U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,

U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202–512–1800, or 866–512–1800 (toll-free). E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.

55–674 PDF 2010

S. HRG. 111–694 

FLOODING IN THE MERCER COUNTY AND 

EMMONS COUNTY AREAS OF NORTH DAKOTA 

HEARING 

BEFORE A

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

SPECIAL HEARING 

NOVEMBER 12, 2009—BISMARCK, ND 

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 

ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia 

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 

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 

ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia 

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 

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) 

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 Colonel Robert J. Ruch, District Commander, Omaha District, 

Corps of Engineers—Civil, Department of the Army, Department of Defense—Civil ........................................................................................................... 3 

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 5 

Statement of Dale L. Frink, State Engineer, North Dakota Water Commission ........................................................................................................................ 7 

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 9 

Statement of Hon. Tim Volk, Mayor, City of Linton, North Dakota ................... 9 

Statement of Glenn McCrory, Chairman, Emmons County Water Resource 

Board ..................................................................................................................... 10 

Statement of Sharon Jangula, Coordinator, Linton Industrial Development 

Corporation ........................................................................................................... 11 

Statement of Gregg Wiche, Director, North Dakota Water Science Center, 

U.S. Geological Survey, Department of the Interior ......................................... 13 

Statement of John Phillips, Development Director, City of Beulah, North 

Dakota ................................................................................................................... 19 

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 22 

Statement of Frank Bitterman, County Commissioner, County of Mercer, 

North Dakota ........................................................................................................ 23 

Statement of Greg Lange, Secretary-Treasurer, Mercer County Water Resources District ..................................................................................................... 23 

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 25 

(1) 

FLOODING IN THE MERCER COUNTY AND 

EMMONS COUNTY AREAS OF NORTH DAKOTA 

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 12, 2009 

U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT, COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, Bismarck, ND. 

The subcommittee met at 10:02 a.m., at Bismarck State College, 

Energy Center Conference Room, 1500 Edwards Avenue, Bismarck, 

ND, Hon. Byron L. Dorgan (chairman) presiding. 

Present: Senator Dorgan. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BYRON L. DORGAN

Senator DORGAN. I’m going to call the hearing to order. 

This is a hearing of the United States Senate Energy and Water 

Development Subcommittee, which I chair. I’m Byron Dorgan, and 

with me is Roger Cockrell, who is the professional staffer that 

works on water issues all across the country. He’s working on 

dredging issues in Jacksonville, Florida, and flood-control projects 

in California. But, because I chair the subcommittee, he works 

mostly on North Dakota water projects. 

Well, maybe not. But, at any rate, he’s very helpful on a wide 

range of water issues, and we certainly have plenty of water issues 

in North Dakota. 

To my left is Justin Schardin, who is a staff assistant with me, 

working on water and other issues. 

What I would like to do today is to have two panels to deal with 

some water issues and flooding issues here in North Dakota. 

The purpose of holding this hearing, similar to a hearing I held 

last evening in Bismarck, is to talk about some flooding events that 

occurred in our State and to talk about what we believe caused 

them, hear from you, and what we believe can be helpful in addressing them. 

I want to mention as well, that Cathy Schneider is here from 

Senator Conrad’s office, in the back of the room, Cathy, thank you 

for being here. 

Ross Keys is also here, from Congressman Pomeroy’s office, over 

on that side of the room and both Kent and Earl work closely on 

these issues with me. 

As I said, I do have the privilege of chairing the panel in the 

United States Senate that funds all of our water and energy issues 

across the country. We certainly have plenty of water challenges 

this last spring in North Dakota. Most of you know that we have 

spent a lot of time in the Red River Valley with a major population 
2 

center of Fargo and Moorhead, working on flood control issues. 

First, fighting a flood that became, very nearly, a real disaster in 

which a substantial part of a major community would have had to 

have been evacuated. They fought that flood to a standstill, and it 

was a close call, but they got through it. 

Now, we’re working on a permanent flood-control project for that 

part of the Red River, and also working on broader Red River 

issues. But, as I have indicated to them, flood control is a bottomup process. We are now waiting for the Fargo and the Moorhead 

and Cass and Clay County folks to come together and decide what 

kind of a project they think that they would want to have, using 

the technical capability of the Corps of Engineers to evaluate and 

score projects. Because, a project of the—a flood-control project 

that’s going to have Federal participation is a project that has to 

meet three tests: 

It has to be technically sound. That is, it has to be buildable. 

And, upon completion, it has to be operable by a non-Federal entity. 

No. 2, it has to be environmentally sustainable. That means the 

project design must ensure that the environment of the impacted 

area is not degraded by the construction of the project, or, if it is, 

that damages are mitigated. 

Three, the project has to be financially viable. 

All of that determines whether there would be Federal participation. You have to meet a cost-benefit ratio of 1.0. Following all of 

that, the local selection and the judgment that this meets the test, 

that there’s a Federal interest, then the Federal Government pays 

65 percent of a project. 

Now, following the flooding this spring, and the amount of time 

we spent in the Fargo-Moorhead area, in the Red River Valley, we 

also have initiated a reconnaissance study on the Sheyenne River 

system. We also initiated a reconnaissance study on the James 

River system. Both studies will try to determine what happened in 

those river systems. The flooding in Valley City which you know 

is chronic—but, not just Valley City; up and down the Sheyenne. 

Also the flooding on the James River was very significant. 

The areas that we have not yet had information on at a hearing 

or a factfinding mechanism was, what happened in Bismarck? 

Why? What might be done to make sure—or try to find a way to 

make sure that doesn’t happen again? What happened in Mercer 

County, and what happened in Emmons County, down in the 

Linton area? Up in Beulah, Hazen, Stanton, substantial flash flooding that was very, very significant, and flooding in Emmons County, in the Linton area, was very significant. 

So, today what we wanted to do—this is a long introduction to 

saying—what I wanted to do is make sure we get on the record an 

evaluation with the Corps of Engineers, with Dale Frink representing the State Water Commission, with the local folks from 

Emmons County, and then the folks from Mercer County. What 

happened? What do we think caused it? What kinds of approaches 

might be desired by local government officials to try to evaluate 

what could be constructed or what devices might be implemented 

to reduce the chance of that happening again? 
3 

Everyone in this room who’s been a part of this understands that 

there’s no merit or value of any way in having to come through a 

flood fight. When a flood visits your area, it’s an unbelievable, devastating occurrence, costs a lot of money, injures a lot of people and 

their property. I remember being in Lincoln one evening and seeing 

the pictures of the men who lost the cattle, unbelievable pictures. 

I mean, I still remember vividly the water that shoved cows up in 

the front of the car in a garage, laying back-side-up with feet in 

the air. You know, and that person lost a substantial amount of a 

cattle herd. 

So, we’re here to discuss all of this, again, in the context of Statewide officials at the State Water Commission and the Corps of Engineers. 

The first discussion we will have today will be with the folks 

from Emmons County. 

Emmons County today is represented by the Mayor of Linton, 

Tim Volk. 

Tim, it’s nice to see you again. Thank you for being here. 

Glenn McCrory, the chairman of the Emmons County Water Resource Board, Glenn, thank you for being with us. 

Sharon Jangula, the coordinator of the Linton Industrial Development Corporation. 

And, Sharon, welcome to you. 

I’m going to begin, first, by asking Colonel Ruch, from the 

Omaha Corps of Engineers, to speak. Then I will ask Dale Frink, 

State Water Commission, and then we will recognize Mayor Volk, 

Mr. McCrory, and Ms. Jangula. 

Colonel, thank you for being with us and why don’t you proceed. 

STATEMENT OF COLONEL ROBERT J. RUCH, DISTRICT COMMANDER, 

OMAHA DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS—CIVIL, DEPARTMENT 

OF THE ARMY, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE—CIVIL 

Colonel RUCH. Chairman Dorgan, my name is Colonel Robert J. 

Ruch. I’m the Commander of the Omaha District for the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today 

on the 2009 flooding in central and southeastern North Dakota. 

I want to assure you that the emergency operations and disaster 

response are of the upmost importance to the Corps of Engineers. 

It was identified by the Chief of Engineers as our No. 1 campaign 

goal, and we stand ready to respond, in a moment’s notice, to contingency operations worldwide, including natural disasters, as well 

as combat and stabilizing operations. 

I’d like to give a brief rundown on the conditions leading to this 

year’s flooding, how the Corps responded to requests for assistance, 

and a summary of post-flood coordination, which is still ongoing. 

This year’s flooding in North Dakota was the direct result of historic snow over the winter of 2008 and 2009. Many communities in 

the central part of the State, including the area around Bismarck, 

recorded more than 100 inches of snow. Rain melting, exasperated 

by spring rains, resulted in widespread flooding on the Missouri 

River, the Knife River, the Cannonball, and Beaver Creek, as well 

as many other streams and tributaries. 

With forecasts for a high tributary runoff below Garrison Dam, 

the Missouri River Water Management Office in Omaha began 

close coordination with the State of North Dakota and the many 
4 

managers from water intakes, powerplants, and other interests 

along the river upstream from Bismarck. 

A substantial ice jam in the Missouri River, south of Bismarck, 

on March 23, 2009, prompted requests for Corps technical assistance. We deployed ice jam experts from both the Omaha District 

and the Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory in 

Hanover, New Hampshire, to advise North Dakota emergency management officers on blasting the jam and other measures to relieve 

flooding. 

Concurrently, another significant jam formed upstream from Bismarck, raising concerns that this jam could break free and move 

downstream to join the other one. To alleviate the threat, the Corps 

collaborated with the State to make the unprecedented decision to 

cut all releases from the Garrison Dam while the downstream jam 

was blasted and allowed to break up. 

One hundred miles east of Bismarck, rapid snowmelt, exasperated by spring rains, resulted in projected runoffs in the James 

River in excess of the 1997 record pool elevation of both the Pipestem and Jamestown reservoirs. 

As engineers from the Corps, Bureau of Reclamation and the National Weather Service analyzed melt and runoff scenarios, the 

forecast predicted that both dams would see elevations which 

would overtop the spillway crests, resulting in unregulated releases 

downstream and the potential for significant flooding. 

Through early coordination with the State, the city of Jamestown, and other communities, North Dakota officially requested assistance from the Corps in early March. In response, we constructed advance measures in Jamestown, LaMoure, and Ludden. 

These measures consisted of temporary levees and flood walls, interior drainage pumps, and 24-hour surveillance and monitoring of 

both dams. 

The event lasted 133 days. Overall, Omaha District committed 177 personnel and expended $7.7 million in emergency funding, 

$2.4 million in FEMA debris funding, constructed 4.5 miles of temporary levees and flood walls in Jamestown and 4,600 feet of temporary structures in LaMoure. Homes and businesses in Jamestown and LaMoure were not flooded. 

