U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

85–416 PDF 2003

S. HRG. 107–863

RED RIVER VALLEY WATER NEEDS

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON

ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

TO RECEIVE TESTIMONY ON RED RIVER VALLEY WATER NEEDS

DECEMBER 9, 2002

FARGO, ND

(

Printed for the use of the

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

(II)

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES

JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico, Chairman

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota

BOB GRAHAM, Florida

RON WYDEN, Oregon

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana

EVAN BAYH, Indiana

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California

CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico

DON NICKLES, Oklahoma

LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho

BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado

CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming

RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama

CONRAD BURNS, Montana

JON KYL, Arizona

CHUCK HAGEL, Nebraska

GORDON SMITH, Oregon

ROBERT M. SIMON, Staff Director

SAM E. FOWLER, Chief Counsel

BRIAN P. MALNAK, Republican Staff Director

JAMES P. BEIRNE, Republican Chief Counsel

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER

BYRON H. DORGAN, North Dakota, Chairman

BOB GRAHAM, Florida

RON WYDEN, Oregon

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware

GORDON SMITH, Oregon

JON KYL, Arizona

LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho

BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado

RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama

CHUCK HAGEL, Nebraska

JEFF BINGAMAN and FRANK H. MURKOWSKI are Ex Officio Members of the Subcommittee

PATTY BENEKE, Democratic Senior Counsel

COLLEEN DEEGAN, Counsel

(III)

C O N T E N T S

STATEMENTS

Page

Bach, Maryanne, Great Plains Regional Director, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 3

Brown, Michael R., Mayor, City of Grand Forks, ND .......................................... 8

Dorgan, Hon. Byron L., U.S. Senator from North Dakota ................................... 1

Dwyer, Michael, Executive Vice President, North Dakota Water Users Association .................................................................................................................... 30

Frink, Dale, State Engineer, North Dakota Water Commission ......................... 7

Furness, Bruce W., Mayor, Fargo, ND ................................................................... 10

Jamison, Warren L., Manager, Garrison Diversion Conservancy District ......... 20

Thompson, Genevieve, Vice President and Executive Director, Audubon’s

State Office for the Dakotas ................................................................................ 23

APPENDIX

Additional material submitted for the record ........................................................ 39

(1)

RED RIVER VALLEY WATER NEEDS

MONDAY, DECEMBER 9, 2002

U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER, COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES, Fargo, ND.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 7 p.m. at the

American Legion Hall, 505 Third Avenue North, Fargo, North Dakota, Hon. Byron L. Dorgan presiding.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BYRON L. DORGAN,

U.S. SENATOR FROM NORTH DAKOTA

Senator DORGAN. I will introduce Patty Beneke, professional staff

member of the Senate Energy Committee, who has joined us this

evening in Fargo. Jonathan Black has also joined us. Jonathan is

right over here. And I’m going to mention to you the witness list

this evening as we proceed.

We are going to hear first from the Bureau of Reclamation, Dr.

Maryanne Bach. Then we are going to hear from the State Water

Engineer for North Dakota, Mr. Dale Frink. Then the Honorable

Mike Brown, mayor of the city of Grand Forks. The Honorable

Bruce Furness, the mayor of Fargo.

The second panel will be Mr. Warren Jamison, manager of the

Garrison Conservancy District. Then Genevieve Thompson, vice

president and executive director of the Audubon Society. And then

Mike Dwyer, executive director of the North Dakota Water Users

Association.

I would also ask anyone else who is present who wishes to submit statements, but not appear as a witness tonight, if you wish

to submit statements, we will keep the record of this hearing open

and will accept statements as part of the permanent hearing record

for two weeks following this hearing.

Let me begin. I will give a very brief statement because I want

to get on with the discussion of what’s happening on this issue.

There aren’t many subjects more important to our State than

water. You can’t have opportunity, development, economic growth

without water policy that assures a supply of water. We have plenty of water issues in our State, and plenty of problems. On the

other side of our State, we have a problem with the Missouri River

and the master manual of how the Missouri River is managed. The

Corps of Engineers manages the Missouri River in a way that, in

my judgment, unduly benefits downstream States and cheats the

upstream States.

2

For 12 years the Corps of Engineers has been rewriting a master

manual. For 12 years. Now, you know, we can be patient, but patience ought not have to extend to 12 years.

I met with the general just last week from the Corps of Engineers on this subject once again. It’s not clear to me when they’re

going to release the preferred alternative on the Missouri River

master manual. But this State has every right to be completely out

of patience. They are supporting a minnow of a barge industry

down south. We’ve got a whale of recreation and fishing and tourism industry up north. And the fact is we are shortchanged in a

way that’s terribly unfair as they manage this river. We are going

to keep putting pressure on them, dealing with that problem on the

Missouri side of this State. But the Missouri River side is important to the Red River as well because in the Dakota Water Resources Act we included a provision that calls for a $200 million

authorization, and a process by which water could be delivered to

eastern North Dakota if a study determines that’s what is necessary in order to assure water supply to eastern North Dakota.

First and foremost, there should be studies to determine how much

water is needed in eastern North Dakota, and, second, how you satisfy that need. That’s the two-step process.

This is not idle thinking about our water issues. Some in this

room, I suspect, have seen the Red River run dry. Anybody here

seen the Red River dry? Yes. And I’ve seen pictures. I wasn’t here

then, but those of you who have seen it understand that we can’t

be guaranteed there is always going to be water in that Red River.

And if we don’t have water in that Red River, economic growth and

opportunity is gone. You cannot support the kind of cities we are

building along the Red River without an assured supply of water.

There is a two-step process in this piece of legislation we passed

a couple years ago. One, identify the needs for water in the Red

River Valley, and then, two, identify how we satisfy those needs.

Now the first step was to have been done by the Bureau of Reclamation in December 2001. That was to have been a draft environmental impact statement. December 2001. We are now told by the

Bureau of Reclamation that it will be done in December 2005. It’s

been delayed 4 years. It’s not acceptable to me, nor should it be acceptable to anybody in eastern North Dakota.

And what I want to do tonight is find out why. Why the delays.

What is happening is the people at the Federal level say, well,

sure, we have had some problems that have resulted in some

delays, but fact is, the State of North Dakota and the Conservancy

District, it’s taken them some while to reach agreement on various

things. I don’t know where all this stands. All I know is this: This

State shouldn’t have to wait year after year after year after year

to get its water problems solved. It’s not fair. It’s not fair when the

Corp of Engineers does it, it’s not fair when the Bureau of Reclamation does it. We need to find people to get together and make

decisions and move ahead. So that’s the purpose of this hearing,

and I very much appreciate all of your interest. As I said when I

started, water is very important. You can’t do the things we want

to do in this State today and for its future if you don’t have assured

and adequate supply of water. That’s what this hearing is about.

3

Let me, with that statement, invite the first witness panel to

come forward. Dr. Maryanne Bach from the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. Dr. Dale—Mr. Dale Frink, excuse me, State Engineer.

Dale, I keep making you a doctor here.

Mr. FRINK. That would be fine.

Senator DORGAN. Be an easy way to get one, if somebody would

say it, right?

Mr. FRINK. That’s right.

Senator DORGAN. The Honorable Michael Brown, mayor of the

city of Grand Forks. The Honorable Bruce Furness, mayor of the

city of Fargo.

I have also been told that State Agriculture Commissioner Roger

Johnson is with us, who works on the Industrial Commission and

has his hand deep in water policy in North Dakota. Roger, thank

you for being with us as well.

Maryanne Bach, thank you for joining us tonight. You are presenting testimony on behalf of the Bureau of Reclamation. Why

don’t you pull the microphone as close to you as is possible and

then why don’t you proceed with what I have asked everyone to

summarize. And we will put the entire statement in the record.

STATEMENT OF MARYANNE BACH, GREAT PLAINS

REGIONAL DIRECTOR, U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

Dr. BACH. Mr. Chairman, I ask that my complete testimony as

presented to the committee could be entered into the record and,

I will abbreviate from that.

I appreciate the opportunity to be here this evening to testify on

behalf of the implementation of the Dakotas’ Water Resources Act,

and particularly our activities with regard to the Red River Valley

Water Needs study and CIS.

I would like to reflect back on the relationship and the activity

of the Bureau of Reclamation and the State of North Dakota prior

to the passage of the Dakotas Water Resources Act.

