U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

51–878 u WASHINGTON : 1998

GARRISON UNIT REFORMULATION

OVERSIGHT HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

SEPTEMBER 29, 1998, WASHINGTON, DC

Serial No. 105–114

Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/house

or

Committee address: http://www.house.gov/resources
(II)

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES

DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman

W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana

JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah

JIM SAXTON, New Jersey

ELTON GALLEGLY, California

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado

JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland

KEN CALVERT, California

RICHARD W. POMBO, California

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming

HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho

LINDA SMITH, Washington

GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California

WALTER B. JONES, JR., North Carolina

WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas

JOHN SHADEGG, Arizona

JOHN E. ENSIGN, Nevada

ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon

CHRIS CANNON, Utah

KEVIN BRADY, Texas

JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania

RICK HILL, Montana

BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado

JIM GIBBONS, Nevada

MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho

GEORGE MILLER, California

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia

BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota

DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American

Samoa

NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas

OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey

CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California

CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO ́ , Puerto

Rico

MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York

ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam

SAM FARR, California

PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island

ADAM SMITH, Washington

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts

CHRIS JOHN, Louisiana

DONNA CHRISTIAN-GREEN, Virgin Islands

RON KIND, Wisconsin

LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas

LLOYD A. JONES, Chief of Staff

ELIZABETH MEGGINSON, Chief Counsel

CHRISTINE KENNEDY, Chief Clerk/Administrator

JOHN LAWRENCE, Democratic Staff Director

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER RESOURCES

JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California, Chairman

KEN CALVERT, California

RICHARD W. POMBO, California

HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho

LINDA SMITH, Washington

GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California

WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona

JOHN E. ENSIGN, Nevada

ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon

CHRIS CANNON, Utah

MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon

GEORGE MILLER, California

OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia

CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California

SAM FARR, California

ADAM SMITH, Washington

RON KIND, Wisconsin

LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas

————— —————

————— —————

ROBERT FABER, Staff Director/Counsel

JOSHUA JOHNSON, Professional Staff

STEVE LANICH, Minority Staff
(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Hearing held September 29, 1998 .......................................................................... 1

Statement of Members:

Conrad, Hon. Kent, a Senator in Congress from the State of North

Dakota ............................................................................................................ 7

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 9

DeFazio, Hon. Peter, a Representative in Congress from the State of

Oregon ............................................................................................................ 2

Doolittle, Hon. John, a Representative in Congress from the State of

California ....................................................................................................... 1

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 2

Dorgan, Hon. Bryon, a Senator in Congress from the State of North

Dakota ............................................................................................................ 11

Pomeroy, Hon. Earl, a Representative in Congress from the State of

North Dakota ................................................................................................ 3

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 5

Statement of Witnesses:

Beard, Dan, Senior Vice President, Public Policy, National Audubon Society, Washington, DC ..................................................................................... 33

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 77

Dorso, Hon. John, State Representative and Majority Leader, North Dakota State House of Representatives .......................................................... 20

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 57

Furness, Hon. Bruce, Mayor, Fargo, North Dakota ...................................... 27

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 57

Haak, Norman, Chairman, Garrison Diversion Conservancy District,

North Dakota ................................................................................................ 44

Koland, David, Executive Director, North Dakota Rural Water Systems

Association ..................................................................................................... 50

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 87

Martinez, Eluid, Commissioner, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Department

of Interior, Washington, DC ......................................................................... 25

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 88

Mason, Russell, Sr., Chairman, Three Affiliated Tribes, North Dakota ...... 29

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 68

McCormack, Michelle, Southwest Water Authority, North Dakota ............. 31

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 76

Nargang, Ronald, Deputy Commissioner, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources ............................................................................................... 48

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 81

Peterson, Scott, President, North Dakota Chapter of The Wildlife Society 46

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 79

Schafer, Hon. Edward, Governor, State of North Dakota ............................. 13

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 16
(1)

OVERSIGHT HEARING ON GARRISON UNIT

REFORMULATION

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 29, 1998

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER,

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES,

Washington, DC.

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:05 p.m., in room

1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. John Doolittle (chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN DOOLITTLE, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Mr. DOOLITTLE. The Subcommittee on Water and Power will

come to order.

The Subcommittee is meeting today to hear testimony concerning

the Garrison Reformulation Unit and to also receive testimony regarding H.R. 1213, the Perkins County Rural Water Systems Act

of 1998.

Today’s hearings will cover these two projects. So these projects,

and particularly Garrison, have been the subject of thousands of

hours of debate over the last several decades. In the last couple of

years, many of those who are presenting information today have

made a dedicated effort to resolve some of the major outstanding

issues. We acknowledge their hard work and their thoughtful consideration regarding this complicated situation. I believe that everyone involved in these projects has a genuine desire to address

the fundamental needs for water.

The Garrison Unit of Pick-Sloan Land has a colorful history. It

represents a longstanding effort to develop North Dakota’s water

resources. It has been at times controversial, both inside the State

and in the Nation’s Capitol. Management of these water needs in

North Dakota is incredibly complex, from too much water at Devil’s

Lake to too little water quality in the Red River Valley.

The project remains an issue with the Canadian Government,

several other States, and interest groups outside North Dakota.

Very much related to the Garrison project is the Perkins County

project to provide Garrison water to Perkins County, South Dakota.

The Perkins project was considered when the Garrison Diversion

Unit Reformation Act of 1986 was passed.

I hope that these hearings will provide a discussion on the available alternatives to provide reliable, high-quality water supplies in

both these North Dakota and South Dakota project areas.
2

Several different agencies have participated in rural water system development projects over the years, including the Bureau of

Reclamation. However, rural water development does not have a

regular place in the Federal budget. In imperative declining budgets, it remains a serious challenge to provide for these programs

while continuing to meet the other obligations we must fund such

as existing authorized projects, the Safety of Dams Program, and

the substantial backlog of maintenance activities.

We look forward to hearing from our witnesses today and be

pleased to recognize our Ranking Member, Mr. DeFazio, for his

statement.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Doolittle follows:]

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM

THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Today’s hearings cover the Garrison Unit in North Dakota, and the Perkins County Rural Water System in South Dakota. These projects, and particularly Garrison,

have been the subject of thousands of hours of debate over the last several decades.

In the last couple of years, many of those who are presenting information today,

have made a dedicated effort to resolve some of the major outstanding issues. We

acknowledge their hard work and their thoughtful consideration regarding this complicated situation. I believe that everyone involved in these projects has a genuine

desire to address the fundamental needs for water.

The Garrison Unit of the Pick-Sloan plan has a colorful history. It represents a

long-standing effort to develop North Dakota’s water resources. It has been at times

controversial, both inside the state and in the Nation’s Capital. Management of

North Dakota’s water needs is incredibly complex, from too much water at Devil’s

Lake to too little quality water in the Red River Valley. The project remains an

issue with the Canadian government, several other states, and interest groups outside North Dakota.

Very much related to the Garrison Project is the Perkins County Project to provide Garrison water to Perkins County, South Dakota. The Perkins project was considered when the Garrison Diversion Unit Reformation Act of 1986 was passed.

I hope that these hearings will provide a discussion on the available alternatives

to provide reliable, high quality water supplies in both these North Dakota and

South Dakota project areas. Several different agencies have participated in rural

water system development projects over the years, including the Bureau of Reclamation. However, rural water development does not have a regular place in the Federal

budget. In a period of declining budgets, it remains a serious challenge to provide

for these programs while continuing to meet the other obligations we must fund, i.e.,

existing authorized projects, the dam safety program, and the substantial backlog

of maintenance activities.

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today.

STATEMENT OF HON. PETER DEFAZIO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will not be able to

stay for a good part of the hearing today but will review the testimony. We have an impressive list of witnesses, and I look forward

to the discussion.

I am best described as a skeptic on the issue, particularly the

original proposal and aspects of the current proposal which might

reflect that or move us back in that direction. But I also represent

a very large district and a district where I have communities that

are water poor and need some Federal assistance with rural water

development, so I’m sympathetic particularly to those aspects of it.

And I’ve got to say that our colleague, Earl Pomeroy, has done

a tremendous job in advocacy and in bringing this forward to fruition in the hearing because, you know, they’re sort of the initial
3

reaction for those members who have been around here for a long

time is, ‘‘Oh, no, not again.’’

[Laughter.]

So I congratulate him on his persistence and the fact that he has

convinced those of us who have concerns, you know, to work with

him and work through the process and see if we can resolve those

as we go forward.

I’d be remiss if I didn’t mention a letter from the Ambassador of

Canada who was expressing grave concerns about the interbasin

transfer, similar to ones they’ve expressed in the past, and so there

are some big hurdles that we have to—that the advocates will have

to overcome.

So I appreciate the chairman making the Committee available

and gathering information on this.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you.

We have a distinguished panel of witnesses before us.

As I understand, Senator Conrad is on his way and Senator Dorgan, his whereabouts is being ascertained, so perhaps we’ll begin

with the representative for the State of North Dakota, Mr. Pomeroy, who has done so much to get us to hold this hearing.

STATEMENT OF HON. EARL POMEROY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

Mr. POMEROY. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I think this afternoon’s hearings is amazing in two respects.

First, that it’s being held at all; this is a day where no recorded

votes are scheduled, and the fact that you have proceeded to hold

the hearing as you promised me you would, I think really reflects

very, very highly on you. And you’re a man of your word, and the

State of North Dakota appreciates it because we’ve been looking

forward to this opportunity.

The second thing that’s amazing about this hearing is here we

are, 5 weeks from a general election and you’ll see the senior elected leadership of the State of North Dakota before you. We are not

all of one party, yet we will all be singing from the same play book

this afternoon. This is a broad, bipartisan consensus on behalf of

this Dakota Water Resources Act, and I think it—especially at a

time when many issues are highly polarized and extremely political—it’s remarkable the depth of unity in North Dakota behind

this bill.

We all see H.R. 3012 and it’s companion bill, Senate Bill 1515,

as critical to the future of North Dakota. We think that the broad

support it has among the political leadership is also reflected upon

the depth of support it has back in North Dakota, across not just

the people of North Dakota, but a host of groups that represent a

variety of important perspectives.

To that end, Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer into the record

today, letters from these groups. There are in excess of 20 entities

represented in these letters, as well as the testimony of the Spirit

Lake Tribe. Now one of the tribes will be testifying on behalf of all

of the tribes in the course of this hearing, but this testimony I’d

like to introduce as well.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Yes, without objection, so ordered.

[The information referred to may be found at end of hearing.]
4

Mr. POMEROY. In the mid-1950’s, construction was completed on

six mainstem dams on the Missouri River, and the flooding began

in North Dakota creating our largest lake, Lake Sakakawea. The

flooding destroyed prime farmland, about 500,000 acres of it. It cut

the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation into two separate geographic

units which has caused tremendous hardship over the years in

terms of transportation, economic development, administrative demands.

In addition, the Oahe Dam, created in South Dakota on the Missouri, flooded up into North Dakota and split the Standing Rock

Sioux Reservation in North and South Dakota. Unlike the floods

most folks are used to, this flood is with us for good, flooding an

area in our State about the size of the State of Rhode Island, to

let you know the North Dakota contribution to this Missouri River

management plan.

Now when we agreed to play host to this flood, we were also

given some commitments, commitments that water from the Fort

Peck Dam in eastern Montana would be used in western North Dakota for irrigation. Over the years, it was determined through extensive testing that irrigation was not feasible in light of the soil

and other issues, and attention turned to irrigating the eastern

part of our State with water from the Garrison reservoir.

This plan has been changed and changed and changed over the

years, yielding to feasibility difficulties as well as to political realities. The status right now is that we’ve got more than 100 miles

of supply works constructed delivering water to nowhere.

In response to the concerns involving the feasibility of widespread irrigation and our frustration with the status of the existing

project, the elected leadership of North Dakota has refocused the

priorities of the Garrison project to address our needs going on into

the next century, primarily by focusing the project on to creating

a safe, reliable water supply for municipal, rural, and industrial

use.

The Dakota Water Resources Act completes the journey started

in 1944 by providing safe water to these communities. The irrigation feature has shrunk from more than 100 million acres envisioned in the first design of the project to now 70,000 acres of authorization is what we’re seeking in this plan before you.

I can personally tell you, Mr. Chairman, about the difficulties we

have across this State with quality potable water. I grew up three

miles outside the town of Valley City. My family had to haul drinking water because our well water wasn’t fit to drink, and that is

precisely the situation many North Dakota families continue to

find themselves in.

Now the MR&I feature of the existing Garrison authorization,

has met the drinking water needs of a number of families. For example, the Southwest Water Pipeline, to date, has taken families—

we’re dealing with tap water of this color and turned it into safe,

potable drinking water, now delivered through the Southwest

Water Pipeline. I think this is an example of what can be accomplished through MR&I works in the State of North Dakota.

It should certainly be noted that there’s a lot of work to be done.

We have a number of communities across the State and on our Indian reservations where people every morning turn on tap water to
5

this rather than this. It’s especially ironic when you consider the

States of the reservations being adjacent to this tremendous reservoir of water and yet not able to find potable water in light of

the destruction done to their artisan wells and the aqueducts in

their region.

We have reformulated a project so that it has $300 million

geared to the State MR&I needs. This will continue on a 75–25 cost

share basis with the State. We also pay particular attention to Indian MR&I needs, moving funding from $20.5 million provided in

the 1986 Act, up to $200 million. The 1986 Act was represented to

be a place holder figure while the full extent of Indian MR&I needs

was ascertained. Even at the $200 million figure, we estimate that

it is only 80 percent of meeting the full water needs presently experienced on our Indian reservations.

The final major component of H.R. 3012 is $200 million designed

for developing reliable water supply to the Red River in eastern

North Dakota. I call your attention to the pictures on the charts.

They reflect two different occasions—we have a third illustrated as

well—where the Red River essentially ran dry. Now the Red River

is two of our largest cities; Fargo and Grand Forks, are on the Red

River, and you can take a look at what history has dealt us to

know why we’re concerned about the adequacy of Red River water

supply to our major metropolitan areas going on into the future.

We construct a canal—to begin with, we constructed canals

under the earlier versions of the project which create water supply

heading to eastern North Dakota. The key linking structure didn’t

work under the 1986 Act. And what we do in the bill before you

is have a pipeline connection that delivers the water from the canals to waterways that can carry the water to the Red River Valley

and deal with this issue.

To address the concerns that have existed in the past about

interbasin transfer of water, we actually provide for the treatment

of this water in the pipeline supply works to deal head-on with that

problem that has been central to the fate of this bill in the past.

The final issue I’d mention in the bill before us, $25 million for

the expansion of existing Wetlands Trust, $6.5 million for recreation and ecotourism development, and $40 million for construction

of a new bridge across Lake Sakakawea on the Fort Berthold Reservation.

We believe, Mr. Chairman, that there’s a commitment that was

made to us that has gone unfulfilled, and the sheer weight of the

needs of the people of North Dakota for safe and clean water drive

this legislation. We should not have people dealing with the water

quality issues that presently exist in all too many homes in North

Dakota. We need better water, and the bill before us would help

us get this water.

I thank you for your interest. I can’t emphasis how critical we

believe this project is to the future of North Dakota.

[The statement of Mr. Pomeroy follows:]

STATEMENT OF HON. EARL POMEROY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

Thank you Mr. Chairman for holding this hearing on the Dakota Water Resources

Act of 1998.
6

I am grateful for the opportunity to express my strong support for this legislation—H.R. 3012 in the House, and its companion, S 1515 in the Senate. This legislation is a critical component to the future of North Dakota and has a very broad,

bipartisan base of support in my state as you will hear from the testimony today.

In the mid 1950s, construction was completed on one of the six main stem dams

on the Missouri River. At this time, the flooding began which eventually created

North Dakota’s largest lake—Lake Sakakawea. This flooding destroyed prime farmland on the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation and created a geographic separation

which has caused numerous hardships in terms of transportation, economic development, and various administrative demands. In addition, the Oahe dam in South Dakota created Lake Oahe, which is partially situated on the Standing Rock Sioux

Reservation of North and South Dakota. Unlike the floods most folks are used to—

the type where a spring snow melt causes a river to rise, or a storm temporarily

makes a river flow over its banks, this flood is with us for good. In total, almost

550,000 acres of North Dakota land—a chunk of real estate the size of Rhode Island—has been lost for the sake of this project.

When North Dakota agreed to play host to this flood, a commitment was made

to our state that we would be able to use water from the Fort Peck dam in eastern

Montana for irrigation.

Extensive testing of the soils in western North Dakota revealed that the land was

not suited to such irrigation development and attention turned to irrigating the

eastern part of our state with water from the Garrison reservoir. Numerous problems arose as we pursued this plan and further studies and negotiations resulted

in a series of changes, most notably reducing the irrigation component from an original figure of over 1.2 million acres to the 70,000 acres in this bill—none of which

will be located in the Hudson Bay drainage basin.

In response to the concerns involving the feasibility of wide-scale irrigation, elected leaders of North Dakota have refocused the priorities of the Garrison Project to

better address the need across the state for safe, reliable water supplies for municipal, rural, and industrial use. The Dakota Water Resources Act completes the journey started in 1944 and will provide this safe water to communities across the state.

Today you will hear of the tremendous success of the Southwest Water Pipeline,

a feature of the Garrison Project which has brought clean water to thousands of

North Dakotans who no longer have to haul their water from town. Mr. Chairman,

I can personally attest to the difficulties of growing up with poor well water. For

years, my family hauled water from town to our home outside Valley City. Prior to

the Southwest Pipeline, water in some communities was both unreliable and unsafe.

I would like to show you just exactly what these folks dealt with and what many

still deal with in North Dakota where good water isn’t available. I have a pop bottle

here that I’m glad no one mistook for a Pepsi and tried to drink. This is water from

a community in Southwest North Dakota prior to the construction of the Southwest

Pipeline. Now, these people enjoy clean, safe drinking water, but there are plenty

of other communities across North Dakota, and on our Indian Reservations, where

people get up every morning and turn on their tap to find water like this. I believe

Chairman Bud Mason of the Fort Berthold Reservation has brought some samples

of his own to show you today—a sad irony considering the people who use the water

he will show you are little more than a stone’s throw away from Lake Sakakawea

itself, yet cannot tap into its vast store of clean, safe water.

To continue to the progress we have made with features such as the Southwest

Water Pipeline, the Dakota Water Resources Act authorizes $300 million to continue

work on this pipeline and develop other projects across the state which will bring

safe, clean water to many North Dakota communities. This will continue on a 75-

25 cost-share basis with the state. In addition, a second major component of this

legislation is the commitment to the Indian Reservations in North Dakota. The Garrison Reformulation Act of 1986 provided for MR&I funding of $20.5 million for The

Standing Rock Sioux, the Three Affiliated Tribes, and the Spirit Lake Nation. It was

understood this number was not representative of their needs, but rather a starting

point. Of course, we now recognize this was a wholly inadequate level of funding

and the unique and pressing needs of the reservations in North Dakota are much

greater. The Dakota Water Resources Act provides $200 million for water development on the reservations in North Dakota—which, in fact, is still short of meeting

their documented needs.

The final major component of H.R. 3012 is the $200 million designated for developing a reliable water supply to the Red River Valley in eastern North Dakota. This

area of North Dakota is the most heavily populated, and the city of Fargo is one

of the most rapidly growing cities in the region.

The Red River is known for its dramatic changes in stream flow from one year

to the next. We all recall the vivid pictures from the great flood of 1997, yet vivid
7

pictures of just the opposite are something we’ve experienced on many occasions in

the past. A photo here taken in 1932 of the Red River shows children playing within

its banks.

To address this, we began building canals under earlier versions of this project

which were designed to connect the water supply created by the Garrison dam to

the Sheyenne River, which flows into the Red River. However, after building canals

from each end of this project, the key linking structure in this plan was deemed unworkable, leaving approximately 20 miles between these two canals which remains

unconnected today. A number of issues led to the stoppage of this project, one of

which was that bringing water from the Missouri basin to the Red River Valley

would result in an interbasin transfer of water. Should the study of water needs

and supply in the valley conclude that this is the most appropriate method for delivering water to communities in eastern North Dakota, the interbasin transfer of

water concerns would be addressed by using a pipeline link the two canals which

would incorporate treatment of this water to meet the environmental concerns of

downstream interests.

This component of the legislation, as well as the portion of those structures already in place which may be used to move water to the east will be reimbursable.

This is considerable value to the U.S. Government, as the state would not be repay

the Federal Government for existing project features which will never be placed into

service.

Finally, the bill before us today includes $25 million for the expansion of the existing Wetlands Trust, $6.5 million for recreation and ecotourism development, and

$40 million for construction of a new bridge across Lake Sakakawea on the Fort

Berthold Reservation.

Mr. Chairman, while we believe a commitment was made to us which has gone

unfulfilled, it is the sheer weight of the needs of the people of North Dakota for

clean and safe water which drive this legislation. No child should have to bathe in

water like this. The resource is available, the need is significant, and this legislation

is our answer. This is a fair and reasonable closure to the commitment by the Federal Government to the state of North Dakota. The need across the state and on

our Indian reservations for an improved water supply—one that is safe and reliable—is well-documented. The bill before us today is the product of numerous, intense negotiations among the elected leaders of both parties in North Dakota, tribal

leadership, the environmental community, city leaders, and others to develop a plan

that effectively addresses these water needs and fulfills the commitment of the PickSloan Missouri Basin Program. I would like to submit for the record almost thirty

letters recently received from organizations across the state which demonstrate the

support I mention for this Act.

Again, I thank you Mr. Chairman for your interest in this project and for scheduling this hearing. This is one of the most critical issues before the people of North

Dakota and your willingness to hold this hearing is very important as we move forward to bring clean, safe water to the people across my state.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you.

Our next witness is Senator Kent Conrad from the State of

North Dakota. Senator.

STATEMENT OF HON. KENT CONRAD, A SENATOR IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

Senator CONRAD. Thank you, Congressman; thank you very

much, very much, for holding this hearing, and thank you very

much for your patience.

I believe this project is fiscally responsible, is environmentally

sensitive, and is a treaty-compliant approach to completing the

Garrison project.

Mr. Chairman, we started on this effort five long years ago.

When we recognized, in a bipartisan basis in the State of North

Dakota, that with the 1986 reformulation, we were never going to

achieve the results promised to the people of North Dakota. It was

just very unlikely that the Sykeston Canal would ever be completed

to deliver water to eastern North Dakota.
8

And so 5 years ago, we started on what we called the ‘‘Collaborative Process.’’ And in that collaborative process, we tried to involve all of the stakeholders. The Governor was involved, the congressional delegation; the Bureau of Reclamation worked with us

on a technical basis. We had all of the tribes of North Dakota represented, and we asked both the national environmental community as well as the environmental community in the State of North

Dakota to participate. It is a result of the lengthy deliberations

through the collaborative process, a myriad of studies that were

done by the Bureau of Reclamation that has brought us to where

we are today.

Mr. Chairman, in 1997, in February, we held in my office a 10-

hour marathon negotiating session to reach agreement on the 12

principles that would guide the drafting of the legislation. With

your permission, Mr. Chairman, I’d like to enter those 12 principles

into the record at this point.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Certainly. Without objection, so ordered.

[The information referred to follows:]

Senator CONRAD. Mr. Chairman, we believe we have been faithful to those 12 principles. They form the foundation of the bill that

is before us today.

And I want to especially highlight organizations that help bring

this all together in North Dakota. The North Dakota Water Users

and the North Dakota Chapter of the Wildlife Society, they played

absolutely critical roles in bringing us together.

And, Mr. Chairman, what you see is remarkable. I’ve never in

my experience in public life in North Dakota, seen more agreement

in our State than on this measure, on a bipartisan basis, with

every stakeholder signed up to support the Dakota Water Resources Act. So we believe we’ve made enormous progress.

Mr. Chairman, we have been working very closely with the Bureau of Reclamation, and they had a whole series of things that

they believed we ought to change. And so for 3 months, we have

worked with them, and now we believe we’re down to four issues.

We met with them again last week, and we think dramatic

progress has been made. Let me just highlight the four, and then

I will end.

They’re still concerned about the OM&R costs in this bill. They

estimate they are from $5 to $12 million a year, with $200 million

available in their budget on a yearly basis, they’re concerned with

that amount of money.

Second, they are concerned about the revolving loan fund feature

of the $300 million of State MR&I.

