and I believe this has improved relationships with the non-Indians over the past 15 years 

on our reservation. The BOR has provided an even handedness in 

their oversight of the project that is unique and their technical 

competence is praiseworthy. 

Mni Wiconi has been a blessing. The project is fulfilling the vital 

need for quality water on our reservation. By the end of this year 

we will have close to 75 percent completion. I can say that the 

project has been a success. We have brought high quality water to 

distant corners of Todd and Mellette counties and worked with 

Tripp County Rural Water to serve members of the Rosebud Sioux 

Tribe in Tripp and Gregory Counties which is primarily our secondary service area. 

We have brought maps showing the status of our project on the 

Primary as well as the Secondary Service Area. However, we must 

not forget the remaining work to be completed. The 25 percent remaining is critical and includes the hooking up of individual 

homes, businesses, additional reservoirs and pump stations and upgrading obsolete water lines in some communities such as Rosebud. 

We also have Mr. Syed Huq, our water resources director. He manages Mni Wiconi and the Rural Water System. 

The project has met critical economic development and health 

needs on the reservation. According to the 2000 census the Rosebud Reservation in Todd County is one of the poorest counties in 

the country. Forty-six percent of the population is below the poverty level as compared to only 14 percent in South Dakota. 

Mni Wiconi water has been used for two economic development 

projects and this year we’ll be extending water to serve a tribal 
30 

commercial business center which is in progress. These projects 

provide employment opportunities where none existed before. We 

have also developed direct employment opportunities in the form of 

construction administration and inspection, water conservation and 

tribal construction crews. 

Prior to Mni Wiconi Rosebud Rural Water System, members of 

many communities in the northern part of our Primary Service 

Area had to haul water and water borne diseases were rampant. 

Cases of Gastroenteritis averaged 375 per year between 1981 and 

1986. The occurrence rate for Shigellosis, another water borne disease, has been reduced from 22 cases in 1992 to 1 case in 2000. 

High quality water supplied by Mni Wiconi meets all the requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act. As shown above has had a 

direct impact on the health and welfare of our population. Safe 

drinking water is a source for good health resulting in lowering of 

health care costs for our tribal members by Indian Health Service. 

We have developed an excellent working relationship with BOR 

since our early involvement in the project. They have supported our 

efforts to improve the quality of life on the reservation. Shown a 

high level of common sense and flexibility in how the Project has 

been implemented. We have also developed an excellent working 

relationship with not only the Oglala Sioux Tribe and Lower Brule, 

but also with West River/ Lyman-Jones County Project. 

We have some concerns about the Reclamation’s Rural Water 

Program as authorized by the Rural Water Supply Act of 2006. In 

meetings with the Commissioner and his staff, they have stressed 

that they are committed to the timely completion of our project. 

Our concern is that in subsequent Administration’s water projects 

authorized through Reclamation’s Rural Water Program could be 

favored as the Administration prepares their annual budget request for Congress. We hope this does not occur. The completion 

date of our project was extended to 2008 and now it’s up to 2013. 

Any further extension will prolong the waiting list for remaining 

health care benefits of high quality water and we need about 30 

million to complete our project at Rosebud. 

Tribal members on the reservation perceive Mni Wiconi as fulfilling an important trust responsibility of the Federal Government 

to the Indian Tribes. The history of broken treaties that have deprived them of land and resources have left the tribes angry, poor 

and distrustful toward the Federal Government. Mni Wiconi not 

only is an economic and public health benefits engine to the tribes, 

it is also building social and cultural infrastructure. 

The most important highlights of the Mni Wiconi Project is the 

trust that is being fostered toward the Federal Government by the 

Indian tribes and a precedent for Indians being primarily responsible for construction, operation and maintenance of one of our 

largest rural water systems in the country. It is also reconciliation 

at its finest for the Indians and non-Indians working together respectfully and cooperatively under the umbrella of the U.S. Government, BOR and the United States Congress. 

I want to thank you for this opportunity, Senators. I appreciate 

it. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bordeaux follows:] 
31 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RODNEY BORDEAUX, ROSEBUD SIOUX TRIBE, ROSEBUD, SD 

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity 

to testify before you today regarding the status of the Sicangu Mni Wiconi or Rosebud Sioux Rural Water System and the Rural Water Supply Act of 2006. 

My name is Rodney Bordeaux. I am the President of Rosebud Sioux Tribe of 

South Dakota. The Rosebud Reservation comprises over one million acres of land 

with a population of over 20,000. 

