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

64–643 PDF 2011

S. HRG. 111–948 

AN EXAMINATION OF THE UNITED STATES BUREAU OF RECLAMATION’S NORTHWEST AREA 

WATER SUPPLY PROJECT 

HEARING 

BEFORE A

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

SPECIAL HEARING 

AUGUST 11, 2010—WASHINGTON, DC 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii, Chairman 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont 

TOM HARKIN, Iowa 

BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland 

HERB KOHL, Wisconsin 

PATTY MURRAY, Washington 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

JACK REED, Rhode Island 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

BEN NELSON, Nebraska 

MARK PRYOR, Arkansas 

JON TESTER, Montana 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania 

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio 

THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi 

CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri 

MITCH MCCONNELL, Kentucky 

RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama 

JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire 

ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah 

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas 

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

SUSAN COLLINS, Maine 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska 

CHARLES J. HOUY, Staff Director 

BRUCE EVANS, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota, Chairman 

PATTY MURRAY, Washington 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

JACK REED, Rhode Island 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

TOM HARKIN, Iowa 

JON TESTER, Montana 

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio 

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii (ex officio) 

ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah 

THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi 

MITCH MCCONNELL, Kentucky 

CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri 

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas 

RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

Professional Staff 

DOUG CLAPP

ROGER COCKRELL

FRANZ WUERFMANNSDOBLER

CAROLYN E. APOSTOLOU (Minority) 

TYLER OWENS (Minority) 

LASHAWNDA SMITH (Minority) 

Administrative Support 

MOLLY BARACKMAN-EDER
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

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

Statement of Dennis Breitzman, Dakota Areas Manager, Bureau of Reclamation, Department of the Interior ......................................................................... 4 

Statement of Todd Sando, State Engineer, North Dakota State Water Commission .................................................................................................................. 5 

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 7 

Berthold Rates to Reflect Better Quality Water ................................................... 10 

NAWS Celebrates Water Delivery to Berthold ..................................................... 10 

Kenmare Turns on the Tap for NAWS Water ....................................................... 11 

New Water, New Billing Rates ............................................................................... 12 

Judge Reviewing NAWS Lawsuit ........................................................................... 12 

Now in Compliance for Arsenic Standard ............................................................. 12 

Donnybrook and Tolley Area Water Users Now Hooked Up to NAWS .............. 13 

NAWS Water Flows to Burlington ......................................................................... 15 

Water Flows West—NAWS Begins Serving West River Residents ..................... 15 

Water Opportunity—Carpio Sees Opportunity for NAWS Water ....................... 16 

Carpio-area Residents Need Money to Connect to NAWS ................................... 16 

Statement of Hon. Curt Zimbelman, Mayor, City of Minot, North Dakota ........ 17 

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 19 

Progress and Construction of NAWS ..................................................................... 19 

Use of Minot’s Water Supply .................................................................................. 20 

Depletion of the Missouri River System With the Withdrawal for NAWS 

Water Supply ........................................................................................................ 20 

Statement of Hon. Roger Ness, Mayor, City of Kenmare, North Dakota ........... 21 

Statement of Dan Schaefer, Manager, All Seasons Water Users District .......... 21 

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 23 

Points of Interest ..................................................................................................... 25 

Prepared Statement of Robert Sando, Minot, North Dakota ............................... 41 

Prepared Statement of Kenneth Rogers, Maxbass, North Dakota ...................... 41 

(1) 

AN EXAMINATION OF THE UNITED STATES 

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION’S NORTHWEST 

AREA WATER SUPPLY PROJECT 

WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 11, 2010 

U.S. SENATE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT, 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, 

Minot, North Dakota. 

The subcommittee met at 2:30 p.m., in the Minot City Hall Council Chambers, Minot, North Dakota, Hon. Byron L. Dorgan (chairman) presiding. 

Present: Senator Dorgan. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BYRON L. DORGAN

Senator DORGAN. We’ll call the hearing to order. I’m Senator 

Byron Dorgan. This is a formal hearing of the Energy and Water 

Appropriations Subcommittee of the U.S. Senate. I’m joined by 

Roger Cockrell who is a principal staffer on that subcommittee. 

Roger does a great job on water issues from Maine to California, 

and he knows all of them. I’m also joined by Justin Schardin from 

my Senate office, who works on water issues as well. 

The purpose of this hearing is to have a discussion and testimony 

about the progress of NAWS. The Northwest Area Water Supply 

Project is a very important project; one that I fully support and believe will enhance life in this region of North Dakota. I have been 

involved with this project for a long while, along with many of you 

who are in this room, and believe that the project, as designed, has 

merit, and will be completed. It should be completed, and will be 

completed. 

The reason for this hearing is to try to understand when that 

might happen, what the roadblocks are, what we can expect as a 

result of those roadblocks and when the people of this region—and 

the people of our country, who are spending a lot of money on this 

project—can expect to get to the finish line. 

Just a brief history: We know that the State of North Dakota accepted a one-half million acre flood in the middle of our State that 

came, and stayed. President Eisenhower was here to dedicate the 

dam that caused the flood, and that flood was something we were 

willing, as a State, to accept. A lot of people probably wouldn’t say, 

‘‘Yeah, give us the flood, we’ll accept a permanent flood,’’ but we 

did because there was a promise attached to that permanent flood. 

The promise was that, ‘‘If you allow us to dam up the Missouri 

River and you create a very large permanent flood behind it called 
2 

a reservoir, we will allow you to use that water for beneficial purposes, beneficial uses.’’ North Dakota had been long left out of the 

process of irrigation opportunities and clean and fresh water delivered to people and communities around North Dakota—they 

thought that was a pretty good deal. You have a cost and you have 

a benefit. The cost is the inundation of towns and Missouri River 

bottomland in order to create the flood, and the benefit was a 

whole series of things, including the Garrison Diversion Project, 

and the Regional Rural Water Projects, along with other benefits. 

We fully received the costs of this project. We have never fully received the benefits. That’s the purpose of the discussion today, 

about one of those benefits; the development of a regional water 

supply project called NAWS. 

Now, NAWS is a project that’s been in the works for a long 

while. I was here, along with, perhaps, many in this room, to do 

the groundbreaking and was proud to be a part of that as, I’m sure, 

were all of the others. It was probably the largest groundbreaking 

I’ve ever been a part of, just because so many people have been involved in this project. 

We have a project that is expected, with current design, to cost 

about $217 million to complete. We’ve spent $82 million on this 

project. Of that, $45 million has been Federal Government expenditures, $30 million the city of Minot, and $7 million by the State of 

North Dakota. 

The treatment plant for this project is still at odds, and under 

discussion, and part of the issue facing the courts; we’ve had a couple of legal challenges to the project itself. The question is what 

kind of a treatment plant will be necessary? If one style of treatment plant is built, it’s somewhere in the neighborhood of $18 million, perhaps, $15–$20 million. If a much different treatment plant 

were required, it could be $90 or $100 million. 

The court filings that have been made by Canada and the State 

of Missouri have contested this project on a number of grounds. 

First, with respect to the State of Missouri, the State of Missouri 

is questioning the consumption of water out of the reservoir from 

this NAWS project. That is the most absurd thing I have ever 

heard. We’re talking about 5/100 of 1 percent of the water in the 

Missouri River System. 

If the State were a person, it would be hard for a State like Missouri to suppress a grin when they file this lawsuit, because they 

would fully understand that there’s no merit whatsoever. Regrettably, the judge in the case seemed to believe there was some 

merit. It’s beyond my comprehension that a judge has made that 

kind of a ruling, but we’re now going to have to respond to that, 

which will be easy enough to do. But, I’m still disappointed in that 

court ruling. It is just an absurdity to give any credibility at all to 

that portion of the suit. 

The second lawsuit is from Canada. Canada, of course, is concerned about water moving from the Missouri River Basin to the 

Hudson Bay drainage basin. Canada always wants to be involved, 

and they want to be concerned about their basin; I fully understand that, Canada has a right to be concerned about that. We 

have, however, always and continue today to say to Canada that 
3 

we will not ever do anything to violate the Boundary Waters Treaty. That’s a fact. 

We have always insisted that what we will be delivering in the 

pipeline that carries Missouri River water to communities that 

need that supply of water will be drinking-quality water. So, it 

seems to me that, in itself, resolves the issue. 

Nonetheless, the Federal judge in the District Court ruled that 

additional environmental studies need to be done, or additional 

work on the environmental studies, need to be done and I’m going 

to ask the Bureau of Reclamation about that at this hearing. 

So, having said all of that, a lot of money having been spent— 

let me put up a chart to show you what we have done at the Federal level. These are all earmarked funds; by the way, I’ve earmarked all of these monies. You probably noticed when I became 

chairman, right there, of the subcommittee, I’ve put a little more 

money in. What we’ve done with that money is to lay pipe. We’re 

creating a pipeline, and we’re burying pipeline in order, some day, 

to carry Missouri River water. There’s no Missouri River water in 

the pipeline that we have built, none. The water in the pipeline is 

Minot water. And, of course, that is not a sustainable circumstance. 

So, I wanted to have a public record made today of where are we, 

where are we headed, what are the obstacles, and when do we get 

to the finish line. Where is the finish line and when do we get 

there? People of Minot want to know that, the people of the region 

want to know that, and those of us who are engaged with spending 

the Federal taxpayers’ money want to know that, as well. 

So, I have a lot of questions today, but prior to that we have five 

witnesses. I know this is a bit Napoleonic in the way this is set up 

with us far away from the crowd, up here, but that’s the way the 

room is set up, I guess. And I’m going to ask you, if I could, to have 

the witnesses come to the dais, if you would, there, and provide the 

testimony, following which I will ask a series of questions, as will 

Mr. Cockrell and Justin if they have questions. 

Let me begin, if I might, with the Dakotas Area Manager of the 

Bureau of Reclamation, Dennis Breitzman. Mr. Breitzman, you’ve 

been involved in this for a long, long time, and I want to make one 

final comment before I ask you to testify and begin. I very much 

wish I had had a hearing the last time I was here, because we had 

a roundtable discussion, I think, it was now 2 years ago, and we 

had then an assessment of what we thought, where we were headed, what progress was being made with the Canadians and this, 

and that, and the other thing. We probably should have had that 

on the public record, but all we have at the moment are distant 

memories of what was discussed. That’s one of the reasons I wanted to have a public record today, so that we’d have some demarcation of where we are, and what the best judgment of all of you is, 

where we expect to be in the future. 

Mr. Breitzman, I’ve asked you to be here because the Federal 

judge has required additional environmental studies, as a result of 

the ruling of the Federal court. Until we resolve these issues, there 

will not be Missouri water in the pipeline. So, I’d like to ask you 

to testify, if you would, about what is happening at the Bureau, 

what your timeline is, what kind of costs are necessary for that 

work, and then give us your best estimate of a finish line. I call 
4 

you here recognizing this is not a Bureau project, per se. As I understand it, it’s a State, city, Federal project, but the Bureau is involved, and you’re going to be responsible for the environmental 

studies. 

Mr. Breitzman, you may proceed. 

STATEMENT OF DENNIS BREITZMAN, DAKOTA AREAS MANAGER, BUREAU OF RECLAMATION, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Mr. BREITZMAN. Thank you, Senator. 

I am Dennis Breitzman, Manager of the Bureau of Reclamation 

Dakota Area Office, and I’m pleased to have an opportunity to provide a brief summary of the Bureau of Reclamation’s involvement 

in the NAWS project. 

NAWS is authorized by the Garrison Reformulation Act, 1986, 

and the Dakota Water Resources Act, 2000, and is being funded 

through the Statewide Municipal, Rural and Industrial (MR&I) 

grant program. And, Senator, as you mentioned, that makes Reclamation’s role unique, at least for Reclamation, in that our role is 

to budget for, and make grant funds available to the project. We 

do provide a level of construction and financial oversight, and we 

have to ensure that all Federal laws are being complied with. 

So, typically, our primary role on these grant projects is to complete the appropriate environmental compliance, and in the instance of NAWS, we’re also responsible for compliance with the 

Boundary Waters Treaty. 

This is just a brief summary; a chronology of where we’ve been 

with the environmental compliance. In the late 1990s, Reclamation 

worked with the State Water Commission to complete an environmental assessment of the project. Based on that environmental assessment, in 2001, we signed a finding of no significant impact. 

And, in the same year, we received a determination from the Secretary of the Interior that the level of treatment that was proposed, 

at that time, was adequate to meet the requirements of the Boundary Waters Treaty. 

In 2002, the Province of Manitoba challenged the sufficiency of 

the environmental documents in the U.S. District Court, and in 

2005, that case was remanded to Reclamation for additional environmental analysis. We completed an Environmental Impact Statement in 2008, and the focus of that EIS was two things: It was potential consequences of a pipeline failure, and an expanded discussion of treatment alternatives. Those two items were also the focus 

of the 2005 court order. 

Based on that EIS, we signed a Record of Decision in 2009, describing our decision to construct a water-treatment plant using 

chemical disinfection and ultraviolet radiation. This plant would be 

located near the community of Max. 

Manitoba and the State of Missouri immediately filed separate 

legal challenges, stating that the EIS was insufficient. In March of 

this year, the Court issued an order directing Reclamation to do additional analyses on two issues: The potential cumulative impacts 

of water withdrawals on the Missouri River, and the consequences 

of the transfer of non-native biota into the Hudson Bay Basin. Reclamation and the State of North Dakota filed separate motions for 

reconsideration of specific parts of that ruling; both motions were 
5 

denied. And the United States has decided not to appeal the 

Court’s ruling. 

So, on the advice of our attorneys and after consulting with the 

Department of Justice, State Department, Environmental Protection Agency and the State of North Dakota, we’re planning to prepare a supplement to the Environmental Impact Statement. And 

we believe a Notice of Intent to prepare that document will be published this Friday. We’ve scheduled four public meetings during the 

week of September 13, and this supplemental EIS will address the 

two items of concern identified in the court order, but it will also 

address things brought forward during the public scoping process. 

And, in addition, we’re going to do a thorough review of the 2001 

environmental documents, and the 2008 EIS, just to look for any 

flaws or items that might need updating. 

We will be establishing a cooperating agency team to assist with 

this supplemental EIS, and anticipate the membership of that 

team to be similar to the one formed in 2006 and 2007 for the EIS. 

Our schedule; we are anticipating that we can have a draft of 

this supplemental EIS done by December of 2011. And Reclamation 

remains committed to completion of this document, and the successful completion of the NAWS project. And, with that, I thank 

you. 

Senator DORGAN. Mr. Breitzman, thank you very much. I want 

to have all of the witnesses testify and then I have some questions. 

Mr. Todd Sando, the newly minted State Engineer of the North 

Dakota Water Commission, but a veteran of the Water Commission, I might add. Congratulations to you, Mr. Sando. 

STATEMENT OF TODD SANDO, STATE ENGINEER, NORTH DAKOTA 

STATE WATER COMMISSION 

Mr. SANDO. Thank you. My name is Todd Sando. I am the State 

Engineer for North Dakota and we’re in charge of building the 

NAWS, Northwest Area Water Supply Project. So, what I want to 

do is give you an update on the construction activities since we 

started construction. 