We did enter into a memorandum of agreement in good faith

without anticipation as to whether the statute would pass Congress

or not. And we did use the authority that we believe existed under

the 1986 Reformulation Act and began our activities 6 months

prior to the passage of the Dakota Water Resources Act.

When the act did pass, Mr. Chairman, we continued our activity

under that original MOU. We were confronted, particularly the Bureau was confronted with several allegations of illegally interpreting the Dakotas Water Resources Act and we took a pause. We discussed it with the State and looked at the provision of the DWRA

as it was passed and felt there was a need in order to protect the

process and integrity of the process that we didn’t have to renegotiate the MOU.

I appreciate the effort of Dale Frink on behalf of State and the

district in negotiating a new MOU, and I believe we all went forward and did that on the behalf of the citizens of the State of

North Dakota.

In that same time frame, Mr. Chairman, the Bureau did continue

with a plan of studies. We did also write all of the necessary contracts that would be necessary to get the study underway.

4

The study that is instructive for the Secretary of the Interior to

produce under the DWRA will be 60 percent contracted out. The 40

percent that will be handled by the Bureau of Reclamation will be

also handled by multiple offices in order to reach the utmost efficiency.

The schedule that you raise, and your concern with the schedule,

frankly, we share a similar concern for the time it takes to analyze

these issues.

I am pleased to say that we did have a notice of intent for the

EIS which was issued in October, and there were public meetings

that were held throughout the State, six different public meetings

that were held at the end of October and early November that did

raise a number of additional issues. And under the NEPA—National Environmental Protection Act—we are required to consider

those pieces of information that come out in public scoping.

We are using all available information from prior studies. You

are familiar with Phase I and Phase II of prior studies that were

conducted under the 1986 act, and that all that information that

was given is essential and is quite relevant.

I know there are some other communities that are raising the

question as to why anything more would need to be studied, and

yet there are others in basin who do feel that they need more information and a better level of details and the costs that are associated with it.

So, what Reclamation is faced with is taking a set of studies that

are what is called at the appraisal level, and taking it to what is

called the feasibility study. Feasibility level studies provide enough

detail that any engineering firm who is going to bid for that construction is able to do so, and that we have sufficient levels at both

the State—sufficient information at both the State and Federal levels so that all communities know the costs that are involved.

There were some additional needs that were identified in DWRA

that were not covered in the Phase I and II reports. Specifically,

we were instructed under DWRA to identify aquatic needs, recreation needs and water conservation measures.

So, there was a need for a series of meetings for supplemental

information in regard. It has been raised, and I appreciate the

points that are brought forward by the mayor of Fargo. Bruce and

I have talked. I’ve been working with Mayor Furness, for some

time. We sit together on the International Joint Commission, Red

River Valley which—Red River Basin, which I co-chair on behalf of

the United States. You have spoken with me, your staff has spoken

to me on numerous occasions about the schedule.

I would like to close my comments, Mr. Chairman, by saying that

this particular region, Great Plains Region, I operate in nine different States, and the severity of water problems are not in any

way to be minimized. They are of the magnitude that require the

attention and diligence of every Federal employee in our agency.

Therefore, I’m committed to sit down with the parties and to look

at the schedule as we previously agreed to, and any and all opportunities that we have to cut back on the schedule, I am pleased to

do so. I want to do that in an informed environment so that those

communities who are planning for a certain amount of detail. If,

5

in fact, they can operate with a different level of detail, then we

can make the accommodations in the report.

I want to make sure whoever had expectations, whatever communities did have expectations that we can properly meet them, but

find a way to balance it with the schedule involved.

I appreciate the opportunity to testify.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Bach follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARYANNE BACH, GREAT PLAINS REGIONAL DIRECTOR,

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

I am Maryanne Bach, Bureau of Reclamation Regional Director for the Great

Plains Region headquartered in Billings, Montana. I appreciate the opportunity to

participate in this field hearing on Red River Valley water needs.

The Dakota Water Resources Act of 2000 (DWRA) was signed into law on December 21, 2000 as Public Law 106-554. DWRA amended the 1965 authorization of the

Garrison Diversion Unit (Public Law 89-108), the 1986 Garrison Diversion Unit Reformulation Act (Public Law 99-294), and the Reclamation Projects Authorization

and Adjustment Act of 1992 (Public Law 102-575).

DWRA requires the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a comprehensive study

of the water quality and quantity needs of the Red River Valley in North Dakota

and possible options for meeting those needs. DWRA further requires that not later

than 1 year after the date of enactment the Secretary and the State of North Dakota shall jointly prepare a draft environmental impact statement concerning all

feasible options to meet the comprehensive water quality and quantity needs of the

Red River Valley and the options for meeting those needs, including the delivery of

Missouri River water to the Red River Valley. Should the draft EIS not be completed within 1 year following enactment, DWRA requires that the Secretary report

to Congress on the status of the EIS including an estimated date of completion.

Reclamation’s involvement with a water supply for the Red River Valley began

with the passage of the Garrison Diversion Unit Reformulation Act of 1986. The Reformulation Act authorized a Sheyenne River water supply and release feature (including a water treatment plant) capable of delivering 100 cubic feet per second of

water for the cities of Fargo and Grand Forks and surrounding communities.

In 1993, the North Dakota Water Management Collaborative Process was initiated. This process was an effort by a number of stakeholders to examine the contemporary water needs of North Dakota, including needs in the Red River Valley.

Reclamation was assigned the task of doing an appraisal level study of both longterm needs in the valley and options for meeting those needs. Although the collaborative process was terminated in 1994, Reclamation completed the appraisal-level

Red River Valley studies in 2000.

As a follow-up to the appraisal studies, in June 2000, Reclamation, the North Dakota State Water Commission, and the Garrison Diversion Conservancy District

signed a Memorandum of Understanding to organize and complete more detailed

feasibility level studies. While study tasks were not undertaken, a management

team and two stakeholder teams (Technical Team and Study Review Team) were

organized and study planning was initiated.

Following passage of DWRA, significant concerns about the decision-making process, public involvement, and the existing Memorandum of Understanding signed in

June of 2000 and based on the authority provided by the 1986 Reformulation Act,

were brought to our attention—primarily by national environmental organizations.

In response to these concerns and the new direction provided by DWRA, the decision was made to terminate the original MOU and replace it with an agreement

which would establish North Dakota as a joint lead for preparation of the EIS, as

required by DWRA.

The Bureau of Reclamation is diligently working to implement all aspects of

DWRA in as timely a manner as possible. We are making progress on the Red River

Valley studies and EIS, although admittedly not within the 1-year of enactment

time frame established by DWRA. During the time that has passed since DWRA

was enacted, much of the work related to the Red River Valley studies and EIS has

been focused on defining and negotiating the roles and responsibilities of Reclamation and the State of North Dakota in the joint preparation of the EIS. This process

was further complicated by the necessity of having to resolve differences in interpretation of DWRA.

Since DWRA requires the draft EIS to be prepared jointly with the State of North

Dakota some deliberation was required on the part of the State to determine which

6

* The MOU has been retained in subcommittee files.

agency would act as the lead for the State. The State subsequently decided that

agency would be the Garrison Diversion Conservancy District.

That decision process was followed by a significant effort to negotiate a memorandum of understanding which defined the scope of the partnership and the general

roles and responsibilities of each party. The negotiation centered on differing interpretations of portions of the DWRA. The respective roles and responsibilities and

overall scope of the partnership have now been agreed to and are contained in a

revised Memorandum of Understanding which was signed on November 6, 2002, a

copy of which is attached to this testimony for the record.*

In addition to the MOU, operating principles have been negotiated and documented. These operating principles define the roles and responsibilities of each

party, as well as the organization and process for completing the EIS. Two cooperative agreements are also being negotiated with the State, one for general implementation of DWRA, and one specifically for the Red River Valley studies and EIS. The

cooperative agreements will allow Reclamation to transfer funds to the State for

their participation. These agreements should be ready for signature in the very near

future.

Since the draft EIS was not completed within 1 year following passage of DWRA,

a status report was submitted to Congress by the Commissioner of Reclamation on

November 22, 2002. The report projects a completion date of December 2005.