As the reservoirs dropped and the James River receded, personnel from our Garrison and Oahe projects were instrumental in 

opening the lines of communications regarding Corps authorities 

and programs, which could address flood risks on a long-term 

basis. The Corps has an array of authorities and programs that 

may assist local communities with addressing flood risks. As a result of this year’s flooding, the Omaha District has received numerous requests from communities in North Dakota: Jamestown, 

Stutsman County, Emmons County, and Mercer County. We have 

initiated coordination meetings with these communities and have 

already conducted site visits to a few with more scheduled in the 

weeks to come. 

Also, the State of North Dakota, FEMA, and the Corps have been 

developing a charter to establish a Silver Jackets Program for the 

State. The Silver Jackets Program will establish a coordinating 

committee to help maintain communications and serve as a clearinghouse for prioritizing activities among the various agencies. 
5 

I want to commend the State for taking this initiative. I believe 

that the visibility that comes with Silver Jackets designation will 

position the various projects within the State to better compete for 

limited State and Federal resources. 

The Energy and Water Developmental Appropriations Act of 2010 includes $150,000 for the upper James River, as you discussed. We will soon begin coordination with State and local officials to decide how best to proceed on this study. Also in the James River, the Corps allocated $127,000 from the 

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funding, which has been 

used to develop a new hydrologic forecasting model for the James, 

upstream from the Jamestown and Pipestem dams and downstream from LaMoure. 

The Dam Safety Program has received funding for detailed topographic mapping of the shorelines of the two reservoirs and along 

the entire James River flood plain, from the dams downstream to 

the North Dakota/South Dakota State line. New mapping is scheduled for acquisition this fall, with final delivery of the maps in 

June 2010. 

In addition, we continue to work with the North Dakota Task 

Force on Missouri River Initiatives. Under that authority, we completed an assessment report this past June to help identify sedimentation issues and concerns along the Missouri River. We’re currently working with the Task Force Development Plan for moving 

forward with these projects. 

Finally, on October 1, 2009, we initiated a new study to reexamine the original authorized purposes of the Flood Control Act of 

1944, also known as the Pick-Sloan Plan. The study was authorized 

by section 108 of the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009 and anticipated to cost of $25 million to complete. The overall purpose of 

this study is to ‘‘review the original project purposes based on the 

Flood Control Act of 1944, to determine if changes to the authorized project purposes and existing Federal water resource infrastructure may be warranted.’’ 

PREPARED STATEMENT

We are currently developing a project management plan and are 

in the midst of collecting preliminary stakeholder and public input 

on the engagement strategy in order to develop a comprehensive 

public involvement plan. Formal scoping of the project is scheduled 

to commence in April 2010. This study will be a major Corps undertaking, co-led by Omaha and Kansas City Districts, and we plan 

to work with State, local, tribal, and public interests throughout its 

duration. 

Chairman Dorgan, I appreciate the opportunity to be here today, 

and I look forward to any questions than we can answer today. 

Thank you. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF COLONEL ROBERT J. RUCH

Chairman Dorgan, my name is Colonel Robert J. Ruch, Commander of the Omaha 

District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Thank you for the opportunity to testify 

today on the 2009 flooding in central and southeastern North Dakota. 

I want to assure you that emergency operations and disaster response are of upmost importance to the Corps of Engineers. It was identified by the Chief of Engi-
6 

neers as our No. 1 Campaign Goal, and we stand ready to respond on a moments 

notice to contingency operations worldwide in support of natural disasters as well 

as combat and stabilizing operations. 

I would like to give a brief rundown of the conditions leading to this year’s floods, 

how the Corps responded to requests for assistance, and a summary of post flood 

coordination. 

This year’s flooding in North Dakota was a direct result of historic snow over the 

winter of 2008–2009. Many communities in the central part of the State, including 

Bismarck, recorded more than 100 inches of snow. 

Rapid melting, exacerbated by spring rains, resulted in widespread flooding on the 

Missouri River, the Knife River, Cannonball River, and Beaver Creek as well as 

many other streams and tributaries. With forecasts for high tributary runoff below 

Garrison Dam, the Missouri River Water Management Office in Omaha began close 

coordination with the State of North Dakota and managers of water supply intakes, 

power plants, and other interests along the river upstream from Bismarck. 

A substantial ice jam in the Missouri River south of Bismarck on March 23, 2009 

prompted a request for Corps technical assistance. We deployed ice jam experts from 

both the Omaha District and the Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory in Hanover, New Hampshire to advise North Dakota Emergency Management 

officers on blasting the jam and other measures to relieve flooding. 

Concurrently, another significant jam formed upstream from Bismarck, raising 

concerns that this jam could break free and move downstream to join the other one. 

To alleviate the threat, the Corps collaborated with the State to make the unprecedented decision to cut all releases from Garrison Dam while the downstream jam 

was blasted and allowed to break up. 

A hundred miles east of Bismarck, rapid snow melt, exacerbated by spring rains, 

resulted in projected runoff in the James River in excess of the 1997 record pool 

elevations of both Pipestem and Jamestown Reservoirs. As engineers from the 

Corps, Bureau of Reclamation, and National Weather Service analyzed melt and 

runoff scenarios, the forecasts predicted that both dams could see elevations, which 

would overtop their spillway crests resulting in unregulated releases downstream 

and the potential for significant flooding. 

Through early coordination with the State, city of Jamestown, and other communities, North Dakota officially requested assistance from the Corps in early March. 

In response, we constructed Advanced Measures in Jamestown, LaMoure, and 

Ludden. These measures consisted of temporary levees and floodwalls, interior 

drainage pumps, and 24-hour surveillance and monitoring on both dams. 

Forecasts for combined releases from both reservoirs were projected to exceed 

4,000 cubic feet per second (cfs), more than double the record of 1,800 cfs set during 

the 1997 event. Releases were gradually increased up to a maximum of 3,200 cfs 

in late April. They were held steady at that level due to serious infiltration problems with the city’s sewer system at higher levels. 

Releases remained at the 3,200 cfs level for approximately a month and then were 

gradually reduced back to normal levels. After the flood threat had passed and the 

reservoirs were sufficiently drawn back to more normal levels, all the temporary 

measures were removed. Reservoir storage evacuation was completed by late August. 

The event lasted 133 days. Overall, Omaha District committed 177 personnel and 

expended $7.7 million in emergency funding, $2.4 million in FEMA debris funding, 

constructed 4.5 miles of temporary levees and floodwalls in Jamestown and 4,600 

feet of temporary structures in LaMoure. We deployed more than 1.35 million sandbags, 10 pumps, and 232 rolls of plastic sheeting, as well as 14,000 feet of Hesco 

Bastions, 3,300 feet of Rapid Deployable Floodwall, and 1,250 linear feet of 

Portadam products. These efforts prevented an estimated $70 million in damages. 

Homes and business in Jamestown and LaMoure were not flooded. 

As the reservoirs dropped and the James River receded, personnel from our Garrison and Oahe projects were instrumental in opening the lines of communications 

regarding Corps authorities and programs, which could address flood risks on a 

long-term basis. The Corps has an array of authorities and programs that may assist local communities with addressing flood risks. As a result of this year’s flooding, 

the Omaha District has received numerous requests from communities in North Dakota (Jamestown, Stutsman County, Emmons County and Mercer County). We have 

initiated coordination meetings with these communities and have already conducted 

site visits to a few with more scheduled in the weeks to come. 

Also the State of North Dakota, FEMA, and the Corps have been developing a 

charter to establish a Silver Jackets Program for the State. The Silver Jackets Program will establish a coordinating committee to help maintain communications and 

serve as a clearinghouse for prioritizing activities among the various agencies. I 
7 

want to commend the State for taking this initiative. I believe that the visibility 

that comes with Silver Jackets designation will position the various projects within 

the State to better compete for limited State and Federal resources. 

The Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act of 2010 includes $150,000 

for the Upper James River. We will soon begin coordination with State and local 

officials to decide how best to proceed with the study. 

Also on the James River, the Corps allocated $127,000 from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funding, which has been used to develop a new hydrologic 

forecasting model for the James River upstream from the Jamestown and Pipestem 

Dams and downstream to LaMoure. 

The dam safety program has received funding for detailed topographic mapping 

of the shorelines of the two reservoirs and along the entire James River floodplain 

from the dams downstream to the North Dakota-South Dakota State line. The new 

mapping is scheduled for acquisition this fall with final delivery of the maps in June 

2010. 

In addition, we continue to work with the North Dakota Task Force on Missouri 

River Restoration initiatives. Under that authority we completed an Assessment Report this past June to help identify sedimentation issues and concerns along the 

Missouri River. We are currently working with the Task Force to develop a plan 

for moving forward with projects. 

Finally, on October 1, 2009 we initiated a new study to re-examine the original 

authorized purposes (Missouri River) of the Flood Control Act of 1944 also known 

as the Pick-Sloan Plan. The study was authorized by section 108 of the Omnibus 

Appropriations Act of 2009 and is anticipated to cost $25 million to complete. The 

overall purpose of the study is to ‘‘review the original project purposes based on the 

Flood Control Act of 1944 . . . to determine if changes to the authorized project 

purposes and existing Federal water resource infrastructure may be warranted.’’ We 

are currently developing a Project Management Plan, and are in the midst of collecting preliminary stakeholder and public input on engagement strategies in order 

to develop a comprehensive public involvement plan. Formal scoping of the project 

is scheduled to commence in April 2010. This study will be a major Corps undertaking, co-led by Omaha and Kansas City Districts, and we plan to work with State, 

local, tribal, and public interests throughout its duration. 

Chairman Dorgan, I appreciate the opportunity to be here today and I will be 

happy to answer any questions you may have. 

Senator DORGAN. Colonel Ruch, thank you very much. 

You have given an overview of flooding, and you indicate you 

have initiated coordination meetings with a number of communities, including communities in Emmons County and Mercer 

Counties, so I want to ask questions about that. We’ll ask you stay 

here, as we will Mr. Frink, while we have the other community up, 

as well, because I want to be asking questions of you. 

Let me also say that the section 108—the authorized purposes— 

that’s my legislation that I got passed and I’m going to fund it. 

That study, I hope, is going to change the way we manage the Missouri River—to have a modern management capability that reflects 

the realities of the river, rather than the 1940 projections of the 

river. 

Let me call on Dale Frink, the State engineer who represents the 

State Water Commission. 

Mr. Frink. 

STATEMENT OF DALE L. FRINK, STATE ENGINEER, NORTH DAKOTA 

WATER COMMISSION 

Mr. FRINK. Thank you, Chairman Dorgan. And thank you for the 

opportunity to discuss issues. 

I’m going to start with Emmons County. And, you know, last 

spring’s flooding event wreaked havoc in almost every corner of the 

State. And Emmons County, and particularly the city of Linton, 

was one of the most severe areas hit by flooding in the State. In 

fact, Linton, last year, in 2009, had houses that had been built in 
8 

the early 1900s, that had never been flooded, and they were just 

about demolished this year. 

Since the flood, the State of North Dakota has been very involved 

in Emmons County. The Water Commission and the Emmons 

County Water Resource District have a study underway to look at 

the overall flooding issue and to evaluate possible alternative solutions. 