The Project began back in 2001. And we did the design work, and 

actual construction began in December 2002. And I have a map 

over here that will lay out what we’ve been doing for construction, 

and how it all works into delivering water to Minot and to the rest 

of the Northwest Region. So, I’m going to have Michelle Klose, the 

project manager, she’ll kind of point out a few things as I go 

through it. 

First of all, like I said, we’re in the 8th year of construction, and 

you mentioned how we spent, like, $82 million, so far, on the 

NAWS Project. And the first thing that we worked on is a main 

transmission like, and that comes from Lake Sakakawea and Highway 82 embankment, and travels 45 miles north to Minot, and 

that’s all completed. We got that completed in the spring of 2008. 

So, we got the main transmission line from Lake Sakakawea all 

the way to the city of Minot. 

At the same time, building out for the rural water systems in 

some of the communities, and the first segment that we worked on 

was the Berthold Segment. And we came off the water treatment 

plant in Minot and built west. And it consists of 25 miles of pipe-
6 

line and has three pump stations and two reservoirs. And that was 

completed in August 2008. So, we’re delivering water to Berthold. 

And then the next project we worked on was the NAWS All Seasons up-end, over by Bottineau. And we provided 13 miles of pipeline there from All Seasons water treatment plant near Bottineau, 

and that’s delivering water to that part of the State. 

And the next segment that we’ve been working on is the 

Kenmare Segment. And that’s continuing from Berthold, and that’s 

a 52-mile pipeline. And that consists of one pump station, and that 

was in place December 2009. We’re right in the middle of adding 

storage, and there’s a million-gallon storage reservoir right by 

Kenmare that they actually filled with water, just recently. Today, 

okay. 

Other projects that we’ve been working on for the NAWS Project; 

there was a major project that was dealing with the High Service 

Pump Station right within the city of Minot, and that was for 18 

million gallons per day, High Service Pump Station with a 2 million gallon underground storage tank in Minot. And we have that 

completed, and that started operation last winter, December 2009. 

And the other components that we’ve been working on right now 

that we just completed have connections to West River Water District and Burlington. In fact, today we just turned the water on for 

Burlington. We opened the valve with the Mayor this afternoon, 

and we’ll be serving water to Burlington. So that’s where we’re at 

with actual construction of the project, right now, what’s been completed. 

We are working on the Mohall-Sherwood-All Seasons Line, and 

sometime this fall we’ll have water to Mohall and Sherwood also, 

and we’re looking at having a celebration for Kenmare and Sherwood, Mohall and that whole region. We’re shooting for sometime 

this fall. So, that’s where that’s at. 

Our big issue is the injunction that’s in place. And what—the 

next step for—in our minds—is, we need to get that injunction, you 

know, removed. And that’s, you know, standing in the way of getting water from Lake Sakakawea to Minot. So, we’re unable to 

build our treatment plant to deal with the biota. We haven’t started on the construction of the intake, yet, but we need a control 

structure and storage reservoir in between the lake, too, so you can 

see it’s highlighted in the map. And we can leave the map with 

you, too, so you can have that for the record. 

So, like Dennis Breitzman and the Bureau’s mentioned, you 

know, there are legal strategies, and we really can’t go into detail— 

you know, work through them, but we have an attorney in Washington, DC that works for the Water Commission, and we work 

with the Justice Department really closely, and we are trying to 

work out the deal; work it out so we can get through the issues 

that are at hand and hopefully we can have a new EIS. This will 

be the third round of NEPA compliance. We went through an EA, 

went through an EIS and now the supplemental EIS, and until 

that is freed up, that’s what we will really be working towards. 

A couple of the issues with taking a re-look at the EIS, you mentioned about the Missouri River and how much water there is and 

the water that comes through our State. When Garrison Diversion 

was formulated, there were 3.1-million-acre-feet that were to be al-
7 

located for water projects throughout our State for giving up 

550,000 acres of land. And, to date, I mean, we haven’t been delivering hardly any water to our citizens of the State, and it’s just a 

small fraction, like you said, of water that would be delivered to 

NAWS and we feel, I mean, depletion, like you said, it’s so miniscule, it’s not even measurable downstream. So, we baited these 

arguments with our downstream neighbors and our neighbors in 

Canada, but I just wanted to point out, regarding to depletions, we 

do have the right to the water, we have the right to the natural 

flows, and we do want to put this water to beneficial use. 

So, that’s where the project’s at right now, and we would like to 

continue building out. One of the things with the future funding, 

we have $2 million through the Bureau of Reclamation to do additional studies. There will be additional needs for—to build the intake structure. The intake will cost, probably, $18 million, so we’re 

looking for money for the intake structure. 

Our other goal for next year is Minot Air Force Base; we want 

to build a pipeline to Minot. So we’re looking at trying to fund that. 

Minot’s been very, very good for the project and for the whole region. They’ve stepped up with $30 million, so they’ve been helping 

to get the water out to these rural areas, and we’d like to continue 

with that next year. So, we’re looking at angles to try to keep the 

project moving and still building out next year. 

We do know there are issues with groundwater. As you know, 

you talked about how the interim water is coming from an aquifer 

system. It’s coming from the Minot aquifer and the Sundry aquifer. 

And as everyone’s aware, the aquifers are being mined, and in the 

last couple of decades, you know, we track it very closely, and the 

water levels are dropping in the aquifer. So, we have an interim 

agreement right now with the city of Minot for 10 years, and that 

was signed in 2008. So, they’re willing to provide it for 10 years. 

But they have an opt-out clause in it, too, if those aquifers get too 

low. So, as of now, they’re willing to supply water to all of the 

neighboring communities, and we do have an agreement in place 

for 10 years. 

PREPARED STATEMENT

And, you also wanted to know about timeline. Based on what 

we’re working toward we still, I mean, to build a treatment plant, 

to upgrade the treatment plant in Minot, to build the intake and 

to build the other features, we’re still probably 6 or 7 years away 

from completion in getting water to the city of Minot from Lake 

Sakakawea. 

So, that’s my summary for you. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF TODD SANDO

It is difficult to fully describe the care taken by the State water commission, the 

NAWS Advisory Committee, the city of Minot, and the cities and rural water systems in the region under trying circumstances. Because of the ongoing litigation 

over the project, all parties have carefully striven to balance the use of the existing 

ground water supply and continuing development of the project. First, and most important, we have encouraged the Federal Government to do everything in its control 

to satisfy the edict of the court so that the injunction could be lifted completely. Second, we have cautiously, but consistently, sought relief from the court to allow construction to continue in a phased approach that allows work to proceed, while the 
8 

supplemental environmental review is completed in an open and fair manner and 

in full compliance with the court’s order. 

The support we have received from the Senate Appropriations, Energy and Water 

Development Subcommittee, has been very much appreciated in assisting us to address the water needs of this region. We respectfully request your continued support 

for these types of water supply projects. The construction funding the last few years 

has connected communities to better water quality. Those living in the communities 

and rural homes and farms have expressed to us their sincere thanks and appreciation for water service from the project. I want to take this opportunity to thank you 

on their behalf. 

Even when the court has found elements of the project environmental review to 

be lacking, it also has confirmed what we all know—that the project is essential for 

the public health and safety for northern and central North Dakota. The court has 

allowed construction to continue so long as the specific project elements do not foreclose water treatment options. The court has also recognized that Reclamation had 

taken a hard look at reasonable in-basin alternatives, and concluded there is a need 

for transferred water from the Missouri River for this project. 

It has been suggested that we should re-engage consultation with Manitoba. We 

are interested in having discussions with Manitoba if there is interest from Manitoba in reviewing the current NAWS project to address specific concerns to allow 

a Missouri River water supply to this region. We anticipate that the current supplemental NEPA process that is underway will provide additional and real opportunities for Manitoba and the State to engage in a productive dialogue. 

But we should also be clear: the history of this project reflects adaptations to address many of the concerns expressed by Manitoba over the control of invasive microscopic biota. In particular, the project has advanced from an open canal diversion 

to a closed pipeline, with water disinfected and radiated to kill bacteria and viruses. 

It would be good for all sides to see similar advancement in a resolution. However, 

it must be recognized that the formal consultation process with Canada required 

under the Boundary Waters Act Treaty has been completed. Additional discussions 

over the nature of water treatment options can and will take place. The State would 

support a reasonable and affordable resolution that would permit the project to proceed without future litigation. That result may or may not be achievable in light 

of the State of Missouri’s participation in the case, but we remain open to all reasonable options to avoid further court involvement. 

The NAWS Project will alleviate serious water quality and water quantity problems in the area to be served by the project. These areas have been in need of a 

new source of water to provide good quality drinking water not only to improve 

human health and comply with Federal drinking water standards, but also for the 

positive economic and social impacts good water will have on individuals and communities. 

Some of the drinking water sources within the project area pose health problems 

because they contain high levels of sodium, sulfates, and chloride. For example, the 

town of Berthold was the first community to receive an interim water supply from 

Minot through the NAWS pipeline—starting in August 2008. Berthold’s local water 

supply had Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) at 2300 mg/L, far above the Safe Drinking 

Water Act’s secondary TDS standard of 500 mg/L. Berthold was a community where 

people were trucking/hauling in water for their drinking water. The city’s well water 

system was used for flushing toilets, but not for drinking, not for watering gardens 

or lawns, and not for washing white clothes. The attached articles from the Minot 

Daily News by Jill Schramm, Berthold Rates to Reflect Better Quality Water and 

NAWS Celebrates Water Delivery to Berthold, provides the local perspective on the 

value and need of a new water supply. 

Further, naturally occurring arsenic is present in some area water supplies. The 

arsenic standard for drinking water is a primary standard under the Safe Drinking 

Water Act. The maximum contaminant level for arsenic is 0.010 mg/L. Arsenic levels in the drinking water of two communities served by NAWS—Kenmare and 

Upham—violated the Federal arsenic standard. Kenmare was facing the situation 

of investing funding in a separate reverse osmosis water treatment plant or seeking 

an interim water service connection through NAWS. Connecting to the NAWS 

Project gave these communities the best opportunity at the time to address arsenic. 

The attached articles from The Kenmare News by Caroline Downs, Kenmare Turns 

on the Tap for NAWS Water and Donnybrook and Tolley Area Water Users Now 

Hooked Up to NAWS, provides the local perspective on turning on water service 

after the Kenmare-Upper Souris segment of the pipeline was completed in December 2009. Also attached are articles from the Minot Daily News by Jill Schramm, 

discussing the connection of water service to Burlington and West River Water Dis-
9 

trict this summer. They are entitled Water Flows West and NAWS Water Flows to 

Burlington. 

Issues still being faced in this area are wells going dry, routinely hauling water 

to local cafes, and difficulties getting home loans due to a lack of reliable water is 

highlighted in the attached articles from the Minot Daily News by Jill Schramm, 

Carpio-area Residents Need Money to Connect to NAWS and Carpio sees Opportunity for NAWS Water. 

It is very difficult with the water supply needs of this region to draw a line of 

where the connection to an interim supply will end. It was precisely this difficult 

decision that was made with care by the State water commission and the city of 

Minot, in consultation with the NAWS Advisory Committee, and the communities 

and rural water districts in the region. Minot and the State water commission 

agreed in the interim water service contract that water supply to meet the current 

average needs up to 771,800 gallons per day in 2010 could be provided to specified 

communities and rural water systems. Any additional water needs of those areas 

would have to be met by blending their lower quality water with the NAWS water, 

which typically would significantly degrade the water quality and aesthetics. The 

contract was reviewed and approved by the Minot City Council and the North Dakota State Water Commission. The interim supply agreements with each city and 

rural water district was reviewed and approved by their city councils or district 

boards and the North Dakota State Water Commission. The city of Minot and the 

State water commission closely monitor the aquifers for both water quality and 

quantity. 

As the court found, no action is not an option in this case. Consistent with that 

finding the court has permitted and the State has requested and vigorously pursued 

completion of project elements that can reasonably provide interim water supply 

and move closer to project completion. The construction contracts have been proceeding to provide the interim supply envisioned in these water service contracts. 

And, the construction north of Minot has been limited to the areas that can be 

served through this interim supply contract—until the long term supply is available 

from the lake. 

The groundwater available in Minot has never been a solution for the water supply needs of the region. The legislation for construction of the Garrison Dam forming Lake Sakakawea, enacted as The Flood Control Act of 1944, recognized the need 

for water supply in the NAWS region. Of the options considered at that time, the 

legislation called for the diversion of a water supply from Lake Sakakawea. On September 25, 1970, Congress passed legislation (84 Stat. 866) for the Sundre Pipeline/ 

Minot Extension for the first interim solution, because it was recognized the supply 

from the lake was still being delayed. The objective of the authorized Minot Extension, as explained in a 1981 letter to Honorable Byron Dorgan from the city of 

Minot, was two fold: (1) to provide a supplemental supply from groundwater from 

the nearby Sundre Aquifer to meet immediate needs; and (2) to provide a dependable supply of good quality imported Missouri River water for the long-range municipal and industrial requirements of the city of Minot. This groundwater supply from 

the Sundre Aquifer has helped Minot for many years, and as expected in 1976 when 

the construction was completed, this supply was not going to be adequate for the 

population growth in Minot. 

Every year of delayed construction, specifically on structures like the intake, 

treatment plant, and pump stations, it increases costs, and impacts Minot’s ability 

to continue cost-sharing the project for the benefit of the region. The cost estimates 

for construction of the High Service Pump Station were increasing over 6 percent 

each year. With construction of that facility completed, the guesswork on how much 

additional dollars would have to be set aside for that facility has also ended. In addition, by using this facility now, even without the water supply from Lake 

Sakakawea, benefits are being realized in more storage and reduced power costs for 

both NAWS and the city of Minot. 

The need for additional funding to support the successful completion of the project 

is clear. One year ago, a representative of the Bureau of Reclamation stated in a 

sworn affidavit that: ‘‘Delays in completing the project have resulted in increased 

costs to the Federal Government and the State of North Dakota. Costs for materials 

and labor, coupled with rising inflation, have risen significantly between 2002 and 

2009 and the project is now more expensive to complete. The Dakota Water Resources Act of 2000 requires that all construction costs be indexed yearly to keep 

pace with inflation. For example, between 2002 and 2009 there was a 36 percent 

increase in construction costs for pipelines and a 34 percent increase in costs for 

pumping plants. Further delays in the project will continue to significantly increase 

the total costs for completion.’’ 
10 

The reality of further increased costs over time is undeniable. But so too is the 

ever-increasing need for a safe and reliable source of water for our communities. 

The long-term benefits in public health and safety, economic development and community stability will far exceed ever these increased costs. Again, we thank you for 

your continued support and respectfully urge your continued support and patience 

as we work to bring the NAWS project to fruition. 

[From the Minot Daily News, August 8, 2008] 

BERTHOLD RATES TO REFLECT BETTER QUALITY WATER

BERTHOLD—Berthold residents will pay a little more for water beginning later 

this month, but Mayor Alan Lee said the price is a bargain. 

‘‘I think It’s an extremely good buy for what we are getting,’’ Lee said. 

Berthold and the Northwest Area Water Supply project will be celebrating the arrival of a new water supply on August 18. That’s when Berthold is expected to begin 

supplying residents with NAWS water purchased from Minot. A celebration ceremony is set for 2 p.m. in the Sportsman Club, followed by a 3 p.m. ribbon cutting 

at the NAWS tank site. 