Having a safe reliable supply of high quality water is taken for granted by most 

Americans. On the Rosebud Indian Reservation water is respected as a necessity for 

life and the health and welfare for our people. In the 1980s we developed a small 

rural water system that took water from a wellfield near the community of Rosebud, 

where high quality groundwater is available, to the community of Parmelee where 

it is not. Our tribal leaders tried to work with a variety of agencies including Farmers Home Administration, now generally referred to as Rural Development, and the 

Indian Health Service to expand the system to other areas of the reservation where 

good ground water is not available. We struggled without success. 

In 1988, the Mni Wiconi Project was authorized and Rosebud was not a part of 

the project. Representatives of the Bureau of Reclamation met with tribal representatives and explained the project. They emphasized that participation in the project 

would not impact our reserved water rights and that the Secretary was responsible 

for paying for the planning, design, construction, operation and maintenance of the 

system. In the early 1990s our leaders decided it was in our best interests to participate in the project because: 1) water lines planned for West River crossed our lands; 

2) it did not affect our reserved rights; 3) it helped the United States meet treaty 

obligations to our Tribe; and 4) no other source of funding was available to meet 

our pressing water needs. 

I would like to stress the last point. There were pressing needs for quality water 

to improve the health and welfare of our reservation and no ‘‘program’’ available to 

meet those needs. It was in the best interest of the Tribe to become a part of Mni 

Wiconi Project. We completed a Needs Assessment in 1993 that identified a preferred alternative for that would use a combination of 62% surface water from Missouri River and 38% groundwater from the Ogallala Aquifer. Rosebud worked with 

the Oglala Sioux Tribe, West River/Lyman—Jones and the Bureau of Reclamation 

on the Final Engineering Report for the project. 

PL 103-434 was passed in October of 1994 that amended the Mni Wiconi Project 

Act to meet the full needs of Oglala Sioux Tribe and West River/Lyman Jones and 

add Rosebud Sioux Tribe and Lower Brule Sioux Tribe. 

The inclusion of Rosebud Sioux Tribe would not be possible without diligence and 

perseverance of the Bureau of Reclamation, our congressional delegation and the 

other sponsors and we gratefully acknowledge that and show our appreciation. The 

Mni Wiconi Rural Water Project comprises service areas for both Indians and nonIndians and I believe has improved relations them over the past 15 years. The Bureau of Reclamation has provided an even handedness in their oversight of the 

project that is unique and their technical competence is praiseworthy. 

Mni Wiconi has been a blessing. The project is fulfilling the vital need for quality 

water on our reservation. By the end of this year we will be close to 75% complete 

and I can say that the project has been a success. We have brought high quality 

water to distant corners of Todd and Mellette counties and worked with Tripp County Rural Water to serve members in Tripp and Gregory Counties in our Secondary 

Service Area. We have brought a map showing the status of our project and the Primary and Secondary Service Areas. However, we must not forget the remaining 

work to be completed. The 25% remaining is critical and includes hooking up individual homes and businesses, additional reservoirs and pump stations and upgrading obsolete water lines in some communities such as Rosebud. 

The project has met critical economic development and health needs on the reservation. According to the 2000 census, the Rosebud Reservation in Todd County is 

one of the poorest counties in the country. Forty-six percent of the population is 

below the poverty level as compared to only 14.0 percent in South Dakota. Mni 

Wiconi water has been used for two economic development projects and this year 

we will be extending a water line to serve a tribal commercial center. These projects 

provide employment opportunities where none existed before. We have also developed direct employment opportunities in the form of construction administration 

and inspection, water conservation, and tribal construction crews. 

Prior to Mni Wiconi Rosebud Rural Water System, members of many communities 

in the northern portion of our Primary Service Area had to haul water and water 

borne diseases were rampant. Cases of Gastroenteritis averaged 375 per year between 1981 and 1986 on Rosebud Reservation. The occurrence rate for Shigellosis, 
32 

another water borne disease, has been reduced from 22 cases in 1992 to 1 case in 

2000. 

The high quality water supplied by Mni Wiconi meets all the requirements of the 

Safe Drinking Water Act and as shown above has a direct impact on the health and 

welfare of our population. Safe drinking water is a source for good health resulting 

in lowering of health care costs for our tribal members by Indian Health Service. 

We have developed an excellent working relationship with the Bureau of Reclamation since our early involvement in the project. They have supported our efforts to 

improve the quality of life on the reservation and shown a high level of common 

sense and flexibility in how the Project has been implemented. We have also developed an excellent working relationship with West River/Lyman—Jones in Mellette 

County. 

We have some concerns about Reclamation’s Rural Water Program authorized by 

Rural Water Supply Act of 2006. In meetings with the Commissioner and his staff, 

they have stressed that they are committed to the timely completion of our project. 