Third matter, is they are concerned about the Four Bears Bridge

that is included here. Mr. Chairman, we understand this is unusual to have a bridge in a reclamation bill. The reason that it’s

here is because it is project-related and because this bridge, which

is going to cost $45 million, is truly a hazard. I’d invite the chairman and anybody else who is interested to come and go across that

bridge with us sometime—about midnight on a Saturday night

would be a good time. Mr. Chairman, it is a hazard; it needs to be

replaced. The State doesn’t have the money to do it. It is projectrelated, and we thought the best place to put it was here.
9

Finally, they raised the issue of total cost. I think we probably

understand that they make the point that we still need to have a

shave and a haircut here. I’m hopeful that it will be just a minor

shave and a minor haircut, because frankly, Mr. Chairman, we’ve

gone a long way toward making this project fiscally responsible, environmental sensitive, and Treaty-compliant. We believe we have

delivered a project like that to the Committee and to the Congress.

We are certainly prepared to listen as you counsel us in what

other changes need to be made so that we can cross the line.

And again, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for your patience

and your interest.

[The statement of Mr. Conrad follows:]

STATEMENT OF HON. KENT CONRAD, A SENATOR IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF

NORTH DAKOTA

Mr. Chairman, I greatly appreciate your willingness to hold this hearing. It is a

pleasure to indicate my strong support for the Dakota Water Resources Act of 1998.

I believe this legislation represents a fiscally-responsible, environmentally-sound,

Treaty compliant approach to completing the Garrison project. I will focus my comments on the history of the development of the bill before the Committee, because

the process we have followed has been an unprecedented and cooperative process

that has taken more than five years. Our approach has been to seek input from

every quarter.

THE COLLABORATIVE PROCESS

In 1993, after it became apparent that the project authorized by the 1986 Garrison Diversion Reformulation Act would not be constructed, we began the ‘‘Collaborative Process’’ to seek ways to again reformulate the project into one that could be

completed. That process involved a group of representatives from the North Dakota

congressional delegation, the State of North Dakota, the Indian Tribes within North

Dakota, and local and national environmental organizations.

Additionally, the Bureau of Reclamation provided technical support to the group

and acted as a facilitator to the discussions. Those initial discussions, while not

leading to an immediate compromise, began the 5-year long process of formulating

a new project.

Following the ‘‘Collaborative Process’’ and time for organizations to develop alternatives, we organized meetings with all stakeholders to begin a new effort to complete the project.

DEVELOPING THE DAKOTA WATER RESOURCES ACT

We held public meetings in North Dakota in December, 1996, to get a fresh start

with the various stakeholders to develop the plan to meet the contemporary and future water needs of North Dakota. Those meetings were used to solicit views from

all interested groups about how the project should be reformulated.

In February, 1997, we met with several North Dakota and national environmental

interests in my Washington office to discuss how to develop an environmentally-sensitive approach to completing the project. From that 10-hour meeting, we developed

12 principles that have guided our efforts to craft the detailed legislative language

to settle this issue. I ask consent to have a copy of the ‘‘12 Principles’’ included in

the record.

The bill, based on those 12 points, requires full compliance with NEPA and the

Boundary Waters Treaty with Canada. It includes additional funds for wetland enhancement and other natural resource conservation in the state. The bottom line,

Mr. Chairman, is that we have developed a bill that is an environmentally-sensitive

proposal based on the agreement we reached at that marathon negotiating session

in February, 1997.

Let me emphasize that all parties came to an agreement at that meeting, including two organizations that will present testimony today in opposition to the bill. We

have continued to reach out to those organizations to hear their views about how

the substitute amendment before Congress differs from the 12 Points. We remain

willing to hear their specific concerns.

Following the February, 1997 discussions, we worked to write the legislative language that would remain true to the 12 Points. After going through several drafts

and seeking reaction from interested groups, we reconvened all the stakeholders for

a day-long meeting in Washington last October. Unfortunately, at that time the Na-
10

tional Audubon Society and the National Wildlife Federation chose to withdraw

from the process, and invited us to introduce the legislation we had developed for

a thorough public debate.

That October session helped us further narrow differences on the draft bill. At

this point I would like to highlight the yeoman’s effort of two organizations—the

North Dakota Water Users and the North Dakota Chapter of the Wildlife Society.

Those groups put forward an extraordinary effort to help us complete drafting the

bill in a way that meets North Dakota’s water needs in an environmentally-acceptable manner. That effort culminated in S. 1515 and H.R. 3012, which were introduced November 10, 1997, in the Senate and House of Representatives.

PROGRESS SINCE INTRODUCTION

Since we introduced the bill, we held a field hearing in Fargo, North Dakota, in

February to hear the reaction of North Dakotans to the proposal. At that hearing,

virtually every organization or interest that testified supported the Dakota Water

Resources Act. I have never seen such broad, bipartisan support for anything in our

state.

That support ranges from North Dakota’s bipartisan elected leadership, the four

Indian Tribes located in North Dakota, a wide variety of water interests across the

state, the North Dakota Wildlife Society, the North Dakota Rural Electric Cooperatives, the state’s Chamber of Commerce (called the Greater North Dakota Association), the North Dakota Farmers Union, the North Dakota Education Association;

and many more.

Following that hearing in Fargo; the Interior Department raised questions about

the legislation and interpreted parts of the bill differently than we intended. For

more than three months this summer we held an intensive effort to re-write the bill

to clarify provisions that were open to interpretation and to make substantive

changes to address concerns expressed by the Department.

From those discussions, we significantly narrowed the differences between the Bureau and the sponsors of the bill. The substitute amendment before the Subcommittee represents those changes, and I believe the Administration’s testimony

today will acknowledge that effort.

I believe we have substantially narrowed the differences on this legislation so that

we now have only a handful of issues remaining with the Department. We have

been working since the July hearing before the Senate Energy Committee to continue to discuss those issues with the Department.

CONCLUSION

Mr. Chairman, the work of the past two years has brought us to where we are

today—ready to move forward with a plan to re-direct, and complete, the Garrison

Diversion project. The process we have followed in developing the bill is one of inclusiveness.

The legislation represents a fiscally-responsible, environmentally-sound, Treatycompliant approach to completing the Garrison project. I urge the Committee to approve this bill and send it to the full House for its consideration.

SUMMARY OF GARRISON DISCUSSIONS

FEB. 24, 1997, WASHINGTON D.C.

As a result of the non-binding talks on Feb. 24, the following are areas of potential agreement.

1. Form of legislation—offer as amendments to the 1986 Reformulation Act.

2. Indian MR&I—increase current authorization by $200 million. Will need to:

(1) net BUREC OK on needs assessment and (2) require Sec. Interior to rank

projects and set a timetable in consultation with Indian Health Service.

3. Indian Resources—keep existing authority for irrigation at Standing Rock

and Ft. Berthold; add an estimated $40 million to replace Four Bears Bridge at Ft.

Berthold; get refined bridge cost estimates from DOT and ND DOT, seek funding

for Ft. Yates Bridge in Highway Reauthorization Bill once tribe agrees to move

ahead.

4. State MR&I—increase current authority by $300 million. Should fund 80 percent of 40-year needs.

5. Water to Red River Valley—increase current authority by $200 million for

construction of facilities to provide Missouri River water to RRV or for alternative

solutions preferred by the local communities and the state. Establish a process by

which the BUREC would complete its phase 2 study so that all stakeholders could

make a decision by the end of 1997.
11

6. State Role—continue to share MR&I and other costs; handle O&M on completed facilities.

7. Devils Lake—do not include outlet or inlet in amendments to ’86 Act. Outlet

is being considered on a separate emergency basis.

8. Integrated Projects—(a) require Corps review of Missouri River bank stabilization options downstream of Garrison Dam, (b) retain authorization for Turtle

Lake demonstration and deal with next steps in report language after peer review

is completed, and (c) increase authority for recreation projects by $5 million.

9. Repayment—reaffirmed principle that ND should only pay for capacity or features it uses. Feds pay 100 percent of Sheyenne treatment/distribution. Define a

specific plan for forgiving capital and operation/maintenance costs for existing facilities and apportioning costs for future facilities. Power Rates—leave as in ’86 Act to

retain existing rate structure.

10. Irrigation—Keep irrigation as an authorized purpose. Retain canal-side irrigation on McClusky Canal of 10,000 acres and authorize 1,200 acres along New

Rockford Canal if full costs are paid. Do not provide Federal funding for 5,000 acre

Oakes site. Deauthorize other designated irrigation except as provided in Indian Resources and Integrated Projects.

11. Wildlife and Water Resource Management—keep current authority for

Kraft Slough; turn the Wetlands Trust into a broader Resources Trust, which would

then deal with grasslands conservation and riparian areas, too; increase Trust by

$25 million; earmark a specific share of the Trust to prevent any decrease for wetlands; funci a $1.5 million Intepretive Center through the Trust; deauthorize Lonetree Reservoir and convert to a Wildlife Management Area; keep operation’s maintenance/repairs of mitigation projects as a Federal responsibility.

12. Economic Recovery Fund—do not include in legislation.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Well, thank you very much.

Our next witness is the other Senator from the great State of

North Dakota, Senator Byron Dorgan.

STATEMENT OF HON. BRYON DORGAN, A SENATOR IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

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

My colleagues have pretty well covered it. Let me add a couple

of points.

First, a more historical note, I wasn’t here back in the 1940’s

when those viewing the Missouri River decided it was kind of a ornery river from time to time. Especially in the spring it would create chaos and massive flooding in the downstream cities, and softball would be interrupted in the city parks in Kansas City because

of a river that was overflowing and wild and ornery.

So, Federal officials decided the way to harness the Missouri

River and get some benefits from that river was to build a series

of mainstem dams. They decided they wanted to have one of those

dams in North Dakota. So they came to North Dakota with this

plan, the Pick-Sloan Plan, and told North Dakotans, ‘‘In order to

control this river and prevent flooding from downstream and all of

the problems it causes, we’d like to propose that we have a permanent flood in your State. If you’d just be willing to accept this, the

flood will come and visit your State and stay forever. We propose

it be about the size of Rhode Island. We propose that it never

leave, and we understand that it would be kind of a dumb thing

for you to say, ‘Yes, we’d love to have a permanent flood without

getting something in return.’

‘‘So what we’d do is this; we’d propose a bargain with you. We’d

have the flood visit your State, and you be host to it forever, and

we will understand that you are a semi-arid State and would be

able to use water from behind that dam to move around your State
12

for the benefit of your State—for safe drinking water, clean water,

municipal and industrial needs, industrial development and so on.’’

The State thought about that and decided, well, that was a pretty good trade and a pretty good bargain to make, and so we did,

and so the flood came. And President Eisenhower went out and cut

the ribbon to dedicate the dam, and the water came, and so we’re

now host to a permanent flood.

We got the costs of this bargain, but have never realized the full

promise. It’s not to say we haven’t realized anything; we have received benefits—about a half a billion dollars and the clean water

that Congressman Pomeroy held up which comes to my hometown

and many others in North Dakota. There are very significant benefits from this project.

Throughout the years this project, we were promised as much as

a million acres of irrigation—which is a very significant issue for

a semi-arid State like ours. Imagine! A million acres of irrigation

we were told. That project has now, like a plum to a prune, has

shrunk and shriveled. And now with all of its wrinkles, is 70,000

acres of irrigation in the reformulated plan pending before the Subcommittee.

The plan itself is necessary because in 1986 we reformulated the

then-Garrison Diversion project to best meet the State’s needs at

that point. But in this room and in the agreement that was made,

there was one piece called the Sykeston Canal which was the connecting link needed to accomplish a lot of the project’s purposes. It

was uncertain whether that link was going to work as intended. Of

course, over time, it was clear. It was from an engineering standpoint, not workable; from a cost standpoint, not workable.

And so we had, then, to retool this project one additional time,

one last reformulation to fine tune the project to better meet the

needs of the State.

The latest revisions in S. 1515 include all of the features my two

colleague have just mentioned. I will not mention them again. But

I do want to mention three final issues very quickly.

First is the issue dealing with North Dakota Indian reservations.

My father spent some time in his youth in Elbow Woods, North Dakota, and that doesn’t exist anymore. That’s at the bottom of our

permanent flood. Chairman Russell Mason of the Three Affiliated

Tribes is here to testify; he comes from that part of North Dakota.

His tribe very much needs the resources that were promised and

the resources that will be delivered in this piece of legislation, as

do the people of eastern North Dakota and many other communities throughout the State who will benefit from this legislation.

Second, we dealt with this with a realistic budget. One, we retained the cost share of 25 percent for the MR&I projects. Two, we

repay the $200 million for Red River water supplies. Three, we also

reimburse the government for the share of the capacity of the

mainstem delivery features, index MR&I features only from date of

enactment, and we target the State’s critical water development

needs. Meanwhile, the Federal Government will earn tax revenues

from economic growth and receive reimbursement from the project

users.

And finally, let me just make another quick point. We addressed

the legitimate concerns of the environmental groups, the Canadi-
13

ans, and the downstream States. Those who say that we didn’t address those problems are just dead wrong. We expressly bar any irrigation in the Hudson Bay Basin. We give the Secretary of the Interior the authority to select the Red River Valley water supply feature, determine the feasibility of newly authorized irrigation areas

in the scaled-back project, and we extend the EIS period. As far as

boundary water measures are concerned, biota transfers is a nonissue because only treated water would be transferred, and so on.

Moreover, we scale back the authorized irrigation for 130,000 to

70,000 acres and limited withdrawals from the Missouri River to

200 cfs.

All of this is in my full statement that I would hope you’d make

a part of the record.

All of these provisions reflect those of us in this group, Republicans and Democrats who are interested in this project from the

standpoint of benefiting our State. We understood what kinds of

criticisms were being leveled at this project, and we dealt with

those criticisms in a very direct way. I’m proud, as Senator Conrad

and Congress Pomeroy indicated, to be sitting here with the Governor and the majority leader of the State house; we’re united on

what’s important for our State and what we’ll invest and build for

the future of our State, and I’m pleased to be here to present this

testimony.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you. I must say, I’ve never experienced

nor do I know of a situation where we’ve had this kind of top-elected leadership of the State assemble all for one purpose such as

this. It is quite remarkable I think.

As Governor, we’ve talked several times about this. I know you,

along with the others, have been a real leader and proponent of

bringing this issue to the forefront. I’d like to recognize you now

for your testimony, Governor Ed Schafer, Governor of North Dakota.

STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD SCHAFER, GOVERNOR OF THE

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

Governor EDWARD SCHAFER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank

you for the opportunity to be here and testify. We do appreciate the

time.

For the record, my name is Edward T. Schafer. I’m the Governor

of North Dakota, and I do thank you for the opportunity to testify

in support of the Dakota Water Resources Act.

As Governor of North Dakota, I am here today to address the

current and future water needs of our State, and to show how this

Act will serve the Federal Treasury—will save the Federal Treasury—compared to the cost of completing the Garrison Diversion

project under current law.

The Dakota Water Resources Act is the key to solving these

needs. The project unlocks North Dakota’s future as an indispensable element for water supply, economic development, agriculture,

recreation, tourism, and wildlife enhancement.

The Bureau of Reclamation has stated that the cost of the Dakota Water Resources Act is no more than the cost of the 1986 Garrison Diversion Reformulation Act. As a matter of fact, the cost of

meeting the needs of the 1986 Act is far in excess of the cost of
14

the Dakota Water Resources Act, and for these reasons, what is

good for North Dakota is good for the Nation as well.

The greatest challenge before us is to find a solution for a dependable water supply for current and future generations of North

Dakotans. Good drinking water is necessary for economic stability

and growth. Presently, much of North Dakota suffers from either

insufficient quantity or/and a lack of adequate supply of water

quality for drinking. The solution to this challenge is the delivery

of water from the Missouri River throughout our State. By providing Missouri River water throughout the State, we will also be

able to support the growth experienced in certain areas of our

State in recent years. This growth has come about largely because

of new manufacturing and new industry service centers. As communities grow, so does the demand for water and so does the need

for a safe water supply.

The Dakota Water Resources Act ensures our citizens an adequate supply of high quality and reliable water for MR&I water

systems across this State. The greatest single need in this regard

is to provide citizens of the Red River Valley with long-term water

supply. This includes the need for our citizens as well as the need

for our neighbors in Minnesota.

An important aspect of the Red River water supply is the fact

that the cost of delivery of Missouri River water is reimbursable

with interest. This is an important factor which helps reduce the

impact of the Federal Treasury.

Water supply development for Native Americans on our Indian

reservations within our State also is included in this Act, as well

as opportunities to manage and conserve the natural resources of

North Dakota through an expanded Natural Resources Trust.

When Congress authorized the MR&I Water Supply Program in

1986, it was a positive first step in fulfilling the water needs of our

State. The total identified needs then were more than $400 million.

And unfortunately, even after addressing some of these needs

under current law, the total remaining water supply needs in the

State today exceeds $600 million because of inflation and newly

identified needs.

The current need is outlined in a report that I have provided to

the Committee for the record.

[The information referred to may be found at end of hearing.]

Governor EDWARD SCHAFER. This report lists water supply needs

for more than 520,000 people in 144 water systems, including community and rural needs as well. The report does not cover the

water supply and water treatment needs of the Indian reservations

in North Dakota. A separate needs assessment reports are to be

completed for the reservations. Also, the means for contributing the

non-Federal share of the State MR&I program are already in place.

MR&I funds include local, State, and Federal funds, have improved the quality of life for many North Dakotans; 32 communities and rural water projects have been developed since 1986 at

a cost of more than $200 million. And the non-Federal contribution

to these projects has been approximately $73 million.

I might take a minute, Mr. Chairman, you mentioned in your

comments about the Perkins County project. The South Dakota

project, however, ties into North Dakota water supply projects, and
15

unlike some other States or neighbors, North Dakota is cooperating

with this project and certainly support the needs of South Dakota,

their people, and this water development project in Perkins County.

The water supply needs of the Red River Valley are being addressed separately in order to evaluate the best available method

to solve the Red River Valley water supply problem. And as you’ve

heard, this is a cooperative effort of Federal, State, and local agencies. Water conservation, available water supplies in the basin, and

diversion of water from outside the basin are all being considered

for the future Red River Valley needs.

The preliminary estimates for total water requirement for Red

River Valley ranges from 100 to 200 cubic feet a second in the

Cheyenne and Red Rivers to meet the supply needs of the valley

by 2050. And under any scenario, the amount of water necessary

for the Red River Valley represents less than 1 percent of the annual Missouri River flow leaving North Dakota.

You know the Red River Valley Water Supply projects, the

Southwest Water Pipeline, the Northwest Water Pipeline, evidenced here, the projects that we’ve been working on, but it is

equally important to complete the project to allow North Dakota to

use the Missouri River water properly throughout our State.

That distribution of the water will also provide a habitat to sustain fish and wildlife through drought years and will allow enhanced recreation during normal years. We have identified $1.6 billion of water management projects in

the State. Since 1986, local and State entities have spent more

than $88 million; therefore, we do believe we are showing our willingness to continue to fund our share of these water supply

projects.

We’ve talked about the reduction of irrigation acres, but it’s important to note that no additional Federal funds are being sought

for the developing of these acres. This results in a further reduction

to the Federal Treasury in cost, and that is authorized under current law. None of the irrigation is located in the Red River Basin

or in the Devil’s Lake Basin.

Water supply to North Dakota is a great concern to Manitoba

and Canada, and these concerns will be thoroughly addressed

through the consultative process to ensure compliance with the

United States-Canada Boundary Waters Treaty Act of 1909. And

from a technical standpoint, compliance is clearly attainable.

I know that there’s also been a concern raised about the efforts

of our State to control the flood at Devil’s Lake. Some suggest that

this is a back-door approach to diverting Missouri water to Devil’s

Lake, and this is simply not the case. And for the record, the proposed Devil’s Lake outlet cannot be operated in any way to divert

Missouri River water to Devil’s Lake. These two issues are totally

separated physically, as well as by law.

In addition, you will hear testimony from folks and organizations

from outside of our State that purport to be testifying in our best

interest. And I want to assure you that the people of North Dakota

that live and work in our State understand our needs and desires,

including the wildlife and environmental organizations, support

this project in our State. We are 100 percent committed to meeting
16

the quality and environmental standards and safeguards that Congress has had the foresight to put in place. And the Dakota Water

Resources Act is written in such a way that there is no question

that we will fully comply with the National Environmental Policy

Act, as well as the Boundary Water Treaties Act.

I know my time is up here, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to testify.

In closing, I do have more comments which I’ll submit for the

record, but I would like to enter into the record also the Resolution

of the North Dakota State Water Commission, which I chair, supporting the authorization of the Dakota Water Resources Act.

[The information referred to may be found at end of hearing.]

Governor EDWARD SCHAFER. North Dakotans from cities, from

farms, from businesses are committed to this Garrison Diversion

project. The project we know will never be what was promised to

us in 1944, but it will continue to be the most important water

management project in our State.

I want to thank you for your past support for the Garrison Diversion project, and I hope that you will continue your support to helping secure a brighter, better, and bolder future for North Dakota

through this water resources Act. Let’s bring this 50-year project

to closure.

In closing, let me ask—I guess I’m kind of curious when we receive a letter from Canada, when we have a neighboring State comment, when a national environmental or wildlife group, or a downstream State makes some testimony, I guess I’m curious as to why

those efforts get the credence, the creditability, and the priority

over North Dakotans when we who live and work in our State

know the needs. We love the environment, our clean air, and our

clean water, and we would never do anything to ruin the quality

of life in our State or for anybody else in a neighboring State or

country.

I thank you for the opportunity, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Governor Schafer follows:]

STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD T. SCHAFER, GOVERNOR, NORTH DAKOTA

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, my name is Edward T. Schafer,

Governor of North Dakota. Thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of

the Dakota Water Resources Act.

As Governor of North Dakota, I am here today to address the current and future

water needs of our state, and to show how this Act will serve the Federal treasury

compared to the cost of completing the Garrison Diversion Project under current

law. The Dakota Water Resources Act is the key to solving these needs. The project

unlocks North Dakota’s future and is an indispensable element for water supply,

economic development, agriculture, recreation, tourism, and wildlife enhancement.

The Bureau of Reclamation has stated that the cost of the Dakota Water Resources

Act is no more than the cost of the 1986 Garrison Diversion Reformulation Act, and

as matter of fact, the cost of meeting the needs of the 1986 Act is far in excess of

the cost of the Dakota Water Resources Act. For these reasons, it is good for North

Dakota as well as the nation.

The greatest challenge before us is to find the best solution for a dependable

water supply for current and future generations of North Dakotans. Good drinking

water is necessary for economic stability and growth. Presently, much of North Dakota suffers from either insufficient quantity or lack of an adequate supply of good

quality water for drinking. The solution to this challenge is the delivery of water

from the Missouri River throughout the state. By providing Missouri River water

throughout the state, we will also be able to support the growth experienced in certain areas of the state in recent years. This growth has come about largely because
17

of new manufacturing and new industry service centers. As communities grow, so

does the demand for water and so does the need for a safe water supply.

The Dakota Water Resources Act ensures our citizens an adequate supply of high

quality and reliable water for municipal, rural and industrial water systems across

the state. Our greatest single need in this regard is to provide the citizens of the

Red River Valley with a long-term water supply. This includes the need for our citizens as well as the need for some of our neighbors in Minnesota. An important aspect of the Red River water supply is the fact that the cost of the delivery of Missouri River water is reimbursable with interest. This is an important factor which

helps to reduce the impact to the Federal treasury. Water supply development for

Native Americans on the Indian reservations within our state is also included in the

Act, as well as opportunities to manage and conserve the natural resources of North

Dakota through the expanded Natural Resources Trust.

When Congress authorized the Garrison Municipal, Rural and Industrial (MR&I)

Water Supply program in 1986, it was a positive first step in fulfilling the water

needs of our state. The total identified needs then were more than $400 million. Unfortunately, even after addressing some of these needs under current law, the total

remaining water supply needs in the state today exceeds $600 million because of

inflation and newly identified needs. The current need is outlined in a report I have

provided to the Committee for the record. The report lists water supply needs for

more than 520,000 people in 144 water systems including community and rural

needs. The report does not cover the water supply and water treatment needs of the

Indian reservations within North Dakota. Separate needs assessment reports are to

be completed for the reservations. Also, the means for contributing the non Federal

share of the state MR&I program is already in place.

MR&I funds including local, state and Federal funds have improved the quality

of life for many people across North Dakota. Thirty-two (32) community and rural

water projects have been developed since 1986 at a cost of more than $200 million.

The non-Federal contribution to these projects has been approximately $73 million.

The water supply needs of the Red River Valley are being addressed separately

in order to evaluate the best available method to solve the Red River Valley water

supply problems. This is a cooperative effort of Federal, state and local agencies.

Water conservation, available water supplies in the basin, and diversion of water

from outside the basin are all being considered to meet future Red River Valley

needs. The preliminary estimates for the total water requirement for the Red River

Valley ranges from 100-200 cubic feet per second to the Sheyenne and Red Rivers

to meet the water supply needs in the year 2050. Under any scenario, the amount

of water necessary for the Red River Valley represents less than 1 percent of the

annual Missouri River flow leaving North Dakota.