The Berthold City Council approved an increase of $2 per 1,000 gallons in the 

price to water users. The average household will see its water bill increase $10 to 

$15 a month, assuming water usage remains the same. 

Lee said many residents haven’t watered lawns and were buying or hauling drinking water because the quality of Berthold’s water has been poor. With the arrival 

of good water, usage of the municipal system is expected to increase. 

Under a contract between the State Water Commission and the city of Minot, the 

commission will pay Minot $1.57 per 1,000 gallons for treated water to be delivered 

through NAWS to Berthold. Those costs, along with operation and maintenance 

costs of NAWS and the city of Berthold, will be passed on to water users. 

Berthold expects to purchase an average of 34,000 gallons a day from Minot this 

year. In the event of drought, Berthold would share in any water restrictions that 

Minot might impose on use of city-treated water. 

The Minot Water Treatment Plant produces an average of 10 million gallons a 

day for summer use and 5 million gallons a day in the winter for Minot, Minot Air 

Force Base and North Prairie Rural Water. Based on June billings, Minot used 

about 72 percent of the water produced, or more than 7 million gallons a day. 

Minot also has a contract with NAWS for use of its pipeline to distribute an average 1.16 million gallons a day to some city customers this year. Minot will pay 

NAWS 28 cents per 1,000 gallons to cover operation and maintenance. 

JILL SCHRAMM, 

Staff Writer. 

[From the Minot Daily News, August 19, 2008] 

NAWS CELEBRATES WATER DELIVERY TO BERTHOLD

BERTHOLD—Water flowed from Minot’s treatment plant into a storage tank at 

Berthold as Berthold residents and others involved in the Northwest Area Water 

Supply project celebrated Monday. 

‘‘Now we are going to have good water,’’ said Bob Inman, a member of the 

Berthold City Council. ‘‘It will help the city grow ‘‘ 

Berthold’s community band kicked off festivities that included speeches, a ribboncutting and what might have been the first ceremonial visit by a State Governor 

to Berthold. Joining Governor John Hoeven were other leaders who have worked on 

water issues, including area legislators, representatives of the State’s congressional 

offices and officials from the State Water Commission, Garrison Diversion Conservancy District, city of Minot and Ward County. 

The State Water Commission is purchasing water from Minot to serve Berthold, 

a community of about 466 people. NAWS built a pipeline this past year to connect 

the two towns, located 25 miles apart, ‘‘I know this isn’t our long-term goal. Our 

long-term goal is to get Missouri River water here,’’ said Dale Frink, State engineer 

with the water commission. ‘‘I think it will happen. But this really is a very nice 

first step.’’ 

A lawsuit brought by Manitoba over proposed water treatment has prevented access to Missouri River water. The court has ordered more studies, and the Bureau 
11 

of Reclamation hopes to finish an Environmental Impact Statement by the end of 

the year. 

Minot is providing water to Berthold in the interim. 

Following the ribbon-cutting, Minot Mayor Curt Zimbelman signed an agreement 

with the State Water Commission to authorize the sale of water. The Minot City 

Council will consider an amendment to address the city’s long-term involvement 

should water from the Missouri River be indefinitely delayed. The amendment won’t 

affect water sales for the interim projected in the agreement. 

‘‘We are going to complete NAWS, and today is a big step forward,’’ Hoeven said 

during Monday’s ceremony. ‘‘It really symbolizes the progress we are making on the 

Northwest Area Water system.’’ 

He said the environmental study will ensure the project protects the interests of 

the State and Canada. 

‘‘We are doing it right. We are doing it well. We are being very diligent that it’s 

environmentally sound, but we will not be dissuaded or deterred,’’ Hoeven said. ‘‘We 

are going to keep moving this forward. This is important to our State.’’ 

Berthold Mayor Alan Lee credited the project’s progress to Minot’s commitment, 

including passage of a 1 percent sales tax to pay local costs of NAWS for the region. 

‘‘This is a major day, a major step forward, and without that 1 percent sales tax 

to push this forward, we probably wouldn’t be where we are today,’’ Lee said. 

Minot voters enacted the sales tax in 1999. In June, they rejected a plan to divert 

a portion of the tax to a community bowl. 

‘‘We have tried to help the communities around us as best we can,’’ Zimbelman 

said. ‘‘Certainly when we put in this city sales tax, we didn’t think it would be in 

as long as it has been. This thing has been drug out. This has certainly slowed down 

projects we might have been able to do otherwise, but I know the community is behind NAWS. The importance of water just can’t be overstated.’’ 

Michelle Klose, NAWS project manager with the water commission, said a delay 

in getting a pump station into operation has kept the people of Berthold from already being able to run Minot water out of their taps. The State is conducting bacterial testing today on the water in storage If the water passes the test as expected, 

the city of Berthold can begin Wednesday to flush its distribution system in preparation for delivering the new water. 

Monday’s celebration drew some Berthold residents who are eager for the switchover. 

Ever since he was a kid, Gary Gathman said, all he’s known is hauling water for 

drinking. Things finally will change for him. 

‘‘I am looking forward to it,’’ he said. 

‘‘I am, too,’’ added Klint Hanson. ‘‘It will be nice, real nice.’’ 

Hanson said he has drinking water delivered but must use Berthold’s water for 

other purposes, much to his wife’s chagrin. She will be happy when she can wash 

white clothes and have them turn out white, he said. 

Now that a NAWS transmission line to Berthold is in place, North Prairie Rural 

Water District also can begin branching off to serve new customers North Prairie 

will hold a meeting this fall with Berthold-area residents interested in a rural water 

system. 

JILL SCHRAMM, 

Staff Writer. 

[From the Kenmore News, December 9, 2009] 

KENMARE TURNS ON THE TAP FOR NAWS WATER

With the thermometer shivering at 6 degrees below zero, the valves were opened 

Monday between the Northwest Area Water Supply (NAWS) and the city of 

Kenmare water distribution lines. 

Kenmare now receives its water supply from the city of Minot and will continue 

to do so until the NAWS system has the capability of treating and distributing 

water from the Missouri River at Lake Sakakawea through its lines. 

‘‘This is the day we’ve been waiting for,’’ said Kenmare mayor Roger Ness. ‘‘This 

is one more step for us.’’ 

He added that Kenmare still has to build a new water tower and install a pressure regulating system to complete the upgrade to the city’s municipal water system. Those projects will likely be bid in January or February 2010. ‘‘We’re planning 

a celebration next year when everything’s done,’’ he said. 
12 

Many residents may want to celebrate now, knowing the water coming from their 

taps, filling their toilets or rinsing loads of laundry no longer contains the tannins 

and other solutes that have characterized Kenmare’s water for decades. 

However, don’t fill that coffee pot at the kitchen sink just yet. ‘‘It’s not something 

you’re going to notice today,’’ said Ness. 

The entire Kenmare system has to be flushed. City employee Mike Thompson and 

city engineer Ryan Ackerman of Ackerman-Estvold Engineering in Minot already 

started that process, but it’s going to take some time. 

Ness said the water pipes throughout town hold about 80,000 gallons of water, 

the tower holds between 25,000 and 30,000 gallons, and businesses and residences 

serve as another storage site for water. City employees drew down the city’s cistern 

and tank as much as they could to maintain service before the valves were opened 

to the NAWS line, but the lines are still filled with old Kenmare water. 

On Monday, Ackerman and Thompson discussed a strategy for flushing hydrants 

around town. They were concerned about creating sheets of ice for drivers, given the 

week’s forecast of single digit high temperature readings. 

‘‘We’ll attempt to divert any water away from the streets,’’ said Ackerman. ‘‘We 

want to develop a flushing program to minimize impact to streets and properties.’’ 

Michelle Klose, NAWS project manager from Bismarck, recommended that homeowners do their part to flush their own lines. ‘‘Citizens should run their taps for 

a few minutes extra,’’ she said. ‘‘It will take a little time, but you’ll see the water 

clear up once you run it a while.’’ 

She emphasized the change to Minot City water could take several days, a prediction supported by Ackerman. ‘‘The city will start flushing right away, but these 

transitions always take a little bit longer than you expect,’’ said Klose. 

Ackerman said residents should not notice any changes in their home water pressure over the next few days. ‘‘This will be no different than the regular flushing 

process,’’ he said. 

Perry Weiner, water resource senior manager with the State Water Commission, 

cautioned residents and businesses who own older hot water heaters. ‘‘That clean, 

clear water acts like flushing a radiator,’’ he said, ‘‘and you could see leaks. We’ve 

seen that a lot in the Southwest Area Water Supply project.’’ 

NEW WATER, NEW BILLING RATES

The new water comes with an increased billing rate that went into effect December 1. The basic monthly fee remains $23, but the rate per 1,000 gallons has been 

raised from $2.50 to $5.00. 

‘‘People will see that on their December billing,’’ said city auditor Mary Brekhus. 

Those statements will be printed later this month. ‘‘You have to pay by January 10.’’ 

That new rate may require further adjustment as the project continues. ‘‘We’re 

going to have to take a look when the project gets done and re-evaluate,’’ Ness said. 

Ness and Brekhus noted that approximately 75 water meters still need to be replaced at locations around town. The new meters will allow remote readings to be 

taken. According to Brekhus, the city has about 550 meters in service throughout 

town. 

Kenmore uses an average of 116,000 gallons of water per day. The city of Minot 

will provide 120,000 gallons of water to flush the system. 

JUDGE REVIEWING NAWS LAWSUIT

While Klose was in Kenmare on Monday, she informed Ness about the status of 

the lawsuit filed by the province of Manitoba and joined by the State of Missouri 

to stop the NAWS project. An injunction was imposed on any design and construction work on the treatment plant for Missouri River water until the suit is resolved, 

but the judge has allowed construction of the pipeline itself. 

Final documents were submitted on behalf of NAWS in mid-November. Klose 

noted the judge filed an order last Thursday requesting more information regarding 

the placement of pipe in one particular location. The explanation must be given to 

the court by Friday, December 11. 

‘‘It’s good she has responded to what we submitted earlier,’’ Klose said. 

NOW IN COMPLIANCE FOR ARSENIC STANDARD

The city of Kenmare has had an adequate supply of water for years from the city’s 

two deep wells. However, the quality of the water has been less than satisfactory 

for many local residents, who often purchase water for drinking and resign themselves to discolored garments, towels and bedding after a few rounds through the 

washing machine. 
13 

When Federal regulations went into effect in 2006 to reduce arsenic levels in municipal water supplies from 50 to 10 parts per billion, Kenmare water was found 

to be in violation. Samples showed arsenic levels at 11 to 14 ppb. ‘‘It wasn’t dangerous, but it was out of compliance,’’ Ness explained. 

After examining several plans to bring the city’s water supply into compliance 

with the arsenic standard, the city council agreed to purchase water from the city 

of Minot for delivery through the NAWS system. 

‘‘In any strategic planning session we’ve ever had, water quality is the key issue,’’ 

Ness said. ‘‘This is going to be great for the future of Kenmare, to have water that’s 

high quality. Water is one of the most important commodities.’’ 

Klose joined Ness in celebrating completion of this part of the NAWS project. ‘‘The 

community has been looking at different options,’’ she said. ‘‘There’s been so much 

effort for construction, funding, communities working together, to keep this project 

going.’’ 

Minot is currently supplying water through the NAWS system to Berthold, with 

Kenmare in service and the Upper Souris Water District scheduled to come online 

within the next few weeks. Pipeline construction to Sherwood, Mohall and the All 

Seasons Water District should be finished next summer ‘‘Next year, we’ll have a 

couple more communities coming on,’’ said Klose. 

Alan Walter, Minot City public works director, has predicted Minot has enough 

water to fulfill the needs of the entire system during off-peak usage in the fall and 

winter months, with the outlying systems prepared to blend Minot water with their 

current sources for peak usage months. 

Ness said Kenmore will consider blending its water, but the city council may also 

look at restricted use of water for yards and gardens during the summer months 

to reduce or eliminate the need for blending. 

He praised the city of Minot and the State Water Commission for their cooperation on the NAWS project through the years and the commitment made to residents 

and communities of the northwest corner of the State. 

‘‘The stars must have been aligned just right to get this many entities working 

together in such a short time,’’ Ness said. ‘‘I give credit to Alan Walter and his department in Minot. They have been key to this project. And to the city of Minot and 

the Magic Fund for paying for much of this, and supplying this region with water 

until we can get water out of Lake Sakakawea.’’ 

CAROLINE DOWNS. 

[From the Kenmare News, December 31, 2009] 

DONNYBROOK AND TOLLEY AREA WATER USERS NOW HOOKED UP TO NAWS 

Approximately 150 water hook-ups in the Donnybrook and Tolley areas were connected Tuesday to water supplied by the city of Minot through the Northwest Area 

Water Supply (NAWS) pipeline. 

Gary Hager, general manager of the Upper Souris Water District met with Perry 

Weiner from the State Water Commission and engineers on the NAWS project to 

oversee a smooth transition as valves between the two systems were opened. 

Hager said customers in Plain, Ivanhoe, White Ash, Roosevelt, the eastern half 

of Sauk Prairie and the western half of Callahan townships would start receiving 

the new water in their taps, as well as residents in the towns of Donnybrook and 

Tolley. 

‘‘We have about 90 rural hookups and about 35 each in Tolley and Donnybrook,’’ 

said Hager. 

The area served by the new water supply represents a portion of the Upper Souris 

Water District System I, with customers along the rest of that system scheduled to 

receive the new water after construction on the pipeline is completed to Sherwood 

and Mohall during the summer and fall of 2010. 

Customers of the Upper Souris Water District System II will have to wait until 

NAWS pipeline construction is finished north of the Minot Air Force Base. ‘‘We’re 

shooting for 2011,’’ Hager said. 

The city of Kenmare connected to the NAWS system 2 weeks ago, purchasing 

water from Minot so the municipal water supply would comply with Federal arsenic 

standards. For the Upper Souris Water District, the change to the new supply will 

assist with the issue of water quantity. ‘‘We needed more gallons,’’ said Hager. 

He noted the current sources for both systems on the water district meet all Federal regulations for quality. ‘‘We’re even better than some places,’’ he said. 
14 

However, some customers along the line have lost water service during times of 

peak demand. ‘‘Our plant is designed to provide 150 gallons per minute,’’ Hager 

said. ‘‘At peak times, the demand can be 250 gallons per minute.’’ 

Much of the water flowing during those peak demands goes toward agricultural 

use. Hager noted an increased demand for water in Systems I and II with recent 

changes in farming techniques. Forty to 45 percent of the total water usage in the 

Upper Souris Water District goes toward agricultural application. 

‘‘Ten years ago, we sold 47 million gallons a year,’’ he said. ‘‘With the increase 

in spraying, by 2008, we sold 61 million gallons. Our average use per month is 3.6 

million gallons on System I, but that goes up to 6 million gallons a day during the 

spraying season. That’s when this will help.’’ 

Hager did not anticipate a need to blend the new water with that from the district’s current supply at this time. ‘‘But we will blend during the peak time if the 

demand out there requires it,’’ he said. 

Initial flushing of the affected portion of System I took place Tuesday, with more 

flushing scheduled over the next few days. 