The time line for completion of the draft EIS is based in large part on requirements in DWRA relating to the comprehensive study of water quality and quantity

needs of the Red River Valley and options for meeting those needs including diverting water from the Missouri River to the Red River Valley Basin. That study is to

be documented in a Needs and Options Report. Since the options developed in the

study will likely be the alternatives analyzed in the draft EIS, it is necessary that

the studies be done in advance of, or at least on a parallel time frame, with the

EIS. Reclamation has prepared detailed plans of study and Needs and Options Report operating principles which describe the study process, organization, and public

involvement required by DWRA, including 120-day review of the draft Needs and

Options report by potentially affected states and federal agencies.

The plans of study, which were developed with input from the State and other

stakeholders, are the basis for the timeline. The timeline is based upon a number

of critical activities that must be completed. These are:

• update water needs assessment due to unexpected population increases in key

municipalities such as Fargo and develop a range of future industrial water

needs scenarios; • refine surface water hydrology model to include tributaries to the Red River; • evaluate all reasonable water supply options including additional aquifers in

North Dakota and in-basin water sources in Minnesota that were not previously

investigated at an appraisal level; • design feasibility-level alternatives to be analyzed in the EIS; • consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on the Endangered Species Act; • analyze impacts from the potential transfer of biota, including parasites and

pathogens, between the Missouri River Basin and the Hudson Bay Basin and

assessment of risks; • study potential cumulative environmental impacts to the Missouri River from

past, present, and foreseeable future withdrawals; • conduct the Needs and Options studies in an open and public process that solicits input from gubernatorial designees from states that may be affected and

from federal agencies; and • prepare the draft EIS with the State of North Dakota in an open, public process.

As directed by DWRA, the options for providing a water supply to the Red River

Valley of North Dakota include many complex and controversial analyses and consultations. The issues will involve concerns about biota transfer between the Missouri River and Hudson Bay basins requiring consultation with the Secretary of

State and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency; consideration

of cumulative impacts on the future water supplies in the Missouri River Basin; and

feasibility level studies for the alternatives considered requiring field data collection

in an environment with a limited field season.

While the time consuming negotiation and documentation processes that I have

described may appear to be a lack of progress, we believe the clear definition of the

partnerships and roles and responsibilities that has taken place will ultimately save

time in the overall effort and result in a better product.

7

That concludes my statement. I would be pleased to answer any questions you

may have.

Senator DORGAN. Thank you very much. I’m going to continue to

take the statements of the panel before I ask questions.

Dale Frink.

STATEMENT OF DALE FRINK, STATE ENGINEER,

NORTH DAKOTA WATER COMMISSION

Mr. FRINK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members. My name

is Dale Frink. I’m the North Dakota State Engineer, and I would

certainly like to thank you for the opportunity to testify on this

very important issue.

The Red River Valley study is one of the most important aspects

of the Dakota Water Resources Act and I think water to eastern

North Dakota—if eastern North Dakota is going to continue to

grow and prosper, adequate water supplies are a must.

There is a clear long-term need for improved water supplies in

the Red River Valley. The Red River has been dry many times in

the past and experienced very low levels essentially every decade

this century. This has occurred while its cities have grown in their

needs, along with their needs for water.

It has become more and more difficult to find new and supplemental water supplies in eastern North Dakota. In 1995, the State

Water Commission worked very hard to find a water supply for the

ProGold corn processing plant near Wahpeton. A single source of

water was not available and, therefore, a plan was developed

whereby the plant would draw its water from the Red River until

the flow dropped to a certain level, and at that point, you switch

to ground water with the hope that the Red River returns before

we run out of water. While we believe this plan works for even the

1930’s, what about the future plants? And I might add, I do not

know if there is—I don’t think there is adequate water for another

ProGold-type plant in the southern part of the Red River Valley.

I hope we do not have to restrict the development through a lack

of water, but this is a real possibility. This is especially disheartening when considering North Dakota ranks last in population

growth among all States.

We are also basing most of our current studies on the 1930’s. The

period from 1931 to 1936 is unprecedented in the last 150 years,

where we actually have some written records. However, there are

many studies available for the Devils Lake and other parts of the

western United States that suggest significantly more severe

droughts have occurred. Even the current drought that is occurring

parts of South Dakota and Nebraska is equal or worse than the

1930’s.

Obviously, the Red River Valley study has not started as fast as

originally envisioned. It has been nearly 2 years since DWRA was

passed and we are still signing agreements. I understand it takes

a long time to work through the Federal system, but I urge diligence in the future in having agreements executed in a timely

manner.

One reason the Red River Valley study is taking longer is that

it is being closely followed by many organizations and entities. It

is, therefore, very important the study be conducted in an impartial

8

manner and be based on sound, scientific analysis. Governor

Hoeven also supports this fair and open process. The Governor and

State Water Commission will continue to be involved, and will have

regular updates and input on the study process.

In closing, in October, just 2 months ago, we had a series of excellent meetings in eastern North Dakota. The need for water was

evident everywhere. In the end, I am confident that this tremendous need will prevail and our dream for adequate water supplies

for the Red River Valley will become a reality.

Thank you.

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

Next we’ll hear from Mayor Michael Brown, mayor of Grand

Forks, North Dakota.

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL R. BROWN, MAYOR,

CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND

Mr. BROWN. Thank you. Chairman Dorgan and members of the

subcommittee, I am Grand Forks Mayor Michael R. Brown and on

behalf of the city of Grand Forks, I want to thank you for the opportunity to provide written testimony to the Subcommittee on

Water and Power regarding Red River Valley water needs. A consistent, reliable and affordable water supply is critical to the city

of Grand Forks and other communities of the Red River Valley.

Without an adequate supply of water, communities such as Grand

Forks would not be able to provide required amounts of water to

its residents, businesses, mainstay institutions and agricultural industries that support the livelihood of the region.

I would now like to give a brief oral summation of my written

testimony. Two things are important to Grand Forks, our future.

One is the possibility of drought and the other is the planning of

our water treatment facility.

Although the memories of Grand Forks residents are marked by

a drastic flooding event in the midst of what many are calling a

wet cycle, the Red River Valley is equally susceptible to drought

conditions. As a result, the city of Grand Forks becomes increasingly concerned each year because the odds get greater and greater

that we will experience an extended period of drought without reliable backup or a new primary water supply.

In planning, recognizing these significant water quality and

quantity challenges, the city of Grand Forks is closely monitoring

the progress of the study efforts of the Red River Valley water supply projects in hopes that the Dakota Water Resources Act of 2000

will be able to address our needs. The city of Grand Forks stresses

that a timely and accelerated completion of the schedule of the

study for the project would greatly assist us in maintaining our

time line for planning and making important decisions about the

future of water supply and treatment systems. Therefore, this is

critical in our planning process.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Brown follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MICHAEL R. BROWN, MAYOR, CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND

Chairman Dorgan and members of the subcommittee, I am Grand Forks Mayor

Michael R. Brown and on behalf of the City of Grand Forks, I want to thank you

9

for the opportunity to provide written testimony to the Subcommittee on Water and

Power regarding Red River Valley Water Needs. A consistent, reliable and affordable water supply is critical to the City of Grand Forks and other communities of

the Red River Valley. Without an adequate supply of water, communities such as

Grand Forks would not be able to provide the required amounts of water to its residents, businesses, mainstay institutions, and agricultural industries that support

the livelihood of the region.

Although the memories of Grand Forks residents are marked by a drastic flooding

event in the midst of what many are calling a ‘‘wet cycle’’, the Red River Valley is

equally susceptible to drought conditions. The relatively flat terrain of the Red River

Valley drainage basin prohibits the construction of large reservoirs that could provide significant amounts of water storage to span even moderate periods of drought.

As a result, the City of Grand Forks becomes increasingly concerned each year because the odds get greater and greater that we will experience an extended period

of drought without a reliable backup or new primary water supply.

In addition to water quantity issues, we are also concerned about water quality.

Our existing water sources are difficult to treat due to seasonal variations in water

quality. Future water quality objectives and the possibility of microbial contamination will likely require the City of Grand Forks to consider the implementation of

advanced water treatment technologies. When coupled with the aging condition and

limited expansion potential of our existing facilities, these factors have made it necessary for the City to plan for the construction of an entirely new water treatment

facility within the upcoming decade.