Projects such as the Red River Valley Water Supply, the Southwest Pipeline

Project, the Northwest Area Water Supply, and many other city and rural projects

are all important parts of the Dakota Water Resources Act. Furthermore, and equally as important, completing this project will allow North Dakota to use its Missouri

River water right.

Distribution of Missouri River water in the state will also provide habitat to sustain fish and wildlife through drought and to allow for enhanced recreation during

normal years. Providing additional water from the Missouri River is a potential solution to low stream flows as well as meeting municipal, rural and industrial needs.

Besides need for water supply, North Dakota’s State Water Management Plan

shows overall needs for flood control, recreation, irrigation water supply, bank stabilization, and fish and wildlife. The Plan identifies $1.6 billion of total water management needs in the state. Since 1986, the state and local entities have spent more

than $88 million on water management projects alone, and are willing to continue

to fund their share of future projects. These efforts are in addition to our efforts for

water supply projects.

It is important to note that the Dakota Water Resources Act will reduce the number of acres of irrigation from 130,000 acres to 70,000 acres. No additional Federal

funds are being sought for developing these acres, resulting in a further cost reduction from the Federal treasury as authorized under current law. Also, none of the

irrigation is located in the Red River Basin or the Devils Lake Basin.

Water supply to eastern North Dakota has been a great concern to Manitoba and

Canada. These concerns will be thoroughly addressed through a consultative process

to ensure compliance with the United States-Canada Boundary Waters Treaty of

1909. From a technical standpoint, compliance is clearly attainable.

Concern has also been raised about the state’s effort at flood control at Devils

Lake, which some suggest is a back-door approach to diverting Missouri River water

to Devils Lake. This is not the case. The proposed Devils Lake outlet cannot be operated in any way to divert Missouri River water to Devils Lake. These two issues
18

are totally separated physically, as well as by law. In addition, you will hear testimony from some folks and organizations from outside of our State, that purport to

be testifying in our best interest. I want to assure you that the people of North Dakota that live and work in our state and understand our needs and desires, including wildlife and environmental organizations, support this project. We are all 100

percent committed to meeting the quality and environmental standards and safeguards that Congress has had the foresight to put in place. Some of these folks will

give you misguided information and numbers in an attempt to subvert this project.

The Dakota Water Resources Act is written in such a way that there is no question

that the project will fully comply with NEPA, the National Environmental Policy

Act, as well as the Boundary Waters Treaty.

The Dakota Water Resources Act also provides for the continuation of our efforts

to manage and conserve wetlands as well as other essential natural resources. Operating since 1986, the North Dakota Wetlands Trust has been successful in protecting wetland areas, and when expanded to a Natural Resources Trust will manage and protect other areas as well, such as tall grass prairies, woodlands and river

bottoms. Overall, the Dakota Water Resources Act will greatly enhance our environment, and the State’s natural resources.

Everyone must cooperate to meet the challenge of providing safe, affordable and

reliable water to our citizens and neighbors, and to address our water management

needs. There are problems in all corners of our state, and there is agreement that

cities, rural areas, agricultural interests, conservationists, and water managers can

solve these problems by working together. The completion of the Garrison Diversion

Project, through the Dakota Water Resources Act, is the best approach to solving

our difficult water problems for current and future generations of North Dakotans.

The Dakota Water Resources Act is a reasonable solution from the Federal perspective as well. As I stated earlier, we have reduced the acres of irrigation and although our total MR&I need is more than $600 million, we have agreed to provide

$100 million upfront to projects and to also reimburse $200 million for the delivery

of water to the Red River. As you can see, the people of North Dakota are willing

to provide for 50 percent of the identified MR&I need.

In 1944, when the Pick-Sloan Missouri River program was authorized, North Dakota agreed to give up 550,000 acres of valuable Missouri River bottomland for the

creation of dams and reservoirs providing a multitude of benefits for our country.

We, in turn, hoped to realize the benefits promised for our state. Passage of the Dakota Water Resources Act is necessary to help our state recover its losses from the

development of the Pick-Sloan reservoirs. The Act will bring to a reasonable and

final conclusion, the long and sometimes controversial history of Garrison.

Finally, I am providing a December 1, 1997 resolution of the North Dakota State

Water Commission, which I chair, supporting the authorization of the Dakota Water

Resources Act. North Dakotans from cities, farms and businesses are committed to

the Garrison Diversion Project. The project can never be what it once was planned

to be in 1944, but it will continue to be the most important water resource management project in our state. I thank you for past support for the Garrison Diversion

Project, and it is my hope you will continue your support in helping to secure a better, brighter, and bolder future for North Dakota through the Dakota Water Resources Act, and bring this 50 year project to a final closure.

Thank you.
19
20

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you.

Our final witness at the beginning here will be Representative

John Dorso, who is the majority leader in the State House of Representatives, who has also been a vigorous proponent and been in

contact with the Committee on various occasions.

Representative Dorso.

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN DORSO, STATE REPRESENTATIVE

AND MAJORITY LEADER, NORTH DAKOTA STATE HOUSE OF

REPRESENTATIVES

Mr. DORSO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the Committee. For the record, my name is John Dorso; I’m North Dakota

House of Representatives majority leader.

I really appreciate the opportunity to testify today in support of

the Dakota Water Resources Act. As part of the leadership of the

North Dakota Legislature, I am here to speak in behalf of the State

legislature.

Also with me today and sitting behind me is the State senate

majority leader, Gary Nelson. Unfortunately, neither State Minority Leader Tim Mathern nor State House of Representatives Minority Leader Merle Boucher could be here today, although, as well as

Senator Nelson, they asked me to stress the importance of the Dakota Water Resources Act to the State of North Dakota, and the

total bipartisan support of the legislature, and the past and present

willingness of the State to contribute to the implementation of the

Garrison Diversion project.

You have heard from our congressional delegation, as well as the

Governor, on the importance of this Act to the State of North Dakota. Senator Nelson, Mathern, and I all live in the Red River Valley in eastern North Dakota. Our principal water supply, the Red

River, has gone dry several times in the past. Also, the population

of the Red River Valley has increased substantially where today

more than 25 percent of our population resides within 15 miles of

our eastern border with Minnesota. It is obvious that we need to

develop the future water supply for that area. The Red River Valley is a significant and critical economic engine for North Dakota.

Without a water supply for it, as would be reauthorized by this Act,

our whole State will suffer.

Every State legislative assembly since 1944 has gone on record

by resolution supporting this project, and most recently in 1997,

the framework for the Dakota Water Resource Act. That resolution

has come completely by bipartisan support, urges the completion of

the project, and recognizes the critical priority of the project for

water management and development in North Dakota. Be it for

municipal, rural, industrial, tribal, recreation, or fish and wildlife

needs, the Dakota Water Resources Act is essential for economic

sustainment and development of our State.

Because of the importance to North Dakota, the State legislature

has provided funding to show its commitment to the Garrison

project. In the past, we have appropriated general funds for water

projects, including the Garrison Diversion project, and we have also

dedicated, by constitutional measure, a Resources Trust Fund for

water development. Most recently in 1997, we provided authority

for bonding for the Garrison project as part of our comprehensive
21

statewide water development program. The State legislature stands

ready to address ways to meet future needs for funding the nonFederal share of the Dakota Water Resource Act as proposed.

Mr. Chairman, I’m going to just digress a little bit from my written testimony here. I heard you mention, or maybe it was Representative DeFazio earlier, about Representative Pomeroy’s persistence in this matter. The fact of the matter is, is I think any of

us who live in North Dakota and are elected to be political leaders

of our State, will continue to be persistent. I don’t think we have

any choice because of the nature of the changing economy of our

State where we have tried, through bipartisan efforts, to diversify

our economy, water has become so critical. We have no choice but

to be here and continue to ask to get something done, because the

Red River Valley cannot sustain itself without a sustainable, clean

source of water.

So I would appreciate your support and members of the Committee. We will continue to be here and work with you as much as

we can to solve this problem for our people.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Dorso may be found at end of

hearing.]

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Well, thank you.

I just have a couple of questions. Maybe Mr. Dorso—let me just

ask you, do you and your colleagues accept the present cost share

that’s proposed for the State in this bill? I mean you think you’d

be able to meet that?

Mr. DORSO. Well, Mr. Chairman, to be completely honest, I didn’t

really like the formula. I thought it should be quite a bit less, the

State’s share, based on what we’ve spent in the past. But, through

the compromise process, I can assure you that the legislature will

support this formula for funding, and hopefully we’ll be able to do

something in 1999 as we meet to move forward.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. I know you’re not going to like the direction of

this and, hopefully from your standpoint, it will be what it is in the

bill, but does the State’s legislature have the will—does the State

have the capacity if it took even a higher share of local cost to accomplish this, do you think you could rise to that occasion?

Mr. DORSO. Well, Mr. Chairman, I think that that’s a fair question, but I think I have to ask you, if we have to do something

about the Devil’s Lake problem, and that’s the outlet, and all of the

costs there, I think in the short run, ‘‘No.’’ I think we’d be very

hard pressed with all of the problems that we have dealing with

water in North Dakota. We also have the Grand Forks Dike issue

that we have to face. I just don’t know where, in the short term,

we could come up with additional funds.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Let me jump in and ask, I notice in this emergency supplemental that’s moving through the Congress now,

there’s an amount of money for Devil’s Lake. I don’t know how that

relates to—does that solve the problem for Devil’s Lake or not?

Mr. DORSO. Well, we have to have a State share for that, too, Mr.

Chairman.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. So, you’re saying that when you meet that State

share, you think you wouldn’t be able to go much above the 25 percent?
22

Mr. DORSO. Mr. Chairman, in the short term, I don’t believe we

would be able to.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you.

Governor, what has been the nature of your discussion with the

Government of Manitoba and other governmental officials on the

Garrison issue?

Governor EDWARD SCHAFER. Well, I obviously have met several

times with the premier, especially of Manitoba. We’ve had technical

exchanges with some of their folks up there as well through our

Water Commission, and there are ongoing discussions. Certainly,

they understand our problems, are interested in our needs. I found

it interesting that the premier, Premier Filman, from Manitoba, is

an engineer. And he said, ‘‘Normally, I look at, as an engineer, I

look at ways at how you solve problems. If you have a barrier, how

do you get through them?’’ However, he told me directly that he is

unalterably opposed this project. I think this project is emotional

there. I think there are political considerations in Canada that just

won’t allow us to be able to deal with this. It just seems to me that

even though that we can show it to be technically safe, that it will

not have risk to the Canadians and to our friends and neighbors,

the Manitobans. I just think that we will never get them to support

this project, and it’s going to be necessary for the U.S. State Department to just say, you know, ‘‘You will comply with the Boundary Water Treaties Act.’’ We’re committed to it. I don’t think we’re

ever going to convince them that we can do it, but I guarantee that

our State will make sure we meet the requirements at the border

of the Boundary Water Treaties Act.

If I might go back to your previous question, as far as what we’ve

been able to do, the State has already, in the current projects, committed funds in the range from 25 to 35 percent. I mean we’re putting our share of dollars in as needed, but as Representative Dorso

mentioned, we have such huge needs for water projects in our

State, including the flood problems in the Red River Valley. I know

it seems strange to talk about flood problems——

[Laughter.]

[continuing] in for Red River Valley when we’re talking about

moving water over there, but those are the up and down cycles of

water, and certainly the needs are there. And our State has shown

the willingness to contribute our fair share.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Coming from California, I can fully appreciate

how you can be faced with both drought and flooding in the same

year.

I’d also like to recognize the presence—acknowledge the presence

of the Senate majority leader, so we have everybody; that’s impressive. Welcome.

Well, Mr. Farr has joined us. Did you wish to address questions

to the witnesses?

Mr. FARR. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you

having this hearing.

It’s ironic that two Californians, both from northern California

who have all the water, are sitting here. Usually we’re battling

with our colleagues in southern California who want our water.

[Laughter.]
23

So we’re very sympathetic to the needs. As I just read the quick

summary of it—and I want to thank Congressman Pomeroy for

coming into my office and briefing me on this issue—I was very

sympathetic to your needs.

But looking over here, is there really—is the cost of this, as it adds up to be about $725 million? Is the analysis here—the overview, is that the additional $300 million for the municipal, rural,

and industrial water for the MR&I under the 1986 reformulation,

an additional $200 million for the tribal MR&I, authorization of

$200 million to meet the Red Valley water needs, and adding $25

million to the existing Wetlands Trust for broadened purposes, and

then some offsets, reducing the authorized irrigation from 130,000

acres to 70,000 acres, and provide protection for the Western Area

Power Administration’s rate payers. What is the bottom line need?

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, if I might. Mr. Farr, it’s about a $770 million tag and the three principal

components of it. Three hundred million dollars State MR&I, the

conversion of this project from primarily an irrigation project to

primarily a municipal water supply project, and that’s the $300

million figure. All right, in addition, as was recognized at the time

of the 1986 reauthorization, the water needs on our Indian reservations are enormous, and once more the equity claim in particular

of two of the four tribes that have literally been split apart by this

reservoir are very significant. It’s $200 million to the Native American MR&I needs. Two hundred million dollars as the third central

feature of this project, Congressman Farr, relating to the transport

of water from the reservoir in the west to the population in the

east.

And so those are the three most significant features of this

project. And then there are some other issues; the Wetlands Trust

and the Four Bears Bridge allowing this particular tribe at Fort

Berthold to have a workable transportation artery over the reservoir itself.

Mr. FARR. Can you segment that? Is that where you can get $200

million for the project for the pipeline and then work on the formulas in subsequent years, because those don’t all come due at the

same time, or do they?

Mr. POMEROY. Well, the $200 million is reimbursable on that

water, west to east, so there would be an income stream coming

back repaying that obligation to the Federal Government.

Mr. FARR. OK. Well, I’ll be on the Appropriations Committee

next year, so I’ll be looking forward to working with you.

Mr. POMEROY. You know, as was said, actually you missed our

presentations, and this is a big price tag, but we have put this

project together. It’s a comprehensive project for our State’s water

needs and represents the quo and the quid pro quo the State entered into at the time we got flooded with a reservoir that’s literally the size of the State of Rhode Island.

We are the host to the flood, but we have yet to get the optimal

plan in place that gives us a fair use of the water from that reservoir. And so, that’s why this is as it is, and we haven’t asked the

Federal Government, ‘‘Well, fund this little leg; fund that little leg.’’

We put it together in a comprehensive package that would represent the culminating of the Federal Government’s response to
24

North Dakota for the building of the dam on the Missouri River

and the flood that resulted in Lake Sakakawea.

Mr. FARR. It’s too bad you couldn’t have that pipeline reach Los

Angeles. You’d sell it in a quick minute.

[Laughter.]

Mr. DOOLITTLE. I’d like to thank our witnesses’ extraordinary appearance by the officials of North Dakota. We certainly know you

are committed to this project, and we thank you for taking the time

to be here.

We may have additional questions we’ll wish to address, and

we’ll do that in writing, and we’ll hold the record open for your responses.

And with that, we thank you for being here. We’ll excuse——

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, as this panel breaks up, I would

have two requests for the record. We held a couple of hearings in

the State of North Dakota, one in Fargo and one in Minot, to illicit

responses from and to allow the general public in the State to show

what they thought of this particular plan. We would like to introduce the testimony from those two hearings, one held in Fargo on

February 14, 1998, one held in Minot, August 11, 1998, into the

record.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. We’d be pleased to, without objection, include

that in the record.

[The information referred to may be found at end of hearing.]

Mr. POMEROY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And finally, we’d like

to add to the records a letter from Robert Griffin, Brigadier General U.S. Army, division engineer with the Army Corps of Engineers, basically assessing the impact on downstream flows from the

proposed project.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. And we’ll include that as well, without objection.

[The information referred to may be found at end of hearing.]

Mr. POMEROY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. FARR. And I think for the record, I’ve—and I’m still new to

this place—but I have never seen a more distinguished panel in the

entire political leadership; House, Senate, and Governor are sitting

at one table from any one State. I don’t think any other State could

do that, and I compliment you on your ability to bring it all together.

Mr. POMEROY. Thank you.

Governor EDWARD SCHAFER. Thank you.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. As the witnesses are leaving, let me invite the

members of panel one to come forward.

Any objections to Mr. Pomeroy joining us at the desk? Being

none, he is invited.

Let me ask, please, the members of panel one if you will rise and

raise your right hand.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Let the record reflect that each answered in the

affirmative. We appreciate your being here, and we will begin with

our Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation, Mr. Martinez.
25

STATEMENT OF ELUID MARTINEZ, COMMISSIONER, U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION, DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR,

WASHINGTON, DC

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee, I

have submitted by written testimony for the record, and if appropriate, I’d like to summarize my statement.

I’d like to start off by extending my appreciation to the North

Dakota delegation, the Governor’s office, State legislative leaders,

their State engineer, and the Conservancy district with working

with reclamation over the past year to try to address some of the

outstanding issues and the concerns of the administration.

While we have not been able to adequately address all those

issues, we are a lot closer today than we were 6 months ago in trying to resolve the administration’s concerns with this, including a

meeting I had last week with the delegation. I’m optimistic that additional progress can and will be made.

There is still some concerns that need to be addressed, and if I

may, I’ll divert from my prepared statement. We have the issue of

the concern by Canada about water quality. I view that as a technical issue and a political issue. I think from a technical prospective, these issues can be addressed.

The other issue that my testimony addresses is a question of

tieing the Wetlands Trust funding to development or to the

progress of development on the Red River Valley initiative. The administration believes they should be decoupled and stand on their

own merits.

I’d like to, if at all possible, try to help you, Mr. Chairman, and

the Committee with some of the questions that you raised and try

to place this in some kind of a perspective. And my figures might

be a little bit off, and if so, I’ll correct the record. But it’s my understanding that in 1965, under Public Law 98–108, where Congress

sort of adopted or fashioned a project that involved 250,000 acres

of irrigated land. It was at that process at that time that the

amount of money necessary to construct that project was about

$2.2 billion, 1965.

In 1986, by the time this project had sort of been reformulated, Public Law 99–294, was looking at a total project cost of about $1.5

billion with no indexing involved. In other words, no escalation for

increases in price of construction. And, to date, out of that $1.5 billion, $800 million has been authorized, and the Bureau of Reclamation has, through this year, gotten appropriations of about $614

million.

The current proposal before you now, as proposed by this legisla- tion, is about $1.6 billion and does not include index cost. In other

words, that price will escalate based on the time it takes to construct and the indexing of those costs, so I think from all——

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Commissioner, just to clarify, you said that it

will escalate?

Mr. MARTINEZ. Yes. The $1.6 does not include indexing costs.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Right.

Mr. MARTINEZ. So it would escalate. So I think the argument

could be made that it’s sort of a wash in terms of the total number

of Federal dollars that were contemplated to be committed sometime in 1986 versus the current proposal.
26

Within this $1.6 billion that the project sponsors are seeking, is an increase of about a billion dollars to fund, in essence, a $200

million part of the project for bringing water into the Red River

Valley. Now as I understand, this would be reimbursable with interest, paid back to the Federal Treasury, but it is my understanding that the payments would not occur until such time as the

project would be put in operation. There’s a $300 million increase in the non-Indian MR&I, or municipal, rural, and industrial portion of this project. That $300 million represents a 75 percent cost share of the Federal Government

of what I assume to be a $400 million project. The administration

has concerns about the 75 percent cost share. It’s longstanding policy at the Bureau of Reclamation that these kind of projects, that

the project sponsor fund 100 percent, reimbursable with interest,

with these kind of projects.

Now I fully understand that the Committee is aware that there is, within the Garrison project right now, $200 million which has

been authorized for similar projects that are being funded with a

75 percent cost share by the Federal Government.

Mr. Chairman, if I may, I might want to exceed——

Mr. DOOLITTLE. You just take the time you need, Mr. Martinez.

Mr. MARTINEZ. OK.

So, and I think the administration is committed to that $200 million, so we’re talking about an additional $300 million. And the

question is, whether that should be a 75 percent Federal cost share

to the extent that that cost share reduced that $300 million requirement would come down, bringing down the total cost of the

project. There’s a $200 million portion for Indian municipal, rural, and

industrial water supply. And I understand that would only meet 80

percent of the Indian needs in the State. The administration supports that. I believe that the Indian community needs to have their

needs addressed. But we are concerned about the operation and

maintenance, perpetual costs associated with that project.

The Bureau of Reclamation, as Commissioner, I’m concerned

about the $40 million in this proposal for the Four Bears Bridge.

Now I understand the need, and I don’t question the need, for the

bridge, but given the fact that the Bureau of Reclamation’s budget

has been decreased and continues to be in a decreasing mode for

the last few years, I would find it difficult to be able to seek the

appropriation for $40 million for a bridge when I have competing

needs, as you know, toward reclamation efforts westwide.

So I think from my perspective, Mr. Chairman, assuming you get

past the water quality issue with Canada and some of the environmental concerns, it’s really a question of funding and where the

money is going to come from if Congress sees fit to move this

project forward.

We will continue to work with the Committee and the project’s

sponsors to try to find ways to reduce the Federal expenditure on

this project by reductions in the Federal OM&R expenses as well

as the total project outlay.

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my comments.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Martinez may be found at end

of hearing.]
27

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you.

Our next witness will be the Honorable Bruce Furness, Mayor of

the city of Fargo, in North Dakota.

Mayor Furness.

STATEMENT HON. BRUCE FURNESS, MAYOR, FARGO, NORTH

DAKOTA

Mayor FURNESS. Chairman Doolittle, Congressman Farr, Congressman Pomeroy, thank you for the opportunity to be with you

today.

I do represent the city of Fargo, but, in addition, today I’m representing the Eastern Dakota Water Users group and the North

Dakota League of Cities, which just this past Saturday, the North

Dakota League of Cities, 361 cities, approved a resolution of support for the Dakota Water Resources Act which I’d like to have entered into the record if I may.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Without objection, so ordered.

[The information referred to may be found at end of hearing.]

Mayor FURNESS. Fargo is located right on the edge of North Dakota on the Red River. It is the largest city in North Dakota and

with Moorhead, Minnesota, right across the river, represents about

165,000 people in population. We have enjoyed a growth rate of

about 2 percent over the last 15 to 20 years and see that continuing in the near future. In fact, we think it’s actually accelerating at this point. This is one of the reasons why we’re concerned about the quantity of water available. And from a statewide

prospective, nearly 40 percent of the State’s population live in the

six counties that border the Red River.

I am going to paraphrase my report, but I would like to read two

parts of this. And the first is a summary of the problem characterized by a report from our consultant, Black & Veatch, when we designed our new water plant. They say that, ‘‘The city of Fargo has

rights to two water sources for treatment and subsequent supply

to its citizens for potable use: the Red River of the North and the

Cheyenne River. Unfortunately, both sources are of poor quality

and, even taken together, they do not offer a reliable quantity of

water to meet Fargo’s present and certainly the future water

needs. The diversion of Missouri River water to Fargo by way of

Garrison Dam would provide a long-term lifeline for the community.’’ That’s their conclusion.

We are concerned about the quantity of water. You’ve seen the

pictures of some of the drought situations, and I want to also describe to you a commentary, I guess, by former Governor William

Guy of Fargo. ‘‘If you were to look at the Red River near the water

plant in the 1930’s, you would wonder how they ever made the

water fit to drink. The searing hot drought hung over heavily the

Upper Midwest through the entire decade of the 1930’s. The Geological Survey records say that the murky Red River ceased to flow

at Fargo for a period in every year of that decade. The driest year

was 1936 when the Red River stopped flowing for 166 continuous

days. Cars were not washed. Lawns went unsprinkled. There was

talk of returning the Fargo Sewage Plant discharge to the river

above the city water intake for reuse. Moorhead, across the river,

was drawing all of its water from wells east of the city, and their
28

tap water tasted good. With a population of around 25,000 at that

time, Fargo’s water situation was desperate. Today—’’ and I’m still

quoting Governor Guy—‘‘both Fargo and Moorhead draw their

water from the Red River, while their combined population has increased five fold from the dry 1930’s. Industries not even dreamed

of 65 years ago now use copious amounts of Red River water. It is

easy to understand why the Garrison Diversion project to bring

Missouri River water east to the Red River Valley has been on the

minds of thinking people for more than 50 years.’’ and that’s the

end of his quote.

We are concerned about low flow quantities as well. There has

been a study performed in the past that suggested that a seven

cubic feet per second minimum flow in the Red River is sufficient,

and that is totally unacceptable. You won’t be able to see this

chart——

[Laughter.]