‘‘People should be patient,’’ Hager said. ‘‘This may take a week to 10 days. We’re 

flushing as fast as we can.’’ 

He also noted the disinfectant used in the Minot water supply is the same as that 

used by the Upper Souris Water District. 

The cost for the new water will be shared among all System I members at this 

time. The contract with NAWS and the city of Minot calls for a charge of $2.20 per 

1,000 gallons purchased. ‘‘Everyone (on System I) will benefit,’’ Hager said. ‘‘This 

frees up more gallons at our Kenmare water treatment plant for use during peak 

times.’’ 

For now, Hager estimated an increase of $3.50 per month for most customers. The 

rates may be re-evaluated and adjusted after more customers are added along the 

line, and then again after water can be supplied by the Missouri River, treated, and 

distributed throughout the NAWS system. 

Hager emphasized that Upper Souris Water District customers would continue 

seeing the same service and attention to water quality matters they’ve been experiencing. 

‘‘We’re doing everything right now the same as we’ve been doing, plus buying 

water,’’ said Hager. ‘‘When we can use Lake Sakakawea water, that will supply 100 

percent of our needs, and we may see a cost savings at that point.’’ 

U.S. Senator Byron Dorgan of North Dakota sent his congratulations for another 

successful NAWS connection. Dorgan serves as Chairman of the Senate Energy and 

Water Appropriations Subcommittee, with a total of $25.84 million approved in the 

past 3 years specifically to fund construction on the NAWS project. 

‘‘The funding we’ve been able to direct to the Garrison Diversion and NAWS has 

allowed us to make some exciting progress on the rural water supply in North Dakota,’’ Dorgan said. ‘‘The completion of this latest component of NAWS will be a 

great benefit for those who live in the Donnybrook and Tolley area.’’ This is an investment in the region that is welcome news during Christmas week. 

The connection between NAWS and the Upper Souris Water District provided another visible sign of progress for the project. In addition to the pipeline segment 

completed between Berthold and Kenmare earlier this year and the connection to 

NAWS established for the municipal supply in Kenmare, a million gallon NAWS 

storage tank was under construction east of Kenmare at a cost of $1.841 million, 

and several miles of pipeline were laid on the Mohall-Sherwood-All Seasons segment 

at a cost of $5.114 million and on the All Seasons-Upham segment at a cost of 

$680,000. 

Once those segments are completed next year, water from the city of Minot will 

flow through the entire northern tier of the system until Lake Sakakawea water is 

available. Design and construction of a water treatment plant for the NAWS project 

is on hold until a lawsuit filed by the Province of Manitoba and the State of Missouri is settled in Federal court. Currently, the judge assigned to the case is reviewing final statements and additional information regarding placement of pipeline in 

specific areas. 

Hager told his customers to expect to see clearer water flowing from their taps 

within the next few days. ‘‘I’m told it will even make good coffee,’’ he said. 

CAROLINE DOWNS. 
15 

[From the Minot Daily News, August 12, 2010] 

NAWS WATER FLOWS TO BURLINGTON

BURLINGTON—Burlington residents will be seeing a positive change in the 

water coming out of their taps soon. 

On Wednesday, the Northwest Area Water Supply project and city of Burlington 

turned the valve that will bring Minot’s treated water to the 1,300 residents of Burlington. 

Clint Cogdill, Burlington’s public works director, said residents could notice the 

difference by next week, once the city finishes flushing lines and draws down the 

existing water level in the reservoir. The water will be blended initially during the 

switch-over. 

Govenor John Hoeven joined Mayor Jerome Gruenberg shortly after 1 p.m., in 

turning the valve located near Speedway, between Minot and Burlington along U.S. 

Highways 2 and 52. 

‘‘We have been waiting for this for a long time,’’ Gruenberg said. ‘‘We were one 

of the first ones to sign up for this.’’ 

Gruenberg said the city built a treatment system to handle the high iron and 

magnesium that left its water supply brown. However, the water still contains other 

minerals that have prompted many residents to acquire water softeners or buy 

drinking water. 

‘‘We have really bad water,’’ Gruenberg said. ‘‘We have made it so it’s usable but 

this will be better water for us.’’ 

Burlington had shared its water with the neighboring West River water system, 

which includes some housing developments between Burlington and Minot. NAWS 

turned on water to West River in June. Burlington waited to get an electronic water 

monitoring system set up. 

Burlington will receive up to 170,000 gallons a day from Minot through the 

NAWS line. The city will maintain its existing water supply and treatment plant 

to provide fire protection and a supplemental supply in times of heavy usage. 

Sherwood and Mohall are next in line to receive Minot’s water through NAWS. 

That is expected to occur in October or November. All Seasons Water Users District 

also will get water at that time to serve the rural area north of Minot, including 

residents of Newburg, Antler and Russell. 

JILL SCHRAMM, 

Staff Writer. 

[From the Minot Daily News, June 23, 2010] 

WATER FLOWS WEST—NAWS BEGINS SERVING WEST RIVER RESIDENTS

The day that many residents of the Burlington area had long been waiting for 

came on Tuesday when water from the Northwest Area Water Supply project began 

flowing to West River Water and Sewer District. 

The city of Minot is providing water through NAWS until the project obtains 

water from the Missouri River. 

West River serves about 170 users and the Dakota Boys and Girls Ranch. Max 

Weppler, vice chairman for the water district, said people have been calling every 

day, anxious to know when the NAWS water would be turned on. 

‘‘Everybody is excited about it,’’ he said. 

Dale Frink, State engineer, and Michelle Klose, NAWS project manager, both 

with the North Dakota Water Commission, were on hand for the turning of the 

valve near Speedway, between Burlington and Minot, that sent water flowing to the 

district. Officials with Minot, Burlington, West River and others involved in the 

project also were present. 

NAWS planned to flush lines Tuesday afternoon before introducing the new supply. Residents are advised that they may need to run their water for about 20 minutes to clear any sediment stirred up in the process. 

West River has been receiving its water supply through Burlington. 

Burlington is scheduled to begin receiving water in about 2 weeks once technical 

issues are finalized to enable the city’s storage system to accommodate the flow. 

‘‘We are real pleased that this is going in,’’ Burlington Mayor Jerome Gruenberg 

said. ‘‘A lot of people in Burlington are looking forward to getting better water.’’ 

He said Burlington will be blending its existing water with the NAWS water. The 

city needs to maintain its existing water supply to provide adequate fire protection. 
16 

Construction started this spring on the pipeline that is providing the water. Steen 

Construction completed the $471,000 project, which was funded with Federal and 

State dollars and Minot’s 1 percent sales tax for NAWS. 

The two water systems will get up to 179,000 gallons of water a day. 

JILL SCHRAMM, 

Staff Writer. 

[From the Minot Daily News, March 5, 2009] 

WATER OPPORTUNITY—CARPIO SEES OPPORTUNITY FOR NAWS WATER

A Northwest Area Water Supply pipeline soon will be bringing water toward 

Carpio, giving the community a chance to tap into more dependable, safe water supply. 

Members of the city council have been knocking on residents’ doors to share information and sign up potential water customers. 

‘‘The more people we sign up, the better it is looking to go forward,’’ Mayor Jamie 

Armstrong said. ‘‘It sure would be nice to turn your spigot on and not have to worry 

about where the water is coming from.’’ 

Carpio has no public water system. Residents are served by private wells. Last 

summer, some residents had problems with wells going dry. Water quality also has 

been an issue for some. The community’s stockholder-owned cafe hauls water from 

Minot because its well water doesn’t meet State standards for public drinking. 

Residents who sign up could be in line to receive water in 2010 through North 

Prairie Rural Water District, working through the North Central Water Consortium. 

North Prairie would tap into the pipeline that NAWS plans to build from Berthold 

to Kenmare this year. The area would be served by water from Minot until the day 

that treated water from the Missouri River becomes available. 

Armstrong said there are 93 households in Carpio, and North Prairie wants 60 

percent to sign up to proceed with a project. 

So far, interest has been good, Armstrong said. The council will assess the interest at its meeting March 9. If it looks positive, the council will meet with North 

Prairie. 

North Prairie would bring pipeline within 50 feet of homes at a cost of $525 per 

customer. Residents would be responsible for the hookups to their homes, Armstrong said he has been researching that cost but hasn’t any estimate yet. 

Once water is delivered, the cost is projected to be $49 a month to cover operating, 

plus $4.60 per 1,000 gallons. The average household uses 4,000 to 5,000 gallons a 

month. 

Carpio’s last opportunity to hook up to rural water was 30 years ago, Armstrong 

said. Residents declined at that time, but Armstrong believes circumstances are different for residents today. 

Good, reliable water can make a difference in getting a home loan or in selling 

a home, he said. It can determine Carpio’s future. 

‘‘It’s another expense, but it’s something that’s, hopefully, going to build this community,’’ Armstrong said. ‘‘It’s a small town not far from Minot who could see potential growth.’’ 

Residents who pass up this opportunity can hook up later but at higher cost. The 

hookup charge rises from $525 to $1,200 in the first year and $2,400 after the first 

year. 

Armstrong said many residents, including himself, have looked at the costs and 

concluded that the water is worth it. 

‘‘Water is an important commodity,’’ he said, ‘‘and when you have the opportunity 

to get hooked up to it, it’s so nice.’’ 

JILL SCHRAMM, 

Staff Writer. 

[From the Minot Daily News, December 17, 2009] 

CARPIO-AREA RESIDENTS NEED MONEY TO CONNECT TO NAWS 

CARPIO—Carpio-area residents aren’t sure how long they will have to wait for 

good water even though a hookup is waiting for them in a Northwest Area Water 

Supply pipeline only one-half mile away. 
17 

Water began flowing through the pipeline December 7 on its way from Minot to 

Kenmore. The problem for Carpio is there’s no money yet to tap into the pipeline 

and build a distribution system for the water. 

The city of Carpio had hoped to receive water from NAWS next year through the 

North Central Water Consortium. The consortium, which consists of North Prairie 

Rural Water District and Central Plains Water District, plans to purchase water 

from NAWS to bring service to at least 65 subscribers in Carpio and about 100 more 

subscribers in the rural area. 

The consortium needs about $3 million to build a distribution system for the town 

and the surrounding rural area. It is seeking grants to make the project affordable. 

‘‘I would be really nice if we could figure something out,’’ Carpio Mayor Jamie 

Armstrong said. He said the toughest part of the delay is ‘‘not knowing what to tell 

the residents in Carpio if they are going to get water or not.... It’s disappointing 

because they won’t give you any sort of an answer. They just keep waiting for funding. ’’ 

Darrell Hournbuckle, the consortium’s engineer with Interstate Engineering, said 

there wasn’t an opportunity to get Federal funding for 2010 through the Municipal, 

Rural and Industrial program. The consortium is working with Senator Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., to get funding into the 2011 budget. 

Money might be available through the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Rural Development program to get started next summer on a system for the town of Carpio 

only. The problem is that separating Carpio with its higher population concentration 

from the rest of the project jeopardizes the financial feasibility of getting water to 

the scattered rural customers, Hournbuckle said. 

‘‘No one wants to just abandon the rural people,’’ Hournbuckle said. 

The Rural Development program would provide 45 percent financing, compared 

to the 75 percent financing associated with MR&I funds. 

‘‘It means the cost to each individual could be quite a bit higher,’’ Hournbuckle 

said. 

The latest figures, based on costs last spring, showed that North Prairie could 

bring a pipeline to within 50 feet of homes at a cost of $525 per customer. Residents 

would be responsible for the hookups to their homes. Once water is delivered, the 

cost was projected to be $49 a month to cover operating, plus $4.60 per 1,000 gallons. The average household uses 4,000 to 5,000 gallons a month. 

Carpio residents are working through the consortium rather than directly with 

NAWS because they have no public water system. Residents are served by private 

wells. 

Residents have had problems with wells going dry, and water quality is an issue. 

Armstrong said one home buyer was required to put in a reverse osmosis system 

to qualify for a mortgage. The community’s stockholder-owned cafe has hauled water 

from Minot because its well water hasn’t met quality standards. 

JILL SCHRAMM, 

Staff Writer. 

Senator DORGAN. All right. Thank you very much, Mr. Sando. 

And, next we’ll hear from Mayor Curt Zimbelman, mayor. 

STATEMENT OF HON. CURT ZIMBELMAN, MAYOR, CITY OF MINOT, 

NORTH DAKOTA 

Mr. ZIMBELMAN. Thank you, Senator. Welcome to Minot. We always appreciate it when you take the time to be here. 

My name is Curt Zimbelman; I’m the mayor of Minot. 

What is the future for NAWS? Currently plans are being developed for the NAWS improvements needed on the Minot Water 

Treatment Plant. Plans are also near complete for the extension of 

NAWS to the Minot Air Force Base and beyond. Preliminary plans 

are being looked at for the continuation of NAWS to the east of US 

Highway 83 along US Highway 5. This is all being done with the 

anticipation that we will get approval for the treatment and transmission of water from Lake Sakakawea. 

As you know, a U.S. District Court Judge is still reviewing this 

matter. We are working with the North Dakota State Water Commission and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation to develop a supple-
18 

mental EIS to answer questions raised by the project. To date, the 

city of Minot has spent $30,385,311 on the NAWS Project. This 

money has all been raised by the city of Minot through the NAWS 

$.01 sales tax, specifically for the development of NAWS. The city 

has done this in good faith with the process starting in 2002. We 

had fully expected to have construction of NAWS complete by this 

time, eliminating the need for a local sales tax for this purpose. As 

a growing city, there are many other infrastructure needs that 

exist and have had to be put on hold. 

With the mandated need for a supplemental EIS for NAWS we 

are now looking at approximately 2 more years before approval is 

granted for the project. So, we have a ways to go before construction can continue on the intake structure for the system at Lake 

Sakakawea, the treatment system at Max and the tank located 

near the Radar Base, south of Minot. 

The U.S. District Court is asking that we take a hard look at the 

transfer of biota from the Missouri River Basin to the Hudson 

Basin via the NAWS Project. There have been several studies completed on this subject. All of them conclude that the chance of the 

transfer of biota are negligible compared to what is happening routinely in nature. 

A study was conducted in Pennsylvania from 2005 to 2010 related to the transfer of vectors for disease-causing pathogens by 

Canada geese. The study concluded that this is going on today. A 

copy of that study is included with this testimony. So, regardless 

of NAWS, vectors are being transferred across the Continental Divide from the Missouri Basin to the Hudson Bay Basin. On top of 

that, all legitimate studies show that there is almost no chance of 

biota transfer under any of the treatment alternatives for NAWS. 

U.S. Judge Collyer stated in her first ruling that NAWS is a 

needed project. The major remaining question is what type of treatment needed. Engineering studies have proven that the lowest cost 

treatment alternative, $17 million, treats the water the same as 

the highest cost treatment alternative, nearly $l00 million. However, the U.S. District Court has asked that the EIS be looked at 

a little harder before the water treatment portion of the project can 

go forward. In the meantime, the Canada geese, ducks and all 

other water birds are flying back and forth doing what they do 

without the assistance of any project. 