Our concern is that in subsequent administrations water projects authorized 

through Reclamations Rural Water Program could be favored as the administration 

prepares their annual budget request for submission to Congress. We hope this does 

not occur. The completion date of our project was extended to 2008 and now to 2013; 

any further extension will prolong the wait for those remaining to benefit from the 

high quality water provided by the Sicangu Mni Wiconi. 

The tribal members on Rosebud Reservation perceive Mni Wiconi as fulfilling an 

important trust responsibility of the federal government to the Indian Tribes. The 

history of broken treaties that have deprived them of land and resources has left 

the tribes angry, poor and distrustful toward the federal government. Mni Wiconi 

not only is an economic and public health benefits engine to the tribes, it also is 

building social and cultural infrastructure. The most important high lights of the 

Mni Wiconi Project is the trust that is being fostered towards the federal government by the Indian tribes and a precedent for Indians being primarily responsible 

for construction, operation and maintenance of one of the largest rural water system 

in the country. It is also reconciliation at its finest for the Indians and the non-Indians working together respectfully and cooperatively under the umbrella of the U.S. 

Government-Bureau of Reclamation and U.S. Congress. 

Once again thank you for the opportunity to share these thoughts and more importantly, your support for this life sustaining project. I would be happy to answer 

any questions you may have. 

Senator JOHNSON. Yes, thank you, Mr. Bordeaux. 

Chairman Jandreau. 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL JANDREAU, CHAIRMAN, LOWER 

BRULE SIOUX TRIBE, LOWER BRULE, SD 

Mr. JANDREAU. Chairman Johnson, Senator Tester, thank you 

very much for scheduling this hearing in South Dakota. I’m Michael Jandreau, Chairman of Lower Brule Sioux Tribe. Thank you 

very much for the opportunity to appear before the subcommittee. 

Senator Johnson, we greatly appreciate your leadership on water 

issues. The subject of water is of vital importance to South Dakota 

and across the Western United States. Our tribe borders the Missouri River. The Big Bend Dam is within our reservation and connects us to the Crow Creek Sioux Tribe. 

The Pick-Sloan project took our best bottomlands to build the 

dams on the Missouri River. The dams have greatly benefited the 

United States, but have hurt our Tribe. Senate bill 160, which is 

pending for the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, is critical to our 

Tribe. We will not be able to fulfill our potential as a people without the fair compensation for the Pick-Sloan project. 

I mention this because it provides a context for how we view Mni 

Wiconi. Mni Wiconi is of great importance to life in South Dakota. 

We support full funding for Mni Wiconi so that the potential of the 

project can be extended to the Oglala Sioux Tribe, the Rosebud 
33 

Sioux Tribe and all the counties within the intended scope of services including Lyman and Jones counties. 

In March of this year, the Lower Brule Rural Water System’s 

Manager, Jim McCauley, joined in testimony to the Appropriations 

Committee that requested $38.4 million for the fiscal year 2009. 

The money would be divided with $28.2 million going for construction and $10.2 million for operations and maintenance. 

We also request funding for the wastewater treatment. We need 

funding for the treatment and containment of wastewater. The 

proper analysis has yet to be completed and the entire goal of the 

wastewater treatment remains unfunded. 

Mr. Chairman, the longer it takes to fund the project, the more it will cost. At Lower Brule, we were able to save $2 to $3 million 

by expedited completion. That was by the cooperation of Oglala, 

Rosebud and West River/Lyman Jones. We’re very grateful for that. 

We are hoping with your leadership that Mni Wiconi can be completed as soon as possible. Thank you very much. I would be 

pleased to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Jandreau follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MICHAEL JANDREAU, CHAIRMAN, LOWER BRULE SIOUX

TRIBE, LOWER BRULE, SD 

Chairman Johnson, Members of the Water and Power Subcommittee, thank you 

very much for scheduling this hearing in South Dakota. I am Michael Jandreau, the 

Chairman of the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe; I have served in that capacity for 29 

years. Thank you very much for the opportunity to appear before the Subcommittee. 

Senator Johnson, we greatly appreciate your leadership on water issues. The subject of water is of vital importance in South Dakota and across the entire Western 

United States. Our Tribe borders the Missouri River. The Big Bend Dam is within 

our reservation and connects us to the Crow Creek Sioux Tribe. 

The Pick-Sloan project took our best bottomlands to build the dams on the Missouri River. The dams have greatly benefited the United States, but they have hurt 

our Tribe. S. 160, which is pending before the Indian Affairs Committee, is critical 

to our Tribe. We will not be able to fulfill our potential as a people without fair compensation for the Pick Sloan project. 

I mention this because it provides a context for how we also view Mni Wiconi. 