Working on flooding issues in a rural area is very different than 

working on issues in large cities like Fargo and Grand Forks. Federal projects require positive risk-benefit cost ratio, and this is 

often problematic in a rural setting. Relocating homes and structures out of the flood plain is often the best solution, but there are 

even issues with this in small cities. 

Real estate values are lower in small towns, and often these values are considerably lower than the replacement value of a home. 

For example, an older home may have a market value of $50,000, 

but it may have a replacement value—to replace it, it might be 

over $100,000. And this is especially a concern with somebody on 

a fixed income. And so, even if you give them the full market value, 

they still are way short of actually coming up with a new house. 

Also, special assessments are a concern. And who pays these special assessments, if they exist, once a house is moved? 

The Corps of Engineers and State Water Commission are evaluating several structural measures. Basement storage is being evaluated for both cost and feasibility. 

Spring Creek and Beaver Creek also have considerable obstructions in the channel that need to be removed. Sand Creek broke 

out of its bank and caused severe erosion, which needs a solution. 

We are working, at the U.S. Geological Survey and the National 

Weather Service, on improving flood forecasting on Beaver Creek. 

While we had a very large snowpack in 2009, we did not expect 

the severe flooding that occurred. I believe that during a large flood 

year, it’s easy for agencies to concentrate on large cities and overlook some of the smaller cities. The State Water Commission is 

working with the U.S. Geological Survey to install two new stream 

gauges in the Beaver Creek watershed that can be used by the National Weather Service to more accurately forecast flooding and to 

provide an early warning to the residents. 

And last—and I think Colonel Ruch talked about this, and I’d 

like to talk a little bit about the new Silver Jackets Program. This 

afternoon, the State Water Commission will be asked to partially 

fund a new temporary position for this program. We have also 

asked the State Division of Emergency Services and the FEMA to 

help fund this program. 

The basic concept of Silver Jackets is to bring Federal, State, and 

local entities together to improve communications for managing 

natural disasters and work on implementation of the solutions. 

The two main Federal agencies are the Corps and FEMA. But, 

other Federal agencies, like the USGS, the National Weather Service, and the National Resources Conservation Service, can become 

part of the process. 

The two main State agencies will be the State Water Commission 

and the Division of Emergency Services. And I might add that the 

Division of Emergency Services is a Division of the National Guard. 
9 

So, we’ve got the tie there. But, we also can bring in other State 

agencies, like the department of transportation. 

PREPARED STATEMENT

The purpose of the new position is to provide a single point of 

contact for communities that are looking for help in a flood-related 

problem. Once we receive a request from the community, we will 

try and form a team of agencies that can best move the project forward. 

So, thank you, for holding this hearing. I look forward to working 

with you on these important issues. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DALE L. FRINK

Chairman Dorgan, thank you for the opportunity to discuss flooding issues in 

Mercer County. Last spring’s flooding events wreaked havoc in almost every corner 

of the State. The Knife River watershed was one of the most severe areas hit by 

flooding. 

The Corps of Engineers is taking the lead in Mercer County and they are in the 

process of initiating a watershed study with the State Water Commission being actively involved throughout the process. Any alternative that moves forward will require non-Federal dollars and the State Water Commission can consider these requests. 

The State Water Commission can also work with local sponsors on alternatives 

that do not meet Federal requirements. Upstream storage is an example of a project 

that seems to have difficulty meeting Federal feasibility requirements in a rural setting. Relocating structures out of the floodplain and should be evaluated. 

As was the situation with Emmons County, there is room for improvement regarding flood forecasting in the rural areas. While we had a significant snowpack 

in the Knife River basin, we certainly were not expecting the severity of flooding 

that actually occurred. Stream gages are operated by the U.S. Geological Survey and 

the State Water Commission will work with the USGS and the National Weather 

Service to evaluate the need for more gages to improve flood forecasting. 

Last, I would like to mention a new program that is being set up called the Silver 

Jackets. This afternoon, the State Water Commission will be asked to partially fund 

a new temporary position for this program. We have also asked the State Division 

of Emergency Services and FEMA to help fund this program. The basic concept behind the Silver Jackets program is to bring Federal, State, and local entities together to improve communications for managing natural disasters and to work on 

implementation of solutions. The two main Federal agencies are the Corps of Engineers and FEMA, but other Federal agencies like the U.S. Geological Survey, the 

National Weather Service, and the Natural Resources Conservation Service can become part of the process. The two main State agencies will be the State Water Commission and the Division of Emergency Services but we can call on other State agencies for assistance. The purpose of the new position is to provide a single point of 

contact for those communities that are looking for help with their flood-related problems. Once we receive a request for assistance, we will form a team of agencies that 

can best move a project forward. 

In closing, thank you for holding this hearing. I look forward to working with you 

on these important issues. 

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

Next, we will hear from the Mayor of Linton, Tim Volk. 

Mr. Volk. 

Can I mention to you, Mayor, that I mentioned the vivid imagery 

of dead cattle, but I also saw the imagery of homes that were destroyed, and that there as a significant part of your community in 

whose property was ravaged. So, that’s also a part of my memory. 

STATEMENT OF HON. TIM VOLK, MAYOR, CITY OF LINTON, NORTH DAKOTA 

Mr. VOLK. Well, thank you, Senator Dorgan. 
10 

It’s true, it started—say, in February, we started getting some 

rain, which is unusually un-normal, and then the snow pack, and, 

as it started melting from—the day that flooding occurred, on that 

Sunday morning, we were in church, and she started hailing and 

raining and everything. It was unpredictable how fast the water 

came up and like Dale is expressing for us to have some way of 

finding out when the water’s going to rise in Beaver Creek could 

help, but it came up at an alarming rate. 

And I have some statistics from route I’ll share. And Glenn, here, 

has some other stuff for the county and the people in town. 

You know, looking back at pictures, from back in the 1950s, 

where Linton had some flooding, it’s not even close to what happened this time, so. 

Senator DORGAN. All right. Well, I’ll have some questions, Mr. 

Mayor. 

Mr. VOLK. Okay. 

Senator DORGAN. And if we hear from Glenn and Sharon—— 

Mr. VOLK. Okay. 

Senator DORGAN [continuing]. We’ll ask some questions. 

STATEMENT OF GLENN McCRORY, CHAIRMAN, EMMONS COUNTY 

WATER RESOURCE BOARD 

Mr. MCCRORY. Thank you, Senator, for holding the hearing. 

I’ve said—I’m beginning to feel a little bit like the Red River, because, you know, we’ve been asking you to help us get water 

throughout Emmons Country for the drinking water, and now 

we’re asking you for flood help. So, we’re kind of like, in this order, 

the Red River Valley, in some ways. 

But, I just wanted to—a few things I wanted to comment on. 

There’s about 665 square miles of drainage area east of Linton. 

There’s 700-and-some total in the Beaver Creek area. But, east of 

Linton, there are about 665. I’ve seen different figures on that, but 

it’s in that range. 

Now, I called the USGS recently to find out what they thought 

actually the discharge was through Linton. And they’ve been working on this. They get their initial readouts, but then they have formulas they’ve got to go through and stuff. Anyway, the guy told me 

that they figure there was 20,000 cfs going through there at high 

tide. 

Now, I want you to think about something. In Monday’s paper 

and Tuesday’s paper, I looked at the releases from the Garrison 

Dam. They were at 12,500 cfs. So, if you look—could go—if it 

wasn’t so foggy out, you’d go over to the top of the hill, here, and 

look at the what’s water, going by Bismarck, here. Of course, I 

know there’s some water coming in off the tributaries to the north 

yet. But, basically, we were at one and a half times what’s going 

down the Missouri River right now, at the high flow, going through 

there, if those figures are all right. So, that’s quite a shock. Of 

course, it only—you know, this comes in every day, every day, but 

that will only last for 2 or 3 days, and then it starts to drop off. 

Now, the channel capacity, according to some of the old records 

I’ve read, is about 2,500 cfs. So, once it started flooding, we went 

up to 20,000. So, that’s just a tremendous amount of water to try 

to deal with, you know. 
11 

Spring Creek is about 1,250 cfs before it comes out of its banks. 

So, anyway, I want to thank the State Water Commission, for 

coming in on this hydrologic study. Hopefully, we’re going to get 

some answers to it. We’re fighting Mother Nature there, and it’s 

just a tough deal, because, if you look at the flood plain there—on 

the south side of Linton, you go can go right up the big hills, so 

that—the flood plain itself is in Old Town. And trying to get the 

top off of some of that water so that doesn’t get flooded so bad 

down there is a real challenge. There’s been studies done in the 

past that—the 1967 study that the Corps of Engineers did, I think 

they had that pegged at 22,000 csf—would have been the banks, 

and whatever, that they proposed. And so, we’d have been awful 

close to the top of that—right? 

Now, there’s one other question that I want people to think 

about. When it started flooding there in Linton, Sunday and Monday, and then it cooled off and they got a second shot in there. My 

dad used to call it ‘‘Chinook winds.’’ If we’d have had a Chinook 

wind in there, all that snow that was laying up in those upper regions would have kept on a coming, I wonder how high it could 

have gotten. So, it’s really something, to think about. 

And so, those are the main points. 

USGS moved their stream-gauge station, in 1989, from just 

south of Linton, on 83, to west of Linton, by the Golf Course Road. 

So, we’re kind of comparing apples to oranges, because where it’s 

at now takes in most of Spring Creek and Beaver Creek. Where it 

was before, it was just Beaver Creek flows. 

So, the 1952, which we had considered the flood of record before 

this, they had pegged at 9,800 cfs, without Spring Creek in there. 

Well, here we’re at 20—if that figure of 20,000 is a solid number, 

we’re at almost double. 

And so, anyway, at least now, if we get a couple more upstream 

from it, it should help us figure out just what happened, where it 

came from and how it went. 

So, that’s about all I have to say now. I’d be happy to answer any 

questions. 

Again, I want to thank you. 

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

Finally, we’ll hear from Sharon Jangula. 

Sharon. 

STATEMENT OF SHARON JANGULA, COORDINATOR, LINTON INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION 

Ms. JANGULA. Good morning, Senator Dorgan. 

During the morning hours of Sunday, March 22, as many of us 

were attending church services or relaxing in our homes, we could 

hear the thunder, rain, and hail outside. We were unaware of the 

battle we were about to encounter with Mother Nature and the resulting devastation which would forever change the lives of many. 

Within hours, we were fighting the worst flood of recorded history. 

Spring Creek overflowed its banks to the north of Linton, and 

Beaver Creek overflowed its banks to the east and south of the 

city. These two creeks merge on the west side of Linton. As it is 

the original part of town, it is commonly referred to as Old Town. 

By Sunday afternoon, people were being advised to evacuate Old 
12 

Town. By Sunday evening, U.S. Highway 83 was closed, as it was 

inundated with water on the north and the south sides of the city. 

Beaver Creek rose 13 feet in 2 days; 8 feet on Sunday and 5 feet 

on Monday. There was virtually no advance warning and we simply 

did not have time to prepare for such floodwaters. 