The city of Minot has signed a contract with the North Dakota 

State Water Commission and the NAWS system to temporarily 

supply water for its existing ground water source. The contract has 

a limited term. Limitations are also necessarily in place in this contract on the amount of water that each entity can draw from the 

NAWS system to protect the current Minot water supply. So, in addition to the city of Minot raising the sales tax to complete NAWS, 

we are also temporarily supplying water to the legion. Should the 

supplemental EIS process be prolonged, the temporary contract 

and temporary regional water supply could become another hurdle 

for NAWS. 

To move this project forward we need the entities which are conducting the supplemental EIS to do so with due concern for the 

timely completion of that study. We are two years into the contract 

for temporarily supplying water from the Minot ground water 
19 

source. We may have two more years to get the supplemental EIS 

completed and then considered by the judge. After this process is 

complete and the NAWS project receives the green light to proceed, 

we will still have more years required constructing the system 

south of Minot to get water from Lake Sakakawea to the Minot 

Water Treatment Plant. 

Should the decision be made that the highest-cost treatment al- ternative is the one chosen for NAWS, that $100 million Federal 

cost will present a significant funding timeline issue for NAWS 

completion. 

In conclusion, to move the project forward we need the supplemental EIS completed as soon as possible. We need Federal funding for the project to be timely and sufficient to complete the water 

treatment at Max. We also need continued cooperation with all entities involved in the process and in this project. 

PREPARED STATEMENT

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today and look forward 

to the completion of the NAWS Project and the continued working 

relationships we have with the North Dakota State Water Commission, the Bureau of Reclamation and our Congressional Delegation. 

Thank you. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MAYOR CURT ZIMBELMAN

We want to thank Senator Dorgan again for holding the Energy and Water Subcommittee hearing on August 11, 2010 in Minot, North Dakota for the NAWS 

Project. There were several concerns raised at the end of the hearing that we would 

like to give input on. 

The first concern is the expected progress on the project. The second concern is 

the use of the Minot water supply. The third concern is the depletion of the Missouri 

River as a result of water pumped for the Northwest Area Water Supply. 

PROGRESS AND CONSTRUCTION OF NAWS

The North Dakota State Water Commission, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, and 

the city of Minot have continued with the construction of court approved non-treatment related segments of the NAWS Project based on the approval from the U.S. 

District Judge Collyer as part of her ruling on the NAWS lawsuit. We clearly had 

not expected our project to be delayed so long by the lawsuit filed by Manitoba, Minnesota and Missouri. 

It is also clear that the citizens of North Dakota have the right to access water 

in the Missouri River System. The water that we would draw for the NAWS project 

is a very small portion of the water that drains into the Missouri River System from 

within our own State. So, our project has been constructed with full anticipation 

that we would be given a water right and that we would be able to draw water for 

our citizens. 

After substantial completion of the water main between lake Sakakawea and the 

Minot Water Treatment Plant we have continued with the construction by building 

water lines to the west and then to the north of Minot. Currently, we are anticipating construction of water lines north to tie into the Minot Air Force Base and 

that part of our region. 

We are also asking the court to allow the construction of the intake facility for 

withdrawal of water from the Missouri River System for our project. We have received concurrence for the construction of the improvements at the Minot Water 

Treatment Plant in preparation for NAWS water. 

So, construction of the NAWS system to this point has been approved by the 

court. We have not blindly forged ahead on NAWS construction. We have received 

concurrence and approval on all phases that have been constructed. We continue to 

anticipate the day when the court will rule in favor of a water treatment alternative 

for the Missouri River water that we have sought for so long. It is worth repeating 

that the judge stated in her first ruling, that NAWS is a needed project. It needs 
20 

to be clearly understood that treatment of the Missouri River water, to whatever 

level is finally determined by the Federal Court, is a Federal responsibility. 

USE OF MINOT’S WATER SUPPLY

As the construction of the NAWS Project began there were negotiations and a contract with the North Dakota State Water Commission developed for the use of 

Minot’s interim water supply to supply water to the NAWS system until we had received approval to draw water from the Missouri River System. The Minot water 

supply is mainly from the Sundre Aquifer located southeast of Minot. Again, our 

current aquifers are an interim water supply. The water line to this source was constructed by the Corp of Engineers in 1974. This water supply was constructed with 

full anticipation of Missouri River water being delivered to Minot. 

Because of our knowledge of the capability and limitation of the Sundre Aquifer, 

contracts were developed between the city of Minot, the North Dakota State Water 

Commission and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. These contracts have limitations, 

both for the term for usage and for the amount of water that can be supplied daily 

to the outlying communities. 

The North Dakota State Water Commission previously did a study on the Sundre 

Aquifer. They are fully aware of the capability of the Sundre Aquifer and its use 

as an interim water supply for the NAWS System. We are now relying on that interim water supply for the city of Minot and for some of the communities in the 

NAWS System. Some of the small communities to be served by the NAWS system 

were under EPA requirements to improve their water treatment because of poor 

water quality. So, on an interim basis the NAWS project has been able to help provide these communities with a good quality, clean water supply. 

DEPLETION OF THE MISSOURI RIVER SYSTEM WITH THE WITHDRAWAL FOR NAWS WATER

SUPPLY

During the hearing there was mention of the depletion aspect of the Missouri 

River system due to the withdrawal of water for NAWS and for other projects in 

North Dakota. That issue was previously studied by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 

and the Corp of Engineers and they reported that the withdrawal of water from the 

Missouri River System for these projects would have a negligible effect on the water 

in the river system. The Environmental Impact Statement that has been completed 

for the NAWS project stated that the withdrawal of water for the NAWS Project 

from the Missouri River System would not be able to be measured downstream of 

the Garrison Dam. Even though the State of Missouri claims all of the water in the 

Missouri River System, the citizens of North Dakota have a right to water that is 

flowing into the river directly from our State. 

As an example, if one were to suppose that a dam were constructed in North Dakota on Shell Creek to store water for domestic use it would be the same water that 

is flowing into the Missouri River System in the vicinity of Van Hook. And, this 

would be water coming off of our State and being put to public use as potable water 

before it got into the Missouri River System. That same proposition could be used 

on all of the rivers flowing into Lake Sakakawea or the Missouri River from the 

State of North Dakota. It is the right of the citizens of North Dakota to use the 

water that runs off of our State for our purposes. 

Again during the hearing, the question of previous meetings being held between 

the Province of Manitoba, the State of North Dakota and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation was discussed. It was indicated at the hearing that there had been some 

progress made between the entities as those previous meetings proceeded. However, 

progress at those meetings was not significant. The meetings were cordial and to 

the point. The topics discussed were the treatment processes with particular emphasis on the dissolved air flotation process that the Canadians favored for 

pretreatment of the water. No final resolution was found on the issues that have 

divided us. 

If as suggested at the hearing, the meetings should be continued, the responsibility to facilitate them must be on both Federal governments. The responsibility 

should not lie with the State of North Dakota or with the city of Minot. 

The city of Minot still expects a fair ruling from the judge in the lawsuit. We hope 

that due consideration will be given to the studies and in particular to the study 

of the three treatment options that have been presented. If the court looks at the 

reports on the treatment options, we believe the decision will be to move forward 

with the least costly option. The reason for this is that all three options give basically the same level of treatment. There is no significant statistical difference between the treatment of the water from the least cost option to the most expensive 

option. 
21 

We thank you for the opportunity to present this additional testimony for the 

hearing. 

Senator DORGAN. Mayor, thank you very much. We appreciate 

your being here and your testimony. Next we’ll hear from Mr. 

Roger Ness, who is the mayor of Kenmare, North Dakota. 

Mr. Ness. 

STATEMENT OF HON. ROGER NESS, MAYOR, CITY OF KENMARE, 

NORTH DAKOTA 

Mr. NESS. Thank you. Thank you Senator Dorgan for all you’ve 

done and for your commitment to this project. It’s vital to this area, 

and it’s vital to every little town, like Kenmare. 

Kenmare was a town that had lots of water, we had no problem 

with quantity, but our quality was very bad. Three years ago we 

were out of compliance with arsenic. So, we did a study and it was 

a $2.5 to $3 million project to make our water drinkable. We have 

550 hook-ups; therefore it was an economic burden for our town to 

even consider that. 

So, we went to NAWS, the committee agreed to look into it, the 

State did a study on it, and we were able to get water within 18 

months after we asked; so that was a huge thing for our city. 

The water is unbelievably great. It’s Minot water, which we totally appreciate, because our water was terrible. And we want to 

thank the city of Minot, for the funding, and giving us water. 

We were in a situation, even last week, where we all of a sudden 

had to start rationing water, because this is—our interim is not capable when it gets to be a hot period in the summer. So, we’re already looking at implementing different programs for rationing and 

cutting back on water, because we do not want to have to blend our 

water with this good-quality water, and if this lawsuit isn’t taken 

care of, our future is in doubt. We’re looking at if we have to either 

go back to blending, or the worst scenario, we have to build a new 

treatment plant. And right now, I’m sure that would be between 

$4 and $5 million. 

So, for every little town that is in this, like Mohall and Berthold, 

the quality that we’re getting out of this water is unbelievable, and 

it helps our town’s economic future is looking very good for these 

towns because of this. And we’re just very concerned that this lawsuit gets taken care of and we are ready to go on and not worry 

about it. 

So, thank you very much, and hopefully we can get this solved. 

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

Next, we will hear from Dan Schaefer, who is the manager of All 

Seasons Water Users District, Dan. 

STATEMENT OF DAN SCHAEFER, MANAGER, ALL SEASONS WATER 

USERS DISTRICT 

Mr. SCHAEFER. Thank you, Senator. I’m Dan Schaefer, Manager 

of All Seasons Rural Water; our office is located in Botenhall. We 

won’t go to extremes, but we serve the north central part of the 

State from Mohall to Rockley, from the Canadian Border south to 

Balta, the little town of Balta. Our last user is Devil’s Lake. So, 

we cover a pretty big area; 1,600 miles of pipe in the ground, 1,350 

users, forward bulk users. The difference between this is, its four 
22 

separate systems, only two of the systems will receive water 

through NAWS. 

One of the systems that will be receiving water this fall is System Three. That area runs from west of the Souris River which is 

east of Mohall, that is System Three. We serve people within the 

towns of Newburg, Russell, Antler, and the areas around Westhall. 

Our water treatment plant is located three miles south of Antler, 

the original well field was developed in 1976, four wells for that 

system, in 1980—or 1991—we added an additional well field northeast of Antler. That well field was added because of the drought 

that started in 1987 in that area. We experienced a severe water 

shortage, ended up having to buy water from the city of Westhall 

just to keep water in the pipes, let alone have water in the homes. 

After an extensive test drilling plan, we did locate additional 

wells northeast of Antler. Those are 300 feet in depth and the 

water quality in those wells are poor-quality water. And when we 

drilled those wells, they’re 300 feet deep, the water started at 30 

feet above the ground when we developed them. Today its 230 feet 

down to the water, and the pumps are set at 270. So, those wells 

are getting to a point of being critical, besides. 

The original wells are shallow wells. This spring, with the dry 

spring we went into—believe it or not is what it is in the State 

right now—we had to quit using the shallow wells altogether and 

depend upon only the deep wells to supply water at this time. 

We will be receiving an interim water supply from NAWS this 

fall on that system. That will be additional to what we already 

have. There will be times in the summer that we will not receive 

enough water through NAWS that we’ll have to run our own plants 

and wells to keep up with agriculture spray needs. 

So, obviously the completion of NAWS where we get full flow 

through NAWS, the System Three area is very, very important, besides improving the quality of water. All Seasons System One is 

the area around the Bottineau area, serves from the Souris River 

east to Rolette County and south of Willow City and Kramer and 

Upham. 

That system serves individual homes within Landa, Gardena, 

Kramer, Overly, and we are currently—as of the first of December—supplying bulk water to the city of Upham through funding 

through your generosity or the funding that you’ve provided. 

That system was built in 1976, also, with two existing wells. In 

1981, additional water was looked for in that system, which was 

located northeast of Bottineau. Poor quality water, so an iron manganese removal plant had to be built to handle that water. Again, 

those wells were built in 1981 and continued to drop into the early 

1990s when we found the third water supply for that system. That 

water is a lot higher quality water, but as we found in the study 

that we did with the city of Bottineau, trying to find a better source 

of water for Bottineau, that the Water Commissioner did in 2002 

and 2003 that showed that our well field was capable of handling 

our current needs, but not enough to help the city of Bottineau. 

The city of Bottineau wells could handle their needs, but that was 

it. There wasn’t a big abundant supply of water in that area, also. 

So, since that time, Bottineau has built an iron manganese plant 

to improve their quality problems. They are continuously testing 
23 

for Radionuclides Gross Alpha Emitters from the uranium that’s in 

the water. So, I talked with the city, even this morning, and 

they’ve got two wells they absolutely don’t use unless it’s a dry, dry 

season, and then that’s—they’ll have to deal with the by-products 

of the uranium. So, again, completion of the NAWS project into 

that area is very important to that area. 

Also, just to show the cooperation of NAWS, the city of Minot, 

and everybody involved, through the funding I talked about to the 

city of Upham, there is a need to parallel a line from our treatment 

plant toward Upham. Not all the way to Upham to the city of Gardena. This meant that when NAWS came there would be areas 

that there were four water lines in the ground. 

So, I approached NAWS Committee and the Water Commission 

about possibly putting a line in that could be used by NAWS in the 

future. We can use it now to supply water to Upham. That agreement was made, there was 3.5 miles of 10-inch pipe put in the 

ground in 6 miles that was paid for through NAWS and the city 

of Minot. And now that is in place and we’re supplying water to 

the city of Upham through most of that line. 

So, like I said, that demonstrates how NAWS is helping the area, 

the Water Commission is helping the area—helping us work on 

projects that can get water to people, rural people in North Dakota. 

A few little, what I’m calling points of interest. All of a sudden 

there’s an oil boom northwest of Bottineau where they’re not into 

the Bakken Formation, they’re drilling above that. They are 

fracking those wells, not near the amount of water required to do 

the Bakken fracks, but they’re up there looking for water. And you 

hear rumors, the oil business is rumor-related, but of hundreds of 

wells going in that area, and there isn’t any of us that can handle 

that kind of water supply to supply to the oil fields. So, that’s a 

new problem that we’re going to have to deal with in that area. 

PREPARED STATEMENT

The other one that I’d like to point out is that All Seasons is currently serving two Canadian ports of entries. We’ve got two Canadian customers on our system—one will be receiving water through 

NAWS this fall. And I’ve been approached, several times, gone on 

tours into Canada, by people in Canada, wanting to know how we 

can get them water. The southern part of Manitoba is—well, it’s 

just as dry as it was back in the 1980s, 1990s. And they’ve contacted us on how to get water to them. So, the need is even in 

Southern Manitoba. It’s just, the politicians of Manitoba doesn’t 

understand that. 

Thank you. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DAN SCHAEFER

Dear subcommittee members, All Seasons Water Users District (ASWUD) System 

III provides water for rural users in the area west of the Souris River and south 

of Russell, south of Newberg, east of Mohall and east of Sherwood, individual hookups within the city of Newberg individual hookups within the city of Antler, with 

the northern border being the U.S. and Canadian border. (See attached map for approximate System III Service area.) The Water Treatment Plant is located 3 miles 

south of Antler and the original well field is located northwest of Antler (4 original 

wells) and the second well field is located northeast of Antler (2 wells installed in 

1990). 
24 

Due to the drought conditions which started in 1987, ASWUD System III experienced a severe water shortage, after extensively test drilling in the Antler area two 

wells were drilled northeast of Antler. These wells are approximately 300 feet in 

depth and the water quality is considered to be poor. Since these wells were put 

into production the water level has continuously dropped. With the wet cycle over 

the past years the existing wells were able to be used to help increase the quality 

of the water and also helped to decrease the drop in the levels of the newer wells. 