Recognizing these significant water quantity and quality challenges, the City of

Grand Forks is closely monitoring the progress of the study efforts for the Red River

Valley Water Supply (RRVWS) project in hopes that the Dakota Water Resources

Act of 2000 will be able to address our needs. To date, the study efforts appear to

be behind schedule and progressing at a painstakingly slow rate. We understand

this is primarily due to the immense study scope and the need to comply with public

notification and environmental requirements. However, the City of Grand Forks

stresses that a timely (i.e., accelerated) completion schedule of the study for the

RRVWS project would greatly assist in maintaining our timeline for planning and

making important decisions about the future of our water supply and treatment systems.

Additional comments regarding the ongoing study for the RRVWS project include:

• The study should incorporate a 50-year planning horizon from the date of anticipated study completion to adequately address the projected needs of the Red

River Valley rather than a 50-year period from the start of the study (2000-

2050). Based on a projected study completion date of 2005 coupled with necessary design, bidding and construction activities, the time required to proceed

with the project could erode the 50-year planning period by as much as 20 to

30 percent.

• The study should comprehensively estimate peak day water demand projections

rather than average day demand projections as the basis for the development

of alternatives and estimation of total project costs. Careful consideration

should be given to proposed water conservation methods as well, given the relatively low rates of water consumption of Red River Valley residents as compared to the national average. Otherwise, the RRVWS project could potentially

fail to adequately address the City’s actual demands, which typically peak during dry conditions.

• The study should account for projected water demands/withdrawals for Minnesota communities (East Grand Forks, Moorhead, and Breckenridge) that were

addressed in the Phase 1A, Phase 1B, and Phase 2 studies. Without including

existing and future demands for our sister cities and other appropriate surface

water users, the study would ultimately derive an inaccurate representation of

actual demands and fall short of meeting its intended objectives.

• The quality of water provided to residents, businesses, institutions, and industries is extremely important to the City of Grand Forks. Therefore, an improvement in water quality from that of its existing supply would factor into the

City’s decision to commit to a significant financial investment in the RRVWS

project.

• The City of Grand Forks understands the potential environmental impacts of

transferring water from one drainage basin to another. In order to meet our

water quantity and quality desires, however, realistic risk assessments, combined with the prudent selection of water supply and treatment alternatives,

should be able to satisfy reasonable concerns expressed by individuals involved

in the study process.

10

• The study should include a thorough evaluation of alternatives via the utilization of justifiable screening criteria to ensure that the recommended alternative

is feasible and practical.

Thank you, again, for this opportunity and for the opportunity to provide an oral

summation of the written testimony included in this letter at the December 9, 2002

field hearing. We greatly appreciate your support and all your hard work in focusing

on the water needs of the Red River Valley.

Senator DORGAN. Mayor, thank you very much.

Next we will hear from mayor Bruce Furness, mayor of Fargo.

STATEMENT OF BRUCE W. FURNESS, MAYOR, FARGO, ND

Mr. FURNESS. Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity to

testify once again on water issues in the Valley.

My remarks are about the same as I used when we testified before the Dakota Water Resources Act a couple years ago and ask

for them to be included in the reports.

I will summarize as best I can those remarks.

My favorite quote about water is from Benjamin Franklin,

‘‘When the well is dry, we know the worth of water.’’ Actually,

that’s my second-favorite quote. My favorite quote is from Mark

Twain. He says, ‘‘Whiskey’s for drinking, water is for fighting over.’’

And what we need to do is do a little fighting over water, I think.

But getting back to Ben Franklin, ‘‘When the well is dry, we know

the worth of water.’’ Well, we don’t want to wait in North Dakota

until the well is dry. We try to be proactive in the North Dakota.

We’ve worked with the North Dakota Water Coalition, we’ve

worked with the congressional delegation, we’ve worked with the

State to try to get water to eastern North Dakota. Eastern North

Dakota contains—the counties along eastern North Dakota contain

40 percent of the population of the entire State, so we view this as

a high-growth area, high-density area of population.

Our concern about water is best summarized by an introductory

paragraph of a report by Black & Veatch, who were the consultants

on our new water purification plants. They said, ‘‘The city of Fargo

has rights to two water sources for treatment and subsequent supply to its citizens for potable use, the Red River to 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.’’ So,

poor quality and little quantity, we need a solution. 96 percent of

the surface water in North Dakota is in the Missouri River, and

if you were to look for a source of water, that would seem a logical

place.

I have in my remarks a quote from former Governor William

Guy. I will just take one sentence out of that. He was describing

a drought situation back in the 1930’s, and his one sentence that

I’ll use here is that, ‘‘There was talk of returning the Fargo Sewage

Plant discharge to the river above the city water intake.’’ In other

words, taking the sewage and recycling it back and using it again.

We are talking about that now as we plan for contingency in the

case of a drought in our region.

The population growth in Fargo has been just under 2 percent

per year for 20 years. It continues to grow at about that rate. The

11

population estimates used and all the studies I looked at so far consistently underestimate the population growth in Fargo. We think

we need more quantity than has been suggested.

We are concerned with the downstream States as you indicated,

Senator, that they have some concern. But the amount of water

that has been suggested for removal from the Missouri River

from—to transport over to eastern North Dakota, if you would put

this in a graphic representation and a pail of water represented all

the water of the Missouri passing through, say, Bismarck, the

amount of water we would take out of that pail is one thimbleful.

I also mentioned the quality. If water from the Missouri River

were to come to eastern North Dakota, it would cost us much less

to process. The quality of Missouri River water is better than either

the Red River or the Sheyenne.

We have attempted to undertake certain conservation methods

and would continue that, and the time frame that I think that we

need to be concerned about is, as you have indicated, Senator, is

right now. But some have indicated that we have, perhaps, a 10-

to 15-year time window if we do not have a drought. If we do have

a drought, that time window could be as little as three to five

years.

In summary, I have been mayor now for 81⁄2 years. My knowledge about water when I started this job was you turn the tap on

and water comes out. I’ve learned a lot about water in this time

and I just would like to quote a man who’s an expert in my opinion, Jim McLaughlin, who told me at the beginning of my career

as mayor, we don’t need any more studies about water. We know

how much water we need. We know what to do with water. I guess

I would just echo your phrase that we are tired of waiting, we are

out of patience.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Furness follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF BRUCE W. FURNESS, MAYOR, FARGO, ND

Mr. Chairman and Honorable Members of the Subcommittee on Water and Power

of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, I am Bruce Furness,

Mayor of the City of Fargo, North Dakota. Thank you for this opportunity to testify

before the Committee on Red River Valley water needs.

INTRODUCTION

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 have been unified in assuring passage

of a State Water Plan in the 1999 North Dakota Legislature, a historic achievement.

We are unified in developing a consensus piece of legislation through the U. S. Congress 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 US population center in the Red River Valley with approximately 165,000

people. Fargo has enjoyed an annual growth rate of about 2% for the last 20 years

and is actually accelerating in growth at this time. The requirement for more water

is a direct result of this growth. From a statewide perspective, nearly 40% 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 alone cannot

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 and expanding water needs.

12

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

phenomenon 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% 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 growth resulting from increased value-added 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. 50 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. 96% of the usable surface water in North Dakota is in the Missouri 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 Eastern North Dakota is less than 1/2 of 1% 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).

13

Allow me to incorporate by reference the ‘‘Red River Valley Water Needs Assessment Report’’ documented by the Bureau of Reclamation, dated April 1998. A second

study is the ‘‘Red River Basin Water Supply Report’’ prepared by the Red River

Basin Board, dated April 2000.

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 our needs.

I will be pleased to respond to any questions you may have. Thank you once again

for the opportunity to testify before your subcommittee.

Senator DORGAN. Mayor, thank you very much.

Let me ask a series of questions. First of all I want to understand why we are at a point where the draft statement would now

be available 4 years late. And Ms. Bach, you talked about some allegations of illegal interpretation of the Act, number one. You had

to negotiate the memorandum of understanding, and as I read

through some of the descriptions, in fact your statement says the

EIS, draft EIS is to be prepared jointly with the State of North Dakota. Some deliberation was required on the part of the State to

determine which agency would act as the lead for the State. The

decision process was followed by a significant effort to negotiate a

memorandum of understanding which defines the scope of the partnership and general roles and responsibilities. As I read through

the lines, or between the lines, it seems to me like there is some

assertion that the Bureau, the State, the Conservancy District

14

spent a lot of time trying to work this out to figure out who was

supposed to do what, who’s going to coordinate, who’s going to

manage this. Is that part, are you saying that’s part of the reason

this is delayed, and if so, describe that process to me.