I can hardly see the chart from here. So I’ll just have to describe

it to you. But it is a chart; I think it was in the packet of information that was sent to you. It’s a chart of annual 7-day duration low

flows in the Red River from 1900 to the present time. And what

it shows is—what it takes is 7-day periods, 1-week periods, and

finds the lowest of those for the given year, and that’s what is recorded on the chart.

So you can see that there’s a green line toward the bottom of

that chart. That represents the current capacity or the current average daily use of our water plant in Fargo, 12 million gallons a

day. And when the blue line goes below that green line, that means

there’s insufficient water to handle that average usage of water. So

it doesn’t happen too often. You can see in the 1930’s that there

is no blue line there. That’s when we had that zero flow. You can

see in the 1970’s there was some, but of recent years it has been

fairly good.

The next line above that is a black line and it represents the capacity of our new water plant at 30 million gallons per day, which

we just invested $60 million in, and the line above that, the kind

of dark blue line, horizontal line, represents our future capacity.

The plant was designed to be expanded to 45 million gallons per

day. If you look at that line, the 45 million gallon line across, and

then look below that for all of the blue trend lines, those would be

situations where in the past there would not have been enough

water to run that plant at capacity. So we think we didn’t enter

into that investment of $60 million lightly. We have that capacity

now, and we’d like to have the water available for that as well.

The obvious source of that kind of water is the Missouri River

water; 96 percent of the usable surface water in North Dakota is

in the Missouri River, and it makes sense, we think, to transport

that east. And as was pointed out before, the 100 cubic feet per second that would go potentially to eastern North Dakota is about 1

percent of the entire water flowing through the State in the Missouri River.

And I had a graphic description which didn’t get here, but if you

were to take a pail of water that represents the water in the Missouri River going through Garrison and down out of the State, the
29

amount that would be diverted into the eastern part of the State

would be represented by just a single thimble of water.

We are also concerned about quality, and I’ll let the written report deal with that. And we are also concerned about conservation,

which we are doing in our community now and will continue to do

and enhance that.

The last point I would like to make is my last paragraph in the

written statement. Although impossible to predict with any certainty, it is believed that the Red River Valley has adequate water

supply for the next 10 to 15 years. Should drought conditions occur,

however, that estimate may be reduced 3 to 5 years. Consequently,

little time remains to resolve these concerns. Activity must begin

now to address the many issues relating to water quantity and

quality. And I urge your favorable consideration of this critical legislation.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Furness may be found at end of

hearing.]

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you.

Now our witness will be Mr. Russell D. Mason, Sr., chairman of

Three Affiliated Tribes, in North Dakota.

Mr. Mason.

STATEMENT OF RUSSELL MASON, SR., CHAIRMAN, THREE

AFFILIATED TRIBES, NORTH DAKOTA

Mr. MASON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the Subcommittee, Congressman Farr, and our good friend Congressman

Earl Pomeroy. I want to thank you for the opportunity to present

testimony today concerning H.R. 3012, the Dakota Water Resources Act.

I am Chairman Russell Mason of the Three Affiliated Tribes of

the Bandan, Hidatsa, and Arikara Nations. Also, accompanying me

is Chairwoman Mira Pearson of the Spirit Lake Nation, who is sitting in the audience here.

I’d like to share with you a little bit about the Three Affiliated

Tribes. As you may recall, the Three Affiliated Tribes greeted

Lewis and Clark in the early 19th century as they made their expedition up the Missouri River and over to the Pacific coast. And if

it wasn’t for the Three Affiliated Tribes, I don’t think he would

have survived his first winter. And also, I don’t know if he would

have been able to find his way if it hadn’t been for a guide that

was one of our women from the tribes up there, and that was

Sakakawea who provided a guide as well as an interpreter.

But also, in sitting here and listening to the testimony and having testified at a number of hearings and on the Senate side, the

Three Affiliated Tribes were one of the tribes that signed the 1851

Fort Laramie Treaty, at the time when we were given over 11 million acres.

Since that time, lands were taken by Executive Order, by congressional actions, and the last land grab—and if you were to look

at the map of the Garrison Reservoir—is that the Three Affiliated

Tribes gave the most and sacrificed the most. About 69 percent of

the land needed for that dam belonged to the Three Affiliated

Tribes. We occupied that valley; 99 percent of our people lived in
30

that valley, and I grew up there. I can never go back, and I can

never say, ‘‘This is where I was born.’’ like any one of you can go

back wherever you were born.

It caused social disorganization that we’re still recovering from.

It disorganized our clanship systems, our medicine societies, and

caused havoc. It took some of our most fertile lands from us.

What I want to say that, today—and I think that Congressman

Farr identifies with this—we’re one of the few States that has a

solid working relationship with not only our congressional delegation, but also with our Governor, with our State legislatures, and

our friendship goes across partisan lines. And I think many States

could follow this example.

I want to say, clearly, that the Three Affiliated Tribes strongly

supports the Dakota Water Resources Act and urges its immediate

passage. And, I would like to show—everyone has their water bottles here, but I brought mine, too. But this is the water that we

get from most of the wells in North Dakota. Someone just brought

this to me. They said this was from the Committee coffee shop——

[Laughter.]

[continuing] which really isn’t very far off from these other colors. In fact, my mother is 86 years old, and she lives out in the

country. Her water was darker than this. We shut her well down,

otherwise, I would have brought a sample. We have to haul her

water. And so, without laboring—and I think that my good friends

have given all of the information that is needed—is that we need

this.

But also we were promised many things in the same manner

that we were promised many things in our treaties. We were promised the replacement of a hospital; we have never received that.

We were promised a bridge, and that bridge that spans the Missouri River that we were talking about, Four Bears Bridge, is not

an Indian bridge; it’s a North Dakota bridge, and it has a lot to

do with the commerce in western North Dakota. You have farmers

and rangers that live on each side of the river who farm on the

other side of the river. That needs to be replaced. Those spans for

those bridges were taken from bridges that were constructed in the

1930’s, and it is one of the most dangerous bridges in the country.

And as Senator Conrad had mentioned is that one only needs to

drive, not only on a Saturday night but anytime of the day, to see

how dangerous that bridge is.

I would have several remaining issues that I hope this Committee could address, at a minimum in the final committee report

of H.R. 3012.

One, is that we would ask that the language be in the final committee report recognizing the reserved water rights of the Three Affiliated Tribes to water from the Missouri River and its tributaries

that are within the Fort Berthold known as Winters doctrine

rights.

Two, we would also request that authority be provided for Federal funding of additional irrigation sites for the Three Affiliated

Tribes, should they prove feasible other than those already authorized.

Finally, we would ask that the final Committee report accompany the bill include language that states that this bill fulfills some
31

of the goals set forth in the Garrison Unit Joint Tribal Advisory

Committee report, dated May 23, 1986. I have attached a copy of

that report to my original copy of my written testimony and would

ask that this be included in the record of this hearing.

As I mentioned, we were promised many things when we lost our

homelands almost 50 years ago. And as Senator Dorgan said on the

floor of the Senate when the Senate version of this bill was introduced, ‘‘We expect the Federal Government this time to keep their

promise.’’

Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Mason may be found at end of

hearing.]

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you.

Our next witness will be Ms. Michelle McCormack, of Southwest

Water Authority, in North Dakota.

Ms. McCormack.

STATEMENT OF MICHELLE McCORMACK, SOUTHWEST WATER

AUTHORITY, NORTH DAKOTA

Ms. MCCORMACK. Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, my

name is Michelle McCormack, and I have been a resident of southwest North Dakota for the past 17 years.

I am one of the many people in North Dakota that has benefited

from the partially completed Southwest Pipeline project. I support

the passage of legislation on the completion of Garrison Diversion

because I know firsthand, the social, economic, and personal hardships of having poor water.

My first home in southwest North Dakota had clear water, but

it was ‘‘hard enough to walk on’’ according to the water tester. It

was high in sodium and high in iron. It left rust stains on our

clothes and it left stains and deposits on fixtures. It was so

invasive that lifetime faucets had to be replaced every 7 years.

Water pipes and shower heads filled up with hard lime deposits,

so the water pressure was reduced, and eventually plumbing would

leak and have to be replaced.

My husband and I built a house 10 years ago on a building site

with an existing well. The well water was light brown, the color of

tea, and it was soft, but it was very limited. When the cattle were

drinking there was no water in the house.

That well began to fail after a few years. Because of the soils in

our area, wells often fail, filling in with a light silt. We added filters, attempted to clear the water through the use of settling tanks,

and finally we had to accept the fact that we needed a new well.

At a cost of $12 a foot, we dug until we had spent over $6,000. And

we found water—abundant, soft, potable, safe for cattle, but dark

brown. We had the choice of digging deeper, hoping to find better

water; however, there was no guarantee that it would be there. Or

we could live with the brown water that we had and wait for the

pipeline to come.

That brown water stained everything. One washing would turn

a white dishtowel grey. Even dark clothes were dulled and dingy.

My children learned to dry their hair after a shower; if they did

not, their damp hair would stain the collars of their white t-shirt.
32

The picture you see here of the baby in the bathtub is my son.

When he was five, he asked me if there was a rule that only motels

and grandmas got to have white sheets. We bought dark towels,

dark linens, and very little white clothing. We had to haul all our

white laundry to the nearest laundromat, a 30-mile trip one way.

It took full strength toilet bowl cleaner to remove dried stains

from sinks, showers, and fixtures. We distilled all the water we

used for cooking and drinking and cleaning. The water had tested

safe for human use, but boiling pasta or potatoes in that water was

unappetizing at best. Our distiller ran 24 hours a day.

It wasn’t pretty and we endured it because we had to. Our family

and friends hated to visit or stay overnight, and the kids’ friends

didn’t like to see it. So there was a social cost and a high economic

cost to distill, and haul laundry, and a long-term cost to the house

plumbing and fixtures.

Our friends and our neighbors, they all have stories like this.

They tell stories of faucets that erode away every 5 years; garbage

disposal blades eaten by the water; stains, costs, frustrations, and

hard work over a resource that most Americans take as a given

part of their life.

I’ve been lucky; I am one of the people who benefited greatly

from the Southwest Pipeline project. There are others.

Don and Sarah Froehlich from Belfield were about to sell their

dairy cattle operation before the pipeline arrived at their farm.

High levels of sulfate contaminated their water causing Don to be

sick with flu-like symptoms for over a month. In addition, the

water caused a bad taste in the milk and cheese their cattle produced.

Douglas Candee from Dickinson has expanded his buffalo herd to

over 200 head which he attributes to the abundant, dependable

water he receives from the Southwest Pipeline project.

Joe and Mag Kathrein, of New England, have struggled constantly with water in the past, hauling water twice a day to their

cattle herd 20 miles round trip. Now they enjoy quality water in

abundance.

Bernice Jahner, of Hettinger, appreciates the health benefits she

receives from Southwest Pipeline water. For the past 5 years, she

has been doctoring for ulcers on her legs, taking whirlpool baths

twice a day. After using pipeline water for just 1 month, her doctors were amazed at her improvement.

The North Dakota State Water Commission has currently identified 524 projects that are necessary for water development in the

State with an approximate cost of $1.8 billion. One hundred twenty-four of these projects are targeted specifically for the next biennium, at a total cost of $362 million. Several large projects, such

as flood control for Grand Forks and Devil’s Lake and the Maple

River Dam are included in this cost.

I can personally say the cost of a pipeline water bill every month

is a bargain, compared to what we paid to make our water usable.

Pipeline water is better for our health, affordable, less work, and

a real blessing to all of us in an area where wells are not reliable.

I have some supporting documents that I ask be made part of the

record.

Thank you for the opportunity to share my experience.
33

[The prepared statement of Ms. McCormack may be found at end

of hearing.]

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you, and the documents that you and I

think Mr. Mason referred to will be admitted, without objection.

[The information referred may be found at end of hearing.]

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Our final witness in this panel is a former staff

director of this Subcommittee in a previous life and is the former

Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation, and now is senior

vice-president for Public Policy of the National Audubon Society,

Mr. Dan Beard.

Mr. Beard, welcome.

STATEMENT OF DAN BEARD, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, PUBLIC POLICY, NATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY, WASHINGTON,

DC

Mr. BEARD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It’s nice to be back.

I appreciate the opportunity to testify before the Subcommittee

today. For the reasons I’ll detail below, we strongly oppose enactment of the Dakota Water Resources Act.

We appreciate all the time and hard work Congressman Pomeroy

has put into this proposal. We also recognize it reflects a consensus

among a variety of interests in North Dakota. And while we appreciate all that work, we still oppose the legislation.

Mr. Chairman, the Garrison Diversion Unit water project has

been the subject of controversy for 50 years. It has generated

countless lawsuits, legislative battles, diplomatic negotiations,

interstate controversies, and environmental confrontations. Even

worse, the taxpayers have spent about $600 million on the project

facilities, many of which don’t fulfill their intended purpose.

In our view, H.R. 3012 would not end the controversies surrounding the Garrison project and water development in North Dakota; this legislation would just continue old controversies and create new ones.

Mr. Chairman, rather than go through the bill line-by-line and

detail our objections, I would prefer to focus on several important

reasons why we believe this legislation is deficient.

We believe the proposal is premised on a faulty assumption. As

you’ve heard today, the major premise for this legislation seems to

be that a debt is owed North Dakota as a result of a construction

of the mainstem Pick-Sloan reservoirs.

Rather than revisit the historical accuracy of this supposed commitment, let me point out that the Congress in 1986 expressly said

that whatever commitment may have existed was fulfilled by the

1986 legislation. Subsequent Congresses and administration, both

Democratic and Republican, with the support of the environmental

community, have met this commitment by making available over

$400 million to the State of North Dakota for the construction of

rural water systems, Indian water projects, and other project facilities. Over 80,000 North Dakotans have directly benefited from

these expenditures, as you’ve heard today with things like the

projects like the Southwest Pipeline. In addition, according to data

provided by the Corps of Engineers, the State also receives about

$130 million in benefits each year from the mainstem Missouri

River facilities.
34

Thus, the State has received well over a billion dollars in benefits

and direct Federal appropriations since 1986. In our view, the Dakota Water Resources Act fails to present a forceful and compelling

case why the taxpayers should make available an additional $900

million in Federal funds and debt forgiveness.

The Congress should know the facilities and features it is authorizing. We believe it is absolutely essential that the Congress only

authorize construction of features that have been thoroughly considered and planned. As currently drafted the legislation directs

the Secretary to build facilities that are not clearly described or

known, may not be needed, and perhaps cannot be used. The Federal Government should take the lead for implementing any legislation.

There are interstate and international issues and a host of environmental challenges surrounding this project. We don’t believe it

is appropriate for the Federal Government to cede authority for addressing these issues to the State of North Dakota, as it would in

several sections of the bill.

There are several sections of the bill that would provide for forgiveness or changing the rules for reimbursable expenditures made

in the past. We don’t believe inclusion of these provisions is appropriate.

The legislation would provides that the State will play an integral part in the planning and design of facilities, and in the preparation of an environmental impact statement on Red River Valley

water supply facilities. Given the interstate and international problems surrounding this issue, we believe it would be inappropriate

to give the State this authority.

The final problem we would like to raise is the opposition of the

Government of Canada to importing water from the Missouri River

into the Red River drainage. In 1977, the International Joint Commission recommended the construction of those portions of the Garrison project delivering water from the Missouri River into streams

that ultimately drain into Canada not be built, due to the potential

for violation of the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909. Twenty-one

years later, there still is no assurance that project facilities that

will be completed and operated under this legislation would not

violate the Boundary Waters Treaty.

Now, as we said, we appreciate the opportunity to detail our objections to the legislation. Let me outline a suggested list of elements that we believe could lead to a positive resolution of the

issues surrounding this controversy.

First, we oppose the legislation to complete the Garrison Unit because the project does not represent responsible, economically

sound, or environmentally acceptable water resource development.

Second, if legitimate need is demonstrated for importing Missouri

River water to the Red River Valley for MR&I use, we support formal consultations with Canada and discussion with Minnesota to

determine if an acceptable means can be developed to deliver treated Missouri River water by pipeline directly to the targeted cities.

Third, we support projects to meet tribal MR&I needs using costeffective delivery systems.

Fourth, we support irrigation development on tribal lands adjacent to the Missouri River using water directly from the river.
35

Fifth, we support other MR&I water projects in North Dakota

utilizing local water supplies or pipelines where they are economically feasible and environmentally acceptable.

Sixth, we oppose the expenditure of additional Federal funds for

the construction, operation, or maintenance of the Garrison Diversion Unit principal supply works, which have been authorized previously.

And finally, the Garrison Diversion Conservancy District is the

entity primarily responsible for insisting that construction proceed

on the principal supply works. They have done so before major

problems associated with the project were resolved and despite the

objections of landowners and other groups. Therefore, the costs associated with abandonment of the principal supply works should be

borne by the C-District rather than by the American taxpayer.

I appreciate the opportunity to be here today and would be

happy to answer any questions.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Beard may be found at end of

hearing.]

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you.

I realize that we have—it does seem strange to me that with all

the planning of the expenses of these projects that we could build

them, and then it just turns out they just don’t work. I know that’s

happened various times, and apparently it’s happened here.

I personally think all of the upset about the interbasin business

is a little exaggerated. We have enormous transfer of water that

crosses basins in the State of California and doesn’t seem to be

causing too many problems in that regard.

I would like to ask the Commissioner, it’s obvious to me you have

a real problem with water like that in the picture, but we do have

a shrinking budget for the Bureau of Reclamation, and I guess I’d

ask our Commissioner if you’d tell us how this project ranks with

the other authorized projects that you have. In your mind, how

does it fit in?

Mr. MARTINEZ. My perspective of this particular project merits

the same consideration as a lot of other projects. And from my perspective, the question is not the authorization, the question is the

funding. And that’s a very difficult decision when we look at the

projects that we have to fund under the Bureau of Reclamation

budget.

And when I’m looking at costs associated with dam safety and

operation and maintenance, fixing our facilities, I need to place emphasis on those versus requesting from the Congress appropriations for new ongoing projects.

As I stated, there’s no question in my mind, once you get past

the environmental issue and the water quality problem with Canada, that it really centers on economics. And I’m telling you the

way I see it.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Well, Commissioner, I don’t expect you to be an

expert on the economics of North Dakota, but is there from what

you do know about the situation, is there a better way they could

solve their problem than the way that’s being proposed in this legislation? I mean, do you see any suggestions that you could offer

them as to how to go about this?
36

Mr. MARTINEZ. With respect to the water supply needs in the

Red River Valley, it’s my understanding that studies are taking

place to determine an assessment as to how those needs can or will

be met and, you know, to the extent that that’s incorporated in the

legislation, I think we’ll probably look at the best and most feasible

approach.

But with respect to the other issues dealing with the question of

the $300 million additional dollars that the State is requested for

MR&I needs, again, to the extent that the State would fund that

at a 100 percent, like what we’re requesting, it would reduce the

total project cost by $300 million. Or, if the Congress decides on another appropriate cost share, that would reduce that cost.

I have no reason to question that the studies will reflect probably

the best engineering and least costly way to address these problems, but they’re still going to be very, very expensive.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. It was your testimony, wasn’t it, that there’s already on the books of what an authorization for—maybe it was an

appropriation, but I think it said authorization—for $200 million

worth of rural water supply already in the Garrison?

Mr. MARTINEZ. That’s my understanding; yes, and that’s what is

being sought is an additional $300 million for the non-Indian component.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. To your knowledge, are those the main exceptions to the policy that the Federal Government doesn’t provide

money for rural water supply, or do we have other examples as

well?

Mr. MARTINEZ. Well, I think what I tried to express is the—as

the Senator addressed as the issues—the main issues are the question of who pays for the appropriate share of O&M costs.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. In this case, the O&M costs would be O&M for

that pipeline and all the related facilities.

Mr. MARTINEZ. The O&M costs associated with the Indian part

of the project, the O&M costs associated with what has already

been constructed, and of course the O&M of the future facilities.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Well now let me ask for the Indian part of it,

does the Federal Government normally fund that, or how does that

get handled?

Mr. MARTINEZ. I’d have to get back to you, but it is my understanding it has been dealt with differently in different projects.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. OK. That’s the answer I thought you were going

to give.

[Laughter.]

Mr. MARTINEZ. Now the other issue has to do with a $300 million

increased request for MR&I purposes. Not only is the request being

made for $300 million, which represents a 75 percent cost share,

but it is also being requested to put that money in a State revolving fund to be able to use that money for the State to lend out that

money, to earn interest on that money, be able to enable itself to

make limited dollars stretch.

The administration has some concerns with the use of that revolving fund, to the extent that that type of revolving fund is perhaps appropriate and to the extent that if the State would generate

interest revenues, maybe the $300 million can be reduced.
37

These are the kind of things that we’re willing to sit down and

discuss with the project sponsors in the Committee.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Let me interrupt and ask about that revolving

fund. Is that a unique proposal, or do we have examples where

that’s been done before?

Mr. MARTINEZ. I’m not aware of a proposal in the Bureau of Reclamation, but we do make reference to a APA-type revolving fund

that this might be able to be modeled after. So I’m sure there’s

something that guides us within the Federal bureaucracy on these

issues.

Then the other issue is the Four Bears Bridge, $40 million

bridge. Like I said, I have no reason to question the need of it. The

concern I have is the Bureau of Reclamation, the appropriate place

to fund a State bridge.

And those, I guess, basically, are the big financial issues as I

view them.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Let me ask about the bridge, because I’m aware

of—bridges are an issue, actually, in my district. You said it’s a

State bridge, but Mr. Mason said there was somebody—I guess I

was going to ask him, and maybe I will ask now.

You said you were promised—North Dakota was promised—I

guess it was North Dakota—was promised this bridge. Was that

you mean by the Federal Government?

Mr. MASON. Yes, sir.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. And that was back when they built the Garrison

Dam, you mean?

Mr. MASON. Yes, this was in the 1940’s.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. And Mr. Beard said that in 1986 in that legislation that reformed the 1940’s legislation that they had basically declared all those prior claims were settled by the 1986 legislation.

Is that your understanding, Mr. Mason?

Mr. MASON. Yes, sir.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. But was the bridge set aside as a separate outstanding issue unresolved, or how do you——

Mr. MASON. I’m not sure of that.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Anybody want to comment on that who might

know about it?

Mr. BEARD. Well, if I could, Mr. Chairman. I think there’s a couple of things. There is the issue of whether the Federal Government has an obligation since the bridge was built and has been

maintained on a State road. And the question is, does the Federal

Government have an obligation to replace that bridge?

Mr. DOOLITTLE. So, the bridge was built originally by the Federal

Government; now it’s deteriorated, and so North Dakota wants a

replacement for the bridge.

Mr. BEARD. I need to throw another thing on the table. In 1992,

the Congress passed legislation, title 35 of Public Law 102–575,

which provided authorization to divert surplus Western Area

Power Administration revenues in the amount of about $250 million to the tribes in North Dakota because the Congress felt the

tribes had not been fairly compensated for the taking of their land

at the time the mainstem reservoirs were built. This recommendation came from the Garrison Commission in 1984, and it was a rec-
38

ommendation addressed in the Committee reports in 1985, and

then in the 1992 legislation.

So, in addition to the amount that have been made available for

the Garrison project, I’d also point out that an additional amount

has been made available to the tribes in recognition of the fact that

they were not compensated fairly at the time that the original

mainstem reservoirs were built.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. And that amounted to $250 million?

Mr. BEARD. The authorization is for $250 million of surplus

Western Area Power Administration revenues to be diverted to the

tribes.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Do you know how much of that they’ve

actually——

Mr. BEARD. I don’t have that figure with me.

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, that legislation was passed before

I came to Congress, but was not in any way related to either the

bridge issue or the MR&I needs of the reservations.

It was a settlement related to the fact that at the time they went

ahead with this ‘‘let’s dam the Missouri River plan,’’ the Pick-Sloan

plan, it just so happened, probably not coincidentally, that the

flooded lands were quite often Indian reservation lands, and that

this was a fundamental inequity that needed to be addressed. And

as a measure of addressing it, the JTAC legislation was passed.

On the bridge, specifically, this was an area that didn’t need a

bridge because we didn’t have water before the reservoir was flooded. At the time they were doing this grand project, they bought a

bridge somewhere. If I understand it, Mr. Chairman—you can correct me if I’m not correct—they bought a bridge which was an existing bridge; it wasn’t built from scratch for this purpose and

stuck it in here. The problem was that it was never adequate because it wasn’t wide enough. It was always an extremely narrow

hazardous bridge, and we’ve just lived with it for all these many

years. So this isn’t kind of a road maintenance issue; this artery

never worked, and we didn’t even need an artery if we wouldn’t

have had this federally constructed reservoir.