In the past several years the Antler area has gone from extremely wet to a dryer 

fall than we experienced in the late 1980s. In the spring of 2010, the water level 

in the 4 existing wells dropped low enough that we had to rely entirely on the two 

deep wells. The interim water supply that we will be receiving this fall from NAWS 

will provide an additional water supply to supplement our existing wells and hopefully avoid any water shortages in the near future. 

The completion of the NAWS Project would give ASWUD System III a reliable 

source of high quality water. 

All Seasons Water Users District (ASWUD) System I provides water for rural 

users in the area east of the Souris River and south of Willow City, east to Rolette 

County, individual hookups within the city of Kramer, individual hookups within 

the city of Landa, individual hookups within the city of Gardena, individual hookups 

within the city of Overly and Bulk Water Service to Upham, with the northern border being the U.S. and Canadian border. (See attached map for approximate System 

I Service area.) 

In 1981 ASWUD located an additional water source northeast of Bottineau which 

required the construction of an iron/manganese removal plant. The water quality 

from the new water source and the existing source was still not high quality water. 

The water level in the wells of the new source continuously dropped from the day 

they where put into production. 

In 1993 ASWUD located a new water source west of Bottineau; the water from 

this source was a much higher quality of water. 

In 2002 and 2003 the North Dakota State Water Commission conducted a study 

to determine the capacity of the city of Bottineau and ASWUD well fields, this joint 

study determined that the existing water sources for both the city of Bottineau and 

ASWUD were capable of meeting the current needs of each entity. ASWUD has 

added additional users and is supplying bulk water service to the city of Upham, 

which has expended the current water supply and does not allow for any additional 

expansion. 

Since then Bottineau has constructed an iron/manganese removal plant to improve their quality problems, and are continuously testing to stay in compliance of 

the Radionuclide Rule (Goss Alpha Emitters). ASWUD and the city of Bottineau are 

continuing to work together, but NAWS still continues to be the most feasible option. 

The completion of the NAWS pipeline to the Bottineau area is necessary to solve 

the emergency situation in the Bottineau County and the surrounding areas. 

The All Seasons System I.—Service to Upham Project that provided bulk water 

service to the city of Upham required that ASWUD parallel our existing 4 inch line 

from our Water Treatment Plant south in order to increase the flow into our reservoir/pumping station located at Gardena. Through an agreement with the North 

Dakota Water Commission (Commission) and NAWS the Commission, through planning on the NAWS project, determined that NAWS would be paralleling these features in the future. Through this agreement the pipeline project between the Water 

Treatment Plant and Gardena was sized to meet the immediate needs for service 

to Upham as well as the long term needs planned to be served through NAWS and 

construction costs for this portion of the line was funded through the NAWS project. 

The Project included installing approximately 3.3 miles of 10 inch and 10 miles 

of 6 inch pipe, road crossings, connections to existing pipeline, and related appurtenances sized and required for NAWS between the ASWUD System I Water Treatment Plant and Gardena. This NAWS Project was part of the larger construction 

contract All Seasons System I—Service to Upham Project to provide the city of 

Upham with a water supply from the All Season’s water system. 

Through the agreement ASWUD will turn over possession and operation and 

maintenance of any and all features requested by the Commission, including pipeline, facilities, and easements associated with the NAWS Portion of the Project to 

the Commission, or entity designated by Commission, when at the sole discretion 

of the Commission, it is determined water supply is available from Lake Sakakawea 

and NAWS features have been constructed to serve the Project constructed through 

this agreement. 
25 

This Agreement between ASWUD and the Commission/NAWS demonstrates the 

good working relationship that NAWS has with the existing water systems and communities within the NAWS service area. 

Thank for allowing us to provide this information. 

POINTS OF INTEREST

—With the renewed oil exploration in the area northwest of Bottineau and the 

demand for water in the development of these oil wells, this presents a new demand for water in Bottineau County that will put more strain on the current 

water sources. 

—ASWUD System III currently provides water service to two Canadian ports of 

Entry, One located north of Westhope, North Dakota (Coulter, Manitoba) and 

one located north of Carbury, North Dakota. (Goodlands, Manitoba) 

—ASWUD management has had several conversations with residents in southern 

Manitoba about ASWUD possibly providing them water service. 

Senator DORGAN. Thank you very much for your testimony. 

I have a number of questions. First, let me deal with this question of the depletion of the water resource in the Reservoir. 

Mr. Sando, can you amplify on the 3.1-million acre feet allocation? When you say North Dakota has allocated 3.1-million acre 

feet, where does that allocation exist? It’s your choice. 

Yes, get very close to the microphone, if you will. 

Mr. SANDO. Is it on? 

Senator DORGAN. Yes, I believe so. 

Mr. SANDO. Regarding the 3.1-million acre feet, that’s what was 

allocated for the Garrison Diversion Project. So, to come from Lake 

Sakakawea, that’s part of the Mothall use carryover zone for the 

Garrison Project. 
26 

Senator DORGAN. Is that in the Reformulation Act, or is it in the 

original contracts; where exactly does that exist? 

Mr. SANDO. Where does that exist? Boy, off the top of my head, 

I couldn’t answer that question. 

Senator DORGAN. Mr. Breitzman, do you know? 

Mr. SANDO. I can take a shot at it. 

Senator DORGAN. Okay. 

Mr. SANDO. It’s part of the 1944 Flood Control Act—with the 

help of Michelle—— 

Senator DORGAN. So, you’re saying, in the 1944 Flood Control 

Act, there is a 3.1-million acre feet allocation? 

Mr. SANDO. And they applied for a permit through the North Dakota State Water Commission, so there’s a water right out there for 

3.1-million acre feet of water to be—— 

Senator DORGAN. When you say, ‘‘They applied for,’’ who are 

they? 

Mr. SANDO. The Bureau of Reclamation. 

Senator DORGAN. The Bureau applied for that? 

Mr. SANDO. Yes, this long portion of the Flood Control Act. 

Senator DORGAN. All right. So, if there’s a 3.1-million acre feet 

allocation, my understanding is that, of the 3.1-million acre feet, 

the NAWS Project is probably about 10,500-acre feet, is that correct? 

Mr. SANDO. The number is up to about 15,000-acre feet. 

Senator DORGAN. Fifteen thousand? 

Mr. SANDO. Very small amount. 

Senator DORGAN. Yes, minimal. 

Mr. SANDO. Minimal, right. 

Senator DORGAN. It’s a miniscule amount of water, all right. So, 

it seems to me that when next the Federal court addresses this, if 

they have any amount of facts or logic that they could bring together and apply, like a tongue-in-groove fitting, maybe they can 

reach a conclusion that this is an infinitesimal amount relative to 

that which has been promised our State. Would you agree with 

that? 

Mr. SANDO. Oh, I’d definitely agree with that. 

Senator DORGAN. You’ll tell the Court that, personally, I hope? 

Anyway, it is just irritating to even be talking about that issue, 

but I wanted to just lay that out at the front end. 

Let me ask a series of questions, here, on timing. Mr. Breitzman, 

I believe you said, you will complete the additional environmental 

studies, or requirements, that you believe the court needs by the 

end of 2011, is that correct? 

Mr. BREITZMAN. We believe we can have a draft document done 

by the end of 2011, Senator. 

Senator DORGAN. Tell me what that means. I know a little bit 

about what timelines mean for the Bureau of Reclamation, and 

what draft documents mean, but explain, if you will, for the rest 

of the folks, what it means to have a draft. 

Mr. BREITZMAN. We would have any analysis done that we have 

to do, any new information gathering, any new modeling, and some 

was mandated by the Court. And that will all be completed, we will 

have a document written, and at that time a draft document, then, 

is ready to be circulated to the public for one final comment period. 
27 

Senator DORGAN. And describe that period. 

Mr. BREITZMAN. It is usually 60 days. And the reason I don’t give 

you a timeline as to the final document is because it’s really difficult to know what we might get in terms of comments. When we 

put out a draft for comment, sometimes it takes a year to respond 

just to the comments, which have to be included in the final document—both the comments and our responses. Sometimes it takes 

a month. And it just depends on the type and magnitude of comments that we receive. 

Senator DORGAN. So, then you respond to the comments, and 

when does the draft become final? When will what you’re working 

on become a final submission that represents a response to the 

Court requirement? 

Mr. BREITZMAN. As soon as we can assimilate all of the comments we receive on the draft and write responses to each one of 

those comments—and change the document, if necessary, based on 

those comments—which can take—that’s why I say, it can take 

months, or it can take a year. But, as soon as we’re done with that 

process, then it’s a final environmental impact statement. 

Senator DORGAN. Mayor, it seems to me that Mr. Breitzman is 

describing a process—that, at the very earliest would get to a final 

EIS, or a final Bureau of Reclamation product, by July 2012. If 

comments are extensive—and one would expect that you would 

have a lot of comments in something that is controversial, especially with the Canadians, it may be the end of 2012. So that’s 2 

full years from now. I want to ask you the question about the supply of Minot water. You have a contract for 10 years with an optout clause, and you’re 2 years into a 10-year supply for Kenmare 

and others, Burlington, I assume. 

So, go down the road another 21⁄2 years. Where are you with respect to the Minot aquifers, the aquifers from which you get your 

water? 

Mr. ZIMBELMAN. Well, Senator, as was stated earlier, it’s a limited supply to the NAWS Project. So, as—if our aquifers get low, 

we have the ability to stop providing that water. And we felt that 

was important for the people of Minot to protect their aquifers. 

So, depending on what kind of years we have, you know, it’s 

going to be very difficult for us to supply any more than we have 

to, to the small towns around us. 

Senator DORGAN. Well, the reason I asked that question is, the 

testimony here is about continuing to build additional pipeline capacity to supply additional regions, and it’s a pretty aggressive approach, which I think is the right approach, the question is the 

timing. If you’re laying pipe through which no Missouri water is 

moving, 3 years, and 5 years from now, it seems to me there’s a 

real serious dilemma that we’re establishing. We’re putting money 

in pipes, in the ground, which will not carry Missouri River water, 

and which could conceivably not carry Minot water, if a Minot aquifer is sufficiently depleted to be a problem for the people of 

Minot. The people of Minot, after all, are the ones who have contributed the second-largest quantity of money, here, a rather substantial amount of money. 

So, I’m trying to understand the timing, and what we should all 

expect, going forward. The first Canadian filing in the Federal 
28 

Court was in 2002. Mr. Breitzman, that’s 8 years ago. So, what I’m 

also trying to understand; how is it 8 years after the Canadians 

went to court to cause problems for us with this project that we’re 

not through the court system, somehow? I just don’t understand. 

Can you explain that to me? 

Mr. BREITZMAN. Not very well. 

Senator DORGAN. Well, do the best you can, if you will. I mean, 

I don’t understand it. Eight years, it seems to me, should have 

been enough time for us to resolve the legal disputes that might 

or might not exist. Because, as I understand it, the circumstances 

now are about, how the water is going to be treated. Isn’t that the 

major part of the issue that was raised by the judge? 

Mr. BREITZMAN. The biota transfer has always been a major 

issue. And now the depletions on the Missouri River have come 

into play, as well. 

I can tell you this; the suit was brought against us in 2002. It 

took—I think it was nearly 2 years before we were on the calendar 

to have the first hearing, for the case. The process went that slow. 

We had hearings, we tried to get the case dismissed, and we 

weren’t successful in that. And then we prepared the EIS. It was 

based on the judge’s court order, which really addressed two issues. 

The first court order—which was in 2005, she focused on the consequences of a pipeline failure, No. 1, and then just asked us to 

take a hard look at treatment alternatives—do an expanded analysis of the different treatment alternatives. 

And so, we did an EIS, and we scoped it to those two issues, 

that’s what we looked at in the EIS. 

Senator DORGAN. That was the EIS for 2008? 

Mr. BREITZMAN. Correct. 

Senator DORGAN. Okay. 

Mr. BREITZMAN. And in retrospect, maybe we would have done 

something different. Our NEPA experts in our agency and our attorneys said that was the appropriate way to respond to her order. 

When we received the Court’s order this year, it went into issues 

beyond those two issues. The depletion analysis came in. And, to 

paraphrase—— 

Senator DORGAN. But, you know what, that cannot possibly be 

serious, in my judgment. With all due respect to the court system, 

the depletion issue is specious, as far as I’m concerned. 

Mr. BREITZMAN. And I agree. I agree, and I think we have the 

information to show that, and we’re working with the Corps of Engineers to run their river model to show what that impact would 

be. 

But, I guess my point is, she brought that up—which was not a 

point included in the court order in 2005. And so, she expanded 

this last ruling beyond what we thought we were addressing in the 

2005 ruling. 

Senator DORGAN. Set aside the depletion issue. What I’m trying 

to understand is if, in 2002, they raised the questions about treatment and transferred biota and so on why did we come up short 

in the EIS in dealing with that question? 

Mr. BREITZMAN. I don’t know that I can answer that. I think 

we’re very disappointed. We thought we did a very good job, and 

we were surprised that we lost that suit this year. 
29 

Senator DORGAN. I think you just said that a potential breach in 

the pipeline was one of the issues. The suggestion was that it could 

cause a quantity of water that exceeds Niagara Falls, is that—— 

Mr. BREITZMAN. I know it was in the hearing transcript, if it’s 

not in the order. That she was convinced a breach in the pipeline 

would release the same amount of water that flows over Niagara 

Falls in a day or something like that. 

And the court order also addresses the mountain range between 

Lake Sakakawea and Minot. There are things there that we disagree with and we’re disappointed with, but we have to comply 

with the ruling. 

Senator DORGAN. Yes, but we’ve got to move, here. My point is, 

it’s 8 years later and we’re still waltzing around trying to figure out 

how we’re going to treat water. We know that we’ve got to build 

a holding structure, right, a reservoir. We know we have to build 

a treatment plant, is that correct? So, we’ve got several things we 

have to do at the lake in order to get that water treated and into 

a pipeline. So, what are the three things we have to do, there? 

Mr. BREITZMAN. Well, it’s primarily—it would be chlorine disinfection, and then we’ve added ultraviolet radiation at that treatment plant. 

Senator DORGAN. But you have to build something to take the 

water out. 

Mr. BREITZMAN. At the intake? 

Senator DORGAN. Yes, the intake. 

Mr. BREITZMAN. Oh, yes. 

Senator DORGAN. And then you have to have a control structure, 

and then a treatment plant. Are those the things that you have to 

do? 

Mr. BREITZMAN. Right. 

Senator DORGAN. Let’s assume that today you had clearance, or 

we had clearance in this project of ours to go ahead and do that. 

How long would that take, do you think? What is the estimate of 

that? Mr. Sando. 

Mr. SANDO. In regards to, if we got everything cleared up with 

the court ruling? 

Senator DORGAN. Yes. 

Mr. SANDO. We could be moving forward, we could probably— 

within 6 years have everything in place. 