Dr. BACH. Mr. Chairman, I think that the Conservancy District,

the State of North Dakota and Reclamation worked quite constructively to lay out those responsibilities. The criticism that we were

presented was that under Dakotas Water Resources Act and some

of the late discussions in the process with DWRA’s report, DWRA

finally passed the floor of the Senate. There were some negotiations

with the lower basin States, as you so well know, and there were

specific authorities assigned to the Secretary of the Interior to do

this study, and there resulted in language that was very specific

that the State and the Bureau would do—or, actually would do the

EIS together. We actually had those functions commingled. We

were sharing those in the original MOU. We were not making a

distinction between the study—the needs and options study—and

the EIS. And so, we did go to lengths to make it very specific so

that we were not subject to some of the same criticisms that we

were previously subject to.

The correspondence that we received did have a tone of litigation

threat to it, and we had very serious discussions with attorneys inside of the State as well as with the Federal Government as to how

to assure we did get through this process and not be subject to litigation at the end of it which would terribly disturbing to all who

need water supply in the future.

Senator DORGAN. Well, it seems to me there isn’t any way that

you can move through this process without understanding you’re

probably going to be subject to litigation. Litigation is part of the

process of—part and parcel of this process.

What I’m asking is was there just a lot of visiting going on for

a long time here? It seems to me that trying to figure out who’s

going to assume what responsibilities ought to have taken a meeting or two, and then you move on. But the way I understand what

has happened here is, you all have been meeting and meeting and

meeting, trying to sort out who’s responsible, the State, the Conservancy District, and the Bureau. How long does that take? I know

you have got the MOU done now, but does that take 2 years?

Dr. BACH. That wasn’t all what we were doing in that 2-year

time frame. We continued with the plan of study for the needs and

options. Reclamation was certainly at work with writing the necessary contracts that—where we could get the work contracted out

to others to do. So the time was not consumed totally in discussions, although there were serious discussions about the interpretations of the Act. There are some that have suggested that the Act

is unclear and, frankly, we did not take that position, but we did

seek to make as clear as possible the interpretation of the Act.

Senator DORGAN. But if it took 2 years to get a memorandum of

understanding, is it logical for me as legislator to assume that that

2-year period was a period you were negotiating with the State and

the Conservancy District about whose role was going to be—or who

was going to assume what role in this process, or could you have

done the MOU earlier? And if not, why not?

15

Dr. BACH. Well, we make—as I noted when I gave my testimony,

we signed an MOU in good faith, with our understanding of our authorities before the DWRA so we were very much at work and in

progress trying to proceed with the studies that had been done and

advancing them. And our discussions were with the State, and it

did involve from time to time discussions with parties that the

State brought to the table.

Senator DORGAN. I guess two questions. One, Mr. Frink, you

don’t seem very exasperated about this. You didn’t seem to express

great concern that it’s taken 2 years for the MOU. If it’s going to

take 2 years to do something the law said should have been done

in a year, why didn’t somebody issue the report to Congress and

say we’re all visiting over here and there is no sense of urgency,

but we’re not going to submit the report? I don’t understand all

this. Mr. Frink, you don’t seem very agitated about it. I’m agitated

about it. Why aren’t you?

Mr. FRINK. Well, I guess, first of all, right after DWRA was

passed, I think we got off to a very good start. There were technical

teams formed. We had study review teams formed. We had some

meetings. Some of the environmental groups started to write letters to the Bureau of Reclamation and it’s very easy to—these letters took a lot of time to answer and so forth. But I think it was

in October that the Bureau of Reclamation came to us and said

that these environmental groups are making some good points here

and recommended that the State of North Dakota pick one single

entity as the lead, and I think——

Senator DORGAN. When was that?

Mr. FRINK. I believe that was in, like, October 2001.

Senator DORGAN. That was over a year ago.

Mr. FRINK. Yes. And Governor Hoeven, within 1 or 2 months, did

select the C District, and——

Senator DORGAN. So that was a year ago. My question is why did

it take from then until now, another year, to get the MOU?

Mr. FRINK. It has taken a long time to go through the Federal

system. It just took a lot longer. I certainly don’t like the delay. I

mean, we have a lot of discussions on this. But, I mean, we promised to do this study right. There’s—quite frankly, there is a lack

of trust between environmental groups yet. There are groups out

there that believe this is just another front for the old Garrison Diversion Project, including irrigation, and we’ve said that many

times that we need to do this right and see if we can gain some

trust back, because it’s—we do have a long way to go, but we are

working very hard to do it right, and if it takes a little bit longer,

I guess I’d rather do that rather than get caught up in 2 and 3

years down the road and have to go back and retrace our steps.

Senator DORGAN. That’s a fair point. I want it done right as well,

but I want it done within a century or so. And my great concern

is that year after year after year, in every circumstance we see

water projects delayed, delayed, delayed. And this was a part of the

Dakota Water Resources Act that was a significant part that dealt

with eastern North Dakota’s interests. We’ve already been through

Phase I and Phase II appraising the Red River Valley needs assessments. We have already had this discussion about underestimating

what the population is going to be here in Fargo. We have already

16

raised the questions about will you have an adequate report if you

don’t consider the needs of Moorhead, East Grand Forks,

Breckenridge. All of these things have been out there for a long,

long time. I just think it’s unreasonable for all of us to think about

December 2005 as an end date for a process that we intended to

have done in December 2002, this very month. Right now. It appears to me we’ve just finished the introductions, the preliminaries,

the MOU’s. So, I don’t want you to misunderstand. I want this

done right as well, but I also want there to be an end date and one

that’s reasonable.

Let me ask Ms. Bach. You mentioned the drought. And many of

us are very concerned about that. A portion of our State was hard

hit, not the entire State. But is it conceivable that spreading

drought in this country could cause some very serious challenges

to eastern North Dakota and its long-term water supply before we

get to the solution that was authorized in the Dakota Water Resources Act? And if that’s possible, what would you advise the mayors of the two largest cities on the river?

Dr. BACH. Mr. Chairman, before I took the position of Regional

Director of Great Plains Region, I was the drought coordinator for

the Bureau of Reclamation. One thing I learned to do with much

caution was any attempt to predict Mother Nature, and there are

several States, as I noted, within this region that are experiencing

drought, and there are a number of indicators that people in the

water management business watch very carefully in terms of water

supply.

Insofar as your question with regard to what to advise, or how

to interact with elected officials who are needing to meet—who are

there to meet the needs of the community, I believe that our working relationship with the State Water Commission is quite positive

and that we offer our assistance. There are a variety of technologies that we employ in times of drought, and I do believe that

the relationship between the cities on the eastern side of the river

and western side of the river are important insofar as how they are

considering the water and how they manage it during the drought.

Senator DORGAN. Let’s assume the worst for a moment. Let’s assume that you meet your time table. By worst, I mean several

years beyond when we expect it. But 2005, December 2005, the

draft EIS is completed. Mr. Frink, you were probably describing a

letter by our old friend Dan Beard that requires people to put on

the emergency brake and study, and get frozen in fear. Let’s assume that despite all of these things, a letter from Dan Beard and

all the other complications that arise and cause people to stop what

they’re doing, and you get the draft EIS done, December 2005,

under what circumstances and when can the Red River Valley expect a supply of water to come from that activity?

Dr. BACH. Again, it depends on what kind of construction needs

to be done. In some cases, it can be small-scale. That can happen

in the construction season, or otherwise. In other cases, it may be

multiple-year construction.

Senator DORGAN. What if it is an interbasin transfer, and the decision—the water needs tell you and tell us that we must have a

supply of water delivered to eastern North Dakota from the Missouri River, how long would that take?

17

Dr. BACH. Under the statute as I know you so well know, Mr.

Chairman, if there is an out-of-basin solution, if there is a

transbasin solution, we, the parties have to come back to you, the

Congress, for the authorization, and I know you so well know the

international consultation complications.

Senator DORGAN. I understand. In fact, I have not talked about

the difficulties of that. There will be extraordinary difficulties in

Congress because we’ll have a big fight with other interests when

and if that happens. But I’m talking now about the construction

cycle. Assume for a moment that you meet a date of December

2005, and Congress further authorizes the construction of said facilities to deliver Missouri water to the Red River, what’s the time

line for something like that in your judgment?