Beaver Creek crested at 18.83 feet, which is 31⁄2 feet higher than 

the previous recorded reading, and 9 feet above flood stage. 

At the previous record of 15.34 feet, Sampson Avenue will flood 

and homes on the south side of Sampson Avenue will receive some 

flooding in their basement, mostly from water seepage. We prepared—we were prepared for this type of floods, but not the magnitude of floodwaters that we received. Most every street and avenue in Old Town flooded. 

In the Linton area, approximately 100 homes were evacuated; 98 

homes received damage. And this represents about 15 percent of all 

our homes in the area. 

There was also a tremendous amount of overland flooding in 

Emmons County. Approximately 700 miles of roads, 20 bridges, 

and 1,000 culverts were damaged. There were 300 miles of fence 

washed away, and over 200 head of livestock killed. 

Flood recovery has been a daunting and sometimes overwhelming task. In May 2009, with the assistance of the North Dakota State Flood Recovery Office, the local leadership formed the 

Linton-Emmons County Flood Recovery Task Force. Our task force 

has representation from Emmons County Water Resource Board, 

Emmons County Commission, Linton City Council, North Dakota 

State Flood Recovery Office, North Dakota Division of Emergency 

Services, North Dakota State Water Commission, FEMA public assistance, FEMA individual assistance, and FEMA mitigation. 

Through June and July, we held weekly task force meetings and 

biweekly meetings through the months of August through October. 

Our meetings have been attended by representatives of our congressional delegation as well as other State and Federal entities. 

The task force has played a major role in our flood recovery. 

Through their efforts, we will now have gauges in place to better 

forecast the amount of water which will flow through the Linton 

area. This should provide us ample time to build the emergency 

dike that we have planned for. They have supported us in our mitigation efforts and in our planning for the future. However, we have 

a very long way to go. 

The face of our community has been forever changed by the flood 

of 2009. Some of our families have chosen to move away from the 

Linton area; other families are still faced with the heart-wrenching 

decision of whether or not they should leave their homes and relocate to an area where they should be safe from floodwaters. Five 

homes have been demolished, and four more are scheduled to be 

demolished shortly. Approximately 12 homes are substantially 

damaged and will not be repaired. The local leadership is challenged with the housing shortage that has been created by the 

flood and the potential buyouts of homes eligible for the acquisition 

program. 

How do we protect or minimize the risk of damage to the remaining 15 to 20 percent of our homes and businesses still in the flood 

plain? Is a permanent dike the answer? Is it feasible? Can we af-
13 

ford to relocate up to 15 percent of our homes into a new development? We need to research the options of potential funding sources 

available to us, and this is where we ask your assistance and your 

help. 

Thank you so much for your time and allowing me to testify before you today. 

Senator DORGAN. Ms. Jangula, thank you very much for being 

here. 

I have a number of questions. First of all, my understanding is 

that discussions are underway to put in two additional stream 

gauges upstream on Beaver Creek. I wonder: what the status of 

that work is. Will that be helpful, and, if so, how much assistance 

will these gauges provide in predicting future flooding? Can someone respond to that? 

VOICE. It’s going to happen—Gregg Wiche, with the U.S. Geological Survey, is in the room. 

Gregg, it’s going to happen, right? 

STATEMENT OF GREGG WICHE, DIRECTOR, NORTH DAKOTA WATER 

SCIENCE CENTER, U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, DEPARTMENT OF 

THE INTERIOR 

Mr. WICHE. Yes. The gauges have been sited, and they’ll be installed, and so they’ll be in place and operational next spring. 

Senator DORGAN. Is it your assessment that the placing of these 

additional gauges will be measurably helpful to predict flooding? 

Mr. WICHE. Yes. I mean, we looked for good sites for measuring, 

as well as talked to the river forecast center, to try and get enough 

of the basin to be of help, so we’re working with National Weather 

Service forecasters. 

Senator DORGAN. All right. Let me ask a general question first. 

Thank you very much. 

You know, I am used to news reports, particularly in the Washington, DC, area, of flash flooding in West Virginia in the hill country, where you have a massive rainfall in a short period, and the 

creeks rise, and there’s flash flooding. Some of it can be very, very 

significant. But, flash flooding in North Dakota, the kind of flooding you’re describing, is where you are sitting in church, with no 

inkling at all of potential flooding, and you hear rainfall and hail, 

and all of a sudden water gushes through your town. 

So, maybe, Dale Frink, you could describe to me—they’re describing a circumstance with no warning. I mean tell me, how? I mean, 

that just seems strange to me that there wasn’t some notion, someplace, that something bad was going to happen. 

Mr. FRINK. Well, Mr. Chairman, you know, the forecasting is 

done by the National Weather Service through their River Forecasting Center. But, flash flooding in North Dakota is uncommon, 

but it does occur. The Little Missouri, for example, is probably the 

flashiest river that we have. But, what happened here is that the 

rain occurred on frozen ground, and that’s really what caused the 

flash flooding. 

Senator DORGAN. Was there a quick warming? The Bismarck discussion last evening was about a massive snowfall and then rapid 

warming. I mean, is that what filled Beaver and so on? 

Mr. FRINK. Well, when it rains, the rain is above freezing, and 

so, that melts a lot of snow. So, you not only pick up the rain that 
14 

falls, but you melt a lot of the snowpack at the same time. And 

then it’s all on frozen ground, so all of it runs off. And you don’t 

have a lot of wetlands in that particular area, so you get a very, 

very quick release of that water. And that’s what happened. And 

it’s just not fortunate. But, it does happen—not frequently, but it 

does happen in North Dakota. 

Senator DORGAN. Now, you have a Flood Recovery Task Force, 

which I know is describing a series of things for recovery. Often it 

takes a long time for families whose homes have been devastated, 

to recover from this; and so, too, a small community. Is there, in 

this same task force, a notion of what kind of protection might be 

needed, and what kind of additional protection might be available 

that you are working with the State or the Corps of Engineers? 

Can someone describe that? What is the search, or what mechanism is used to search, for additional protection devices, in the 

event that this would threaten to happen again? 

Colonel RUCH. I could speak a little bit to the past studies, just 

to shed some light on what has been done in the past, and then 

where we are right now. 

Senator DORGAN. And someone just mentioned a hydrologic 

study. Who’s doing the hydrologic study? 

[Mr. Frink raised his hand responding to the Senator’s question.] 

Senator DORGAN. You are. Okay. 

Colonel RUCH. Okay. There was Beaver and Spring Creeks, in 

Linton, a section 205 project. The project report was completed in 

1967. In that report, we came out with a recommendation for a 

levee and a cutoff project, with a BC ratio of 1.03. That project was 

approved in September 1967, but there were problems—the sponsor had problems with the acquisitions of real estate that was actually required to build that project. And the funding ended up being 

revoked in 1971. There was a follow-on section 205 study in January 1985, where we did not come up with feasible alternatives. 

Senator DORGAN. Why would there not have been the same feasible alternatives in 1985 that there were in 1967? 

Colonel RUCH. Without having read it, I will tell you that it may 

have been because we knew that there were land acquisition problems so it was not a buildable project, as you alluded to—— 

Senator DORGAN. I see. 

Colonel RUCH [continuing]. In the beginning. 

Senator DORGAN. All right. 

Colonel RUCH. Omaha District staff met with State and local officials in the city of Linton on October 15, 2009, visited the affected 

areas, and had some discussions. The recommendation was section 

22. Section 22 is a 50–50 cost-share planning assistance for States. 

That would be the best way to move forward. 

Many of the structures flooded have been condemned and removed from the flood plain already. The city is working with 

FEMA on possible grants for relocation assessments. Section 22, 

the outcome of that would be updating flood plain mapping and 

risks, and developing a flood hazard mitigation plan for the community. The district’s working right now on a section 22 cost-share 

agreement and seeking funding to initiate that study. And funding 

would probably not be an issue. Section 22 is pretty easy to get to. 
15 

Senator DORGAN. But, there needs to be a local sponsor for that. 

Is that correct? 

Colonel RUCH. Yes, Senator. And I believe we have a willing 

sponsor. 

Senator DORGAN. All right. 

Mr. McCrory. 

Mr. MCCRORY. Yes, Senator. The Local Water Resource Board 

put in a request to the Corps of Engineers for a study. And so, we 

would be the local sponsor, between us and the city. And so, when 

we get this proposal from them, in this section 22, we’ll see how 

that goes. But, it’s coming through the State Water Commission, 

and their cooperation—instead of them coming in and doing a another whole study, the State Water Commission is doing this detailed hydrologic study. So, if they dovetail things together, they 

should be able to—you know if there are answers. You know. 

Senator DORGAN. Yes. I guess one of the questions with respect 

to this flooding, in Emmons County—and perhaps the Colonel and 

Dale Frink have a notion, and the mayor, as well—was this sort 

of a one-time, freakish flooding event that is very unlikely to happen again? It’s the first time it’s happened at this level in Linton, 

for example. Or, is this something that you have a responsibility, 

not only to recover from, but also to try to figure out, what are the 

additional measures of protection that might be available to us, 

and what would they cost, relative to the protection they would 

provide? I mean, how do you see that? 

Mayor, is this just something that was so unlikely to have happened, and it’s very unlikely to happen again? Or, as mayor, do you 

and the folks from Linton say, ‘‘You know what? It happened. If it 

happened, it can happen again. And we need to search for mechanisms by which we can better protect ourselves’’. 

Mr. VOLK. Like you said here, hopefully it’ll never happen again. 

But nobody can predict nature, what could happen. And I could 

foresee it—it’s happened since 1985—I’ve lived in Linton since 

1985. It’s three times we’ve been flooded. 

Senator DORGAN. Right. 

Mr. VOLK. A couple of streets have been underwater. But, this 

has been the worst that we’ve followed so far, so. 

Senator DORGAN. So, regarding the section 22 study, is that a 

study that is designed to lead to a conclusion of saying, ‘‘Here are 

devices or protection approaches that might be used to give that region better protection?’’ 

Colonel RUCH. Mr. Frink may comment on this afterwards, on 

the studies they’re doing—but, as I understand the desired outcome 

of the section 22, it’s to update flood plain mapping, risks, and developing a flood hazard mitigation plan for community. So I think 

the answer really is ‘‘no’’ to your question there. It’s not looking at 

structure. It could lead to some other—I wouldn’t say ‘‘studies,’’ but 

it could lead us to some other thoughts. 

Obviously, when you have a flood of this proportion, it changes 

things. The river is not what the river was before the flooding. And 

I think that’s what Mr. Frink’s study is getting at. 

Senator DORGAN. So, Mr. Frink, is there something underway— 

and if section 22 is not it, should there be something underway— 

that evaluates whether there are structures? The reason I ask the 
16 

question is, from Colonel Ruch’s answer, it sounds to me like, 42 

years ago, the Corps did a study and identified certain structures 

that would be helpful to protect against flooding, and the structures had a better than 1.0 cost-benefit ratio, but did not get built, 

because they couldn’t acquire the land. 

So, if that was the case back then, the question in my mind is, 

is there a desire among local folks to evaluate that again? And how 

would that evaluation be done by the Corps or whomever? 