Senator DORGAN. You’re talking about those three structures: intake, control, and treatment? 

Mr. SANDO. Yes. 

Senator DORGAN. That’s going to take 6 years from the time you 

start? 

Mr. SANDO. Yes. 

Senator DORGAN. All right. Now, I am understanding the dilemma. 

Mr. SANDO. Yes, we could probably really do it in 5 years if we 

had everything cleared up? 

Senator DORGAN. Yes. 

Mr. SANDO. Yes. 

Michelle was also mentioning that we have to do improvements 

into the Minot treatment plant, not just the treating for biota, but 

other treatment plant issues, for treating water. 
30 

Senator DORGAN. Will that add to the time? 

Mr. SANDO. No, that will fit within the timeline. 

Senator DORGAN. Within the timeline. I understand. 

Let’s assume for the moment that the intake is built, control 

structure, treatment plant, and water is now running from the reservoir into Minot. Is that water, then, also running through the 

Minot treatment plant? 

Mr. SANDO. Yes, everything would be complete—— 

Senator DORGAN. So, it’s going to be treated twice? 

Mr. SANDO. Well, two different levels of treatment. That one 

Danny is explaining was chloromines and UV, and then full treatment would take place at Minot. 

Senator DORGAN. I understand. But, the point is, you treat it at 

one level as it’s taken from the lake, and then treat it to drinkingwater quality here in Minot, is that correct? 

Mr. SANDO. Yes. 

Senator DORGAN. That’s what goes out through the control structure to all those who are being served by NAWS? 

Mr. SANDO. Right. 

Senator DORGAN. Now, let me come back to this question because 

I think I understand the pretty serious dilemma, here. 

Here’s the question. As we sit here in Minot today, if we have 

a situation where we’ve now spent $82 million on this project, and 

it’s good. The people of Kenmare are drinking good water and good 

for them. Burlington and others are going to drink good-quality 

water because we’ve laid the pipe. We’re actually taking water out 

of the Minot system, treating it, from the aquifer, and moving it 

out. So we’ve spent $82 million, $45 million Federal, $30 million 

city and $7 million State. $125 million are remaining, that’s exclusive, I believe, of the treatment plant, I assume. 

Assuming the plant costs $15, $17 million, that might be $80 

million short. But, $125 million is remaining to be spent or perhaps 

$200 million if you had another $80 million and you had to do the 

much higher level of treatment. 

Mr. Breitzman and I have worked with the Bureau for a long 

time, so I have some notion of timelines, and sometimes they do 

really, really well and sometimes, only rarely, would they ever ask 

for an extension of time or not meet their time deadline. But, I’ve 

seen that rare occasion a few times. 

I worry about whether the potential of 2 years, which I think is 

what I’m hearing, is probably a more reasonable guess. Assuming 

everything goes as you believe it should, your target date is to be 

finished December of next year. Put it out for comments for a couple of months. You get comments, and then the Bureau begins to 

work to evaluate the comments, respond to the comments, and then 

relate to the comments and then submit this as a final product. 

You know, under the best of circumstances, you’re talking about 

July 2012. I would say, probably more likely toward the end of 

2012. My guess is, between now and that moment, no one is going 

to be building an intake, or control structure, or treatment plant. 

I might be wrong about that, but you’re certainly not going to be 

building a treatment plant, because you will not have resolved the 

issues of what kind of treatment at this point. 
31 

For purposes of being very optimistic, it’s July 2012 and the 

Court now has your product. We don’t know how long the Court 

might take to evaluate that, so let’s take that to the end of 2012. 

Then, all of a sudden, you have a decision from the Court that 

says, ‘‘Here’s the treatment that you have to do and this resolves 

all of the issues,’’ and it rejects the Missouri thing as goofy and 

specious, at the end of 2012. Then you, Mr. Sando, are going to get 

really busy and in 5 years you’re going to build the intake, the control structure, and the treatment plant, and ergo, it’s done. That’s 

2017. That comes back to the question I continued to ask you, Mr. 

Zimbelman about whether those who are on the end of that pipeline are going to feel, between now and 2017, that there is a reliable and a guaranteed supply of water coming. It seems to me that 

that’s at odds with the concern about the Minot aquifer, and 

whether that is capable of handling this to the year 2017. 

That, then, leads me to the question of why do you want to lay 

more pipe between now and 2017 or now and 2015, if we don’t have 

Missouri River water to put in that pipe, at this point? The purpose 

of holding this hearing is to try to understand where we’re going, 

and when we’re going to get there, and when the people of Minot, 

this region, the State, and the Nation can expect to complete this 

project. The more I understand it, the more concerned I become 

about the amount of time it’s going to take. Most of my concern 

deals not with the Bureau, I’m not suggesting that you’re wearing 

out your shoes dragging your feet, but the fact that in 2002, the 

first court action ensued, and it’s 8 years later and we’re not anywhere near a conclusion in the court system. As I understand, this 

discussion could not even begin to come until the beginning, perhaps, of 2013. Can you tell me where I’m wrong if you think I’m 

wrong? 

Mr. ZIMBELMAN. I don’t think you’re wrong. I think that’s a very 

real possibility, and we certainly all have concerns about that. 

When you have a judge that certainly can find—there’s always a 

way to hold this up, and I think that’s kind of our feeling right 

now—or my feeling, personally, that you know, those delays can go 

on for as long as she wants them to go on. How do you deal with 

the Court, I think, is really, you know, where we’re at, at this 

point. 

If I were—in your earlier question, if I were a smaller town 

that’s using NAWS water now, I would be unsecure; I’d be concerned. And, certainly, I’m concerned for the city of Minot, when 

we’re using our aquifer, and that valuable resource. But we think 

it’s important for the region in order to for us to grow and work 

together. 

Senator DORGAN. I think that’s generous of the city of Minot. Not 

only have you contributed a great deal of money to this, but you’ve 

also decided that you wanted to move water through your system 

to be able to benefit those smaller communities. 

It seems to me, however, that those communities that you are 

now hooking up with Minot water through pipe that we’ve laid 

with these appropriations while we’re waiting, would be less secure 

if we lay pipe to a lot of other cities and put water in that pipe 

to go serve more communities. The greater likelihood is, if there’s 

a shutoff of water at some point, here, the more communities you 
32 

put on that system using Minot water, the more likely it is you’re 

going to have problems, if this is going to take 6 or 8 more years. 

So, Mr. Sando, when you talk about wanting to get money to 

build out and lay more pipe I’m not so sure that’s in Minot’s interest—or anybody else’s interest, for that matter, at this point. 

Mr. SANDO. Okay, I’d like to try to answer—we’re at the point 

we’re not going to build up any additional to the communities, because we feel—and Minot feels—we’re pretty stretched. So, what 

we’re looking at is, next year going to the Minot Air Force Base a 

little north. Already, Minot is delivering water to Minot Air Force 

Base, so that is not additional water, it’s just—be a little bit of additional water to the north of Minot Air Force Base, so it’s not a 

lot more water. 

In fact, under contract, I think the number is like 700,000, is 

that about right? And, under contract for, like, Berthold, Upper 

Souris, Kenmare, Mohall, Sherwood, Carfield, Burlington, and 

West River—it is a small percentage of what Minot actually uses. 

And the number is like 700,000. And we’re just going to supply average—not the peak daily use, either, right now, because we know 

that, you know, there’s a limited supply. 

And, so right now, what we’ve hooked up isn’t a tremendous 

amount of water compared to what the use is in Minot. So, we’re 

to the point, now, that the buildup is going to have to stop until 

we get things resolved with the court system, get this EIS completed, and get water from Lake Sakakawea. So, basically, the 

build-out is where it’s at for water use. 

Senator DORGAN. Let me ask you another question. As I looked 

through this, I was surprised that the State has put virtually no 

money into this. With $82 million having been spent, the State’s 

put in 8 or 9 percent of the funding. Was that part of the original 

plan; that the Federal Government would do 65 percent and the 

rest would be picked up by local, as opposed to, State funding? 

Mr. SANDO. To answer that question, the project was designed to 

be a 65/35 percent cost-share—65 percent with the Federal Government, 35 percent local, and the State of North Dakota would provide the engineering and contract management so that there wasn’t 

going to be dollars put in from the State side. But we have been 

putting money in, like you said, the $6.8 million. In fact, in this biennium, we allocated $10 million towards 

NAWS projects—State dollars, too. So originally, it wasn’t planned 

to put State dollars in, but that’s what it’s been coming to. 

Senator DORGAN. You mean in the biennium ahead of us, or the 

one that we’re currently in? 

Mr. SANDO. No, the one that we’re currently in. 

Senator DORGAN. Okay. 

Mr. SANDO. There’s $10 million set aside, allocated towards the 

NAWS Project. 

Senator DORGAN. Okay, so the State does have an additional $10 

million. 

Mr. SANDO. Right. So, we’ve spent $6.8 million so far, the State, and we allocated $10 million. I think we spent $800,000 of that $10 

million this biennium, so there’s still $9.2 million available for the 

NAWS Project, for dealing with the intake, or going to the Minot 

Air Force Base, or whatever we build next. 
33 

Senator DORGAN. Is there a lengthier process that will be required to build the much larger treatment option than the smaller 

option? I mean, are we talking about a substantial difference in 

time required to construct the treatment plant? 

Mr. BREITZMAN. I don’t know if I have a very precise answer. I 

would assume it would be a lengthier process, yes. It would be a 

more sophisticated treatment plant. So, the difference would be between a chlorination system and building a microfiltration plant. 

Senator DORGAN. All right. Let me ask a question about a meeting I held here almost 2 years ago, I think it was. I lose track of 

time, it moves so quickly sometimes. We had a meeting in this 

room at a roundtable and talked about it, and there was a lot of 

discussion then about discussions with Canada outside of the court 

system to resolve these issues. We were there and when I say ‘‘we,’’ 

I mean people from North Dakota had been there. I don’t know 

whether the Canadians were there or not, but discussions were 

moving on and there were hopeful signs that progress was being 

made on various issues. You were in that meeting. Are there more 

discussions? What happened in those discussions? I thought there 

was such promise and such optimism the discussions were taking 

place. Anybody have a response to that? 

Mr. BREITZMAN. I can tell you that we’ve not had those discussions as of late. We were having good discussions. And they were 

both about the NAWS Project, and at that time, we were working 

on the Red River Valley water supply system EIS, and we were 

talking to the Canadians about those. Specifically on NAWS I met 

with the Canadians and Todd’s predecessor, Mr. Frink, in the State 

Water Commission building. And I believe that was the last conversation that we’ve had. And it was a very dissatisfying conversation. And it seemed that we thought we had set some goals that 

they had agreed to that we could achieve and it appears those were 

wavering a little bit, and the discussions just have kind of broken 

down from there. 

Senator DORGAN. Does anyone want to add anything to that? 

Mr. Cockrell, do you have any questions? 

Mr. COCKRELL. You talked about some upgrades that need to be 

done to the Minot water plant. The question I have is, we don’t 

know what the Court’s going to rule, but if you build this more expensive water treatment plant at Lake Sakakawea, are those upgrades to the Minot plant still necessary, or can they be postponed? 

In other words, are we going to build them and then have that 

plant taken offline once the plant at Lake Sakakawea is completed? 

Mr. ZIMBELMAN. I’ll try to answer that. I know that our concern 

is that we will not take our water treatment plant offline. We don’t 

think we can afford to do that, because you take a water treatment 

plant offline, it doesn’t take long for it to rust up and have all 

kinds of problems. So, we would keep our water treatment plant 

online, as far as the city is concerned. 

Mr. COCKRELL. Are you going to be blending water at that point, 

or will it be strictly just the Missouri River water? Will you be retreating the treated water? Do you know exactly what will be done 

at that point? 

Mr. SANDO. To try to answer that question, the city of Minot 

would really like to have backup water supply, too. So, if you do 
34 

get Lake Sakakawea water, Missouri River water, and then there’s 

issues, they still could go to their groundwater, and so that’s why 

they want to keep their treatment plant in Minot functional, and 

so it’s there in case there is some times of need. 

So, if they go to a higher level of treatment, right now the se- lected alternative is an $18 million alternative, which is 

chloromines and UV. If they go to full treatment, there might be 

a need for two treatment plants—one down there and one at Minot. 

I don’t—I mean, that’s Minot’s decision, if they want to—you know, 

what they want to do with their treatment plant. But I’m sure 

what you’re hearing is they want to keep their treatment plant. 

So, if we go to a higher level of treatment, we might have two 

full treatment plants, that’s the problem. We’d much rather see an 

$18 million treatment plant that deals with biota, that’s handled 

with chloromines and UV, not to go to full filtration down at the 

lake. 

Senator DORGAN. Mr. Schardin. 

Mr. SCHARDIN. I want to add a little bit to the timeline portion 

of the questioning. The Senator laid out, very well, the possibility 

of getting the major features of this project done by 2017. It’s also 

a best-case scenario. It assumes that all of the funding would be 

in place, and assumes that the supplemental EIS is done in a very 

timely way, and that the judge accepts what’s in it, also in a very 

timely way. 

In the ruling that she gave in March, and any other discussions 

and subsequent filings, what kind of indication have you gotten as 

to what the judge will accept in the supplemental EIS, as to whether she will accept the conclusions therein, what she’s looking for? 

Mr. BREITZMAN. I don’t know that I can—I certainly can’t speak 

to what the judge will accept. I don’t know. I can tell you this. 

We’re opening the scoping of this supplemental EIS up, wider than, 

perhaps, we might have, given her last court order, which took us 

by surprise, frankly. And we’re going to go back and look really 

hard at the 2001 EA, the environmental assessment, which is still 

an effective document. That’s the environmental document that 

covers all of the construction work the State’s been doing. So, we’re 

going to look at that, look at the 2008 EIS to see if there is anything we can update. There are certain things that—through the 

course of time—come to be issues: climate change is one. That’s, 

since 2001, that’s a real issue that needs to be addressed, now, in 

more detail than we’ve done in the past. We’re going to be looking 

at all of those things. Not sure what she’s looking for, but we’re 

trying to cover all of the bases. 

Mr. SCHARDIN. But she was not clear, in her written statements, 

in terms of what she’s looking for, correct? I mean, you can’t read 

her mind, obviously, but—— 

Mr. BREITZMAN. Well, you know, with regard to this last order, 

she was pretty clear that she wants us to take a harder look at 

what the consequences would be if there’s a biota transfer into 

Hudson Bay Basin, particularly on the Canadian side of the border. 

Mr. SCHARDIN. But there is no good indication as to what she 

thinks is significant? 

Mr. BREITZMAN. What the level of that analysis would be. 

Mr. SCHARDIN. Okay. 
35 

There’s another question, of course, as to the Canadian side of this suit. If you were to say, today, ‘‘Okay, we’ll build the $90 million plant, treatment plant,’’ do we know that the judge would accept that and that the Canadians would accept that? I suppose it 

would have to be the Canadians first, would they accept that and 

say, ‘‘Okay, we drop our suit, we’re satisfied with that.’’ 

Mr. BREITZMAN. Actually, the judge really doesn’t rule on the 

treatment. We wouldn’t expect her order to say, ‘‘Okay, I’m picking 

this alternative, you do that one.’’ Her role, here, is to make sure 

that we are procedurally correct. 