Dr. BACH. Well, I think what was asked us because we would

not—the authorization would not necessarily be in sync with the

budget aspects, but with some gymnastics, it could be at the minimum a year or further before you could see any construction. I

think we’re talking beyond one year after Congress would authorize

us to go forward.

Now, again, it’s not that we couldn’t all challenge ourselves to

move money around and see what we could do to let contracts.

Senator DORGAN. You’re talking about construction beginning.

We’re talking about a delivery system from Missouri to the Red

River Valley. I’m asking what can the Red River Valley residents

expect in terms of the time that might take. Are we talking 10

years, 5 years beyond 2005 optimum?

Dr. BACH. Depending on the complexity of the construction,

you’re talking multiple years, and it gets back to your concern of

when we have the first product to react to.

Senator DORGAN. My concern is despite everybody’s good intentions, you could very easily see a circumstance where a drought has

devastating consequences for the Red River Valley long before anybody can move water here because all of this takes a much longer

period of time than may well exist. I don’t know whether you have

seen, for example, the potential numbers about how much snow

pack might exist in Montana, how much might come off of the

Montana Rockies into the reservoir system and into the Missouri

River system this coming spring, but the effects of the drought—

widespread—could have significant consequences in the Red River

Valley. My concern is that there is kind of a business-as-usual, not

just with the Corps, but perhaps with almost everybody. Not just

with the Bureau, I should say, but perhaps with almost everybody.

Well, let’s just have all these meetings and see if we can keep talking about who has what responsibility.

And Mayor Furness, have you been involved in any of these

meetings regarding how you slice up the responsibility between the

State, the Conservancy District, the Bureau, who’s going to do

what?

Mr. FURNESS. Only through telephone calls.

Senator DORGAN. Mayor Brown, have you?

Mr. BROWN. No, sir.

Senator DORGAN. I received, Ms. Bach, about 4 days ago, a letter

from the Bureau of Reclamation, which I believe was intended to

meet its responsibility to send a report to Congress when it missed

18

the December 2001 date. I received it one year late. And what that

letter told me was that the Bureau of Reclamation still intended

to meet the December 2005 date. What I indicated to the Bureau

is that that’s just not acceptable to me. I don’t think it’s acceptable

to the Congress. The Congress passed the legislation after great

angst and substantial effort, and in the legislation, we provided a

1-year and 2-year process. Now, I’m willing to accept that perhaps

one year was optimistic. I’m willing to accept that. But I’m not willing to accept that additional 4 or 5 years is necessary to do that

which the Congress intended the Bureau to do in a time frame.

And my question tonight is what can we expect in eastern North

Dakota to have the Bureau truncate this, not with respect to shortchanging any part of this process, but to tell us they can do this

earlier than December 2005. Are there ways that can happen and

is the Bureau willing to commit to make it happen prior to December 2005?

Dr. BACH. I’m willing to commit to sit down with the parties and

lay out options that we’ve identified for where the schedule can be

curtailed. I want to be able to do that with the parties so that they

understand what information we would not have, and what information we would have as some of the reasoning for the parts of the

schedule reflect that we understood to be the convenience of the

different communities. I will make every effort to see any opportunity we can to curtail the schedule for the final plans.

Senator DORGAN. One additional question. Is the process we are

now involved in a process that’s going to consider the water needs

of Moorhead, East Grand and Breckenridge as well?

Dr. BACH. This statute does identify, the statute does identified

the needs and options to meet the needs of North Dakota. In order

to get that information, Mr. Chairman, we have to identify what

is being utilized and what the plans are to be utilized in the future

of water supply with the communities on the other side of the

river.

Senator DORGAN. The answer to that is yes?

Dr. BACH. The answer to that is information will be in the documents. We will be strict to respond to the statutes, but we will do

it in a complete way so all the information is laid out in a report.

Senator DORGAN. Are the population estimates being used to the

extent you’re aware of them Mayor Furness, Mayor Brown, population estimates you think are reasonable?

Mr. FURNESS. Mr. Chairman, I don’t know what the population

estimates are being used in this study. I’m not sure that has been

addressed.

Senator DORGAN. Are the revised population estimates in the two

previous studies, Phase I and Phase II study, as I understand,

those population estimates have been revised, or proposed to be revised, are they satisfactory to you?

Mr. FURNESS. We had our version and the Bureau has their version. We were not in sync on those, no.

Mr. BROWN. I agree with Mayor Furness.

Senator DORGAN. So, Mr. Frink, what do we do about all this?

Mr. FRINK. Well, first of all, I guess we need to complete the EIS.

It’s an absolute necessity and if it’s in the DWRA, all I can say is

that, you know, we would like to follow something similar to what

19

we did on the Southwest Pipeline Project and the Northwest Water

Supply Pipeline projects. And that is as soon as these documents

are signed and we are told to go, we start. The Bureau of Reclamation on those projects last year gave us the approval to start that

project in December, and as soon as the frost is out of the ground

we had pipe in the ground and, but you have to go through the

process and, you know, I think we have to do it right here. And

to EIS process is clearly taking longer than we hoped.

Senator DORGAN. Let me just make a point. It will not be doing

it right to delay this by years. Doing it right is, yes, doing it correctly, but doing it in a truncated time line. It’s just not doing it

right that we end up with a drought that devastates the Red River

Valley’s growth potential, and we don’t have an opportunity to

move the kind of water here that they need to move here. In fact,

that’s what the decision is. So in order to do this right means we

have to move with some dispatch.

Now, Ms. Bach, I’d like to ask you to go back to Mr. Keys and

work both at the Headquarters and also the Regional Office and

submit to the Energy Committee a revised schedule telling me

what kind of opportunity exists to truncate this time line because

I think it’s safe to say that my colleagues on the committee would

not find it a favorable development to understand that we’ve seen

this delayed now 4 years, and so I would like to have you submit

to us a revised schedule based on your evaluation of where you can

begin to truncate this process. Yes, do it right, but doing it right

means doing it on time as well.

Can we expect a response to that, Ms. Bach?

Dr. BACH. Absolutely.

Senator DORGAN. And when might we get a response? How long

will that take?

Dr. BACH. I will give you something to look at within 4 weeks,

Mr. Chairman, if that’s acceptable.

Senator DORGAN. All right. So within 4 weeks the Bureau will

send to the committee your estimate of what a revised schedule

would look like, and, Mr. Frink, you’re going to get agitated about

this, and when we get the new date we are all going to—assuming

the new date truncates this some, we are all going to build a big

fire and hold everybody’s feet to the fire, is that a fair statement?

Mr. FRINK. Mr. Chairman, let me say on behalf of the State

Water Commission, we are playing a very important role. If we can

get this EIS done sooner, we will throw the resources at it to make

it happen. It is an incredibly important study, but we’ll do whatever we can to shorten that date to the extent possible.

Senator DORGAN. All right. Well, we will wait 4 weeks and wait

to receive, Ms. Bach, your revised estimate. I hope you will scrub

that with the headquarters very carefully, and we will share that,

of course, with the folks of the Red River Valley and the folks at

the Conservancy District, and the State of North Dakota as well.

Let me reemphasize, I can’t reemphasize enough the point that

I have seen everything slip forever on water policy and it is so frustrating. I understand there are a hundred people out there wanting

to sue somebody. We’re working right now on the NAWS project,

which is a heck of a good project. And the minute we do the ground

break, Canada throws us into court. They have a right to go into

20

* The testimony can be found in the appendix.

court, certainly, but I hope it’s thrown out. The suit doesn’t have

merit, and I hope it’s thrown out. The point is at every step of the

way on every conceivable approach on water we end up with all

kinds of problems. But, you know, on the Missouri River master

plan, nobody can get it done. You can’t get answers on this. When

I see the time lines slip, obviously it makes me angry. I want this

done. I want us to meet our time line.

Ms. Bach, I have worked with you on other issues with the

Jamestown Reservoir and other things. You’re a dedicated public

servant. You understand the angst that people have about water.

The mayor used the quote, and there are plenty other quotes about

water that aptly describe the passion about water. Because you

can’t—no economy, no region could exist without water. It is the

engine of economic growth. You shut the water down running

through this Red River, you will shut down the economy of this

part of North Dakota. So, that’s why it’s important.