Mini Wiconi is of great importance to life in South Dakota. We support full funding 

for Mni Wiconi so that the potential of the project can be extended to the Oglala 

Sioux Tribe, Rosebud, and all counties within the intended scope of service including 

Lyman and Jones counties. 

In March of this year, the Lower Brule Rural Water System’s Manager, Jim 

McCauley, joined in testimony to the Appropriations Committee that requested 

$38.4 million for Fiscal Year 2009. The money would be divided with $28.2 going 

for construction and $10.2 for operation and maintenance. 

We also request funding for wastewater treatment. We need funding for the treatment and containment of wastewater. The proper analysis has yet to be completed 

and the entire goal of wastewater treatment remains unfunded. 

Mr. Chairman, the longer it takes to fund the project, the more it will cost. At 

Lower Brule we were able to save $2 million-$3 million by an expedited completion 

of the project on our Reservation. We are hoping, with your leadership, that Mni 

Wiconi can be completed as soon as possible. 

Thank you very much. I would be pleased to answer any questions. 

Senator JOHNSON. Mr. Jandreau, thank you. 

Mr. Fitzgerald. 

STATEMENT OF JAKE FITZGERALD, MANAGER, WEST RIVER/ 

LYMAN-JONES RURAL WATER SYSTEMS, MURDO, SD 

Mr. FITZGERALD. Thank you, Chairman Johnson and Senator 

Tester. My name is Jake Fitzgerald and I’m the Manager of West 
34 

River/Lyman-Jones. West River/Lyman-Jones is a component of the 

Mni Wiconi Project which was authorized in 1988. 

Again, thank you for inviting me to testify before your committee 

and reporting on the progress and success of WR/LJ in the Mni 

Wiconi Project. We are a regional water supply project serving over 

12,000 square miles in semi-arid Western South Dakota. We were 

authorized almost 20 years ago and we’re currently in our 15th 

year of construction. 

Water is essential to the economic viability of Western South Dakota. Residents and livestock in the WR/LJ service area suffered 

with limited water supplies and unacceptable water quality since 

the early 1900s. They were required to haul drinking water from 

community sources that did not meet current Safe Drinking Water 

Act standards. Ranchers would sell their livestock at reduced prices 

during each drought cycle. Then work to restore their herds once 

the stock ponds were filled again. 

This began to change for the West River/Lyman-Jones area in 

1993 with pipeline construction and a limited supply of the famous 

‘‘Wall Drug’’ water. As stated we are in our 15th year of construction. Appropriations have always been less than we had hoped, but 

every new connection brings us closer to the completion. Since the 

‘‘Turn Dirt’’ ceremony in Wall in 1993, West River/Lyman-Jones 

has installed over 3,100 miles of pipeline and is delivering quality 

water to 13 communities, 25 individual rural residents and the 

Badlands National Park. This project truly has been a Godsend 

during this multiyear drought. 

The Mni Wiconi project would not have been possible without the 

combined Federal, State and membership funding partnership and 

the tribal and non-tribal cooperative efforts. WR/LJ Directors and 

Mni Wiconi Tribal leadership understood the hardship and economic instability brought by unreliable supplies of poor drinking 

water. They took their problem to the State Government and congressional leaders and asked for assistance. They took water samples and this piece of pipe to demonstrate the severity of their 

problem. This piece of pipe is filled with Gypsum found naturally 

in one of our local wells. 

Congress responded with project authorization in 1988 and Federal funding based on our ability to pay and the requirement of a 

non-Federal cost share. The State of South Dakota responded with 

a loan on terms that we could afford. The Tribal and non-Tribal 

sponsors, under the oversight of the Bureau of Reclamation, are 

working together to build this project. 

Congress and Federal agencies have set standards for drinking 

water quality to safeguard the people of this country. Public water 

supplies are required to meet those standards. In many locations 

it is not economically feasible to treat local water supplies to Safe 

Drinking Water Act standards. 

A regional water supply project is the solution to providing safe 

and dependable water supplies in many parts of the West. A reliable supply of quality drinking water is essential to the health of 

local residents, the traveling public and to the livestock industry. 

The Mni Wiconi Project is meeting those needs in Southwestern 

South Dakota. 
35 

On behalf of the West River/Lyman-Jones membership and your 

constituents in the Mni Wiconi project area I thank you and your 

congressional colleagues for your continued support of this project. 

I urge you to continue congressional support for Bureau of Reclamation Rural Water Projects. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Fitzgerald follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JAKE FITZGERALD, MANAGER, WEST RIVER/LYMAN-JONES

RURAL WATER SYSTEMS, MURDO, SD 

Mr. Chairman and Senator Johnson: 

The West River/Lyman-Jones (WR/LJ) Rural Water system is a component of the 

Mni Wiconi Water Supply System authorized by Congress in 1988. My name is Jake 

Fitzgerald and I am the WR/LJ Manager. 