Mr. Frink, do you want to take a crack at that? 

Mr. FRINK. Well, first of all, I wouldn’t mind the Corps taking 

a look at some of the structures, both in terms of dams and dikes, 

just to make sure that there is not a Federal project that we are 

looking at—we’re looking at some of the storage upstream. We’re 

looking at some dikes. But, we’re also looking at flood plain management, or moving some of the structures and relocating. 

As I indicated, there are some issues with that. And we may 

have to do some things differently than we’ve done. But if you can’t 

get a structural solution that is feasible, then I think the best thing 

is to look at some relocations. And I know there are some issues 

with that, but I think that is a solution that we really need to look 

closely at. 

But, I would like the Corps to take another look at some of the 

solutions, the structural solutions, if it is at all possible. 

Senator DORGAN. I’m just trying to understand, under what circumstances would that exist? Section 205, perhaps? 

Colonel RUCH. Absolutely. Section 205 lets us construct flood damage, or reduction projects to a limit of $7 million. I guess the 

first $100,000 is fully Federal. But, once again, that’s under section 

205, and I think we’ll get to that in the next hearing. Whether 

we’re under a current ‘‘no new starts’’—— 

Senator DORGAN. Right. 

Colonel RUCH [continuing]. Right now it could impact our decision on where we go. 

Senator DORGAN. All right, and the folks from Linton, your assessment of this question—Mr. Frink has talked about flood plain 

management and moving properties, et cetera, which is perfectly 

understandable; those are always very controversial. The other 

question is, is there going to be a desire or a priority with the folks 

from Linton to try to engage the Corps, if it’s able to be done, to 

look at structures? 

Ms. JANGULA. I think when we initially started our planning for 

the future, we were leaning toward structures and how we can actually protect and minimize the risk to the homes that remain 

there. Throughout the course of planning and the meetings we’ve 

been holding, I think there has been discussion that structures 

may not be feasible, and we may not meet that benefit-cost ratio. 

And so, then discussion also then led to relocations. And, of 

course, when we’re looking at the number of homes that need to 

be relocated, we certainly don’t have the infrastructure in place for 

that type of relocation. And that, too, would cost enormous 

amounts of money, and we don’t know if it’s feasible for an undertaking of that kind. 

Old Town, as we refer to it, is actually a very lovely part of town. 

The people that live there enjoy living there. So, I think, initially, 
17 

our first preference would be to somehow protect it, if it was feasible. And our second course of action would have been the relocations. 

And I think Mr. Frink had touched on this earlier. With some 

of the homes and the ages that they are, of course, these homes are 

paid for, and people are living on fixed incomes, in some instances. 

To replace them is going to be substantially more than where they 

are at right now. 

Senator DORGAN. I think that’s a point that you raised earlier in 

the testimony that’s important to understand. In smaller communities, very often the current value of a home is substantially less 

than the replacement cost. In some cases, it is even very difficult 

to get financing to build something that, when completed, is going 

to be worth much less when it’s done. So, that’s something that we 

should remember, because that has an impact on moving structures, and so on. 

Can you, finally, tell me, Colonel and others, about the Silver 

Jackets Program. Tell me how that works, and its value, if you 

would, because, Dale, you mentioned it, and I think the Colonel 

has, as well. 

Mr. FRINK. The Silver Jackets Program, from my understanding, 

is a program that the Corps of Engineers has actually taken the 

lead on nationally, so it’s a national program. In North Dakota, 

we’re thinking about expanding the general concept of it a little 

more. 

Nationally, they were looking at more of an emergency type of 

thing, but we would like to expand it, and that’s why we’re going 

to hire a temporary full-time employee that can work more directly 

with the communities, provide a point of contact. 

And I know that communities, like General Robinson, and so 

forth—this is kind of going to replace that particular concept with 

the Water Commission, and then the Division of Emergency Services, on the State side, kind of taking the leads on that. 

So, you know that General Robinson and that group was hired 

on a temporary basis, just for the short-term flood, but, this is 

going to be a little longer. It’s going to be under the State Water 

Commission as the primary lead for that employee. 

But, it’s a concept just to provide a broader array of assistance 

to the communities. You know, we can bring in Federal agencies, 

we can bring in other State agencies, and then we can work with 

the locals and try to develop something that is going to work. 

Senator DORGAN. All right, Colonel. 

Colonel RUCH. Well described. 

I guess the bottom line is, it’s collaboration, and it’s a way to get 

at collaboration. The worst thing you can have is a disaster of some 

sort, and people coming together for the first time to figure out 

what to do. So, I think all the times, the value of these programs 

is the forethought that—might not be the actual solution to come 

out of it; it’s the work that goes into getting to those solutions and 

building the relationships you need when you come to a crisis. 

Senator DORGAN. All right. 

Mr. McCrory said that there’s an irony, in the sense that when 

they come to Linton—or, to Emmons County, in that region, it is 

often to talk about moving water to the region through the rural 
18 

water program. And that is true. We’re working to have broader 

distribution of the rural water program. It is sort of interesting 

that we talk about a region that, on this occasion, had way too 

much water, in a hurry; on other occasions, really needs good-quality water moved around by the rural water system. 

I mentioned, last evening, that the dilemma is much more acute 

with respect to the Red River, because, as you know, there has 

been a lot of work to try to determine how you move water from 

the Missouri River to the Red River to make sure that the Red 

River has an assured supply of water for the future. The Red River 

has actually run dry, were it to do so again, it would have significant economic consequences up and down the river. 

I have explained to the folks in the region that I understand that 

the people of Fargo and Moorhead, given what they faced this 

spring, believe that its most significant priority at the moment is 

flood control. And I understand that. The local folks are moving 

very quickly now to try to identify the flood-control project they 

want. But, I’ve also indicated to them, it’s not possible, in this subcommittee or in Congress, for me to describe that the Red River 

Valley has a significant need for, perhaps, a $1 billion flood control 

project and then, at the same time, be working on a project to take 

water from the Missouri to the Red River. Those two projects, both 

very expensive, would not be something the Congress could understand, very easily, occurring at the same time—too much water and 

not enough water projects. 

So, I have explained that the issue of water to the Red River, regrettably, is going to have to take a backseat to what the local folks 

in the Red River Valley want at this point, and that is the greater 

flood-control project for the largest population center on the Red. 

I want to thank the three of you from Linton for being here, on 

behalf of Emmons County. What I’d like to do is keep in close touch 

with you as the hydrologic study is done, as the section 22 study 

is done. I understand you have a local sponsor. And we would like 

them to be in close touch to evaluate what more can be done. 

I think that the flood plain management approach is an effective 

approach, and the Silver Jackets Program should be very helpful. 

And what I would like to do is just keep in close touch with you 

to determine if there are things that I can do with the Corps of Engineers to try to help address measures of greater protection for 

Emmons County, I want to do that. 

So, thank you very much for being here and for presenting testimony today. 

What I’d like to do is have the Colonel and Dale Frink remain 

and then ask the folks from Mercer County to come forward. 

If I can ask Mr. John Phillips, city administrator of the city of 

Beulah, Frank Bitterman, Mercer County commissioner, and Greg 

Lange, secretary treasurer of Mercer County Water Resources District, to come forward, we’d appreciate that. 

Thank you very much. 

Let me also say—I didn’t say at the start—I apologize; there’s 

some inconvenience, I know, for you to travel from Emmons County 

to Bismarck and Mercer County Bismarck. I’m sorry for the distance you had to travel, but this was the best way for me to be able 
19 

to do both at the same time in a central location, so I appreciate 

your indulgence. 

Mr. Frink, you have additional testimony with respect to Mercer 

County. Would you proceed with that, and then I’ll hear from the 

other three. 

Mr. FRINK. Thank you. My testimony, actually, on Mercer County is shorter than it is on Emmons County. And thank you, Mr. 

Chairman, for holding this, on Mercer County. 

The Corps of Engineers has actually taken the main lead on Mercer County at this point. And the Water Commission certainly is 

going to be actively involved in that process. And certainly any alternative, even if it is a Federal project, will require some non-Federal dollars, and the State Water Commission certainly is looking 

forward to considering those requests. 

The State Water Commission is in Emmons County. We’re certainly willing to look at all of the alternatives, some of which would 

be part of a Corps project, but certainly, I think, relocations and 

those type of things are something that we’re willing to look at. 

Also, as in the case of Emmons County, I think we need to look 

at whether or not some additional stream gauges and some early 

warning systems would be appropriate for the Knife River Basin. 

I think, again, we really were surprised by the severity of the flooding that did occur in Mercer County this year. 

And I won’t go through the Silver Jackets thing again, but the 

Silver Jackets Program certainly is available for all North Dakotans, including Mercer County, and we’re just willing to—at any 

point, to sit down and talk to you about your flood solutions and 

your issues that you may have. 

So, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator DORGAN. All right, thank you very much. I’m going to 

ask the Corps later about their discussions with Mercer County. 

Mr. Phillips, we appreciate your being here, and why don’t you 

proceed. You’re the development director of the city of Beulah, and 

we appreciate you coming today. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN PHILLIPS, DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR, CITY OF 

BEULAH, NORTH DAKOTA 

Mr. PHILLIPS. Thank you, Senator. And it’s certainly no inconvenience to come here, considering you’re providing your time. 

And I’d also like to thank Justin for that, because his telephone 

is available at any time with that, so we really appreciate that, 

that your staff is that accommodating to us also with that. 

Senator DORGAN. Thank you. 

Mr. PHILLIPS. So, thank you. Thank you, Justin, for that, so. 

Senator DORGAN. Would you pull that microphone just a little 

closer to you? 

Mr. PHILLIPS. Certainly. 

Basically, being from Beulah, I know we are the hardest-hit community, because the Knife River runs right through the community—just remembering, back in 1997, when we were all returning 

from the State basketball tournament, a pretty exciting time in 

Fargo with that, and we’d gotten a call the night we were playing 

in the semifinal game that there was some incident occurring in 
20 

Beulah with that. And a certain amount of flooding occurred and 

the damage had occurred there with them. 

In previous flooding, in 1997, a tremendous amount of damage 

occurred during the flood, and it was really devastating for people. 

And some people had a lot of difficulty recovering from that and 

it becomes a very emotional and stressful thing also with that. 

Not only in the community, but the immediate agricultural areas 

of that, there’s just a huge amount of cleanup that has to be done 

that that becomes rather daunting for an individual to accomplish. 

And typically you have a single farmer or a single individual on the 

farm with that, or whatever. And when he sees the debris in the 

pasture, the silt on the cropland with that, the hay gone, and whatever, plus the loss of livestock, it really is kind of a real devastating 

and emotional time with that. And to work through those times, it 

really, really requires a lot of patience to do that. 

In Beulah this year, the flood was actually much more magnified 

than in 1997. We got more water with that, and we still have not 

hit the 100-year curve for that, which has been identified now with 

that. 