And that’s how this all ties together. We understand that it is

an unusual feature of a water project.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. What does this bridge span anyway? Is it an arm

of the reservoir?

Mr. POMEROY. Yes.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. OK. Well let me recognize Mr. Pomeroy for some

questions.

Mr. POMEROY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I, in particular, want to express my appreciation for Director

Martinez who has, I think, demonstrated on behalf of the Bureau

and understanding that this is a Federal relationship to North Dakota’s water needs that has not been met and needs to be met, specifically, as to the point made by Dan Beard. Did the 1986 Act absolve the Federal Government of some kind of obligation back to

the State of North Dakota?

The 1986 Act really had a—represented a plan, and the plan included some MR&I funding, but it included a water distribution

works that was to allow the State to access and use this Missouri

River water. Now this distribution works, known as the Sikeston
39

Canal didn’t work. And so the central part of the 1986 reformulation—a central part of the 1986 Act—simply has failed.

That’s what got us back to the drawing board so that we might

come up with something that does meet our needs going forward.

And we have reconfigured the needs. We haven’t just said, ‘‘Well

this distribution piece doesn’t work. How else do we maintain this

exact project?’’

We basically took a look at—let’s go back to the drawing board,

stay within the dollars that were represented by the 1986 Act, but

come up with a plan that better meets our needs into the 21st century. And so that’s really the plan that is before us.

Because the 1986 Act represents, and specifically states—the

1986 Act recognizes this could be a commitment of the Federal

Government by declaring as a purpose of the bill, quote, ‘‘to offset

the loss of farmland resulting from construction of major features

of the Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin program by means of a federally

assisted water resource development project.’’ unquote.

Well, that project didn’t work, so we don’t believe that the 1986

Act extinguishes the obligation. Rather, we think, it represents

part of the ongoing Federal-State relationship as we try to come up

with an appropriate resolution of what the State ought to have for

its role in this comprehensive Missouri River management plan

that has caused us this flood.

Specifically, I would respond to Dan Beard, in saying that of your

list of seven, I mean I think there are four points of general agreement between North Dakota and the Audubon Society. Now to the

extent that you rely on you would transport water from west to

east by piping it all the way to Fargo, Mr. Chairman, a distance

in excess of 200 miles, we would use an existing—we’d use first of

all the 100 miles of canals that have already been constructed and

natural terrain features to get the water over there. But we’re basically talking about the same thing—water, west to east.

You indicate we shouldn’t breach the Boundary Waters Treaty.

We agree; we shouldn’t breach the Boundary Waters Treaty, and

obviously this will not go forward if it does. But on the other hand,

we don’t think it’s simply up to Canada to indicate whether or not

that treaty is breached. We’ve actually put in a treatment capacity

to make certain that the treaty is in all respects complied with. So

this isn’t a treaty violative proposal we’re putting forward; it’s a

treaty compliant measure that addresses more than any of the

iterations of Garrison have in the past of those concerns raised by

our friends to the north.

There are a number of issues, obviously, that we would take exception to. I mean while we agree, maybe conceptually in certain

respects, we certainly have other points of what I’d call adamant

disagreement with the Audubon Society’s testimony. But rather

than take your time, Mr. Chairman, hammering it out here, we

recognize these will be discussions to be held going forward.

I would like to describe, though, so you understand how this

project came together. We really opened the door to all interested

parties as we tried to come up with a reformulated plan for Garrison Diversion. That included a number of representatives of the environmental community. At some point, the Audubon Society elected not to continue at the table with us, and they decided instead
40

to resist. Other representatives of the environmental community

stayed at the table and have signed off on the completed plan.

We don’t want to continue this debate another 40 years. We want

a completed water project that meets our State’s needs into the

21st century. To the extent, I think we have made concessions that

have gone far beyond what have ever been done before to try and

get a comprehensive consensus of views that this is the plan that

gets this done.

Obviously, the concerns raised by Director Martinez will be a

source of ongoing discussions and negotiations, and we’ll continue

to be available to discuss these other issues that we recognize we’ll

have to deal with them in the legislative process anyway. But I

particularly am appreciative of the Bureau’s interest in the proposal and the supportive words you have made, as well as those

representatives of the environmental community that stayed at the

table and helped us bring this plan to its present state.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you.

Commissioner, could I ask you—or maybe somebody else wants

to volunteer—if this thing in 1986, these canals or whatever it was,

had worked as they were designed, then would this problem have

been resolved then or not?

Mr. MARTINEZ. I’d have to—maybe former Commissioner Beard

might be able to give us some insight on this. My knowledge is limited on this. It’s not the question they didn’t work; it’s just that

they stopped building them. They left a gap in the middle.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Well, that’s why they didn’t work.

Mr. MARTINEZ. Because of concerns. So, what you’ve got, is

you’ve got some oversized canals. The project has changed; the formulation of the project has changed.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Well, I want to hear from Mr. Beard. Maybe he’ll

comment on that. But, that’s a useful clarification. So they stopped

the construction of these canals——

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, the Sikeston Canal feature, Commissioner, was not going to work. I mean it was—construction

wasn’t begun because even before we began we realized that that

which the Act had provided for physically wasn’t going to do that

which was intended, and, therefore, the construction didn’t begin.

But it was a design feature that simply didn’t work as had been

envisioned at the time the Act was passed.

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, for the purpose of clarifying the

record, we’ll present something in writing to sort of give a little history on that.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. That would be useful.

Mr. MARTINEZ. Thank you.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Beard?

Mr. BEARD. Yes, if I could, Mr. Chairman, I think maybe I can,

hopefully, bring some clarity to the discussion by characterizing it

this way. This is my view, certainly, and it isn’t, I’m sure, held by

the delegation, Mr. Pomeroy, and others. But, we’re here today, not

because we’re addressing a ‘‘project.’’ We’re here today for political

reasons. We’re here today because, as the delegation stated and I

stated in my testimony, that there is a feeling on the part of—and

earnestly felt—on the part of people in North Dakota that there’s
41

an obligation from the Federal Government to provide something

to the State of North Dakota in compensation for the construction

of the mainstem reservoirs. That’s why we’re here.

And so the legislation you have is essentially not one project, it’s

a whole bunch of things to take care of individual interest groups.

There’s a bridge; there’s $25 million for some in the environmental

community who want more grant-making authority. There’s more

money for MR&I all throughout the State, which is a legitimate

need. There’s some money for Indian MR&I and Indian irrigation,

and there’s some money to move water to eastern North Dakota.

All of these are specific interests. They’ve all been collected, put

together in one bag, and called the ‘‘Dakota Water Resources Act,’’

and in that sense, fulfills a political problem, which is this feeling

that there is a commitment owed.

I think the principal question for you and the rest of the Committee members is, should this Congress address this political

issue, this commitment issue? And, should it address the commitment in the ways that have been suggested in the legislation?

That’s the challenge before you, because we’re not here for some

engineering reason, certainly. We’re here to fulfill a political obligation.

As I tried to point out in my testimony, I think a very compelling

case can be made that the Federal Government has gone a long

way to fulfilling this commitment already. And the question is, how

much more should it undertake on behalf of fulfilling this obligation?

So I hope that helps.

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman?

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Martinez.

Mr. MARTINEZ. I don’t think the place is appropriate for me to

be debating the issue with a former Commissioner but I think that

there’s a need. There’s no question there’s a need out in that area

to deliver this service. And it appears to me that not only North

Dakota, but also South Dakota and other western States are coming before this Subcommittee and asking for these kind of projects,

and will continue to ask for these kind of projects.

The question is how the Congress wishes to deal with this issue.

It’s either a total package, if in fact it believes that it owes something to North Dakota because of what happened back 50 years

ago, or because it wants to address this issue comprehensively

rather than having it piecemealed to death. Because, in essence, if

you look at what’s happening in other parts of the west—and we

have another project coming right behind this one where they’re

coming in one after another, rather than comprehensive. And, you

know, that’s what I want to leave with you.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Well, I’d have to agree with you on that score,

and I’m afraid I haven’t been very encouraging to Mr. Pomeroy and

the people that—or Mr. Thune from South Dakota because, heretofore, we haven’t made great ventures into the area of MR&I supply as we’re now being asked to do. And yet I certainly understand

the need is legitimate.

I’m not sure I have a solution. I know we need one. I guess we’re

looking for one, really, in this Committee. And that’s the purpose

of this hearing and others like it to try and develop the facts that
42

we need in order to, I guess, ascertain how serious the problem is,

how extensive it is, and what we’re going to do about it.

Ms. McCormack mentioned that the water from the pipeline was

a bargain compared to what they paid to treat the water and deal

with it there. I mean, I would pay three or four—maybe more than

that—times our present water bill if I had that to deal with. I don’t

know if three or four or five or six times, even if you paid that,

would be enough to develop what you’d have to do in order to get

the better water.

But I would be interested in the economics. I mean certainly all

the people raising cattle, or anybody involved in industry, or anything like that, is this Red River Valley area where this computer

industry, Gateway, and all that, isn’t that where that is?

Mr. POMEROY. Gateway is South Dakota, Mr. Chairman, although we have some——

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Oh, that’s South Dakota——

Mr. POMEROY. Well, actually—I grew up very close to Fargo. And

what we’ve seen Fargo do is actually enter a new plateau of economic development where it’s really taking off. It’s becoming a regional powerhouse, and we do have a significant software company

in Fargo and a number of other—it’s just gangbusters as a regional

economic trade center.

But to sum up where North Dakota is coming from on this, it

isn’t as though we got into a room and said, ‘‘Hey, I’ve got an idea.

Let’s have the Federal Government fund our State water needs.’’

What happened way back was we agreed to host a flood forever

in exchange for a million acres of irrigation. We never got the million acres of irrigation. And what’s more, we can even agree that

right now there’s more important—if you take the dollar value of

what it would take to create a million acres of irrigation—we, the

State’s elected leadership, has agreed that there are ways that that

dollar value could be spent in North Dakota that would better meet

our water needs into the next century. And we’ve written that

down in a comprehensive fashion, as the Commissioner has noted,

and advanced us in this legislation. We have operated within the

parameters of what it was our understanding the Federal Government was going to return to us in exchange for us hosting this

flood reflected in the reservoir on the Missouri River.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. I must say having a reservoir, I’ve never thought

of that argument; that’s interesting. I have to see if I can put that

to good use in my own area there.

[Laughter.]

Hosting a flood, therefore, we’re owed some compensation of

some sort.

Mr. POMEROY. For your support of——

[Laughter.]

[continuing] our project, we will waive all copyright——

[Laughter.]

[continuing] interests in that line argument.

[Laughter.]

Mr. DOOLITTLE. I mean in the case of our flood, we’ve always

thought those afforded rather considerable advantages, through

recreation and water supply and power generation, all kinds of

things.
43

Mr. POMEROY. The issue with us is that we have the water, but

for recreation we really have not been able to use it. So you’ve got

the—and this is why, as Representative Dorso said, we will stay at

it.

You have a State with tremendous water needs hosting a tremendous water resource, and yet we’re not applying that resource

to our water needs. And that’s created a situation where we just

have to keep at this until we can, at some point, have a reasonable

access or reasonable application of that resource to our needs.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Let me—maybe you’re the one to ask, Mr. Pomeroy, being the only North Dakota official, I think—well, Mr.

Mason, but you’re the elected official—let me ask you, in California, you know, we would sell bonds to build some of these vast

water projects—conveying water, say, from the San Joaquin Delta

down to southern California, things like that. Has that been contemplated? Is it a possible source of revenue in maybe getting this

water to the east like you wanted?

Mr. POMEROY. I’ve seen—I will answer your question more generally than that. We have spent a lot of State dollars developing

the resources developed to date. There have been MR&I expenditures, and we’ve paid generally 35 percent of the cost share. Is that

correct? Up to 35 percent. The bonding capacity of a State of $600,000 is much less than a State of $33 million. And so we’ve got vast distances, sparse population, tremendous water needs, and real finite limits on the

amount of local costs we can carry.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. And I understand that, but I guess I’d like to explore, you know, taking into account with the comments of Ms.

McCormack who, while I’m sure expressed the sentiment of most

people who would deal with that.

And the Committee will try and work with you and see if we

identify a solution. Obviously, it would be some sort of a partnership. But still even if it is a partnership, that’s getting the Federal

Government into something that’s traditionally not been its area of

concern at a time when the budgets are shrinking, and we have a

huge, long list of authorized projects already with the Bureau of

Reclamation.

Mr. POMEROY. The feature of the project, getting the water to the

east, that is the reimbursable, and the economics do make that

a——

Mr. DOOLITTLE. OK.

Mr. POMEROY. [continuing] real reimbursable component.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Well, maybe we should entertain the idea of

maybe it will have to be done piece by piece. Maybe it can’t be done

in a comprehensive package, or maybe it can; I don’t know. But has

it been designed so that you could isolate several of these and eat

the elephant piece by piece, not in one fell swoop?

Mr. POMEROY. Well, the project—not really. And they are in certain respects severable, but this is a package that has been built

with an awful lot of give and take. And the compromise and the

consensus that has evolved is because everybody has given something for that which they’ve received. So it’s a deal that is not—

it doesn’t neatly come apart. It’s kind of a—it’s all tied together,

Mr. Chairman.
44

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Well, I understand that that is your position,

and I’m sure it needs to be your position because it’s quite a consensus you’ve developed.

I’d like to thank the members of our panel. I’m sure we’ll have

extra questions to ask you as we sort through the testimony, and

we’ll ask you to respond expeditiously.

And with that we will excuse you, and I’m going to declare a 10-

minute recess, and we’ll come back for panel two.

[Recess.]

Mr. DOOLITTLE. The Subcommittee will reconvene.

We have panel two already assembled. Let me ask you gentlemen to please rise and raise your right hands.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you.

Let the record reflect each answered in the affirmative.

We are very pleased to have you here gentlemen. We’ll try not

to drag this out too long, but the information being developed is

very useful.

We’ll begin with Mr. Norman Haak, chairman of the Garrison

Diversion Conservancy District of North Dakota.

Mr. Haak.

STATEMENT OF NORMAN HAAK, CHAIRMAN, GARRISON

DIVERSION CONSERVANCY DISTRICT, NORTH DAKOTA

Mr. HAAK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My name is Norman Haak; I am the chairman of the district and

also farm in the Oakes Test area. I’m an irrigator. And I have

three main topics that I would like to cover with you.

The first one being irrigation. We feel that irrigation would have

been the best way to repay North Dakota for the loss we had from

Lake Sakakawea. There were many people who thought that that

would be a great economic development for North Dakota. One million acres irrigated today would have made it easier for power revenues to pay for this project, but as we see today, the 1944 dream

did not come true.

In 1986, there also was a dream of 130,000 acres, which was also

a dream. But there was a block grant program with it which has

helped, and as we look at the 1997 Dakota Water Resource Act, the

acreage is reduced to 70,000 acres. No money is provided for the

development of these acres from the Federal Government. The

function of irrigation is retained as a purpose of the project enabling the existing facilities to be used for irrigation. However, this

will not cost the Federal Government any money.

The second point I’d like to make is on water supply problems

and how they are addressed in this Act. The Bureau and the Indian tribes have identified the water supply needs on the reservation to be significantly higher than the $200 million first thought.

The tribes agreed to a formula to distribute these funds. The $40

million bridge replacement is also there. The bridge was installed

in the 1930’s. It’s not very good; I’ve been over it. I’d hate to drive

a truck over it and try to meet someone. It’s very risky.

The water supply needs in the non-Indian rural area could exceed a billion dollars. The Act calls for a $300 million extension to

the 1986 grant program. Adjusted for inflation, this amount
45

matches the program originally envisioned by the Commission report in 1986, with the 75–25 percent cost share authorized in 1986.

The cost share is typical of projects in the region.

According to the Bureau of Reclamation report, the water supply

needs for the Red River Valley are currently estimated to be as

much as 300,000 acre feet annually. All previous legislative authorities have specially provided for delivery of Missouri River

water to the Red River Valley in order to meet these needs.

This legislation does not presume that Missouri River water is the only solution, or the best solution. The Act calls for $200 million to be authorized for a yet to be determined solution. The process for determining the best solution is an evaluation of all the reasonable alternatives and their environmental impacts through a cooperative effort between the State and the Bureau of Reclamation.

The moneys allocated for delivery of municipal water to the Red

River Valley will be repaid with interest.

One of the alternatives will be to use the existing facilities—as

Congressman Pomeroy pointed out, to deliver municipal water to

the Red River Valley. If this alternative is chosen, the cost assigned

to deliver Missouri River water to the Valley for municipal purposes will be repaid in accordance with existing and longstanding

reclamation law.

The third point is justification. I would like to emphasize the economic justification for the Dakota Water Resource Act. To justify

this expenditure, we must first examine the alternatives.

The first alternative, and often the favorite, is to do nothing and

hope it will go away. And thinking that would be the cheapest. It

isn’t and it won’t happen. The cheapest is not always the best. In

this case, it fails on both counts. If nothing is done, the expense

of the existing works, which currently brings no money to the U.S.

Treasury, will continue. The minimal level of operation and maintenance costs is about $2 million a year. It’s not likely to go down.

The unmet needs of the Indian reservation are considered a longstanding responsibility. Whether these needs are funded in this bill

or not, they are not going to go away. As a practical matter, we

probably can agree the Federal Government will someday pay that

bill. Similarly, if we do nothing, the water needs in the rural areas

will not go away. If we ignore them, the economics and the rich

heritage of these areas will continue to erode. The needs I’ve identified will need to be met in one form or another.

The current program that we know is cost effective, workable for

rural communities, and is the best approach that we have been

able to identify.

Some have proposed that the existing 120 miles of canals and

pumping plants be abandoned. Meeting our current water needs by

putting these facilities to use and getting repayment on the investment makes a lot more sense to me than spending $200 million to

cover them up. It appears to be a lot of money when we talk about

it at first, but upon deeper examination, it really is a responsible

package that brings a reasonable return to the Federal Government.

Mr. Chairman, this legislation is the result of a lot of hard, bipartisan work to incorporate the concerns and interests that are

normally competing or at odds with each other. We believe it is fair
46

and reasonable. A better alternative has not been identified, and

we hope you will support this package, putting an end to the historic problems of Garrison Diversion.

Thank you. If you have any questions, I’d like to try to answer

them.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Haak may be found at end of

hearing.]

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you.

Our next witness will be Mr. Scott Peterson, president of the

North Dakota Chapter of the Wildlife Society.

Mr. Peterson.

STATEMENT OF SCOTT PETERSON, PRESIDENT, NORTH

DAKOTA CHAPTER OF THE WILDLIFE SOCIETY

Mr. PETERSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon.

My name is Scott Peterson; I am the president of North Dakota

Chapter of the Wildlife Society, and I am here today to present a

brief statement regarding the Dakota Water Resources Act on behalf of the North Dakota Chapter of the Wildlife Society.

The North Dakota Chapter of the Wildlife Society is a professional organization of fish and wildlife biologists, educators, and

students. The chapter has been actively involved with issues concerning the Garrison Diversion Unit since the project was originally authorized by Congress in 1965. In 1986, the chapter helped

to forge an agreement that led to the passage of the Garrison Diversion Unit Reformulation Act. The chapter has submitted statements for the record at previous hearings in Washington and North

Dakota in support of this legislation before us now, and we stand

by those earlier statements.

During the past 2 years, the Chapter has participated in discussions that led to the introduction of the Dakota Water Resources

Act. Throughout this process, the chapter has focused its attention

on three main objectives.

No. 1, clearly defining the provisions of the Dakota Water Resources Act.

No. 2, ensuring that the contemporary water needs of North Dakota include the conservation of fish and wildlife resources and

their habitats.

And three, modifying the legislation to eliminate provision that

will adversely affect the environment.

The Dakota Water Resources Act is primarily a municipal and

rural water supply plan which will benefit North Dakotans by providing a dependable supply of safe drinking water to communities

throughout the State. We believe this work can be completed without significant environmental impacts. The current version of the

legislation strengthens the process for making environmentally

sound, cost-effective decisions concerning the future water needs of

Fargo, Grand Forks, and other communities in the Red River Valley. The Environmental Impact Statement will evaluate a range of

practicable alternatives to meet the projected water needs and assess the environmental impacts associated with each option.

Today, I would like to address and offer our further support for

two specific provisions of the Dakota Water Resources Act, namely

the expansion of the North Dakota Wetlands Trust and the oper-
47

ation and maintenance needs of the project wildlife mitigation and

enhancement features.

The Dakota Water Resources Act recognizes the conservation of

fish and wildlife resources as an essential project feature to meet

the contemporary water needs of North Dakota. The chapter wholeheartedly supports expanding the mission and funding base of the

North Dakota Wetlands Trust to include riparian and grassland

conservation initiatives. The chapter further endorses the trust’s

wetland education initiatives and supports the complimentary

funding that is earmarked for the North American Prairie Wetland

Interpretive Center.

The trust serves as an important bridge between landowners and

the conservation community as clearly demonstrated by the trust’s

lists of accomplishment during the past 10 years. These impressive

accomplishments include involving 37 organizations and over 200

landowners in trust-funded projects and programs; 170 landowners

signed wetlands protection, restoration and enhancement agreements; 578 farmers and land managers participated in field tours

on conservation practices; and over $1.7 million have been provided

as either direct payments or incentive payments to landowners for

various conservation practices.

I have also attached a one-page summary of the Wetland Trust’s

activities during the past 10 years to highlight their accomplishments.

Voluntary projects such as these are just some of the reasons

that the various North Dakota Wetlands Trust programs have become so popular with landowners and conservationists alike. The

trust is continually looking for cooperative ventures that benefit

both the agricultural producer and our State’s natural resources.

Expanding opportunities to cooperatively work with landowners

throughout North Dakota benefits both our natural resources and

the State’s economy. Further evidence of the trust’s popularity can

be found in one Ramsey County landowner’s comments regarding

a trust project when he stated, and I quote, ‘‘I feel that we’ve

worked well together as a group. It’s a win, win situation for producers and wildlife.’’

The primary provisions of the Dakota Water Resources Act are

designed to meet North Dakota’s existing and projected water supply needs. Along similar lines, we believe that establishing an account to operate and maintain the project’s fish and wildlife mitigation and enhancement features is an important step in meeting the

project’s conservation objectives.

The operations and maintenance account will benefit wildlife resources, neighboring landowners, and the people using those public

lands. The account is essential to ensure the stated conservation

commitments of the project are met in the future. We recommend

that the authority to establish the operations and maintenance account be timed to coincide with the record of decision concerning

the Red River Valley water supply features. With a secure mechanism to fund the wildlife development areas, we are confident that

the projects losses associated with identified irrigation development

can be adequately mitigated.

In closing, we believe that substantial progress has been made

since the first draft of the Dakota Water Resources Act was cir-
48

culated. The North Dakota Congressional Delegation, Senator

Conrad in particular, and North Dakota’s State political leaders

are to be given credit for their leadership abilities in keeping a diverse group representing many interests, moving forward.

We wish to thank you for the opportunity to express our opinions

here today, and we respectfully request the opportunity to continue

negotiations directed toward developing legislation that meets the

contemporary water needs of North Dakota and conserves the

State’s natural resources.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Peterson may be found at end of

hearing.]

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you.

Our next witness will be Mr. Ronald Nargang, deputy commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources.

Mr. Nargang.

STATEMENT OF RONALD NARGANG, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,

MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES

Mr. NARGANG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

For the record, I am Ron Nargang; I’m the deputy commissioner

for the Minnesota DNR, and I’m here representing Minnesota Governor Arne Carlson.

I want to thank you for the opportunity. We do have a number

of concerns to present. I have submitted written testimony to the

Committee and would ask that it be included as part of the record,

and then I’ll simply summarize in my oral comments.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. That will be just fine; thank you.

Mr. NARGANG. As one of the eight States bordering the Great

Lakes, Minnesota is no stranger to ambitious water development

projects. We’ve seen any number of proposals over the years to

move water from Lake Superior, Lake Michigan, and other lakes

to the arid southwest. And the concern that those eight States had

over those kinds of proposals led us to form a Great Lakes compact,

among the eight States and the one province involved, and in that

compact to provide for review and consultation among all affected

parties on any diversion of water from the Great Lakes.

In committing to that compact, we also committed to going into

State law and building a body of legislation to prevent the diversion of water from the Great Lakes and from, in our case, the State

of Minnesota. And further, those States got together and approached Congress and succeeded in 1986 in including section 1109

in the 1986 WRDA (Water Resource Development Act) that provided, in effect, a veto authority for each of the eight States for any

diversion of water out of the Great Lakes basin.

And I think, Mr. Chairman, that you’ve heard frustrations from

Governor Schafer here on why his neighbors won’t agree to this.