I thank you for the honor of testifying before your Committee and reporting on 

the progress and success of WR/LJ and the Mni Wiconi project. We are a regional 

water supply project serving over 12,000 square miles in semi-arid Western South 

Dakota. We are currently under construction. However, in spite of being authorized 

almost 20 years ago and under construction for 15 years we are truly a success 

story. 

Water is essential to the economic viability of western South Dakota. However, 

residents and livestock in the WR/LJ service area suffered with limited water supplies and unacceptable water quality since their lands were homesteaded in the 

early 1900’s. The people were required to haul drinking water from community 

sources that did not meet current Safe Drinking Water Act standards. Ranchers 

would sell off their livestock at reduced prices with each drought cycle and then 

work to restore their herds when the stock ponds were filled again. 

This began to change for the WR/LJ area in 1993 with pipeline construction and 

a limited supply of the famous ‘‘Wall Drug’’ water. We are now in our 15th year 

of construction. The appropriations have always been less than what we hoped for 

but every new connection served increases the regional project benefits and brings 

us closer to completion. Since the ‘‘Turn Dirt’’ ceremony in Wall in 1993 the WR/ 

LJ system has installed over 3,100 miles of pipeline and is now delivering adequate 

supplies of quality water to 13 communities, 2,500 individual rural connections and 

the Badlands National Park. This project has been a Godsend during what is now 

the 8th year of sustained drought. 

The Mni Wiconi project would not have been possible without the combined Federal, State and water user funding partnership and the Tribal and non-Tribal cooperative efforts. WR/LJ Directors and the Mni Wiconi Tribal leadership understood 

the hardship and economic instability brought on by unreliable supplies of poor 

quality water. They took their problem to State Government and Congressional 

leaders and asked for assistance. They took water samples and this piece of pipe 

to demonstrate the severity of their problem. This piece of pipe is plugged with Gypsum found naturally in a local well. 

Congress responded with project authorization in 1988 and Federal funding based 

on Congressional assessment of our ability to pay and the requirement for a nonFederal cost share. The State of South Dakota responded with a loan on terms that 

we could afford. The Tribal and non-Tribal sponsors, under the oversight responsibility of the Bureau of Reclamation, worked together to build the project. 

Congress and the Federal Agencies have set standards for drinking water quality 

to safeguard the people of this country. Public water supplies are required to meet 

those standards. Individual water supplies; rural residents, farmers and ranchers, 

are not covered by the standards. In many locations it is not economically feasible 

to treat the local public water supply to SDWA standards. 

A regional water supply project is the solution to providing safe and dependable 

water supplies in many parts of the semi-arid West. A reliable supply of quality 

drinking water is essential to the health of local residents and the traveling public. 

A reliable supply of quality drinking water is essential to the livestock industry. The 

Mni Wiconi Water Supply Project is meeting those regional water supply requirements in Southwestern South Dakota. 

On behalf of the WR/LJ membership and your constituents in the Mni Wiconi 

project area I thank you and your Congressional colleagues for your continuing support of the Mni Wiconi project. I urge you to continue Congressional support of the 

Bureau of Reclamation’s implementation of the Rural Water Supply Act of 2006. 
36 

Senator JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Fitzgerald. Mr. Munson, 

Mayor Munson, what are the consequences for meeting Sioux Falls 

predicted water demand if the Lewis and Clark Project is unable 

to provide water to the City by 2012? What do you do then? 

Mr. MUNSON. That’s been our problem, Senator. When we look 

at the—it has a potential to really impact our economy as we talk 

about, you know, our medical, retail, industrial, housing, have all 

been really booming. If we can’t make this project a reality by 2012 

it has a potential to affect all those industries and really where we 

have been continually growing each and every year to slow that 

growth down significantly. 

So it would really, probably, expedite even beyond where we’re 

at with conservation measures that we have in place that would 

have to be really stepped up quite a bit. So it has a lot of consequences for the economic future of our area. 

Senator JOHNSON. Is building permits and commercial permits 

under jeopardy in that case? 

Mr. MUNSON. You know they really would be, when we talk 

about last year, half billion dollars that we had was a record year. 

So if we can’t when the businesses looking to relocate to Sioux 

Falls or expanding in Sioux Falls or even houses we would probably have to look very carefully at how much growth we could experience. So those record years that we’re having would really, I 

think, come to a really, I think, come to a real—they’d start to slow 

down. 

Senator JOHNSON. Mr. Larson, as you are well aware BOR’s recommendation for funding was cut to zero dollars in the coming 

year. Mr. Larson, as the Executive Director of the project what sort 

of reaction was felt among your members and has it impacted any 

planning that you may be doing for the longer term? 