I appreciate your coming to Fargo this evening, Ms. Bach. And

Mr. Frink, for you coming over from Bismarck. And Mayor Brown,

Mayor Furness, thank you very much for being here as well.

Let me excuse you and if you have additional comments you wish

to submit, the hearing record will remain open for 2 weeks.

We call Mr. Warren Jamison, the manager of the Garrison Diversion Conservancy District; Ms. Genevieve Thompson, vice president

and executive director of the Audubon Society of North Dakota; Michael Dwyer, the executive director of North Dakota Water Users

Association.

Let me, for the record, indicate that Chairman Tex Hall from the

Mandan, Hidatsa and Arikara Nation was invited to testify. He

was not able to be here, so he submitted testimony. We have also

have submitted testimony on behalf of the Fargo-Moorhead Chamber of Commerce in the form of a letter from David Martin.*

I want to thank all of you for being here as well. You were able

to hear the previous testimony.

Mr. Jamison, perhaps more than anyone in this room, you have

worked year after year after year on a wide range of these problems and issues dealing with water, and we certainly appreciate

that effort and those results. My guess is you probably share the

same anxiety I do about time lines and all those added issues. But

we appreciate very much your being willing to come to Fargo this

evening and testify.

Why don’t I begin with you and your entire statement will be

made a part of the record.

STATEMENT OF WARREN L. JAMISON, MANAGER,

GARRISON DIVERSION CONSERVANCY DISTRICT

Mr. JAMISON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for allowing me to testify today on this important subject. My complete

testimony will be in the record, as you indicated.

Last week, I was in Arizona at the National Water Resources Association Annual Meeting, and there was a lot of talk about

drought down there. I spoke with Commissioner Keatings and

Maryanne Bach from the Bureau of Reclamation as well.

21

I want to emphasize the extent of the drought that is creeping

toward us. States like Montana are in their fifth year of drought.

Certainly they’re heading towards drought of Biblical proportions.

It’s deeper than the drought of the 1930’s. Its duration is going

probably beyond what we would normally predict. Similar stories

in Wyoming and Nebraska. I spoke with the State engineer of Nebraska, and they are into 3 years of very serious drought. 30 percent worse than the drought of the 1930’s in Nebraska. The commissioner referred to an inflow of the reservoir in the Rio Grande

area inflows were 2 percent of normal.

Senator DORGAN. Where was that again?

Mr. JAMISON. That was in the Rio Grande Valley. Two percent

of normal. These are horrendous numbers. But they are just abstract thoughts unless you put economic dollars with them. And

when you do put economics to these numbers, the worst kinds of

natural disasters that occur in the country are not fires and floods,

but droughts. Always.

We see economic study after study indicating that the worst impacts of natural disaster in this country are the result of droughts.

The 1987 to 1989 time frame, where we had a severe drought in

this part of the country, but it also was in other parts of the region,

the total from that alone was $39 billion. Well, if we have a

drought that’s 30 percent deeper, or 20 percent deeper than the

ones we have on record, and of a longer duration, imagine, if you

will, where these dollar impacts will go.

Dakota Water Resources Act attempted to, and I think wisely so,

choose the high road in terms of trying to prevent these things

from occurring by wise planning and wise use of the natural resources. If we can prevent drought from occurring, we can prevent

the impacts of these droughts from occurring. We can’t prevent

droughts from occurring, but the impacts of them by managing our

resources wisely.

Certainly, Dakota Water Resources Act is clear, and it can compel us, as it should, to look at all the alternatives, all reasonable

alternatives in a full and fair, objective way to meet the water supply in the Red River Valley. We certainly intend to do that, and

we intend to meet a criteria for water supply that I have used

many times. Water supply isn’t just dump the water. For us, there

are three characteristics of water supply. First of all, it must be reliable. It’s not good enough if you can get it seven out of 10 years.

Three years can be the end of your economy.

It must be of high quality. What good is water if you can’t drink

it, if you can’t use it for industrial purposes.

And lastly—and the act anticipated this as well—it must be affordable to the local citizens, consuming citizens.

So, with those three characteristics in mind, we are dedicated to

working as closely as we can with the Conservancy, with the Bureau of Reclamation, with the State of North Dakota to make sure

that a water supply is delivered to the Valley.

And in my opinion, the 2 years that we have spent trying to get

organized is an undue delay, and there are causes that we can talk

about, and perhaps you will ask about those, but I would like to

indicate that I would rather focus on the future on a closer relationship with the Bureau, with the Audubon Society. I have had

22

the pleasure of looking at Ms. Thompson’s testimony. She makes

a number of very constructive suggestions that the Conservancy

District, for one, at least, will take seriously. I think they’re very

helpful, and will take effort, but that’s an effort we need to put forward and we will do that. I think there’s lots of opportunities to

do this constructively and do it well.

The Bureau has a job to do and we want very much to be helpful

and working closely with them to make sure that we avert the horrible impacts of a drought. I’m hopeful that the outcome of these

proceedings in the future will be a more closely coordinated effort

to move forward, and to move forward with dispatch and a the full

examination of all the alternatives and eventually delivers water to

the valley.

I will answer questions.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Jamison follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF WARREN L. JAMISON, MANAGER,

GARRISON DIVERSION CONSERVANCY DISTRICT

Chairman Dorgan and Members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to present the Garrison Diversion Conservancy District’s (District) views on

the Red River Valley Water Needs.

We are sitting on a time bomb! Droughts of greater magnitude than those of the

1930s are all around us. If they should spread to the Red River Valley, we will be

in dire straits, and the delays on the Red River Valley Studies will be seen as deadly to the people and the economics of the Valley.

Drought is a normal, recurrent feature of the climate of virtually all portions of

the United States. Because of the country’s size and the wide range of climatic regions present, it is rare for drought not to exist somewhere in the country each year.

As of October 2002, 47 states, including North Dakota, were experiencing a drought

or drought warnings. Rainfall was significantly below average in 27 states. In parts

of Nebraska, 2002 rainfall amounts through September were not only 80% below

normal, but also 30% less than what fell during the worst of the 1930s drought

years. Economic losses for the summer of 2002 could reach $20 billion.

Drought is a natural hazard that cumulatively has affected more people in North

America than any other natural hazard. The cost of losses due to drought in the

United States averages $6-8 billion every year, but range as high as $39 billion for

the three-year drought of 1987-1989, which was the most costly natural disaster

documented in U.S. history.

The severe multi-year drought that plagued the western United States during the

1930s and 1950s is now a distant memory for most. A recurrence of these multiyear droughts today would result in substantially greater and more varied impacts

because of the rapid expansion and urbanization of the region’s population and increase in urban water demand during the past several decades. Also, there has been

an associated increased pressure on water and other natural resources, even though

there has been a significant increase in long-term and emergency water storage facilities and the understanding of the necessity for the application of water-conserving technologies.

The traditional mind set of some government entities has been to react to drought

by providing relief or emergency assistance to the affected areas. By following this

approach, drought only receives the attention of decision-makers when it is at peak

levels of intensity and when water management options are quite limited. This approach is ineffective and untimely. Thus, the Dakota Water Resources Act (DWRA)

is intended to take the wiser route by forestalling the impacts of drought through

wise planning and management of our available water resources.

To fully appreciate what this scenario means to the Red River Valley, one only

needs to look at the potential impacts to Fargo. Drought impacts would at the beginning, in progressive stage, go from restrictions on lawn watering, require impacting

Ashtabula Reservoir, to cutting water supplies to industries, and, ultimately, to

mandatory water rationing of residential drinking water. This would virtually shut

down the economy of the Red River Valley and destroy their hopes for the future.

We hope that never happens.

Unfortunately, the noble goals of the DWRA, as they relate to the needs and options for water supply in the Red River Valley, are not being realized. It has been

23

* Appendix 1-15 have been retained in subcommittee files.

nearly two years since the passage of the DWRA, and the studies required by the

DWRA are still not fully underway nor is the required Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).

Following is a list of relevant dates that illustrate the slow and cumbersome process that has occurred while trying to begin the required studies. I will not take up

your valuable time reading all of the dates but submit them for the record (Appendix 1).* I have excerpted a few dates which display the lengthy and poor track

record on the MOU.

July 5, 2000—A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to study the needs

and options at the feasibility level with the District and State Water Commission (SWC) is signed. (Appendix 2)

May 2001—The Bureau of Reclamation verbally indicates that the existing

MOU should be redone to include provisions of the DWRA.