We had seven homes where the basement actually failed. They 

won’t be replaced or displaced from the area; you have to be removed with that. There is what we see, in the older home, as 

Linton is identifying also with that, is that where the structural 

failure often occurs with that. Again, when you start talking about 

home displacement, home removal, to replace a home in that 

area—of course, it’s in the flood plain, so it’s zero basement, above 

the base level of elevation of that. But, again with that is that the 

cost of the home replacement now, versus the one that was built 

at that time, and then those people that have the affordability to 

live in those homes, it often becomes a real financial stress for that 

family or that individual with that. So, that’s something there, in 

the appraised value with that. 

Not only, then, during the flood occurrence did we have the 

water and the devastation going on with the Knife River overflowing its banks—we only get about 12 inches of heavy wet snow 

with that, where we actually couldn’t move, so we had people displaced from that area with that, in the three motels that are part 

of the north in the city with that. And we have some substantial 

snow removal equipment in the city to accommodate our needs 

with that, with that, and we had to use all that equipment to just 

get access to one hotel to get food up to that hotel where the people 

that had been displaced with that. So, that was a tremendous 

amount. And along with that, then, the rural electric had some 

power poles go down, so we had to stretch it in the rural area, right 

immediately adjacent to the city, that didn’t have electricity for 3 

days with that. Had a home burn down, with that. The fire department had trouble getting access to that property, with that. So, 

there’s a multiple of occurrences, you know, in the immediate area, 

in what we call the ‘‘community area,’’ with that, in Mercer County, 

with that. 

We had a Corps study in 1989 completed, with that, to evaluate 

their flood plain and what were some of the things that maybe 

could be done to mitigate the water damage or the flow of that 

river, with that. But, again, is that what typically happens, with 
21 

that, is, in that Corps study, we did identify some things where we 

could plug through some real critical infrastructure within the city, 

which was done after the 1997 occurrence, with that. In the 1997 

occurrence, we couldn’t use our water plant. It was actually shut 

down. Our service system essentially was shut down, with that. 

And basically what happened, we had such inundation with water, 

we had a tremendous amount of sewage back up into basements 

also with that. 

We were able to really, really handle that very well this year, 

with that. The water plant ran the entire time and people had 

fresh water, where we actually had an area that went beyond the 

flood plain, that actually had the sewer backup in the basement. 

All the commercial buildings on Main Street, with that. We were 

able to put a gate valve into our system, that prevented all of that 

backflow from occurring. And that was done through your assistance programs, with that, for mitigation. So, that was a tremendous amount of help that we were able to do that this year to minimize some of that. 

But, as I said, in that 1989 study, some of the things that probably would have been to reduce the flow, again, didn’t meet the 

matching criteria, with that, and the ratio study, with that. So, we 

need to rethink that and look at that again. 

Basically, what we’re looking at is, that we also think that we 

need to establish a better communication with the National Weather Service, with that. We had the opportunity to meet with the National Weather Service at the League of Cities meeting this year, 

with that. And sometimes I think we forget that in the rural communities we don’t communicate as well as we think we should. And 

with technology that’s available right now, with that, I think it’s 

extremely easy to compete with everyone, with that. I take a look 

at e-mail, and it’s clicked and it’s gone, and how many people can 

you contact, with that? It’s a great resource. 

So, I think that we’ve identified the need to have a better communication link with the National Weather Service to provide us 

some information. 

The other thing that we are also looking at now, we need a way 

to better gauge the flow of that river. The flow points or the identification points of flow that we have are a long ways away, with 

that. And also, we have Spring Creek, that flows into the Knife 

River, that provides a tremendous amount of water into the Knife 

River, as the creek that comes through Zap, North Dakota, that 

really devastated their park and that area of the city, with that; 

they had an RV park in there that was just inundated and really 

damaged, with that. 

So, we need to work with those things and I think that, again, 

we need to reemphasize the importance of a study. And I think one 

of the things that we look at—we talked about a dike, and one of 

the things that were addressed in the 1989 study was a dike. And 

I think the actual reality of that is not real feasible for a rural community, with that. But, I think a statement that was made by 

Major General Sprynczynatyk, when he visited the site—or, visited 

our community, is that we need to look at ways to minimize the 

flow, or control the flow, of that water through the city. We’re not 

going to prevent it from going through the city; we need to look at 
22 

ways to minimize and control that flow. And one other project we 

often relate back to is that we have a watershed on the north side 

of our community, and we have drainage ditches that come from 

the north side of the city. And, basically, in the spring, at the watershed area, north there, would flood parts of the city that are actually not even in the flood plain, with that. And working with the 

State Water Commission at that time, there was a dry dam constructed there. They have never had a problem since. But, again, 

we control through the city. 

PREPARED STATEMENT

We look forward to working with all the agencies. And we do 

thank and appreciate the work the agencies have done. And we 

look forward to further working and trying to alleviate the problems in the community, with that. 

Thank you. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN PHILLIPS

Senator Dorgan thank you for taking the time to hear us today regarding the 

damages and the needs to mitigate future occurrences such as the 2009 flooding 

event. 

In Beulah we had 100∂ homes affected by the flood causing various degrees of 

damage to the residential structures, including some with 3 feet to 5 feet of water 

in their basements. We also had seven homes that had their basement walls fail 

and will have to be removed from their location as it is not economically feasible 

to try and renovate the property. 

The city of Beulah had a study done by the Corps of Engineers that was finalized 

in 1989 and following the 1997 flood incident did ‘‘flood proof’’ critical areas in the 

cities infrastructure, which were identified in the study. Several projects that provided critical protection and minimized the flood damage in the 2009 incident included; building a dike structure around the water treatment plant, raising and 

flood proofing two of the primary sewer lift stations, installation of a valve system 

that prevented any sewer backflow from the ‘‘flood area’’ into an area not affected 

by the flood waters and securing manholes to restrict water from flowing into them. 

This work allowed the cities water and sewer system to remain functional during 

the incident which did not occur during the 1997 flood incident. 

Moving forward we still need to address how to mitigate the problem as we can’t 

incur those extensive damages every 10–12 years. Mercer County collectively has 

‘‘joined forces’’ and requested the Corps of Engineers to do a Knife River Water Shed 

Study. We also understand that there is a moratorium on any new studies and also 

there is no funding currently available. We think it is very important to work on 

moving the study and funding availability forward as what we have been told the 

previous studies are obsolete as a result of the 2009 event. We are also requesting 

to be considered as a part of the Missouri River study as the Knife River was a 

major contributor to the recent Bismarck flooding event. 

The cities of Hazen and Beulah have recently requested the Mercer County Water 

Board and State Water Commission to initiate a water shed study of both Spring 

Creek and Antelope Creek as they have been determined to be significant contributing factors to the Knife River flooding. It is also felt this project would be on a 

much smaller scale, affordable and would be able to be accomplished in a timely 

manner. 

Another area we are in need of support is to encourage the National Weather 

Service to communicate with the rural as well as urban communities to disseminate 

information relative to snow pack, water content and projected flooding as a result 

of weather conditions. This was not done during the last two flood occurrences in 

Mercer County although they were in daily contact with the ‘‘Red River Valley’’ 

area. In addition we need more measuring gauges on the Knife River to determine 

water flows. 

Concluding my testimony we look for your continued support and assisting us 

with cost effective measures to accomplish mitigation. Rural communities don’t have 

the capability of generating ‘‘Millions’’ of dollars for flood protection. 
23 

Senator DORGAN. Mr. Phillips, thank you very much. We appreciate that. 

Mr. Bitterman, you may proceed. 

While you’re beginning, let me say that, for this panel and the 

previous panel, we will keep the record of the hearing open for 2 

weeks, and those who wish to present additional views or testimony as part of the permanent record and the published hearing 

record can do so by e-mail or by snail mail, as long as you get it 

to us. 

Mr. Bitterman, you may proceed. 

STATEMENT OF FRANK BITTERMAN, COUNTY COMMISSIONER, COUNTY OF MERCER, NORTH DAKOTA 

Mr. BITTERMAN. Well, thank you, Senator, for coming to Bismarck for this location. 

I lived in Mercer County for, oh, I hate to say this, but a long 

time. And I look back at the floods that came through Zap at that 

time, 1943 to me, was a good one. It got up in Main Street, run 

around the church and run around the other side of town, and it 

went out. Since that time, I believe the river is wider and it takes 

more water. 

When this year came along and I sat down at the county office 

with our emergency management person, Peg Sorensen, and we 

watched that water come in like a bomb, and it was just—we thank 

God that there was 4 days of weather that it was 15 below at 

night—or, 15 above zero at night—that held this off, because we 

had a second flood come in, and it would have been—I think we 

would have got the 100-year flood. 

But, I do want to say that I appreciate what the Water Board 

is doing. I appreciate the State Water Board. Craig has a got a lot 

of information, and I think I’m going to turn it over to him. 

Senator DORGAN. All right. Mr. Bitterman, thank you very much. 

Mr. BITTERMAN. You’re welcome. 

Senator DORGAN. Greg Lange, thank you for being here. 

STATEMENT OF GREG LANGE, SECRETARY-TREASURER, MERCER 

COUNTY WATER RESOURCES DISTRICT 

Mr. LANGE. Senator, March 23, 2009, the Spring Creek at Zap, 

North Dakota, peaked at 21.40 feet. That broke a 37-year-old 

record. On the next day, those record flows brought the Knife River 

to Hazen to 31.4 feet. That broke a 43-year-old record by more than 

4 feet. 

Before they reached the Missouri River at Stanton, those flows 

damaged approximately 100 homes within or near the communities 

of Zap, Beulah, and Hazen. And the damage was not confined to 

those cities, as there was extensive damage to recreational facilities, to county roads, bridges, culverts, as Frank would be very 

aware of. And agricultural losses were estimated to exceed $1.5 

million. 

The Knife River flood, then, of 2009 also caused major erosion 

and tree damage along the banks, and the large quantities of sediment that were scoured up from our boundaries within Mercer 

County were carried downriver to adversely affect powerplant intakes at Stanton, city water intakes in Washburn, Mandan, Bismarck, and Fort Yates. The unprecedented flows from the Knife 
24 

River then went on to contribute significantly to the ice jam and 

the flooding that took place in the Missouri River, that you heard 

about last night, near Fox Island. 

The Mercer County Water Resource District then, with the active 

support of the county and several local cities, has taken some leadership here to address these matters and determine what we can 

do to reduce the impact of such floods in the future. 

We began that process by talking to the Corps of Engineers 

about doing a section 205 study. And the study is to cover the 

Knife River and its tributaries as they come through Mercer County, and recommend the most cost-effective measures to reduce that 

flooding in the future. That request was made June 18, 2009, and, 

I’ve got to give the Corps credit, Mark Nelson was out here in August, thereafter, to study the area and pick up a little bit of ground 

knowledge. 

So, the groundwork’s been laid for a comprehensive study under 

section 205. But, the Corps has no funding to commence such a 

study. And I guess we’ll talk more about that in a moment. 