Mr. LARSON. Mr. Chairman, it was a great deal of frustration expressed from our 20 members when zero funding was proposed, especially coming off last year with the pre-payment by the members. 

So here was a step of faith that the members took, Sioux Falls and 

16 other members to pre-pay their share of the project. Then to 

have the Administration propose zero right on the heels of that was 

very disheartening to say the least. 

In terms of planning what’s—this is over a $500 million project. 

What is so frustrating is not knowing year to year, even remotely, 

how much we’re going to get. We have record level of $26.5 million. 

Five weeks later, zero was proposed. 

So what we have done is spent a lot more time and money on 

engineering various contingency plans. What if we only get this? 

What if we only get that? That’s money that could be spent putting 

pipeline into ground. We’re running a lot of what if scenarios. 

Senator JOHNSON. President Steele, how long—the tribe has 

waited the longest to receive water from the project even though 

the project is nearly 80 percent complete. President Steele, when 

will Missouri River water reach Pine Ridge Indian Reservation? 

What will that achievement mean to your members? 

Mr. STEELE. Ah, yes, Senator, this fall we expect that the Core 

line will reach the Northwestern part of our Reservation. We figure 

in August or September. Senator, we are going to holding a doings 

then. 
37 

I don’t know, you’re going to be busy in Washington. I would like 

to coordinate this to have your presence there. But the water will 

just reach there. 

Now this, Senator, you understand all of these years and I’ve 

been going testifying, there are five identified projects in the 

United States that use the Indians to get pipelines built, but they 

never reach the Indians. We now have a pipeline coming to Pine 

Ridge and this has been my biggest gripe. You, Senator, have been 

our greatest friend with Senator Thune and Congressman Herseth 

to get this water to Pine Ridge. 

We always expected it to stop and get de-funded. We would never 

get the water. But this fall, Senator. We expect by the spring of 

2009 to reach the middle of the reservation with this water. So this 

is a means to the people there. 

When we first talked with the people Kadoka and we decided to 

get this pipeline, to see if we could get it built. The people in Pine 

Ridge reared up and they had a referendum vote and voted it 

down. They said that the water would never reach Pine Ridge. 

But you, Senator, have gotten it there. It’s going to reach there 

this fall. It means a lot to the people of Pine Ridge. 

Senator JOHNSON. I thank you for your participation and Mr. 

Means participation in turning that thing around. 

President Bordeaux, why is it that the tribe is using a combination of ground water and surface water? Is there a problem with 

the ground water contamination? If so, how would the Mni Wiconi 

address this problem? 

Mr. BORDEAUX. Well the primary source, prior to Mni Wiconi 

coming along was Oglala aquifer. But we’re on the Northern most 

tip of the Oglala aquifer and it comes into half of our county, Todd 

County. Good quality water. 

But looking into the future the Oglala aquifer is drying up in 

places such as Kansas, parts of Colorado, Oklahoma because of 

over pumping irrigation systems. So as far as the future looking 

into several, seven generations at least, so we’re planning for their 

needs. 

Some of the contaminants in our water is arsenic in the 

Grossmont area along the White River. There’s problems there 

with the wells down there. Nitrate from farming. Pumping the aquifer. 

We are monitoring wells. We’re finding some of the, I guess, the 

chemicals that are being pumped into the system, gets down into 

the Oglala aquifer. It’s contaminating that. 

Then in the city of Mission there’s some old gas stations there 

that are leaking fuel storage. So we’re working on cleaning them. 

So those are getting into the water system. So that’s some of the 

big problems that we have. 

Senator JOHNSON. Chairman Jandreau, can you please describe 

how the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe carries out its ONM responsibilities. As an operating system what are the maintenance and operations issues you expect to encounter in the next 5 to 10 years. 

Mr. JANDREAU. I guess the primary problems that we anticipate 

with the ONM portion of the project that we are now pretty much 

fully into, is the educating of people to adequately use the systems 

that we have placed out there, that the rural water systems need 
38 

a lot of maintenance, a lot of care and concern by the individual 

users to assure that there’s no wastage, to assure that the quality 

for contamination or guarding against contamination is carefully 

monitored. We have a pretty well trained crew that are out there 

and active all the time. So it’s not only been a very beneficial from 

the employment standpoint, but in educating people about the necessity of guarding that very precious resource is being implemented. 

Senator JOHNSON. Mr. Fitzgerald, one of the things that is 

unique about Mni Wiconi, I smile at this, is the cowboys don’t get 

any water unless the Indians get water. The Indians don’t get any 

water unless the cowboys get water. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator JOHNSON. How is West River/Lyman-Jones been able to 

work with other project sponsors, the tribes and the BOR to complete elements of common water transmission facilities? 