And, frankly, I think I’ve just described for you the reason. We

have a fundamental, philosophical difference about the interbasin

diversion of water. Our State is not only opposed to diversions out

of our State, we are opposed to diversion into our State. And we

believe, philosophically, that what we ought to do is live within the

limits of the water resources available to us. And that, frankly, is

the approach we take in Minnesota. We are blessed with a plentiful
49

water resource across much of our State, but in a great area of the

northwest and a large area of the southwest part of our State, we

also face water shortages, the same water shortages you’ve heard

described here for North Dakota on our side of the Red River, and

very similar problems in the southwestern corner of Minnesota.

And that really leads me to my next objection—is that we, frankly, don’t consider the Garrison supply to be a reliable source of

water. The Red River represents the break between eastern and

western water law. There is a radical difference in the way Minnesota treats water rights from the way North Dakota treats water

rights. And North Dakota is only one player in the water rights

battle on the Missouri River. And that battle is heated right now.

And frankly, we’re not confident at all of where a Garrison appropriation would come out in the prior appropriation hierarchy in

times of drought.

We are aware that the tribal interests along the Missouri River

are claiming their water rights from the Missouri. I’ve heard it

mentioned earlier that the Corps of Engineers has been asked for

a statement about the impact of this diversion on downstream interests and has indicated that there is no impact. I wonder if the

response from the Corps would be the same if, in fact, the tribal

claims are perfected. Our information indicates that their initial

claims would reduce the base flows in the Missouri at the confluence with Mississippi by 40 percent.

Now you begin to pile that in with the increased diversion here

for the Garrison Diversion and any other appropriations that may

be proposed from the Missouri River, and we have a major concern

about depletion of flows downstream.

Because of the question about the reliability of the claim involved

here, we certainly don’t believe that the project should be considered for construction until the tribal claims issue is resolved because of the major impact that will have on the total water resource of the Missouri. And we don’t want Minnesota’s growth to

be dependent on an unreliable water supply. The last thing that we

want in an area of our State that has a water shortage is to have

a supply developed around which we develop industrial, municipal,

residential demand and then find that the supply will not be supportive during times of drought because we, frankly, have no options to support that kind of increased growth.

Our response to this problem is then to work with communities

in the area on water conservation measures, to develop what limited areas of groundwater are available, and to fold that in with

a combination of surface water supplies in the Red River so that

we use groundwaters as an emergency back up when we have low

flow conditions in the river.

So to summarize, our two main concerns are consistent opposition to interbasin diversions and, frankly, living within the limits

of the resource that we have available. Our written testimony also

itemizes concerns about water quality, exotic species, and I’ve

touched briefly on the navigation flow issue.

I do want to make the point with the Committee that Congress

is dealing with the Garrison as a separate and distinct project from

Devil’s Lake, and we understand that. And we have heard North

Dakota’s plea that we look at it the same way. But we have and
50

will continue to evaluate the Devil’s Lake outlet as part and parcel

of a Garrison Diversion project, and I think we need to do that as

we evaluate the impacts on our State.

I thank you for the opportunity to comment to the Committee

and will be happy to stand for any questions you may have.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Nargang may be found at end of

hearing.]

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you.

I want to mention at this point, we had a witness scheduled, and

because of a death he had to attend a funeral. That’s Mr. David

Conrad with the National Wildlife Federation. So our final witness

will be Mr. Dave Koland, executive director of the North Dakota

Rural Water Systems Association.

STATEMENT OF DAVID KOLAND, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,

NORTH DAKOTA RURAL WATER SYSTEMS ASSOCIATION

Mr. KOLAND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, my name is Dave

Koland. I serve as the executive director of North Dakota Rural

Water Systems Association. Our association has 31 rural water systems and 225 municipal water systems as members.

The sons and grandsons of the pioneers that settled North Dakota founded our association. They had experienced the ‘‘dirty 30’s’’

and sought a solution to the unreliable and uncertain water supplies they depended on for a domestic water supply.

Since the earliest days of our State, the people who settled here

were driven by the need for water. The first settlements were located along streams or lakes. The homesteaders who came later

dug shallow wells or endured by hauling water from a nearby creek

or slough. Many had to move on when the dry years withered their

crops and left them without the precious water needed to survive.

In the late 1970’s, many rural areas began constructing a water

distribution system to serve rural areas. Farmers without water or

with an unreliable source joined together and with the help of the

Federal Government, built rural water systems to meet their

needs. But at the insistence of the Federal Government, they were

not allowed to build beyond their own current domestic needs.

The Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1986 with stringent testing requirements and mandated maximum contaminant

levels brought North Dakota face to face with the reality that the

groundwater being used in many smaller communities for drinking

water would not meet the MCL for fluoride or arsenic mandated by

the Safe Drinking Water Act.

The answer for many communities was to work out a solution

with the rural water system that served a rural area close to their

city. Rural water systems now provide clean, safe water to 187

communities in North Dakota, but many still wait for the water

they so desperately need. Communities like Mohall, 931 people;

Munich, 310; and Bisbee, 227; have few other alternatives to provide their citizens with clean, safe water.

The key to providing water to small communities and rural areas

of North Dakota has been the Grant and Loan program of Rural

Development and the Municipal, Rural, and Industrial, MR&I program, of the Garrison Conservancy District. Without the assistance
51

of these two grant programs, the exodus from the rural areas

would have been a stampede.

The desperate need for clean, safe water is evidenced by the willingness of North Dakota’s rural resident to pay water rates well

above the rates the Environmental Protection Agency consider to

be affordable. The highest general guidelines sets an affordability

threshold at 2 percent of the median household income. Rates beyond that threshold are considered to be unaffordable. In North Dakota that translates into a monthly cost of $38.69

per month. The average monthly cost on a rural water system for

6,000 gallons is currently $48.97. Only one system in the State has

a monthly cost below the maximum affordable cost set out in the

EPA study, and that system charges $37.60 a month for 6,000 gallons of water. Twelve systems must charge their consumers $50 or

more, with one system charging 170 percent of the affordable rate,

or $66 a month for 6,000 gallons of water.

The water rates in rural North Dakota would soar to astronomical levels without the 75 percent grant dollars in the MR&I program. For instance, our current rates would average a truly

unaffordable $134.19 per month, or a whopping 7 percent of the

median household income. They could have ranged as high as

$198.80 or a prohibitive 9.9 percent of the median household income.

The people waiting for water in our rural communities are willing to pay far more than what many consider would be an affordable price for clean, safe water. Across North Dakota we have seen

the impact of providing good water to rural areas and witnessed

the dramatic change in small communities.

We must continue to support the growth of our existing rural

systems into regional water delivery systems and provide water to

those areas that are not now being served.

Water alone will not solve the problems of rural North Dakota,

but without water, there is little hope that any proposed solution

will work.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Koland may be found at end of

hearing.]

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you.

Mr. Nargang, you mentioned that your side of the Red River is

similar to the North Dakota side. And I think you described you’re

using groundwater there on an emergency basis, but when you’ve

got surface water, then you’ll use it from the Red River; is that

right?

Mr. NARGANG. Mr. Chairman, that’s correct.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Is your groundwater as bad as their groundwater?

Mr. NARGANG. Mr. Chairman, we have stuff that looks a lot like

this——

Mr. DOOLITTLE. OK.

Mr. NARGANG. [continuing] in much of the area. We do have

some isolated buried drift aquifers, little containers of sand and

gravel that contain pretty high quality water. What we’ve tried to

do to respond to water needs for the city of Moorhead, for instance,

is we’ve done an extensive geologic mapping program in that area
52

to isolate those pockets. And then to help the city distribute their

well fields, so that out of those limited aquifers, they don’t draw

them down irregularly during times of emergency. But they use it

only to supplement their use of river water.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Haak, do you have those little isolated pockets? I don’t know, is your area—well maybe your area—does it include the Red River Valley or not?

Mr. HAAK. No.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. It doesn’t.

Do you know, Mr. Nargang? Do they have those on their side of

the river?

Mr. NARGANG. Mr. Chairman, I would really hesitate to respond

on North Dakota’s groundwater situation.

[Laughter.]

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Well, I mean it would be logical they probably

do, but we’ll have to—maybe that will be one of our written questions.

Is it your impression that geologic mapping has gone on in North

Dakota like it has in the Minnesota-side of the Red River?

Mr. NARGANG. Well, Mr. Chairman, I think that’s certainly true.

Despite our disagreement on this, we cooperate on an awful lot of

things, and one of the things we’ve tried to do is to match up the

geologic mapping we’ve done on the two sides of the river. We have

some very interesting connections that crossed under the Red

River. And how we use groundwater, how North Dakota uses

groundwater, will affect the other communities.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Sure.

Mr. NARGANG. We have saline upwelling that occurs in some of

those systems if one community pumps too hard on their groundwater system.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. So you cooperate in that respect now?

Mr. NARGANG. Certainly.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Koland, was it your testimony that the Federal MR&I money you used to reduce what would otherwise be the

water rates that people pay?

Mr. KOLAND. Mr. Chairman, that’s correct. The grant program is

used to lower the cost of building the system to a point where it’s

deemed affordable to the people. I’ve attached two charts to my testimony, and one chart was passed around that gave an illustration

of I think the willingness of people to pay——

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Yes.

Mr. KOLAND. [continuing] above that affordability.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Is 6,000—I don’t know—is 6,000 gallons about

what a household of 4 is expected to use in a month?

Mr. KOLAND. I think you would consider that an average. In

North Dakota, it’s actually a little bit below the average. On a

rural water system, we averaged about 13,000 gallons a month per

connection, but that also involves some bulk water usage——

Mr. DOOLITTLE. All right.

Mr. KOLAND. [continuing] in some communities.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Pomeroy.

Mr. POMEROY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, you might be interested in noting that Dave

Koland and I were in the State legislature together many years
53

ago—him on the Republican side of the aisle and me on the Democratic side of the aisle—that we have worked well together then;

we’ve worked well together since.

A couple of questions for Mr. Nargang.

First of all, I’d like to submit for the record a letter submitted—

this will be part of the transcript coming in from the Fargo hearing. But it is a letter from Morris Laning, the mayor of Moorhead,

Minnesota, specifically endorsing the Act in front of us and talking

about the significant need of water for the Fargo-Moorhead communities. They are sister cities sitting across the Red River, Moorhead

in Minnesota, and their support for this project and their concern

about their future water need.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. We’ll enter this in.

[The information referred to may be found at end of hearing.]

Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Nargang, honest to God, the testimony that

you presented irritates me in a significant way. And that isn’t because I’m not prepared to take debate on this issue. I just want the

debate to be on the real issues, not to be on bogus issues just floated for purposes of stopping this initiative. And you have raised a

couple of utterly bogus issues.

And while you say you’re reluctant to talk about what might be

the situation of groundwater in North Dakota, you certainly

weren’t reluctant to talk about the downstream States’ interest in

the Missouri River.

Now does Minnesota begin to have an interest in Missouri River

water?

Mr. NARGANG. Mr. Chairman and Congressman Pomeroy, since

all of our grain goes down the Mississippi, absolutely. And given

the fact that in the 1988 drought and the 1976 drought, we had

barges stacked up all up and down the river because we didn’t

have enough flow in the Missouri to support the Mississippi River

flows. We have a keen interest in what comes out of the mouth of

the Missouri.

Mr. POMEROY. And you’re suggesting—and this is where you

blow your creditability apart in the testimony this afternoon.

You’re suggesting that a 200 cfs pipe linking the supply works with

the reservoir on the Missouri River is sufficient to threaten barge

traffic downstream on the Missouri?

To put it in perspective, you go down to like Saint Louis for the

confluent. The Missouri River is so wide that Mark McGuire

couldn’t hit a home run over it.

[Laughter.]

You come up to North Dakota and come to the 200 cfs pipe, Mark

McGwire can jump across it. Don’t tell me that that threatens capacity down there. But you don’t have to take it from my argument; you’re the expert, not me. But I do have already introduced

into the record a letter from the Corps of Engineers that indicates

that this would impact flows by a factor of less than one one-thousandth. Now that doesn’t float barges; that doesn’t materially, visually, or any other way impact flowage capacity downstream. That

is, in my opinion, a bogus argument, Mr. Nargang.

Mr. NARGANG. Well, Mr. Chairman, Congressman Pomeroy, in all

due respect, that’s the same argument that has led to things like

a depletion of flows on the Colorado River, on the Arkansas River.
54

And if you want to use your example, you can look at the wonderful story that’s out there about the Aural Sea in Russia that makes

our Great Lakes look like puddles. And they argued in each case

that this small appropriation will not deplete the flows. The problem is, when you take a number of small appropriations and look

at the cumulative impact of them, they do deplete the flows. And

you bleed the water off at multiple points in the system, and pretty

soon there is nothing left.

Mr. POMEROY. And North——

Mr. NARGANG. Now, I put that in the context of the claims by

the tribal interests up and down the Missouri. And if you’ve been

studying the Missouri River issues, you know that those tribal

claims may well prove to be valid. We’ve been to court with tribal

interests in Minnesota on several occasions. I don’t think you stand

a very good chance of prevailing on those, which is going to turn

your prior appropriation system on the Missouri upside down.

Where is Garrison going to come out now?

Mr. POMEROY. You know, what we have before us is a proposal.

Now you can argue world precedence, but what we’re talking about

is a 200 cfs pipe, and that doesn’t have the capacity to do that

which you suggest, and the Corps of Engineers indicates it doesn’t.

Another issue that you raise which is utterly bogus——

Mr. NARGANG. Well, Mr.——

Mr. POMEROY. [continuing] we got to get to this other point before my time runs out—and that’s this Devil’s Lake issue. Now

you’ve got to direct your testimony and your objection if you’re

going to be a good neighbor and appropriate a deal with this issue

substantively to the bill before us, not the old bill, not some bill

that you think may be out there, but the bill before you. And there

is not a feature in any way, shape, or form for a Devil’s Lake inlet

in this reauthorization proposal. And I want the record to reflect

that very, very clearly.

In the past, it was considered about ultimately getting water into

the Devil’s Lake, a closed basin that fluctuates dramatically. One

of the significant concessions, but made without qualification or

wiggle room, is that North Dakota is not providing for any kind of

inlet into Devil’s Lake in this reauthorization bill. And so the Devil’s Lake issues—the flooding in Devil’s Lake issues are not related

to this. And you can say you object to it because it’s got an inlet

in Devil’s Lake. The bill specifically does not have an inlet—very

specifically does not have an inlet.

So we’ve addressed that concern, I think, that Minnesota has

previously raised in this regard.

Mr. NARGANG. Well, Mr. Chairman and Congressman Pomeroy,

two issues on the table. First, just quickly to dispose of the issue

of the right that would exist for the Garrison, we’ve asked in writing for someone to show us documentation that that right will be

there, and we have not had any assurance from North Dakota. All

I get is a statement that it will be OK.

With regard to your final issue, I have heard exactly the argument that you just made. I’ve heard it repeatedly. And then I pick

up by clipping service, and I go through and I read articles out of

the Fargo Forum or the Bismarck paper, and the next delegation

is heading down here to Washington, DC, and the first priority is
55

the Devil’s Lake outlet, and the second priority is the Devil’s Lake

inlet. And unless I’m mistaken, you don’t have any other source of

water for Devil’s Lake inlet than the Garrison Diversion.

Frankly, the argument that these are not connected projects is

no longer creditable to me, because that keeps happening. The people coming down to lobby this Congress make it clear that they

have two key priorities on Devil’s Lake. One is an outlet; one is an

inlet.

Mr. POMEROY. Just to conclude, Mr. Chairman, I’m the elected

Congressman for North Dakota, the only one. In that respect, I’m

one of the State’s elected leaders. We do not have the intention to

seek an inlet into Devil’s Lake. It is not provided for in the legislation before us. You could pass the Dakota Water Resources Act as

presently proposed and it wouldn’t have an inlet feature, nor would

it have the mechanism that would provide for an inlet. It would

take an entirely different legislative act to achieve it. I would not

be part of trying to seek that act. But if someone did, you’d have

the opportunity at that point in time to raise your objection to that

proposal. It simply is not before us.

And, you know, I did not take much exception to the testimony

of the Audubon Society this afternoon. I disagreed with it roundly.

But we’ve got issues that we’ll continue to work on. At least they

were on point, but what I resent about Minnesota’s testimony

today, as you have made it, is that it addresses issues not before

us and issues that simply don’t really exist as presented by this

project.

Mr. NARGANG. Well, Mr. Chairman and Congressman Pomeroy,

if I may, I think I made clear in my comments that we acknowledge that Congress has separated the issues, but it’s our intention

to continue to review the potential impacts of these projects as

being connected. And I think we’re entitled to that.

Mr. POMEROY. My time has expired. We could go on, but the

chairman has been indulgent with his time.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. I’d like to thank the members of this panel for

their testimony. I have a feeling we’ve just scratched the surface

on this issue, but we’ve brought a number of important facts to

light. It certainly has been beneficial to me to better understand

what we’re dealing with here.

We will have, no doubt, further questions and would ask for your

timely responses and hold the record open until we’ve received

them.

And with that, we’ll excuse the panel and conclude this oversight

hearing on this subject and commence with the South Dakota subject.

Mr. POMEROY. As the North Dakotans get up to leave, Mr. Chairman, I know I speak for them in expressing to you our heartfelt

thanks. I mean this is an afternoon that you didn’t have to be here.

You promised me you’d hold this hearing this session, and you

made good on your word, and we are all deeply appreciative that

you conducted the hearing this afternoon.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you, and I’ll look forward to continuing to

work with you.

And with that, this hearing is adjourned.
56

[Whereupon, at 5:45 p.m., the Subcommittee adjourned subject to

the call of the Chair.]

[Additional material submitted for the record follows.]
57

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN DORSO, MAJORITY LEADER, STATE REPRESENTATIVE, NORTH DAKOTA

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, my name is John Dorso, North

Dakota House of Representative Majority Leader.

I appreciate greatly the opportunity to testify today in support of the Dakota

Water Resources Act. As part of the leadership of the North Dakota Legislature, I

am here to speak on behalf of the State Legislature. Also with me today, is State

Senate Majority Leader Gary Nelson. Unfortunately, neither State Senate Minority

Leader Tim Mathern nor State House of Representatives Minority Leader Merle

Boucher could be here, although both, as well as Senator Nelson, asked me to stress

the importance of the Dakota Water Resources Act to the State of North Dakota,

the total bipartisan support of the State Legislature, and the past and present willingness of the state to contribute to the implementation of the Garrison Diversion

Project.

You have heard from our Congressional Delegation, as well as from the Governor,

on the importance of this Act to the State of North Dakota. Senator Nelson, Senator

Boucher, and I all live in the Red River Valley in eastern North Dakota. Our principal water supply, the Red River, has gone dry several times in the past. Also the

population of the Red River Valley has increased substantially to the point where

today more than 25 percent of our state’s population resides within 15 miles of our

eastern border with Minnesota. It is obvious that we need to develop the future

water supply for that area. The Red River Valley is a significant and critical economic engine for North Dakota, without a water supply for it, as would be re-authorized by the Dakota Water Resources Act, our whole state will suffer.

Every state legislative assembly since 1944 has gone on record by resolution supporting the Garrison Project, and most recently in 1997, the framework for the Dakota Water Resources Act. That resolution, which has complete bi-partisan support,

urges the completion of the Garrison Project recognizing the critical priority of the

project for water management and development in North Dakota. Be it for municipal, rural, industrial, tribal, recreation, or fish and wildlife needs, the Dakota

Water Resources Act is essential for economic sustainment and development for our

state.

Because of the importance to North Dakota, the State Legislature has provided

funding to show its commitment to the Garrison Project. In the past, we have appropriated general funds for water projects, including the Garrison Diversion Project,

and we have also dedicated, by constitutional measure, a Resources Trust Fund for

water development. Most recently in 1997, we provided an authority for bonding for

the Garrison Project as part of our comprehensive statewide water development program. The State Legislature stands ready to address ways to meet future needs for

funding the non-Federal share of the Dakota Water Resources Act as proposed.

In closing, there is no question of the support for the Dakota Water Resources Act

in North Dakota. As you go back in history, even before the project was first authorized in 1944, our state strived for a means to meet our water needs. In 1889, the

year our state was created, the Constitutional Convention delegates recognized the

importance of managing our share of the Missouri River for our people. Even then,

they knew we would have to provide a water supply for the whole state, especially

eastern North Dakota. We ask that you help us to realize this more than 100 year

old vision by passage of the Dakota Water Resources Act.

Thank you.

STATEMENT OF HON. BRUCE W. FURNESS, MAYOR, FARGO, NORTH DAKOTA

Mr. Chairman and Honorable Members of the Subcommittee on Water and Power,

I am Bruce Furness, Mayor of the City of Fargo, North Dakota. Thank you for this

opportunity to testify before the Committee in support of S. 1515—The Dakota

Water Resources Act of 1997.

Benjamin Franklin once said, ‘‘When the well is dry, we know the worth of

water.’’ North Dakotans want to be proactive in managing our ‘‘well’’; we can’t wait

until it is dry. We have become unified behind this Act through the North Dakota

Water Coalition, a group of widely diverse interests which has come together to advance water development in our State. We are unified in developing a consensus

piece of legislation that will assure future water supply for all our citizens.

Fargo is located on the eastern edge of North Dakota, separated by the Red River

of the North from Moorhead, Minnesota. Together the Fargo-Moorhead area is the

largest U.S. population center in the Red River Valley with approximately 165,000

people. Fargo has enjoyed an annual growth rate of about 2 percent for the last 20

years and is actually accelerating in growth at this time. The requirement for more
58

water is a direct result of this growth. From a statewide perspective, nearly 40 percent of our population resides in the six border counties adjacent to the Red River.

Our area does not have an overabundance of water supply resources. Extended

dry conditions and droughts have shown us that current resources cannot alone

meet the water supply needs of this growing region. Development of a dependable

water supply, along with careful management of the resources currently utilized,

will allow the region to meet its changing water needs.

Our concern is best summarized by the introductory paragraph of a report by

Black & Veatch, the design consultant for our new water purification plant:

‘‘The City of Fargo has rights to two water sources for treatment and subsequent supply to its citizens for potable use: the Red River of the North and the

Sheyenne River. Unfortunately, both sources are of poor quality and, even taken

together, they do not offer a reliable quantity of water to meet Fargo’s present

and certainly future water needs. The diversion of Missouri River water to

Fargo by way of Garrison Dam would provide a long-term lifeline for the community.’’

QUANTITY

A good supply of water is key to our City’s continued growth and development.

Although record-setting floods have recently occurred, history shows that low water

in this river has occurred more often and caused more problems for our residents

than has flooding. For example, during the 1930’s the Red River had stream flows

at Fargo below 10 cubic feet per second (cfs) for seven straight years. This same

phenomena has occurred in the late 1970’s and once in the 1980’s. A flow of ten

cfs of water in the Red River represents less than one foot of water in the streambed

at any given point.

Listen to a recollection by former Governor William Guy of Fargo.

‘‘If you were to look at the Red River near the water plant in the 1930’s, you

would wonder how they ever made the water fit to drink. The searing hot

drought hung heavily over the Upper Midwest through the entire decade of the

1930’s. The Geological Survey records say that the murky Red River ceased to

flow at Fargo for a period in every year of that decade. The driest year was

1936 when the Red River stopped flowing for 166 continuous days. Cars were

not washed. Lawns went unsprinkled. There was talk of returning the Fargo

Sewage Plant discharge to the river above the city water intake. Moorhead was

drawing all of its water from wells east of the city and their tap water tasted

good. With a population of around 25,000, Fargo’s water situation was desperate . . . . . Today both Fargo and Moorhead draw their water from the Red

River while their combined population has increased five fold from the dry

1930’s. Industries not even dreamed of 65 years ago now use copious amounts

of Red River water. It is easy to understand why the Garrison Diversion Project

to bring Missouri River water east to the Red River Valley has been on the

minds of thinking people for more than 50 years.’’

Though difficult to project, future regional water requirements will be determined

by several factors:

•Population growth and economic expansion in Fargo will continue into the

next century at the same 2 percent annual growth rate. The entire region is

expected to grow correspondingly.

•Per capita usage is currently below national and regional averages but could

increase without stringent use of conservation measures.

•

• In 1995, a large corn-processing plant went on-line in the Red River Valley.

It is projected that a minimum of three additional plants will be constructed

in the basin over the next forty years. Water usage for each of these plants may

well equal what the City of Fargo uses in an average day. Thus, any needs

analysis must include future economic growth resulting from increased valueadded agricultural processing.

Another consideration relating to water quantity is that of minimum stream

flows. As indicated earlier, there have been times of extremely low flows. One analysis suggests that 7 cfs as a minimum flow in the Red River is sufficient. That is

totally unacceptable.