This lack of funding led the Mercer County District to consider 

some other alternatives that we might use to control flooding. Mark 

Nelson suggested that the Corps had some planning and design 

powers under section 22, as was just addressed, some ability to 

deal with streambank stabilization through section 14, and a general investigation sort of study, which requires an earmark, which 

I understand are going to be hard to come by. 

None of these alternatives, though, would provide the important 

combination of a comprehensive study and Federal cost share for 

subsequent projects that would be available if section 205 was 

properly funded. 

The USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, or NRCS, 

also has some authority under the Watershed Protection and Flood 

Prevention Act, Public Law 83–566, to work with State and local 

entities and tribes to install watershed projects in small watersheds. I learned recently that in Grand Forks County this project 

alone has been a basis for 10 dams that now account for a 27,000 

acre-feet of water storage in that particular area. 

Unfortunately, all of these dams were built about 10 years ago, 

and the program has not been funded, in adequate numbers anyway, since then to allow for any more. 

Rich Axvig, of the Grand Forks Water Resource District, said, 

and I agree with him, ‘‘We need this small watershed program to 

become active again. It has proven itself successful, time after 

time.’’ He reported that a Congressman Collin Peterson of Minnesota may be working to increase the funding to address some 

Red River water concerns with this program, but we need it just 

as much out here, as you heard from Emmons County, as well. 

While that Federal funding for NRCS and Corps of Engineers is 

pending, the water district intends to work with the State Water 

Commission. I’ll be talking to Dale a little bit more about this 

afterwards—or private measures to study the potential for flood 

storage within the smaller watershed that contribute to the Knife 

River. 

While pursuing those studies, we’re working on something right 

now, and that’s to mitigate the damage that’s already been done. 
25 

We’ve had mapping done on the river that can be seen online now 

through our Web site, mercerwater.org, which is in my remarks, 

where you can actually go and actually see the various damages. 

But, I’ve canoed the river, and the amount of damage is unprecedented. I’ve been canoeing that river for 30 years, almost, and I’ve 

never seen anything like this. There are trees standing in the middle of the river, and they will create problems in future high water 

situations. So, we’re, and hope to partner, with the State Water 

Commission to snag and clear some of the worst of those before 

they contribute to future ice jams and future flooding. 

PREPARED STATEMENT

Whatever we do, the best solutions to flooding along the Knife 

River are going to happen in partnership with properly funded Federal, State, and local people and programs, which emphasizes the 

importance of these kinds of meetings, the Silver Jacket Program 

that’s been talked about to coordinate the people. But, we also have 

to coordinate the dollars and we have to get the dollars into the 

programs that are most well designed to deal with things that 

we’re dealing with. 

So, on behalf of the managers of the Water District, I want to 

thank you, Senator, for this opportunity to present our views and 

our needs. 

[The statement follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF GREG LANGE

On March 23, 2009 the Spring Creek at Zap, North Dakota peaked at 21.40 feet— 

breaking a 37 year old record. On the next day, these record flows brought the Knife 

River at Hazen to 31.40 feet—breaking a 43 year old record by more than 4 feet. 

Before they reached the Missouri River at Stanton, these massive flows damaged 

approximately 100 homes within or near the communities of Beulah, Hazen and 

Zap. The damage was not confined to cities as there was extensive damage to recreational facilities, county roads, bridges and culverts, and agricultural losses were 

estimated to be in excess of $1.5 million. 

The Knife River flood of 2009 also caused major erosion and tree damage along 

its banks. The large quantities of sediment scoured from the banks was carried 

down river where it adversely affected two power plant intakes at Stanton and city 

water intakes for the cities of Washburn, Mandan, Bismarck and Fort Yates. The 

unprecedented flows from the Knife River contributed significantly to the ice jam 

and flooding on the Missouri River in the Fox Island area south of Bismarck. 

The Mercer County Water Resource District, with the active support of the county 

and several local cities, has taken the lead to determine what steps can be taken 

to reduce the impact of future floods. The managers of the Water Resource District 

began by asking the Corps of Engineers to use its authority under section 205 of 

the 1948 Flood Control Act to study the Knife River and its tributaries in Mercer 

County, and recommend the most cost effective measures to reduce flooding on the 

Knife River in the future. Since that request was made on June 18, 2009, Mark Nelson of the Corps visited the area on August 5, 2009. The groundwork has therefore 

been laid for a comprehensive study under section 205, but the Corps has no funding to commence such a study at this time. 

This lack of funding led the Mercer County Water Resource District to consider 

other alternatives to control flooding on the Knife River. Mark Nelson of the Corps 

of Engineers mentioned that the Corps has some planning and design powers 

through ‘‘section 22’’, some ability to deal with stream bank stabilization through 

section 14, and could do a ‘‘general investigation’’ study by congressional earmark. 

None of these alternatives would provide the important combination of a comprehensive study, and Federal cost share for subsequent construction projects that 

would be available if section 205 funding was restored. 

The USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service has authority under the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act (Public Law 83–566) to work with 

State and local entities and tribes to plan and install watershed projects. In Grand 
26 

Forks County alone, this program has been used to construct eight flood detention 

dams on the upper Turtle River watershed, one on the middle south branch of the 

Forest River, and one on the English Coulee watershed above the city of Grand 

Forks. Together these dams provide over 27,000 acre feet of flood water storage. Unfortunately, all of these dams were built years ago. While the law remains in effect, 

it is has not been adequately funded in recent years. As Rich Axvig of the Grand 

Forks Water Resource District recently said, ‘‘We need this small watershed program to become active again. It has proven itself successful time after time.’’ We 

believe that Congressman Collin Peterson of Minnesota may already be working to 

increase the funding in this program to address Red River Valley flooding. It is no 

less needed in the western part of the State. 

While Federal funding for the NRCS and Corps of Engineers programs is pending, 

the Mercer County Water Resource District intends to work with the State Water 

Commission or private engineering firms to study the potential for flood storage 

within the smaller watersheds that contribute to the Knife River. While pursuing 

these various studies, the District will endeavor to mitigate the extensive bank damage to the Knife River between Beulah and Hazen. Hundreds of trees along the 

banks were undercut and washed into the streambed by the high spring flows. The 

extensive damage can be seen on the District’s Web site at www.mercerwater.org. 

The District hopes to partner with the State Water Commission to remove these 

snags from the riverbed before they contribute to future ice jams and flooding in 

this already vulnerable area. 

It is likely that the best solutions to flooding along the Knife River will be arrived 

at through a partnership of properly funded Federal, State, and local people and 

programs. The Mercer County Water Resource District looks forward to working 

with these partners and programs to reduce the impact of future flooding on the 

Knife River. On behalf of the managers of the District, I thank you Senator Dorgan 

for this opportunity to present our views and our needs. 

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

Let me ask, what kind of a role did ice play in the problems in 

Mercer County? Can anyone give me a notion of that? 

Mr. BITTERMAN. You know the Knife River extends about 67 

miles west of Beulah. The Spring Creek is approximately from 8 

to 15 miles north of that. And this year I don’t know why—well, 

we had a cold winter, but we seen ice come down that river, that 

went into the Missouri, that was 3 feet to 4 feet thick, and some 

of those blocks were 25 feet long. And, you know, it was a bad winter, and then the bad flood. It just—it broke a lot of trees down. 

I went to—I really don’t think, right now, that we had a bad 

enough ice jam at any place that stopped the flow of the water, because the water got where it wanted to go. And we did have ice 

chunks laying south of the Knife River, 11⁄2 to 2 miles, on top of 

little hills, little knolls in the fields. And that water must have 

been—I don’t know, you said 32? And it just—a combination of bad 

things happened. 

Senator DORGAN. Let me ask you—the Knife River, Spring and 

Antelope Creeks, all three were a problem and a contributor. Can 

you make an assessment about the contribution of each to this 

flood? I mean, was one an overwhelming contributor, versus the 

other two? 

Mr. BITTERMAN. Let me first say that there’s the Coyote, that 

goes into the Knife, and then there’s the Gold Creek, that goes into 

the Knife, and then there’s one of them that’s south of Dodge that 

comes in, that goes in the Knife. 

The Spring Creek takes up Goodman Creek. That was where the 

heaviest snow was, north of Zap and Beulah was the heaviest snow 

in that area. And I believe it. We had quite a bit more than Bismarck, here. But, Spring Creek—last fall, they drained Lake Iowa. 
27 

That had to fill up first, before it got to the Knife River and Beulah. It didn’t make any difference what had to be filled up. There 

was enough water to do everything. I mean, it just came down. And 

I’ve never seen water come up that fast. It was running a good 

speed. I mean, there was no blockage or—wherever we went to look 

at it, it was flowing at a good speed. 

Senator DORGAN. All right. 

Mr. Phillips, did you have comment on that? 

Mr. PHILLIPS. I’d like to start with—we all see a certain amount 

of ice, with that, but, I think, you know, basically the ice broke up 

relatively fast, compared to 1997. In 1997, we certainly had much 

greater ice jams, and we had ice blocks on Highway 49 that State 

snow plows had to come in and push them off, with that. So, I 

think, here, that we did have some ice, certainly, with that, to 

probably build up the water. I think, for a day, or at least 12 to 

14 hours the level at the bridge at Beulah was greater than that 

as you move farther to the east of that. But, it did break up quicker 

than it did in 1997. 

But, our biggest issue right now, I think, or one of the big things, 

is, Spring Creek’s a large feeder and is a large watershed also, that 

really, really puts a lot of water in the Knife River, with that. And 

with the snowpack and—because we actually got a second flood, 

weeks later, when everybody had their house, that could clean it 

up and get it sanitized or whatever, a week later—it was Easter 

Sunday—we had to go on the entire south side and provide another 

warning that the water was raising again, with that. The water 

level at that time had gone within inches of going into basements 

again, with that. It didn’t—it never entered another basement, but 

it really, really devastates the recreation areas. A beautiful park by 

the river with a large athletic complex, it just literally destroyed 

that. There was a tremendous amount of damage, with that, that 

took place. 

Senator DORGAN. All right. 

I want to ask Colonel Ruch, if you will pass the microphone—— 

Mr. PHILLIPS. Yes. 

Senator DORGAN [continuing]. To the Colonel. 

Colonel, as you’ve been discussing things with the Mercer County 

region, what kinds of things do you think represent opportunities 

for them to try to prevent, in the future, that which has happened 

to them? 

Colonel RUCH. To begin with, I’d like to say that I was heartened 

a bit by Mr. Phillips’ comments, where we actually did a study and 

some of the recommendations took place, and we actually saw the 

benefit during this last flooding. And, you know, oftentimes it 

seems that we’re sitting here and saying that we did a study and 

didn’t move forward. So, I’m heartened to see that, when we apply 

these efforts, that you can see results. 

We always bring up the 100-year flood or the 50-year flood. That 

doesn’t mean you get 99 years off if you get one flood. It means 

every year you have a 1-percent chance of getting flooded. And it 

has nothing to do with the amount of time. I’d just like to say that, 

because people think that it’s based on some historical occurrence. 

It’s a risk number thrown out there. 
28 

We have had good discussions with Mercer County. We received 

a letter on June 18 and very quickly came up here. We visited August 5. Once again we went out and looked at the areas, what happened, and had a good discussion. 