Mr. FITZGERALD. I think Mr. Jandreau mentioned briefly, where 

the sponsors work together to manage funds. Advance funds to another sponsor when one of the other sponsors show the need. I 

think another good example of that is a cooperative agreement with 

West River/Lyman-Jones and the Oglala Sioux Tribe on the North 

Core system. 

Our fiscal year 2006 and 2007 funds went toward the North Core 

line. That was built with WR/LJ authorized ceiling. We’re grateful 

we could work together and do that. It allowed us to construct 

areas around the Core line that were being served from that Core 

line. It also freed up $$17.6 million for the Oglala Sioux Tribe in 

order for them to build facilities on the reservation to supply their 

members. 

Senator JOHNSON. Senator Tester. 

Senator TESTER. Thank you, Senator Johnson. Thank you all for 

being here. I appreciate your testimony. It was all pretty complete 

actually. I do have a few questions. 

First of all, Mayor Munson, you need to be congratulated. It 

sounds like you got a ripping city here. That’s a good thing. 

I guess this goes to a question that Senator Johnson asked Troy 

Larson that concerns contingencies. How you guys had to spend 

dollars on water contingencies in fear that this project won’t come 

to fruition in time to meet your economic demands? 

Mr. MUNSON. Well, you know, we’ve been working closely with 

Troy and Lewis and Clark. You know, we have set aside and as I 

said earlier, we pre-paid our $70 million. So that we would, you 

know, to get the water by 2012 becomes crucial for us. 

So we’re trying to do the conservation. We’re trying to do the prepayment authorization to get the money out there ahead of time 

because of, again, as we talk about—it’s imperative that we get 

water. It’s just that simple. 

So we’re trying to set contingencies through conservation is what 

we’re really working at now to make sure as we talk about going 

every day to 12 to 5 o’clock watering. So that we’re conserving as 

much as we can with the anticipation that Lewis and Clark will 

be here in 2012. But, you know, so, we are working in that direction. 
39 

Senator TESTER. You also need to be congratulated on the water 

conservation methods. Maybe we can utilize you in energy conservation from a national standpoint. 

Mr. MUNSON. I think that’s something that all of us throughout 

all of the organizations talking here today, we always have to be 

cognizant. We’re having to continue on with conservation because 

it is, water is such a precious commodity for all of us. As we move 

forward, I think that’s it’s going to continue to build upon where 

it’s at today. So all of us need to be aware of what we can do to 

protect that resource as much as we can. 

Senator TESTER. That’s a good point. Troy, your charts. I think 

you did a great job in illustrating the different funding levels and 

the total project cost and anticipated completion dates. 

I just wanted to give you an opportunity to potentially describe 

how a few dollars now will save money down the line. What you 

see on a percentage basis or a dollar basis, how the Federal Government, if they were to fund these projects at this point, not only 

saves you money from a contingency standpoint, but could save the 

Federal Government money in the long term. 

Mr. LARSON. Sure, that’s a very good question, Senator. The old 

saying, ‘‘a stitch in time saves nine,’’ certainly applies here. What 

we are seeing is the inflation indexing, especially with steel imports by China is just out of control. 

We’ve seen inflation as high as 9 percent on this project. Last 

year was close to 5 percent. We expect that to go up again this next 

year. 

Every dollar that gets delayed, that’s not a savings by the Federal Government. It’s a disservice to the taxpayers. Because in the 

long run instead of paying that $1 dollar, that could become $3 or 

$4 down the road depending on the rate of inflation. 

That’s one of the reasons the members of Lewis and Clark, as 

well as the States have stepped up to the plate and pre-paid their 

share of the project. Not just to keep the project on schedule, as 

best they can, but also to reduce the impacts to their taxpayers. We 

would certainly hope that the Federal Government would apply 

that same common sense as our members and our States have. 

But it is a challenge with the runaway inflation. We just haven’t 

seen inflation for commodities, not to commodities, but copper and 

stainless steel, everything is just going through the roof. 

Senator TESTER. Ok. I have a question for Mr. Steele, Bordeaux, 

Jandreau and Fitzgerald. Mr. Steele talked about the EPA and allowing you to drink water out of a well that has arsenic in it. Has 

the EPA come in and said, in each of your particular cases, that 

your water doesn’t meet standards? 

Mr. STEELE. Yes. 

Senator TESTER. At this point in time? They have in yours? 

Mr. STEELE. Yes. They’re temporarily allowing us to use those 

wells realizing that the river water is going to be coming in. 

Senator TESTER. How long are they allowing you? Just until the 

water comes in? 