Mr. SCHARDIN. Right. 

Mr. BREITZMAN. And I think if we get through that loop—I don’t 

know. But, I guess I would sit here now and say, I would fully expect Manitoba to continue to challenge. 

Senator DORGAN. You’re saying that, even if we were to do the 

highest level of treatment, you expect that Manitoba would continue to challenge that? 

Mr. BREITZMAN. I do. I don’t think that’s out of the—in the realm 

of impossibility. 

Senator DORGAN. You know, I don’t think any of us know what 

might or might not happen, we’re just prognosticating in response 

to questions. On the other hand, will the Canadians take yes for 

an answer, if we say that we will treat to the highest level? You’re 

talking about another $80 million, perhaps, for that more expensive treatment plant. Then, as I understand it, we’d run the water 

through that, run it up to Minot, and run it through Minot’s treatment plant, which produces the water that the folks in Minot 

drink, right? Somehow, it is probably not a surprise in the year 

2010 that the Canadians are objecting. They were objecting in 

2002, we’ve dealt with the Canadians on Devil’s Lake, we’ve dealt 

with the Canadians on a lot of other issues, they have a right to 

object, and they have a right to use our court system to do so. We 

have a Boundary Waters Treaty, and of course, they would like to 

put some of these issues into a JTC process, which means that 50 

years from now, somebody might see that they did a study but 

they’ll never get a conclusion. 

My great concern is that we’re in a situation at the moment 

where we probably have to stop laying pipe and find a way to make 

progress, getting the right water in the pipe to get out to those 

communities that now have a pipe, and now have the capability of 

getting distributed water. Mr. Mayor I assume, in response to your 

duties to the people of Minot, that you’re going to have to watch 

very closely what that aquifer is doing, and therefore what your 

needs are in this city. This is a city that’s growing very rapidly, at 

the moment. Your first responsibility is to the city, to use that 

water treatment plant that you have here, and the water in the aquifer, here, for the benefit of the people of Minot. 

So, what I have concluded is troubling to me in the sense that 

we are putting our head down and just continuing to build with the 

very likely prospect, if you just play the hand out, here, that even 

if you got a green light, and a yes from the court, that it is now 

2017, when at which point this treatment plant that is built, Missouri water is treated through the plant, and is now beginning to 

flow. The question is, will those communities now on that system 
36 

still be getting water in 2017 from the Minot aquifer. Which, I 

think none of us know that that could be the case. 

So, I have earmarked one-half of the $45 million that we’ve put 

in for Federal funding in the last 3 years. This project is a good 

project, it needs to be completed and built. The promise of moving 

good-quality Missouri River water around this State for beneficial 

use is a promise we need to keep. 

Now, we’ve got the Bureau issue, and we’ve got the EIS, and 

we’ve got the time for construction in front of us. The whole 

timeline is a very troubling timeline to me. 

Mr. Breitzman, is there any reason that the Bureau needs to 

take a year and a quarter to finish the draft of the EIS? I mean, 

isn’t there a way for you all to evaluate what you believe the court 

needs? Having done the EIS, first in 2001, and then in 2008, why 

on earth would you need another 11⁄4 years to go back and do something the judge says that she needs additional information about? 

Mr. BREITZMAN. Well, part of it comes back to the question Mr. 

Schardin asked, and that is that the scope of this consequence 

analysis. That’s a question that’s really in the air, and can go a lot 

of places. When we talk about, what’s the potential impact to Canada of an invasive species? We can do an analysis this big, or we 

can do an analysis this big. 

And, I think a great part of this time is to determine exactly 

what your question was—what do we think is most acceptable to 

the court? What’s an appropriate standard, here? And so we are 

doing something different on this EIS than we’ve done in the past, 

and we’re looking to hire a consulting firm that’s had some experience in dealing with issues like this, and getting them on board, 

getting them up to speed, letting them help us scope out this consequence analysis. 

And the contract—our contracting process—onto what we think 

it would take to do that analysis, and we think that—this is an appropriate amount of time. 

Senator DORGAN. Mr. Breitzman, I think in the last 30 years 

that I have served in Congress, I have heard so much and so often 

about the issue of biota transfer, and its impact on Lake Winnipeg, 

and its impact on the Canadians that I assume that’s been studied 

to death in a number of different venues, has it not? That issue has 

been attached to a number of issues, here in North Dakota, and the 

Canadians have engaged on it in a number of different occasions 

so has that issue not been studied to death? 

Mr. BREITZMAN. There’s a lot there—there’s a lot of information 

available, but it keeps changing. And just as the treatment technologies change, maybe species information changes, as well. And 

so, yes, it’s been studied a great deal and it’s probably a matter of 

assimilating the right information and putting it in a scope that is 

satisfactory to the court. 

I don’t think—I would add onto that—that we’re going to have 

a lot of people going out and taking samples in Canada or in the 

Missouri River or anything like that. It’s a matter of pulling together information that’s available and putting it in a form that we 

think is acceptable. 

Senator DORGAN. It seems to me that this project is a prisoner 

of a timeline that doesn’t add up, at the moment. It doesn’t mean 
37 

the project shouldn’t be done or won’t be done someday, but it just 

seems to me that this timeline doesn’t add up, in terms of Minot’s 

potential vulnerability for your water supply, and the ambition of 

putting Minot water in pipes in the meantime. 

Mr. Mayor, in your testimony, you talked about the 2 years plus 

2 years, which gets you to the end of 2012, I believe. We’re talking 

about a timeline, the earliest of which, would probably get you out 

to 2017, in terms of having the structures built and Missouri River 

water flowing through those pipes. I know you don’t have a wand 

to fix it, nor do I, but we obviously have to understand the circumstances, and then plan for and build appropriately to the circumstances. That’s why I wanted to have a hearing so we understand where we are, where we are headed, and what the dilemmas 

are that we can address and deal with. 

Mr. Ness. 

Mr. NESS. Yes, we have a—we talked—I was told about a communication between the Bureau and Canada, how all of a sudden, 

you know, it—one time you didn’t have a good communication, you 

said. And nothing’s ever happened since? To me, it should be pretty 

much common sense that we get together with them and figure it 

out, then always go through the court systems. But, I’m sure it has 

to go through the court system. But, I think communication is 

something that should be looked at, a lot more, in my personal. Because it is very—we’re very concerned. And if this doesn’t get 

cured, I don’t know. We’re looking at different options. 

But I just was really worried about this, when he talked about 

communication, and then it broke down. We should try again. 

Senator DORGAN. Mr. Breitzman. 

Mr. BREITZMAN. It’s much more difficult to have those discussions once we’re in active litigation. You know, I think before, we 

were working on this, on another Environmental Impact Statement, for the Red River Valley, that gave us a venue to meet with 

the Canadians and have technical discussions that are much more 

difficult to have, now that we’re in litigation. And, again, I just say 

that it’s really tough. 

And, if I might, Senator, I just want to clear up, or get on the 

record something I said about what I think Manitoba might do at 

the conclusion of our environmental document. The statements 

they’ve made, more and more—I guess I said what I did because 

they lead me to believe that there’s really a feeling that there 

should be zero risk to Manitoba for a project that’s being constructed in North Dakota. And with the very best—with the $120 

million treatment plant, we can never attain zero. And that’s why 

I said I think that they would continue to question what we come 

up with. 

Senator DORGAN. I think it’s important for the Canadians to understand, and I hope they do understand that there’s no one that 

is involved, here in North Dakota, myself, any of you at the table, 

or anybody else involved in water projects that ever wishes to visit 

trouble on the Canadians. We’re not interested in having species 

move to the Canadian watershed that would be troublesome to 

them. We have no interest in, and will not violate the Canadian 

boundary, U.S./Canada Boundary Waters Treaty. It is not in our 
38 

interest, ever, to want to visit problems on the Canadians. So, we 

want to do all that we can to address problems. 

We also don’t want this to take forever, and we don’t want to be 

forever challenged just because somebody has the right to challenge. Our goal is to build a project here to benefit North Dakota 

in a region of North Dakota that needs that benefit, and do it without, in any way, causing any problems for the Canadians. That’s 

our goal. I can’t tell you the number of times we have reiterated 

to the Canadians: We intend to abide by the U.S./Canada Boundary 

Waters Treaty. We will always intend to do that, and not just intend, but we will do that. 

So, it seems to me that we need to re-engage in consultations 

with the Canadians and I’m not quite sure the structure of that at 

the moment, but that seems pretty clear. The fact is there are a 

whole lot of lawsuits that are settled before the conclusion of the 

suit, just by negotiations of the parties. 

As I said a moment ago, I think we’re in a situation where the 

timeline doesn’t add up with respect to the purposes and what we 

want to accomplish in that timeline. We have to recognize that, 

and we have to address that with what we want to do in terms of 

build-out and progress. 

Mr. Mayor, you’ve asked the people of this community to spend 

a lot of money to build this project. They’ve owned up to that and 

committed a substantial amount of money to the project. I know 

that they want, I want, and everyone else wants to see us get to 

the finish line as quickly as is possible. I think we’re past the time 

now where we put our head down and just keep laying pipe, despite the fact that the court says we can. Laying more pipe and 

serving more communities will put those communities already 

served in jeopardy, if the Minot aquifer does not support the additional communities on the pipeline. 

So, we need to get to the finish line as quickly as we can. I think 

from this discussion, I confess I’m a bit more troubled at the end 

of the hearing than when I started the hearing, as a result of a 

timeline that I think doesn’t fit. This is like having pieces to a puzzle that never quite fit together. I think we are all committed to 

completing a project. This is not a project that can be, or should 

be, or will be abandoned. It is enormously frustrating to see, 8 

years after the first court suit was filed by the Canadians, 8 years 

later, we now look at many more years in order to resolve the 

issue. 

Does anyone have any other questions? I would like to submit a 

list of additional questions if we have some, following the hearing. 

And this hearing will then represent a formal record of where we 

see things in August 2010. My hope is that we are able to find 

ways to make more progress than we have been able to describe 

today, because I think people of Minot and this region well deserve 

that. 

The hearing record will remain open until August 27. If there are 

others in North Dakota or others who hear of this hearing and 

wish to submit comments, we would invite anyone who wishes to 

submit comments to do so. Outside witnesses should provide comments to us via e-mail before August 27, and my staff will be available to provide e-mail addresses. 
39 

CONCLUSION OF HEARING

I want to thank the witnesses who have taken time out of your 

afternoon to be with us. Mr. Ness and Mr. Schaefer, you both described the delight of an area that finally gets good-quality, fresh 

water. Something we almost take for granted every day in much 

of the country. That illuminates for us what can be the case in a 

significant area here in a project that will be a good project when 

completed. Not if ever, but when completed. I hope that, perhaps, 

from this hearing we can spur just a bit more progress. I personally 

believe we’re going to have to spur some additional consultations 

with Canada, as well. 

Thank you all for being here, this hearing is recessed. 

[Whereupon, at 4 p.m., Wednesday, August 11, the hearing was 

concluded, and the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of the Chair.] 

(41) 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED SUBSEQUENT TO THE 

HEARING 

[CLERK’S NOTE.—The following testimonies were received by the 

Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development subsequent to 

the hearing for inclusion in the record.] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ROBERT SANDO, MINOT, NORTH DAKOTA

I came away from the recent meeting held in the Minot City Council Chambers 

regarding water issues in North Dakota—specifically NAWS—very much disillusioned. Senator Dorgan chaired the meeting with you and one of his aids seated on 

either side of him. 

I am very concerned with Senator Dorgan’s impending retirement from the Senate 

that this project will never be completed. A pipe line going ‘‘no where’’ with millions 

of dollars of Minot and Federal money wasted. 

We have a judge, U.S. District Judge Rosemary Collyer, that single handedly has 

stalled the project and probably will end up killing it. One could easily question her 

ability to serve in such a position. In her opinion/commentary on the project she is 

credited with making reference to a mountain range between Lake Sakakawea and 

the city of Minot. Hell, North Dakota doesn’t even have a mountain range. 

Either she or the Canadians are also credited with saying if the pipe line between 

the pump station (not even built yet) and Minot should break, ‘‘a flow of water comparable to that which goes over Niagara Falls would occur.’’ These people are dumber than a box of rocks. 

As for the Missouri lawsuit, NAWS is projected to use a fraction of the water 

promised North Dakota when we agreed to allow the Garrison Dam to be built here 

and flood thousands of acres of good farm land. A reputable judge would have dismissed that lawsuit the same day it was put on her desk. 

As for the Canadians they will and have protested nearly every proposed project 

in North Dakota and for that matter the entire United States. At the meeting testimony was given stating two Canadian Border Stations wanted access to NAWS 

water and that Canadian citizens have requested access to the water as well. Yet, 

their provincial leadership continues to oppose the project. 

If NAWS wasn’t so important to this entire region, one could easily think of the 

legal process as one very big bad joke. 

Senator Dorgan hit the nail on the head with his observations/concerns of Minot 

adding community after community to its (Minot’s) water supply in the name of 

NAWS. Water may never come from Sakakawea. If water doesn’t come from 

Sakakawea the day will come when Minot will have to shut the spigot off on these 

communities. I would hate to be a Minot Council member when the lynch mob 

comes to town on their way to Bismarck and the State Water Department. 

A very concerned taxpayer. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF KENNETH ROGERS, MAXBASS, NORTH DAKOTA

My name is Kenneth Rogers. I am a life long resident of Bottineau county and 

live in the NAWS area. I am a director on the Garrison Diversion Conservancy District, All Seasons Water Users District, North Dakota Water Users, and the NAWS 

advisory committee. 

The Northwest Area Waster Supply is a MUST. It is absolutely essential to the 

future of this area of the State of North Dakota, especially in retaining our youth 

and having an economic future. It is a sin that this project has met so many delays 

and funding. This project in the original plan was to be completed next year. Now 

we are talking another 10 years. This project needs to be on a 911 emergency type 

schedule. It should not take a lifetime to complete a simple water project like this 

with life’s most basic necessity, good water. 
42 

The Canadian objections are ridiculous. Biota transfer in treated water is so small 

compared to it happing through natural means such as wild life, fishing boats, 

human movement between the two basins, as well as agricultural means. Inter 

basin transfer of water between the Missouri River Basin and the Hudson Bay 

Basin already exists in the Milk river region of Montana and Canada. Interbasin 

transfer of water is common in western Canada. The Canadians have a better 

chance of winning the lottery than biota transfer through treated water. It should 

also be noted that only a portion of all the water to be used by NAWS would actually make its way back into the Hudson Bay drainage basin. My guess is less than 

50 percent. We have numerous other water problems that are of immediate concern 

for the Hudson Bay basin such as nutrient loading, invasive species and others. We 

need to be working on these real problems not theoretical what if problems of biota 

transfer through treated water. Their delays are continually costing all of us more 

money in construction costs. It is time for this to end. 

In conclusion, we have lost 500,000 acres of prime North Dakota land for flood 

control with the promise of irrigation. The irrigation project now is minimal and we 

are promised Municipal, Rural and Industrial water which is what NAWS is under. 

We have provided billions of dollars in flood control to the States of Missouri, Nebraska and others. Now is the time for the U.S. Government to keep its promises. 

NAWS is a MUST. 

Thank you. 

Æ