Section 205 really does fit the bill, so that’s what we have rec- ommended to go forward. We’ve expressed a capability of $100,000 

for fiscal year 2010, with the possibility of initiating a new start 

for a feasibility study. 

The Corps Headquarters is assembling a list of possible new 

starts for section 205, nationwide, which will be presented to the 

congressional appropriation committees for approval prior to funding any new starts. 

So, this seems to be the right authority to get at the problem. 

We talk—I heard a little bit about maybe starting a complete new 

study, if there’s a new award next year, perhaps that—— 

Senator DORGAN. Well, there’s only $40 million for the entire 

country, in section 205, but, assuming, for the moment, that the 

Corps decides that this is the right approach and that there are 

new starts available and that it is triggered here, tell me what 205 

does for you and will mean for local folks. 

Colonel RUCH. Well, you get a little wire look we’ve talked about 

several different programs that can look at one section or another. 

This is a little more comprehensive and it really gets to adopting 

and building flood damage reduction. I mean, you can end up with 

a physical project. 

Senator DORGAN. And what is the timeline on something like 

that? 

Colonel RUCH. Somewhat dependent, I guess, on the funding, but 

I believe we say 3 to 5 years, and—what? 

VOICE. [Off-mike.] 

Colonel RUCH. Thirty-six months, $7 million, yes. 

Senator DORGAN. And tell us what the cost share is on that, assuming that—— 

Colonel RUCH. The cost share for that is 50–50. And I think we— 

once again, we did have that—— 

Senator DORGAN. And you have to go through the same studies. 

Then, ultimately, when you get to that point, you have to have a 

local sponsor, saying, ‘‘All right, here’s what we now understand 

this may cost, and yes, we want to do it,’’ or, ‘‘You know what? 

We’re now at this point, now we see what it’s going to cost. We may 

not want to do it,’’ right? 

Colonel RUCH. That is correct. So, I would just say that section 

22, in the interim, I think, was discussed once again, as planning 

eight States, and that’s also a 50–50 cost share. I don’t think we 

had mentioned that, the cost share there, as well. 

Senator DORGAN. My understanding is, from the discussion, 

there’s a substantial problem with bank erosion. Where is that 

problem most acute? 

Mr. LANGE. May I address that? 

Senator DORGAN. Yes. 

Mr. LANGE. Senator, the mapping just got done on that within 

the last month. Thanks to higher-than-normal flows on the Knife 

River for this time of the year, we were able to map those things 

and complete that. And the worst of it appears to be in the Hazen 
29 

area, just starting about Hazen and going below Hazen. And, of 

course, an ice jam there is going to most affect Hazen, but it’s going 

to affect everything upriver, as well. And I want to second what 

others have said, that planning—anything that can help us plan 

and prepare for what’s coming downriver, like additional gauges, 

may be—Antelope Creek primarily affects Hazen. It comes in below 

Hazen, so it doesn’t impact some of the higher ones as much. But, 

it borders Hazen on the north side, and it’s a threat to Hazen, and 

it got very high. 

But, one of the things that we tend to do, as Ms. Jangula indicated earlier, is, we tend to plan for the last flood and think we’re 

okay if we plan for that. And that’s very dangerous here, because, 

as high as this was, it was not as bad as it could have been. As 

John and Frank indicated, there were certain things that helped— 

cool weather at nights for several times slowed this down. And a 

rather unusual amount of storage in the Upper Basin, for what we 

already have there, because of dry summer. And so, but for a couple of things, this could have been quite a bit worse. And, although 

Antelope Creek stayed within the controls, it very easily could have 

been much worse, and Hazen could have been in a very similar situation to Beulah if we had not had the lingering melt that we did. 

So, it’s safest for us to assume it will be worse, and plan for that 

aspect. And again, if we have enough warning of snowpack levels 

and moisture levels within the snowpack, we can plan more for 

what we’re going to get. 

Senator DORGAN. Is USGS the agency that is engaged there? Are 

there additional gauges and measuring devices necessary, do you 

think? 

Mr. LANGE. I think so. And that’s something—that’s a discussion—I was glad to hear that they’re doing more on Beaver Creek. 

And we’ll want to talk to them about that. I think—more on Spring 

Creek—we don’t have much in Upper Basin. I can give you records, 

because that’s where we have stream gauges. But, that’s two, and 

we could use some more, I don’t think we have anything on Antelope. And so, that’s another one where some siting—we’ll talk to 

USGS about some more siting. 

Senator DORGAN. All right. And we’ll do that, as well. 

Yes, sir? Mr. Bitterman? 

Mr. BITTERMAN. Oh, one thing I’ve been talking to my commissioners about is, we have zoning laws in our county, we have zoning in the city and stuff, and until we get something lined up here, 

or whatever we’re going to do about the flood, I think somewhere 

along the line, the city and the county—we’re going to have to stop 

people building in these flood areas until we get something settled, 

because we just can’t have $200,000 homes built down there that 

we know are going to get it, in 2 years or 3 years, Byron, and we’re 

going to look at you and say, ‘‘Mr. Senator, what can we do about 

it?’’ And I do think that some action should be taken in that direction, too. 

Senator DORGAN. All right. 

Mr. BITTERMAN. Thank you. 

Senator DORGAN. Mr. Phillips? 

Mr. PHILLIPS. I think one of the things we need to address—and 

we talked about the 205 program, but we also talked about the 
30 

costs of those things. And we talked about a 50–50 match, with 

that, you know. And I think we need to address—the 50–50 match 

is very difficult in a rural area, with that. I mean, it’s not like we— 

we’re in Fargo and we can put a half cent on our sales tax and generate a million dollars a year, with that. I mean, that’s just not realistic and not feasible. 

In some way, we need to address—Greg had identified what they 

had done in Grand Forks County or in the Grand Forks area, with 

that, with the NRCS programs. And there again, I think that we 

go back to what the costs of that dry dam was that was constructed 

north of our city that certainly has alleviated a tremendous amount 

of water flow and damage that could have come from that area, 

with that. And that dry dam cost certainly wasn’t what we’re talking about with some other projects, with that. 

So, I think that, some way, we need to identify some cost-realistic programs and opportunities also, that could mitigate some of 

the problems we have. 

Senator DORGAN. That’s a fair point. And it is more difficult for 

rural areas to come up with the funding. As Dale Frink indicated 

last evening, of course the State water commission is also, in many 

cases involved in being helpful with respect to the local funding 

share. 

Let me ask, are there any other comments you wish to make? I 

wanted to make a couple of comments with respect to both the 

Emmons County testimony as well as Mercer County testimony. 

It seems to me, while there are some differences here, there are 

also some similarities—the need for additional gauges that are able 

to be predictive or allow you to be predictive of flood threats. It 

seems to me that’s important, as well as the question of recovery. 

Also what kinds of things can be done that are cost effective and 

can be done in a reasonable timeframe that can mitigate flooding 

threats? Are there studies that can lead to structures that can be 

helpful? If so, are those structures affordable? 

All of those issues, I think, are important. I think both the Corps 

of Engineers and the State water commission are essential in cases 

like this, with the Mercer and the Emmons County flood events, to 

try to think through, What are the range of alternatives that can 

give us some assurance that there is greater protection against an 

event like this should it happen again? That’s—the purpose of my 

being here today; as I indicated to you, we’re working very hard on 

Red River Valley issues, the Red River. There are chronic flooding 

problems there. We have a study of the Sheyenne River system underway. We have a study of the James River system underway. We 

have, obviously, a larger, more comprehensive study of the Missouri River system that I authored and have funded. That’ll be a 

little longer-period study. 

But, let me just say, the reason for that, which I think is so important, is, the water in the Missouri River system is being managed in a way that makes no sense at all. You know, it’s being 

managed in the way that was anticipated, some 60 or 70 years ago, 

when we are moving water out of reservoirs, when reservoirs didn’t 

have enough water, so that we can support one barge floating 

downstream that’s hauling sand and gravel, a low-value cargo. So, 
31 

you know, we have a situation where the management of that 

river, at this point, doesn’t make sense. So, we’re working on that. 

I talked with the Bismarck folks last night about what can be 

done here to try to minimize the threat of what happened in Bismarck happening again, because Bismarck very narrowly missed 

having a very big problem, you know, with massive evacuations 

and so on. 

With respect to Mercer and Emmons, the question is, as I have 

indicated, what can be done here? And we did want to, not just 

look at the Red, the Sheyenne, the James and Missouri; we also 

wanted to look at very significant flooding events in two rural 

areas of North Dakota that came about in a very surprising way, 

a completely unexpected way, and yet, delivered a really significant 

flood threat, with very substantial damage in Linton, for example. 

I was up and toured in Beulah, of course, and saw what happened 

there. You mentioned the park. I mean, it looked like moonscape. 

VOICE. Right. 

Senator DORGAN. As well as the athletic fields, and so on. 

So, our purpose in being here is to say this. The Corps of Engineers is our principal instrument with which to try to evaluate and 

try to make progress in addressing things. Some say the Corps 

takes, you know, anywhere from 50 to 100 years to do anything. 

Well, that’s not a complete exaggeration, it does take a long time— 

but, for those that have a view of the Corps of never getting anything done, I would say, go to Grand Forks, North Dakota, and 

take a look at a really important structural change in that community. It took place over a period of time where that community engaged with the Corps, built a first-class flood-control system, steering that water through that city. 

I’ve been critical of the Corps from time to time, and you could 

probably hear them gritting their teeth from Omaha to Washington 

when I became chairman of the subcommittee that funds them. 

I have been critical from time to time, but, I’ve also said, ‘‘If 

you’re involved in a big flood fight, I’ll tell you, I know who you 

want on your side and that’s the Corps of Engineers.’’ Right in the 

middle of that fight, you want the Corps with you. 

I also think that if you’re engaged in trying to evaluate, ‘‘What 

do you do for the future?’’ the expertise and the ability to think 

through, strategize, and develop approaches—you want the Corps 

of Engineers to be involved in that, as well. You also want the 

State Water Commission and the State, as well. 

So, my goal here was to try to evaluate what is happening, how 

the Corps is engaged, how they are engaged with the State Water 

Commission and with the two groups of communities in Emmons 

and Mercer County. Then we will be attentive, as we work with the 

Corps and the State to evaluate what our committee might need 

to be doing to be supportive of what is needed in both areas. 

So, that’s the reason I came and wanted to have this hearing on 

the record, because this is a State that is not just the Red or the 

Sheyenne or the James or the Missouri; it’s other areas that have 

also experienced substantial flooding threats with creeks and other 

rivers. 
32 

CONCLUSION OF HEARING

So, thank you all for driving—those of you who have driven long 

distances this morning, thank you for being here. We’ll be in touch 

and continue to be in close touch with the Corps of Engineers on 

the plans and events, going forward. 

This hearing is recessed. 

[Whereupon, at 11:32 a.m., Thursday, November 12, the hearing 

was concluded, and the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene 

subject to the call of the Chair.] 

Æ