Mr. STEELE. We understand that the water will, like I said, reach 

the Northwestern part of the Reservation this fall, the middle of 

the Reservation by next year. 
40 

Senator TESTER. Ok, good. Mr. Bordeaux, same thing in your situation? Has EPA said that your current water system is not up to 

snuff as far as quality? 

Mr. BORDEAUX. Especially with the arsenic in the Grossmont 

community. 

Senator TESTER. Same thing? 

Mr. BORDEAUX. Yes, same thing? 

Senator TESTER. Have they given you an extension to use your 

water too? 

Mr. BORDEAUX. Not necessarily. We just went ahead with our 

Rural Water System from the aquifer. 

Senator TESTER. Ok. Mr. Jandreau. 

Mr. JANDREAU. Yes. We don’t have that problem because we’re 

all along the Rural Water System right now. 

Senator TESTER. Gotcha. It meets EPA specs? 

Mr. JANDREAU. It meets and exceeds. 

Senator TESTER. Good. Mr. Fitzgerald. 

Mr. FITZGERALD. Yes, the communities in our area were high in 

radium. They’ve got the same notice from South Dakota DENR 

stating that they knew the project was on its way. They gave those 

communities as much time as they needed to get by. 

Senator TESTER. Ok 

Mr. STEELE. The alpha content in uranium, the radiation in the 

water is way up there. 

Senator TESTER. For the three gentlemen from Indian country, 

has the Indian Health Service talked about health impacts of the 

water? 

Mr. STEELE. Not really. They are concerned about it. They understand the arsenic is there. In some homes they have put in filters, 

in the individual houses. But they never get around to change any 

filters or anything. 

Senator TESTER. Right. 

Mr. STEELE. Now what IHS can identify is in the Oglala area as 

President Bordeaux said, we had also high nitrites. We had a lot 

of stillborn babies, infant mortalities and those numbers have 

changed. The stillborns is almost nothing. The infants are surviving. We took the nitrates out of there with getting some other 

waters in there with the pipeline. 

Senator TESTER. Mr. Bordeaux. 

Mr. BORDEAUX. They provide some good data in terms of some 

of the problems associated with it. As you know Indian Health 

Services is severely under funded and they’re barely keeping their 

head above water. But, you know, they keep close contact with us, 

working with Mr. Hug back here in monitoring a lot of that. 

Senator TESTER. Ok. Mr. Jandreau. 

Mr. JANDREAU. The response is basically the same. The reality 

is as Mr. Bordeaux has pointed out is that Indian Health Services 

capacity to really do anything about it is restricted by the funding 

base. 

Senator TESTER. Yes. Last question. This is the toughest question you’re going to have all day. Mr. Fitzgerald, how long did it 

take for that pipe to build up that much gypsum? 

Mr. FITZGERALD. You know, I can’t answer that question. 

Senator TESTER. I’m just curious. 
41 

Mr. FITZGERALD. I don’t know. 

Senator TESTER. That’s pretty amazing. 

Mr. FITZGERALD. Yes, I know this piece of pipe went to Washington, DC, quite a few times is what I’ve been told. But we kind 

of use it as a centerpiece in our office. 

Senator TESTER. Yes, well it converted that. What is it, two, two 

and a half inch pipe down to about a three inch? 

Mr. FITZGERALD. I believe there was a long stretch of pipe with 

this build up. 

Senator TESTER. Just like that. Yes. Three years? 

Mr. FITZGERALD. Three years. 

Senator TESTER. That’s a lot of gypsum. In any rate, I want to 

thank everybody on this panel. I appreciate your coming in, appreciate your bringing in a ground level perspective. So thank you. 

Mr. FITZGERALD. Thank you. 

Mr. STEELE. Thank you. 

Senator TESTER. Senator Johnson. 

Senator JOHNSON. Yes. It is clear from today’s testimony that 

there are sound justifications for a strong national commitment to 

rural water supplies in the Great Plains. Add part productivity, 

add part economic growth as well as serving the basic drinking 

water needs of thousands of people are tied to the success of these 

projects. Without Congress increasing the budgets for these 

projects their benefits would be curtailed and the mission of the 

Bureau’s Rural Water Program would be in serious jeopardy. 

I want to thank all of the witnesses for agreeing to appear before 

the subcommittee today and for Senator Tester lending his voice to 

these important water issues. I also want to thank the 

preparational staff from the Senate Energy and Natural Resources 

Committee for helping organize this hearing. 

Senator Tester, if you have no further comments, I conclude this 

hearing and remind Senators and staff that questions for the hearing record are due by close of business tomorrow. 

Senator JOHNSON. With that this hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:42 p.m. the hearing was adjourned.]