An examination of historical seven-day-duration flows shows many periods of inadequate flows for our current usage and increasingly more severe problems as our

usage grows to new plant capacities. Fifty cfs is a bare minimum to be considered,

75 cfs is desirable.

The use of Missouri River water is an obvious solution to this availability problem. Ninety six percent of the usable surface water in North Dakota is in the Mis-
59

souri River. It represents the best source of highly available water and has an extremely small impact on downtstream sites. Analysis shows that the potential allocation of 100 cfs for Eastem North Dakota is less than 1⁄2 of 1 percent of Missouri

water flowing through our state. A graphic description of this minimal impact is to

think of the entire flow as a gallon of water. The proposed allocation is then represented by a thimbleful of water (1⁄2 fluid ounce).

QUALITY

When water is not available in adequate amounts, the quality of water also declines. This fact has a high impact on processing costs. Relying on the Red River

as its main source of water requires cities from Fargo to Pembina to take extraordinary measures to treat raw water. Both Fargo and Moorhead have recently built

new water treatment facilities which use ozone (an electrically charged liquid oxygen), the latest available technology to disinfect the water. Ozone is a treatment

process which has become the favored disinfectant for raw water having high organic characteristics.

Ozone can do in 3 seconds what it takes chlorine 3 minutes and chloramine (chlorine and ammonia) 12 minutes to accomplish. However, this highly efficient treatment comes with a price—the cost of producing the ozone. To electrically charge liquid oxygen, the power costs for Fargo’s treatment plant will double to $600,000 per

year.

Another advantage of treating better quality water can be shown by comparing

the cost of treating Missouri River water at Bismarck with Red River water. Our

staff analyzed the chemical costs to treat a gallon of water and discovered that Fargo’s cost is about 22 cents per 1,000 gallons while Bismarck’s costs are 9 cents per

thousand. As water quantity and quality decrease, the cost of its treatment increases.

Each of these examples demonstrates the preference for treating higher quality

water such as that found in the Missouri. As with quantity, water of better quality

is a vital need for our community and region.

CONSERVATION

Water conservation strategies employed by the City of Fargo include the adoption

of odd/even lawn watering restrictions beginning in 1989 and continuing through

today. In 1997, a demonstration xeriscaping program was implemented with over

100 homes participating. We intend for this program to grow. A 15-year project to

replace deteriorating water mains has begun. The result will be a significant reduction in water loss. Using all these tactics, water management will remain a high

priority item in our City.

TIME-FRAME

Although impossible to predict with any certainty, it is believed the Red River

Valley has adequate water supply for the next 10 to 15 years. Should drought conditions occur, however, that estimate may be reduced to 3-5 years. Consequently, little

time remains to resolve these concerns. Activity must begin now to address the

many issues relating to water quantity and quality. I urge your positive consideration of this critical legislation.

I will be pleased to respond to any questions you may have. Thank you once again

for the opportunity to testify in support of S. 1515.
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68

STATEMENT OF RUSSELL D. MASON, SR., CHAIRMAN, THREE AFFILIATED TRIBES,

CHAIRMAN, UNITED TRIBES OF NORTH DAKOTA

Chairman Doolittle, Members of the Subcommittee:

Thank you for the opportunity to present testimony today concerning H.R. 3012,

the ‘‘Dakota Water Resources Act.’’ The Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold

Reservation are the Mandan, Hidatsa and Arikara Nations. We strongly support

H.R. 3012 and urge its passage, as it provides long promised and much needed funding for our municipal, rural and industrial water needs, as well as needed funds for

a new bridge over Lake Sakakawea, to replace a bridge whose center spans have

not been maintained and which are more than 60 years old.

Further, we want to expressly thank our Congressional delegation and our current Governor, Ed Schafer, for their continued recognition of our needs in this legislation, and their willingness to consider our views. We look forward to working with

them to seek passage of this vital legislation.

Background

As you may recall, the Three Affiliated Tribes named above greeted Lewis and

Clark in the early 19th century as they made their expedition of discovery up the

Missouri River and over to the Pacific coast. Even prior to Lewis and Clark our

Tribes had lived together peacefully for hundreds of years along the Missouri River.

The Mandan particularly were agricultural, and tended corn and other crops.

As we, like all other Indian people, were forced to live on reservations in the late

1800’s, we were able to retain a spot along the Missouri River where we could maintain to a considerable degree a self-sufficient life style, tending to our crops and livestock on the rich bottomlands along the river. Few of our members were ever on

welfare. Our reservation, which straddles the Missouri River, is approximately 1,500

square miles in size, although almost one-half of the reservation is owned by nonIndians and more than 15 percent of the area is covered by the water of the reservoir behind Garrison Dam.

Despite our protests, our council resolutions, our delegations to Washington and

our tears, our lives were turned upside down when the Garrison Dam was completed in the early 1950’s. Over 156,000 acres of our best agricultural lands were

taken from us for the creation of the reservoir behind the dam, and represented 69

percent of the land needed. By October 1, 1952, we were almost all forced from our

homes because of the ‘‘great flood,’’ as many of our elders call the formation of the

reservoir, now known as Lake Sakakawea. I was one of the last students at

Elbowwoods High School, which was also the home of the Bureau of Indian Affairs

Agency and a small Indian Health Service hospital. Our once close-knit communities, separated only by a river, which was then connected near Elbowwoods by a

bridge, were now split apart and separated by as much as 120 miles. Our rich farmland and self-sufficient lifestyle were gone forever.

Before the dam was completed, in addition to the inadequate compensation we received for our lands, we were promised many things by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, whose generals came and listened to our protests and our needs. Among

other things, we were promised a lot of new infrastructure to allow us to rebuild

our communities, including a new hospital, which was never built; community buildings, only now being completed, partly with Tribal funds; and a rural water system,

using some of the water from the lake for which we had sacrificed our way of life.

That water system, fifty years later, is even now only partly constructed. In just

the past three years, several of our communities, which are generally a few miles

from the lake, have been provided with adequate water from Lake Sakakawea. But

the current system does not yet begin to serve our real needs, as specified below

in more detail.

In 1985, after nearly 33 years, and much lobbying in Washington and in our state

capital, the U.S. Secretary of Interior established a committee to make recommendations for just compensation to the Three Affiliated Tribes and the Standing Rock

Sioux Tribe for their losses. The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe had suffered also, like

the Three Affiliated Tribes, following the construction of the Oahe Dam near Ft.

Pierre, South Dakota. This committee was called the Garrison Unit Joint Tribal Advisory Committee (GUJTAC), which issued its final report on May 23, 1986. A copy

of this Committee Report, which we commonly refer to as the ‘‘JTAC’’ report, is attached to my original written testimony, and I would ask that the Report be made

a part of the record of this hearing, as it provides substantive justification for some

of the components of H.R. 3012 that directly affect us.

Partly as a consequence of the JTAC report, some of the needs for rural infrastructure of the Three Affiliated Tribes and the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe were included in the Garrison Unit Reformulation Act of 1986, Public Law 99-294. These
69

included partial funds for a municipal, rural and industrial water system (MRI),

shared between the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and the Three Affiliated Tribes, and

authorization for irrigation projects. The understanding of Congress when the Garrison Unit Reformulation Act was passed is that Congress knew the funds were insufficient, and expected a full report of the actual needs of the Fort Berthold Reservation at some later date. That later date has arrived.

While the irrigation projects authorized for the Three Affiliated Tribes were never

funded, we did receive a part of the $20 million which was eventually appropriated

over the next 11 years, which have allowed some of our MRI water system needs

to be satisfied. A summary of our current water needs is included in this written

testimony.

Principal Benefits of H.R. 3012 for the Three Affiliated Tribes and northwest North Dakota

Now, in 1998, the State of North Dakota is back before Congress seeking further

authority to complete what has been known as the Garrison Diversion Project. The

state rightfully states that it has been waiting more than 50 years for the completion of this project. We too, have been waiting for more than 50 years for the infrastructure promised to us as a result of the completion of the Garrison Dam, and

are asking for what was promised us before our homes were flooded and our land

taken.

This bill has three features which are of tremendous importance to the Three Affiliated Tribes and for all of northwest North Dakota, including our MRI water system needs, continued authorization for approximately 15,000 acres of irrigation

projects (which were meant to replace lost agricultural lands), and funds for a new

Four Bears Bridge across the Missouri River near New Town, North Dakota (now

the site of the Tribal Administration offices and the Bureau of Indian Affairs Agency). These are discussed in more detail below.

1. Municipal, rural and industrial water needs (MRI)

H.R. 3012 provides that the four tribes in North Dakota share in a total authorization for MRI water needs of $200 million. The amounts needed by each tribe, and

as agreed to by the Tribal chairs, are specifically stated in the bill, so that there

need be no guess work afterwards about how much each tribe should receive. The

share for the Three Affiliated Tribes is $70 million, contained in Section 9 of the

bill.

As required by the Committee Report on the Garrison Unit Reformulation Act,

Public Law 99-294, we have documented our water needs to Congress and have provided detailed studies of these needs to our Congressional delegation. We would ask

that the Committee recognize those reports in its final Committee report language

concerning the bill.

We believe that the figure of $70 million will be sufficient for our water system

needs, if provided over time and indexed for inflation as currently allowed by law.

The funds authorized, once appropriated, will provide, among other things, much

needed usable drinking water that will contribute greatly to the health, economic

and environmental needs of approximately 10,000 residents of the reservation, including non-Indian and Indians alike. The system, as designed, will be able to become part of a larger regional water system that will have an impact far beyond

the Fort Berthold Reservation.

At present, our ground water supply over most of the reservation is very poor.

Dissolved solids, salts and other minerals often makes available water unusable for

cooking, washing, drinking, and even home gardening. As an example of the danger

of the poor water, sodium concentrations of more than double normal standards,

often present in reservation well water, can aggravate hypertension, a common affliction on the Reservation.

Even more of a problem are homes that have no local water source at all. Close

to the end of the 20th century, we still have many families who must haul in their

water from some outside source, often many miles away. In addition to the obvious

inconvenience, this causes an undue risk of water borne diseases. Also, the many

private wells on the reservation are simply undependable, often with low flows, and

generally provide poor quality water, as well.

Further documentation of the problems we face was just published in the September, 1998 issue of the magazine North Dakota Water, a publication produced for

North Dakota water users. The sub-title of the article is called ‘‘Reservations lack

access to quality water systems.’’ The article says, among other things: ‘‘There is a

tremendous need for rural water lines,’’ which applies to both the Fort Berthold Reservation and the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation, and it documents the plight of

a young family on our reservation which has to constantly haul water, as well as
70

the sorry condition of our New Town water treatment plant. New Town is the largest town on the reservation, with both a large Indian and non-Indian population.

A copy of this article is attached to my testimony, and I would request that this

article be made a part of the record in this matter.

As we all can appreciate with the Garrison Diversion Project, the lack of good

water systems at present blocks effective economic development in most of our reservation districts, which we call ‘‘segments.’’ Unemployment is still a large problem

on our reservation, even with the modest success of our casino, Mandaree Electronics, the Northrup Grumman plant in New Town, and other Tribal enterprises.

The 1990 census pegged our average per capita income at $4,849, one-third of the

national average.

Now, we are faced with welfare reform requirements of meeting national goals for

work partition rates within a specified timetable over several years. This means

that economic development must become an even higher priority for our reservation.

And, as we all know, economic development requires good water. Projects that are

possible users of good water include a feed lot, meat processing plant, fiber board

plant and ethanol plant, as well as further development of recreational areas along

the shore of Lake Sakakawea, new housing development, expansion of various tribal

facilities, and so forth.

At the same time as water systems are developed and water use is increased on

the reservation, we must also be mindful of environmental concerns, such as wastewater disposal. We know that a successful MRI program will not only address water

distribution needs, but also wastewater disposal needs.

The major components of the needed MRI projects are as follows, segment by segment:

• 1. Mandaree: (west side of reservation, west of lake) In Mandaree, the water

distribution system needs to be expanded and the existing system improved.

Mandaree already has an adequate water treatment plant and water intake.

• 2. White Shield: (southeast corner of reservation, north of lake) In White

Shield, again, the water distribution system needs to be expanded. A new water

treatment plant is just being completed, but the water intake was completed in

1991.

• 3. Twin Buttes: (south side of reservation, south of lake) While Twin Buttes

already has a water intake and water treatment plant, both facilities need to

be completely replaced. Further, the water distribution system needs to be expanded. For reference, Twin Buttes is 120 miles from New Town.

• 4. Four Bears: (northwest corner of reservation, west of lake) The Four Bears

area has a water intake, but no water treatment plant and no distribution system. This area needs a water treatment plant and a distribution system.

• 5. New Town: (also northwest part of reservation, east of lake) New Town,

the largest community on the reservation, has no water intake system from the

lake, less than a mile from the center of town, the best and closest supply of

fresh water. While the aquifer under New Town supplying the city’s wells is a

relatively good source of water, when the lake is low, the aquifer is low and

water quality declines. Thus, New Town needs a water intake system and improvements to its water treatment plant, as well as an expanded distribution

system.

• 6. Parshall: (northeast part of reservation, east of lake) Parshall, also called

Lucky Mound, has a water intake from the lake, which isn’t always working.

Further, the water intake is not deep enough in the lake, and doesn’t function

at all when the lake is low. Parshall needs a new water intake, improved water

treatment plant and an expanded distribution system.

I want to emphasize that we need prompt action on supplying our needs, because

our MRI funds are exhausted at the end of this fiscal year. It is also important to

note that each of the newly expanded distribution systems will allow for future expansion, both within and outside of the reservation areas. These are just a few of

the principal elements of the MRI projects we were promised more than 40 years

ago.

2. Four Bears Bridge.

When the Garrison Dam was built, the bridge at the old town of Elbowwoods was

removed and its center spans, then already more than 20 years old, were placed

near New Town in the northwest part of the Reservation, to cross the lake at its

narrowest point. The bridge was inadequate when constructed because the center

spans were too narrow, making the rest of the bridge equally narrow. Now, with

a much increased traffic load, it is increasingly dangerous. In a few years will be

in need of massive repair.
71

The Four Bears Bridge is the only bridge on a stretch of the Missouri River more

than 150 miles in length. It is on a road which is part of the National Defense Highway System, and serves as part of an essential farm-to-market road connecting two

U.S. highways, Nos. 83 and 85. If the bridge were to be closed for an extensive period of time for any reason, or if it structurally became too weak to carry traffic,

the state has no funds to repair it and massive disruption of the local economies

would occur.

The Four Bears Bridge was part of the Garrison project when the dam was built,

and replacement of the Bridge ought to be part of the overall Garrison Diversion

project now. The State of North Dakota doesn’t have any money to replace the

bridge, and even with the new highway bill will not have funds. The 1996 estimated

cost of the bridge is approximately $40 million, and the authorization for that

amount is provided for in the bill. It is understood that the state will be assisting

with the final cost of the bridge; the Tribe is contributing land to the site of the

new bridge.

3. Irrigation:

Finally, I want to urge this Committee to retain the authorization for irrigation

on the Fort Berthold reservation contained in H.R. 3012. As noted above, we lost

156,000 acres of land, much of it prime bottom land as a result of Garrison Dam,

and the $63 million irrigation dollars authorized in the Garrison Unit Reformulation

Act of 1986 were to be used to help us recover some of that good farm land. Our

studies show that irrigation is feasible in the Lucky Mound-White Shield areas.

We do have several remaining concerns about the legislation:

Reserved water rights. We would ask that language be included in the final

Committee report on this legislation that would recognize the reserved water rights

of the Three Affiliated Tribes to water from the Missouri River and its tributaries

that are within the Fort Berthold Reservation, known as Winters doctrine rights,

and that it be made clear in the final Committee report that this legislation, including the part of it which allows for diversion of water from the Missouri River, does

not in any way diminish or compromise those rights. This was a fundamental consideration of the JTAC Report, attached. Our water rights as a Tribe are no less

important than those expressed as a stated purpose of H.R. 3012: ‘‘to preserve any

existing rights of the State of North Dakota to use water from the Missouri River.’’

Irrigation. We would also request that consideration be given to expand our authority for irrigation acres, should such additional acres prove feasible. As mentioned above, our best agricultural lands were taken from us. We are hopeful that

in the future, some additional lands can be successfully irrigated and added back

to our agricultural land base.

JTAC Report. Finally, we would ask that in the final Committee report accompanying the bill, language be included that states that this legislation fulfills some

of the goals set forth in the Garrison Unit Joint Tribal Advisory Committee Report,

dated May 23, 1986, as attached. Such language simply recognizes what the bill actually does, and helps explain why portions of this legislation are dealing with the

needs of the North Dakota tribes.

In summary, we believe we, the Three Affiliated Tribes, and indeed, all of the

residents of the Fort Berthold reservation have waited long enough for our fundamental water needs to be met. To have people on our reservation still carrying

water to their homesites is unacceptable in the late 20th century. For us, the passage of H.R. 3012 cannot come soon enough. We cannot accept any alternative.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify before this Committee.
72
73
74
75
76

STATEMENT OF MICHELLE MCCORMACK, SOUTHWEST WATER AUTHORITY, NORTH

DAKOTA

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee:

My name is Michelle McCormack, and I have been a resident of southwest North

Dakota for the past 17 years. I am one of the many people in North Dakota that

has benefited from the partially completed Southwest Pipeline Project. I support the

completion of Garrison Diversion because I know first-hand the social, economic,

and personal hardships of having poor water.

My first home had clear water that was ‘‘hard enough to walk on’’ according to

the water tester. It was high in sodium, and high in iron. It left rust stains on

clothes that were washed in the water, and it left stains and deposits on fixtures.

It was so corrosive that lifetime faucets had to be replaced every seven years. Water

pipes and shower heads filled up with hard lime deposits so that water pressure

was reduced, and eventually, plumbing would leak, and have to be replaced.

My husband and I built a house 10 years ago on a building site with an existing

well. The well water was light brown, the color of tea, and was soft, but very limited. When the cattle were drinking, there was no water in the house.

That well failed after a few years. Because of the soils in our area, wells often

fail, filling in with a light silt. We added filters, attempted to clear the water

through use of settling tanks, and finally we had to accept the fact that we needed

a new well. At a cost of $12 a foot, we dug until we had spent over $6,000. And

we found water—abundant, soft, potable, safe for cattle, but dark brown. We had

the choice of digging deeper, hoping to find better water, however; there was no

guarantee that it would be there. Or we could live with the brown water we had,

and wait for the pipeline to come.

The brown water stained everything. One washing would turn a white dishtowel

grey. Even dark clothes were dulled and dingy. My children learned to dry their

hair after a shower—if they did not, their damp, long hair would stain the collar

of their white t-shirts.

The picture you saw of the baby in the bathtub is my son. When he was five, he

asked me if there was a rule that only motels and grandmas got to have white

sheets and towels. We bought dark towels, dark sheets, and very little white clothing. We had to haul all white laundry to the nearest laundromat—a 30 mile trip

one way.

It took full strength toilet bowl cleaner to remove dried stains from sinks, showers

and fixtures. We distilled all the water we used for cooking and drinking. The water

had tested safe for human use, but boiling pasta or potatoes in that water was

unappetizing at best. Our distiller ran 24 hours a day.

It wasn’t pretty, and we endured it because we had to. Our family and friends

hated to visit or stay overnight, and the kids friends didn’t like to see it. So there

was a cost—socially, and a high economic cost to distill, haul laundry, and long term

costs to the house plumbing and fixtures.

Friends, neighbors—all have stories like this. They tell stories of faucets that

erode away every five years; garbage disposal blades eaten by the water; stains,

costs, frustrations and hard work over a resource most Americans take as a given

part of their life.

I’ve been lucky—I am one of those people who benefited greatly from the Southwest Pipeline Project. There are others:

Don and Sarah Froehlich from Belfield, were about to sell their dairy cattle operation before the pipeline arrived at their farm. High levels of sulfate contaminated

their water, causing Don to be sick with flu-like symptoms for over a month; and

a bad taste in the milk and cheese their cattle produced.

Douglas Candee from Dickinson, has expanded his buffalo herd to over 200 head,

which he attributes to the abundant, dependable water he receives from the Southwest Pipeline Project.

Joe and Mag Kathrein, New England, have struggled constantly with water in the

past—hauling water twice per day to their cattle herd, 20 miles round trip. Now

they enjoy quality water in abundance.

Bernice Jahner, Hettinger, appreciates the health benefits she receives from

Southwest Pipeline water. For the past five years, she has been doctoring for ulcers

on her legs, taking whirlpool baths twice a day for treatment. After using pipeline

water for just one month, her doctors were amazed at her improvement.

The North Dakota State Water Commission has currently identified 524 projects

that are necessary for water development in the state with an approximate cost of

$1.8 billion. One hundred twenty-four of these projects are targeted specifically for

the next biennium, at a total cost of $362 million. Several large projects, such as
77

flood control for Grand Forks and Devils Lake, and the Maple River Dam are included in this cost.

I say the cost of a pipeline water bill every month is a bargain, compared to what

we paid to make our water usable. Pipeline water is better for our health, affordable, less work, and a real blessing to all of us in an area where wells are not reliable.

STATEMENT OF DANIEL P. BEARD, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT—PUBLIC POLICY, NATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before the Subcommittee

to present this testimony on H.R. 3012, the ‘‘Dakota Water Resources Act of 1997,’’

as amended by the amendment in the nature of a substitute introduced by Mr. Pomeroy.

I’m here today to present the views of the National Audubon Society on H.R.

3012. The Society has nearly one million members and supporters in the Americas,

and it is dedicated to the preservation and protection of birds, other wildlife and

their habitat.

To our members, protection and enhancement of the Prairie Pothole wetlands of

North Dakota and other portions of the Central Flyway is a critical issue. For over

30 years we have worked hard to protect these internationally significant resources,

and we are prepared to continue this effort.

The purpose of today’s hearing is to take testimony on the ‘‘Dakota Water Resources Act of 1997’’ introduced by Congressman Pomeroy. For reasons I will detail

below, we strongly oppose enactment of this legislation and we urge the Committee

to take no further action on the bill. Should the Committee report the bill, we will

work diligently to oppose its enactment by the Congress.

We appreciate all the time and hard work Congressman Pomeroy has put into

this proposal. We also recognize that it reflects consensus among a variety of interests in North Dakota. While we appreciate their hard work, we still oppose the legislation.

Mr. Chairman, the Garrison Diversion Unit water project has been the subject of

controversy for over 50 years. It has generated countless lawsuits, legislative battles, diplomatic negotiations, interstate controversies, and environmental confrontations. Even worse, the taxpayers have spent more than $600 million on project facilities, many of which don’t fulfill their intended purpose. In our view, H.R. 3012

would not end the controversies surrounding the Garrison project and water development in North Dakota; this legislation would just continue old controversies, and

create new ones.

Mr. Chairman, rather than go through the bill line-by-line and detail our objections, I would prefer to focus on several important reasons why we believe this legislation is deficient. We hope these comments will lead you and other members of the

Committee to the conclusion that this legislation should be rejected.

The legislation is based on a faulty premise.

We believe this proposal is premised on a faulty assumption. The major premise

of the legislation seems to be that a ‘‘debt’’ is owed North Dakota as a result of the

construction of the mainstem Pick-Sloan reservoirs. The quid pro quo for these facilities is the often-cited ‘‘commitment’’ that North Dakota would receive 1 million

acres of irrigation.

Rather than revisit the historical accuracy of this supposed ‘‘commitment,’’ let me

point out that the Congress in 1986 expressly said that whatever commitment may

have existed was fulfilled by the 1986 legislation. Subsequent Congresses and Administrations—both Democratic and Republican, with the support of the environmental community—have met this commitment by making available over $400 million to the State of North Dakota for the construction of rural water systems, Indian

water projects and other project facilities. Over 80,000 North Dakotans have directly

benefited from these expenditures. In addition, according to data developed by the

Corps of Engineers, the State also receives approximately $130 million each year in

benefits from mainstem Missouri River facilities.

Thus, the state has already received well over a billion dollars in benefits and direct Federal appropriations since 1986. In our view, H.R. 3012 fails to present a

forceful and compelling case why the taxpayers should make available an additional

$900 million in Federal funds and debt forgiveness.

The Congress should know the specific facilities and features it is authorizing.

Given the long history of controversy surrounding water development in North

Dakota, we believe it is absolutely essential the Congress only authorize construc-
78

tion of facilities that have been thoroughly considered and planned. As currently

drafted, the legislation directs the Secretary to build facilities that are not clearly

described or known, may not be needed, and perhaps cannot be used. In the past,

there has been considerable controversy about what facilities ought to be built, why

and how they should be operated. The legislation would continue this controversy.

The Federal Government should take the lead for implemenfing any legislation.

As noted earlier, the reason we are here today is because the Garrison project has

a long and controversial history. There are interstate and international issues, and

a host of environmental challenges surrounding this project. We don’t believe it is

appropriate for the Federal Government to cede authority for addressing these

issues to the State of North Dakota. Several sections of the bill give the State unusual authority to influence planning processes and to be involved in the construction of facilities. The State’s role in this effort should be curtailed, not expanded as

proposed in H.R. 3012.

The debt forgiveness portions of the bill should be deleted.

There are several sections of the bill that provide for forgiveness or changing the

rules for reimbursable expenditures made in the past. We don’t believe inclusion of

these provisions is appropriate. Since 1965, nearly $600 million dollars has been

spent on Garrison-related facilities and programs; we feel the taxpayers deserve the

maximum repayment possible for these expenditures.

The State of North Dakota should not have a role in environmental compliance.

The legislation provides that the State will play an integral role in the planning

and design of facilities, and in the preparation of the environmental impact statement on Red River Valley water supply facilities. Given the interstate and international problems surrounding this issue, we believe it is inappropriate to give the

State this authority. The problems involved in delivering Missouri River water to

eastern North Dakota are interstate and international in nature, and they are very

controversial. Given the gravity of these issues, the Secretary should have the sole

responsibility for undertaking the analysis to review and recommend appropriate solutions.

We should honor our treaty commitments to Canada.

The final problem we would like to raise is the opposition of the Government of

Canada to importing water from the Missouri River into the Red River drainage.

In 1977, the International Joint Commission recommended that construction of

those portions of the Garrison project delivering Missouri River water to streams

ultimately draining into Canada not be built, due to the potential for violation of

the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909. Twenty-one years later, there is still no assurance that project facilities that would be completed and operated by the Dakota

Water Resources Act would not violate the Boundary Waters Treaty.

The United States has an obligation to honor this treaty and develop solutions

to its water resource problems that won’t result in exporting our problems to Canada. As presently drafted, H.R. 3012 provides no assurances that the United States

will meet these commitments.

Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to detail for you some of the problems

we see with this legislation. Let me outline for you a suggested list of elements the

National Audubon Society believes could lead to positive resolution of the issues surrounding the Garrison controversy.

1. We oppose legislation to complete the Garrison Diversion Unit, such as the

‘‘Dakota Water Resources Act,’’ because the project does not represent responsible, economically sound or environmentally acceptable water resource development.

2. If a legitimate need is demonstrated for importing Missouri River water to

the Red River Valley for MR&I use, we support formal consultations with Canada and discussions with Minnesota to determine if an acceptable means can

be developed to deliver treated Missouri River water by pipeline directly to the

target cities.

3. We support projects to meet tribal MR&I water needs using cost-effective delivery systems.

4. We support irrigation development on tribal lands adjacent to the Missouri

River using water directly from the river.

5. We support other MR&I water projects in North Dakota utilizing local water

supplies or pipelines where they are economically feasible and environmentally

acceptable.

6. We oppose the expenditure of additional Federal funds for construction, operation or maintenance of the Garrison Diversion Unit principal supply works.
79

7. The Garrison Diversion Conservancy District is the entity primarily responsible for insisting that construction proceed on the principal supply works. They

have done so before major problems associated with the project were resolved

despite the objections of landowners, conservation organizations, taxpayer organizations, numerous Federal agencies, the State of Minnesota, and the Governments of Manitoba and Canada. Therefore, costs associated with abandonment

of the principal supply works should be borne by the C-District rather than by

American taxpayers.

Mr. Chairman, once again I want to thank you for giving me this opportunity to

be here with you today. I’d be happy to answer any questions you might have.

STATEMENT OF SCOTT PETERSON, PRESIDENT, NORTH DAKOTA CHAPTER OF THE

WILDLIFE SOCIETY

Good afternoon, my name is Scott Peterson and I am the President of the North

Dakota Chapter of The Wildlife Society. I am here today to present a brief statement regarding the Dakota Water Resources Act on behalf of the North Dakota

Chapter of the Wildlife Society.

The North Dakota Chapter of The Wildlife Society is a professional organization

of fish and wildlife biologists, educators, and students. The Chapter has been actively involved with issues concerning the Garrison Diversion Unit since the project

was originally authorized by Congress in 1965. In 1986, the Chapter helped to forge

an agreement that led to the passage of the Garrison Diversion Unit Reformulation

Act. The Chapter has submitted statements for the record at previous hearings in

Washington and North Dakota in support of the Legislation before us now and we

stand by those earlier statements.

During the past two years, the Chapter has participated in discussions that led

to the introduction of the Dakota Water Resources Act. Throughout this process, the

Chapter has focused its attention on three main objectives:

1. Clearly defining the provisions of the Dakota Water Resources Act;

2. Ensuring that the contemporary water needs of North Dakota include the

conservation of fish and wildlife resources and their habitats; and,

3. Modifying the legislation to eliminate provisions that will adversely affect the

environment.

The Dakota Water Resources Act is primarily a municipal and rural water supply

plan which will benefit North Dakotans by providing a dependable supply of safe

drinking water to communities throughout the State. We believe this work can be

completed without significant environmental impacts. The current version of the

legislation strengthens the process for making environmentally sound, cost-effective

decisions concerning the future water needs of Fargo, Grand Forks, and other communities in the Red River Valley. The Environmental Impact Statement will evaluate a range of practicable alternatives to meet the projected water needs and assess

the environmental impacts associated with each option.

Today I would like to address, and offer our further support for two specific provisions of the Dakota Water Resources Act, namely the expansion of the North Dakota

Wetlands Trust and the operation and maintenance needs of the project wildlife

mitigation and enhancement features.

The Dakota Water Resources Act recognizes the conservation of fish and wildlife

resources as an essential project feature to meet the contemporary water needs of

North Dakota. The Chapter wholeheartedly supports expanding the mission and

funding base of the North Dakota Wetlands Trust to include riparian and grassland

conservation initiatives. The Chapter further endorses the Trust’s wetland education

initiatives and supports the complimentary funding that is earmarked for the North

American Prairie Wetland Interpretive Center. The Trust serves as an important

bridge between landowners and the conservation community as clearly demonstrated by the Trust’s list of accomplishments during the past ten years. These

impressive accomplishments include involving 37 organizations and over 200 landowners in Trust funded projects and programs; 170 landowners signed wetlands protection, restoration and enhancement agreements; 578 farmers and land managers

participated in field tours on conservation practices; and over $1.7 million have been

provided as either direct payments or incentive payments to landowners for various

conservation practices. I have also attached a one page summary of the Wetland

Trust’s activities during the past ten years to highlight their accomplishments.

Voluntary projects such as these are just some of the reasons that the various ND

Wetlands Trust programs have become so popular with landowners and conservationists alike. The Trust is continually looking for cooperative ventures that benefit

both the agricultural producer and our state’s natural resources. Expanding oppor-
80

tunities to cooperatively work with landowners throughout North Dakota benefits

both our natural resources and the state’s economy. Further evidence of the Trust’s

popularity can be found in one Ramsey County landowner’s comments regarding a

Trust project when he stated, ‘‘I feel that we’ve worked well together as a group . . .

it’s a win:win situation for producers and wildlife.’’

The primary provisions of the Dakota Water Resources Act are designed to meet

North Dakota’s existing and projected water supply needs. Along similar lines, we

believe that establishing an account to operate and maintain the project’s fish and

wildlife mitigation and enhancement features is an important step in meeting the

project’s conservation objectives. The operations and maintenance account will benefit wildlife resources, neighboring landowners, and the people using these public

lands. The account is essential to ensure the stated conservation commitments of

the project are met in the future. We recommend that the authority to establish the

operations and maintenance account be timed to coincide with the record of decision

concerning the Red River Valley water supply features. With a secure mechanism

to fund the wildlife development areas, we are confident that the projected losses

associated with identified irrigation development can be adequately mitigated.

In closing, we believe that substantial progress has been made since the first draft

of the Dakota Water Resources Act was circulated. The North Dakota Congressional

Delegation, Senator Conrad in particular, and North Dakota’s state political leaders

are to be given credit for their leadership abilities in keeping a diverse group, representing many interests, moving forward.

We wish to thank you for the opportunity to express our opinions here today and

we respectfully request the opportunity to continue negotiations directed toward developing legislation that meets the contemporary water needs of North Dakota and

conserves the State’s natural resources.

Thank you.

NORTH DAKOTA WETLANDS TRUST, SUMMARY OF PROJECTS

1997-1997

The North Dakota Wetlands Trust, a non-profit corporation, has been involved in

62 wetland conservation projects since its inception in 1986.

• $4,907,980 have been committed to projects and $2,067,102 have been spent

to date.

•This $4,907,980 is leveraged with $18,185,766 through partnership agreements with organizations and agencies.

•Projects completed conserve wetlands on 53,663 acres:

13,336 wetland acres

40,327 upland acres.

• Acquired 4,154 acres.

• Engaged private landowners and the public in wetlands conservation:

37 organizations and over 200 landowners are involved in Trust funded

projects and programs.

170 landowners signed wetlands protection, restoration and enhancement

agreements

578 farmers and land managers participated in field tours on conservation

practices

22,900 adults are estimated to have participated in wetlands education programs

64,135 children are estimated to have participated in classroom and field

trip opportunities to learn about wetland habitats.

•Provided economic benefits to landowners and communities:

Expended 22 percent of the Trust’s cumulative budget over the last four

years on landowner incentive projects with long-term educational and demonstration value

$776,737 in direct payments to landowners for conservation practices, incentives and cost shares

$935,000 is committed for wetland restoration and native grass incentives

to landowners for Conservation Reserve Program lands

Helped fund no-till drills in nine counties, providing conservation tillage options for over 110 landowners

Paid $36,330 in property taxes to local political subdivisions (counties,

townships, school districts).

Improved 20,194 acres of privately owned agricultural land through incentives for no-till drilling, conservation tillage, soil moisture enhancement
81

through temporary wetlands, upland habitat restoration, and grazing system improvements.

Removed agricultural uses on 10,950 acres through wetlands restoration

and enhancement and associated upland habitat restoration. Provided payments for removing agricultural land.

STATEMENT OF RONALD NARGANG, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT

OF NATURAL RESOURCES (MDNR)

Mr. Chairman, on behalf of Governor Carlson, thank you for the opportunity to

brief the Subcommittee on Water and Power on Minnesota’s concerns regarding the

‘‘Garrison Diversion’’ project. I am Ronald Nargang, Deputy Commissioner of the

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) and I have been asked by

Governor Carlson to provide testimony for the State of Minnesota on this matter.

Historically, the states of Minnesota and North Dakota have a long-standing tradition of working together cooperatively on interstate natural resource issues, such as

the great floods of 1997. However, the State of Minnesota remains very concerned

about the proposed Garrison Diversion project and appreciates the opportunity to

provide comments.

Issues of concern are:

Consistency—The eight states and one province surrounding the Great Lakes

have a compact that provides for prior notice and consultation of transfers of

water out of the basin. Given the high value of the Great Lakes as a resource

and the concerns of the eight Great Lakes states, no transfers are allowed out

of the basin without unanimous approval of all parties. Federal law (Section

1109 of the WRDA of 1986) requires the approval of all eight great lakes governors before an out of basin transfer could occur. Congress has set a standard

in law that protects specific basins (e.g., the Great Lakes) from losing water to

other areas. All Missouri River states should be expected to concur in a diversion of Missouri River water outside the natural watershed boundaries. The

State of Minnesota has grave concerns about the precedent that would be established if water from the Garrison Diversion project were directed out of its natural basin to the Red River. The State of Minnesota has no intention of jeopardizing our ability to stop the transfer of water out of the state by accepting the

water from the Garrison Diversion and establishing a precedent for interbasin

diversion.

Sustainable Use—Minnesota uses the principles of sustainable use when

forming natural resource policy and in decision making as regards the use of

natural resources. All communities within Minnesota are encouraged to make

decisions based on sustainable use of existing resources. Within this framework,

the residents of the Red River Valley should be looking at ways to reduce consumption of water and live within their means in terms of naturally available

water supplies. It is our belief that we must begin to live within the confines

of our natural resources and not be as willing to import solutions to our resource problems. Bringing water to the arid areas of the southwest has been

in the short-term an economic boon to that part of the country. It remains to

be seen whether we will continue to look at it as a boon in the years to come

as the population and water demand continue to increase and the sources of

supply are exhausted.

Water supply (both groundwater and surface water) in this region is limited.

Demands may surpass supply at certain times of the year. Minnesota incorporates the principles of sustainable use in environmental policies and decision

making. This principle would mean that we should first focus on lower cost demand management measures and not be considering higher cost alternatives for

developing new sources of supply. This region of Minnesota and North Dakota

should not be encouraging water intensive uses and should be pursuing vigorous conservation measures. Water conservation measures that reduce demands by improving water use efficiencies can extend water supplies in the region. The December 1990, Red River Valley Municipal Supply Study completed

for the North Dakota State Engineer and Garrison Diversion Unit Conservancy

District states that per capita water use rates can be reduced by measures such

as installing water saving devices, providing general education about water conservation, industrial recycling, reducing lawn water use and increasing water

rates. This report also states that it is the Mayor of Fargo’s belief that the city

can extend its surface water supplies to meet future needs with higher water

rates and by reducing demands for low valued uses. Water use projections

should reflect reduced demands achievable through conservation programs and
82

water conservation measures should be implemented prior to authorization of

this project. We must question whether transporting water across a watershed

divide would be sustainable for either watershed.

Doctrine of Prior Appropriation—The Red River is the dividing line between

riparian water law or ‘‘equal right to use of water’’ and the doctrine of prior appropriation or ‘‘first in time, first in right’’ for the use of water. In addition,

there is a climatic shift from a wet-humid climate to a dry-arid climate in western Minnesota. The State of Minnesota has reservations about the availability

of water in dry periods as North Dakota operates under the Doctrine of Prior

Appropriation. Prior water interests on the Missouri River would first have to

be met before any water could leave the Missouri River Basin for the Red River

Basin. We question the expenditure of hundreds of millions of dollars on a

water diversion project that might not have any water available for the end

users in periods of drought when the need for water is the greatest. Does the

water right clearly exist, has it been perfected, and/or could there be any challenge to this water right? The State of Minnesota has concerns that the source

of water may not be legally valid. The State of North Dakota will need to address the unresolved issues of water supply to the various Indian bands as well

as other interests. In a letter dated March 20, 1998, we raised this concern to

Governor Schafer and have not received a response. If these rights are not perfected and additional demand is created based on the Garrison water supply,

we have few options to meet this increased demand for water.

Water supply (both groundwater and surface water), overall, in this region is

limited. Flows on the Red River at Fargo/Moorhead were less than 100 cfs for

approximately 22 percent of the period of record (1901 to 1989) and were less

than 50 cfs for approximately 13 percent of the period of record. The average

use in 1990 at Fargo/Moorhead is 68 cfs. The additional growth in this region

that would be spurred by additional water supply would place severe demands

on surface water supplies in this region, which already are often low and insufficient to meet demand. There is potential for significant changes in flows during periods of low flow that would critically stress the ecological system of the

Red River. Studies have shown that the Red River contains an internationally

recognized trophy fishery for channel catfish; the changes in flow regime have

the potential to damage this fishery resource.

It is likely that existing ground water supplies would be looked to during periods of low flow in the Red River to augment and even replace surface water

supplies.

Ground water supply in this region is also very limited. Ground water levels

are likely to be low during times when surface water flows in the Red River

are low and municipal water demands are likely to be high; therefore, it is

doubtful that ground water will be available during periods of low flow to meet

all demands. Past water level declines and water quality problems indicate that

any new development of ground water supplies should be approached with caution. The MDNR believes that the recharge potential of the regions aquifers is

not likely to be substantially greater than the current levels of appropriation.

Additionally, we are concerned that a reduction in ground water head levels

caused by increased appropriation could result in upward movement of deeper

saline water from Cretaceous rock formations that underlie some of the regions

aquifers. This would adversely affect ground water quality and further exacerbate an existing shortage of quality water for potable use.

There are interstate, hydrologic connections of the regions underlying

aquifers. At the Wahpeton, North Dakota sugar beet plant, sugar beet waste

leaking from a lagoon contaminated Wahpeton municipal water supply wells.

During ground water pumping to clean up this contamination, the yield of the

Breckenridge, Minnesota municipal water supply wells was reduced by approximately 50 gallons per minute per well as a result of the water level declines

due to pumping. This clearly demonstrates the hydrologic connection across the

state line. There is the potential for interstate conflicts in water use during periods of low surface water levels when the regions aquifers will be looked to for

increased water supply.

Navigation Impacts—We are concerned about the cumulative effects that the

diversion would have on navigation in the lower Mississippi River. There were

barges stranded during the droughts of 1976 and 1988 because of inadequate

flows in the Mississippi River below the confluence with the Missouri River.

When the needs for water for navigation and commerce are highest, so too will

be the demand for pumping water out of the Missouri River basin, which will

jeopardize navigation and commerce on the Mississippi River.
83

Relationship to the Devil’s Lake project—We acknowledge that Congress is

handling the Garrison Diversion and the Devil’s Lake Outlet as separate

projects. Despite this fact and the State of North Dakota’s repeated statements

that the projects are in fact separate, Minnesota must consider these projects

to be linked for the purposes of our evaluation. It is important that any planned

connection between the two projects be fully explained up front. Governor Carlson requested clarification of this issue from Governor Schafer in a letter dated

March 20, 1998 (copy attached). We have not received a response.

It has been proposed that this project could provide an inlet to Devil’s Lake

during periods of drought. The Upper Mississippi River Basin Association

passed a resolution on September 24, 1997, in opposition to any construction on

Devil’s Lake inlets and/or outlets until an Environmental Impact Statement has

been completed. No one can say with any degree of certainty what impacts this

project would have on the Missouri and Mississippi River Basins as a result of

this project. The Devil’s Lake inlet significantly complicates the issues surrounding the Garrison Project.

While the total impact to public water supplies of a decision to bring Devil’s

Lake water by artificial means into the Red River of the North may not be

known for years, there exists at this time a preponderance of evidence that such

a move would be poor public policy. Discussions surrounding mitigation to

downstream water supplies have centered around existing surface water supplies. It is important that this mitigation level be extended to future water supplies and for future water parameters for which such an outlet would necessitate additional treatment over existing water quality. According to the Minnesota Department of Health, the effect of Devil’s Lake outlet water on public

water suppliers ability to comply with more than 100 water quality parameters

mandated for public water supplies through the Safe Drinking Water Act has

not been adequately evaluated at this time.

Biota Transfer and Water Quality—A connection of the Missouri River to the

Red River is a clear cause for a high level of concern with respect to exotic species. Water transferred directly from the Missouri River or leaving via Devil’s

Lake outlet increases the likelihood of transfer of exotic species into the Red

River Basin. Such a discharge of water from Devil’s Lake would also result in

an increase in total suspended solids (TSS) in the Red River Basin. Coupled

with the operations of the Pro-Gold corn processing plant in Fargo and its resultant increase in TSS, there is a good chance that municipal water suppliers

will have great difficulty in treating water to the standards of the Safe Drinking

Water Act.

There are examples of past connections between watersheds that have caused

severe regional and international problems because of biota transfer. The introduction of sea lamprey into the Great Lakes because of canals is a multi-million

dollar problem for the United States and Canada. Also, the man-made connection between Lake Michigan and the Mississippi River watershed, via the Illinois waterways, has allowed the spread of zebra mussels to dozens of states.

This water is now the route used by round gobies, an exotic species that is displacing perch in Lake Michigan, to invade the Mississippi River and Missouri

River watersheds.

Finding technical solutions to the biota transfer issue is not easy. There are

considerable amounts of local, state and Federal funding going into this area

of research because there is little known and so few technologies available (ie.

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers dispersal barrier study for the Illinois waterways and a ballast water demonstration project). While the level of knowledge

is increasing, it is far from complete. Even the best technologies are unlikely

to remove fish pathogens from the water, and thereby could threaten fish populations and angling opportunities in the receiving watersheds. Just this type of

problem is currently being played out with the introduction of ‘‘Whirling Disease’’ in western trout populations.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is a member of the Federal Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force established by Congress. An issue of this scale should

be reviewed by the Task Force and the Western Panel on Aquatic Nuisance Species, which includes states west of Minnesota and was also mandated by Congress to determine if adequate technology is available to ensure that biota

transfer can be avoided or whether we can afford the consequences of transfer.

Proponents of the Garrison Diversion concede that adverse blots transfer is

a problem, but they say that technology can overcome any issues through water

treatment and screening of the discharge. Any treatment plan must meet a very

high standard of proof for fail-safe reliability before there is authorization to
84

fund this project. The State of Minnesota would ask to see detailed plans of any

proposed method of treatment.

The State of Minnesota would request that any appropriation include monies

for the continued review of the biota transfer issue. Minnesota’s exotic species

control program is one of the best in the country, however, the level of review

that is required for this project requires both technical competency and the appropriate level of funding to ensure that the project meets the standards of Minnesota’s exotic species control program.

I ask the Committee to review these issues very carefully as it deliberates authorizing this project. We have consistently voiced our opposition to the Garrison Diversion and to the outlet project at Devil’s Lake. The State of Minnesota will continue

to view these as one project. As the impact of this project on Minnesota could be

substantial, I also ask that our state be included in deliberations to the greatest extent possible. To that end, please call on me for any further information you may

require regarding Minnesota’s position on the Garrison Diversion project.

Thank you.
85
86
87

STATEMENT OF DAVID J. KOLAND, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NORTH DAKOTA RURAL

WATER SYSTEMS ASSOCIATION

Mr. Chaimman and members of the Committee. My name is Dave Koland. I serve

as the Executive Director of North Dakota Rural Water Systems Association. Our

association has 31 rural water systems and 225 municipal water systems as members.

The sons and grandsons of the pioneers that settled North Dakota founded our

association. They had experienced the dirty 30’s and sought a solution to the unreliable and uncertain water supplies they depended on for a domestic water supply.

Since the earliest days of our state the people who settled here were driven by

the need for water. The first settlements were located along streams or lakes. The

homesteaders who came later dug shallow wells or endured by hauling water from

a nearby creek or slough. Many had to move on when the dry years withered their

crops and left them without the precious water needed to survive.

In the late 1970’s many rural areas began constructing a water distribution system to serve rural areas. Farmers without water or with an unreliable source joined

together and with the help of the Federal Government built rural water systems to

meet their needs. But at the insistence of the Federal Government they were not

allowed to build beyond their own current domestic needs.

The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) Amendments of 1986 with stringent testing

requirements and mandated Maximum Contaminant Levels brought North Dakota

face to face with the reality that the groundwater being used in many smaller communities for drinking water could not meet the MCL for fluoride or arsenic mandated by the SDWA.

The answer for many communities was to work out a solution with the rural

water system that served a rural area close to their city. Rural water systems now

provide clean safe water to 187 communities in North Dakota. But many still wait

for the water they so desperately need. Communities like Mohall (931 people), Munich (310 people), and Bisbee (227 people) have few other alternatives to provide

their citizens with clean safe water.

The key to providing water to the small communities and rural areas of North

Dakota has been the Grant and Loan program of Rural Development and the Municipal, Rural, and Industrial (MR&I) program of the Garrison Conservancy District.

Without the assistance of these two grant programs the exodus from the rural areas

would have been a stampede.

The desperate need for clean safe water is evidenced by the willingness of North

Dakota’s rural residents to pay water rates well above the rates the Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) consider to be affordable. The highest general guideline

sets an affordability threshold at 2.0 percent of the median household income. Rates

beyond the threshold are considered to be unaffordable.

In North Dakota that translates into a monthly cost of $38.69 (ND MHI=$23,213).

The average monthly cost on a rural water system for 6000 gallons is currently

$48.97. Only one system in the state has a monthly cost below the ‘‘maximum affordable cost’’ set out in the EPA study and that system charges $37.60/month for

6000 gallons. Twelve systems must charge their consumers $50 or more with one

system charging 170 percent of the ‘‘affordable rate’’ or $66/month for 6000 gallons.

The water rates in rural North Dakota would soar to astronomical levels without

the 75 percent grant dollars in the MR&I program. For instance our current rates

would average a truly unaffordable $134.19/month or a whopping 7.0 percent of the

Median Household Income. They could have ranged as high as $190.80/month or a

prohibitive 9.9 percent of MHI.

The people waiting for water in our rural communities are willing to pay far more

than what many consider an affordable price for clean safe water. Across North Dakota we have seen the impact of providing good water to rural areas and witnessed

the dramatic change in small communities.

We must continue to support the growth of our existing rural systems into regional water delivery systems and provide water to those areas that are not now

being served.

Water alone will not solve the problems of rural North Dakota but without water

there is little hope that any proposed solution will work.
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104