March 2002—The Bureau hands out, during a meeting, a draft MOU and Cooperative Agreement to the SWC and the District.

August 20, 2002—MOU workshop held in Fargo.

November 6, 2002—The MOU is signed by the Bureau of Reclamation.

From a perfectly valid MOU, to a decision to develop a new MOU and then to

get a new one signed took over two years. This is unacceptable, even for a government agency.

At the time that this testimony was prepared, a Cooperative Agreement necessary

to authorize work on the RRV studies by the District is yet to be signed.

These dates illustrate the unreasonable and unnecessary delays that have taken

place in regard to the Red River Valley studies. As you can see, the Bureau of Reclamation’s negotiation process is extremely inefficient. The person designated to negotiate does not really have the authority to negotiate. The Bureau representative

provides language to District for comment, the District responds in good faith, another Bureau office changes their original language and then another round of comments ensue.

This management style is particularly cumbersome, making negotiation inefficient

and progress on the actual studies and EIS, which is required by the DWRA, minimal. We in North Dakota are certainly lacking priority attention on the negotiation. As we sit here today, the District has spent more than $600,000 on the process

trying to move things forward with little success. The District’s desire is to work

with the Reclamation office to complete the project as quickly as possible so the people of the Red River Valley can be assured they will not suffer the devastating impacts when an extended drought occurs.

Senator DORGAN. Mr. Jamison, thank you very much. I hope you

will not mind if on a personal level I say I know you have been

battling some health challenges, but you still—this evening and in

recent months, even as you have done that—have been battling

this water policy issue and we very much appreciate your dedication to this issue and I appreciate you being here this evening.

Next, let us hear from Genevieve Thompson representing Audubon. Thank you very much for being here. I know you had other

commitments outside of the State, and made a change in your

plans in order to be here to testify. We appreciate that.

STATEMENT OF GENEVIEVE THOMPSON, VICE PRESIDENT

AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AUDUBON’S STATE OFFICE FOR

THE DAKOTAS

Ms. THOMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before I begin I’d

also like to thank you and the subcommittee for holding this important hearing. It’s an example of the leadership you have given us

on natural resource management in the State. So on behalf of all

of the resource professionals in water, thanks again.

With your permission, I’d like to submit my formal testimony for

the record and highlight the testimony with my remarks this

evening.

24

For the record, my name is Genevieve Thompson. I’m the vice

president and executive director of Audubon’s State Office for the

Dakotas.

My testimony today is predicated on a strong personal and professional commitment to the Red River Basin. My family and I reside in Red River Basin.

Audubon has a long-standing commitment to proactively solving

problems in the Red River. At Audubon, we are currently leading

an effort to establish a 600-mile greenway along the Red River. We

serve on the executive committee on the Red River Basin Institute

for Research and Watershed Education. We are working, as you

know, to build a Audubon nature center for the Fargo-Moorhead

community, and we are working on both the Technical and Study

Review Teams for the Red River Valley Needs Assessment.

As the subcommittee is aware, 45,000 square miles of Red River

Basin watershed has a host of competing demands: Water quality,

water supply, agriculture, recreation, mitigation of flood damage,

wildlife and habitat, natural resource enhancement and the interaction between those and economic strengthening of the region.

A large number of organizations are working to understand these

challenges. I want us to remember that the subject of our hearing,

the Red River Valley Water Supply Project isn’t being undertaken

in a vacuum. It coincides with several watershed-wide planning initiatives.

In my testimony, I provided a table of some of the activities and

initiatives ongoing. There is the Red River Basin Commission, the

Institute, the Greenway, the Red River Basin Decision Information

Network. Riparian Project, the Corp’s work, the Basinwide Flood/

Waffle Initiative, the International Red River Board. Obviously,

there is a host of efforts ongoing. And I think it’s important that

you hear United States, Canada, interstate, tribal representation,

and you’re doing so because the stakes are so important.

We have had a lot of damage in the past. This drought represents potential great damage in the future. So, we need to implement solutions and, I agree, as soon as possible. We hope the Bureau places a similar priority in conducting these studies. We also

hope that the Bureau can take advantage of some of the aforementioned initiatives so that we can come up with a solution that

works for everyone. The act has a clear timetable and a clear mandate. We do believe that it should be done with a fair and open

process. If we can conduct it with an unbiased and scientifically

credible procedure, it’s an unbelievable opportunity to finally resolve some of the controversy to avert lawsuits, and to get an actual sustainable water supply established.

I hope, again, that the Bureau takes the study in an inclusive

manner, public involvement, if facilitated and maximized, increases

the likelihood of acceptance when something is finally put forward.

It is slow and cumbersome. I have sat through many of these meetings and been privy to some of the negotiations. But I do think the

time we spend now will hopefully limit the time in the longer term,

when we come to an implementation phase. It’s painful, but hopefully it will outcome, as you had mentioned, a faster implementation.

25

1The mission of the Greenway on the Red is to promote the development of a greenway system on the Red River and its tributaries that mitigates floods and protects people through eduContinued

We certainly can’t predict at this point what the preferred options are, but there are just a few challenges that I’d like to highlight as we move forward. We live in such an extreme climate and

in uncertainty of growth, so we hope and support consideration of

economic development that incorporates research that reduces

water use. Crystal Sugar is a good example of a water user that

has incorporated research to limit their amount of water that they

do use and still have a profitable operation. Also, can we look at

industries that are less reliant on water. Marvin Windows, Microsoft Great Plains, the Research and Technology Park at NDSU.

Hopefully those will move or forward in areas that we can supply

water that are not water-retentive.

Certainly, there is a long history of controversy about the Missouri River. We encourage a thorough evaluation that accomplishes

an examination of those water demands.

I am mindful of the drought. I have monitored the drought.

There is a drought index. I’m concerned that we don’t head into a

similar area as the Colorado River, the climate basin, that we come

up with a sustainable water supply so that would be incorporated.

That’s why Minnesota has been leading the way in identifying potential water sources that might be available in the event of a

drought. The Otter Tail River, some aquifers, and I hope that we

can continue to incorporated that as part of the strategy, particularly in the short-term. It won’t take potentially 10 years or 5 years

to identify and hopefully share some of those resources.

Lastly, water conservation is certainly another area that we

would urge. Might I respectfully suggest that a delegation from our

work go to the American Water Works Association Water Conservation Workshop. Coincidentally, it is in February and it is in

Florida. That might help recruitment.

Thank you again. We support an open and frank and credible

challenge. We support collaborations for watershed-based planning

and we wish that the health of our entire ecosystem be maintained,

human and otherwise. Thanks for the opportunity.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Thompson follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF GENEVIEVE THOMPSON, VICE PRESIDENT AND

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AUDUBON’S STATE OFFICE FOR THE DAKOTAS

Chairman Dorgan, Senators of the Subcommittee on Water and Power, colleagues

and participants, I would like to thank you for this opportunity to provide requested

testimony on the ‘‘Red River Valley Water Needs’’. My name is Genevieve Thompson; I am the Vice President and Executive Director of Audubon’s state office for

the Dakotas.

Before I begin my testimony, I would like to thank you, Senator Dorgan, for your

support of our collaborative efforts to solve the challenges in the Red River Basin

in a sustainable basis for the long term. We appreciate your leadership and interest.

My testimony today is predicated on a strong personal and professional commitment

to the Red River Basin. My family and I reside in the Red River Basin, and we

therefore have a stake in our collective ability to provide for a sustainable water

supply over the long term. Audubon/Dakota has a longstanding and demonstrated

commitment to the Red River Basin. As a direct outcome of our participation in the

FEMA funded International Flood Mitigation Initiative, Audubon/Dakota is leading

the effort to establish an interstate and international 600-river-mile Greenway on

the Red 1 along the Red River of the North. Audubon/Dakota also serves on the ExVerDate 11-SEP-98 13:01 Mar 07, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\DOCS\85-416 SENERGY3 PsN: SENERGY3
26

cation and partnerships that enhance the economy, environment and communities of the Red

River Basin. 2The Red River Institute for Research and Watershed Education is an international partnership of government agencies, basin organizations, private sector professionals, and universities

that works to identify, prioritize and conduct flood damage reduction and natural resource research within the Red River Basin. 3Living with the Red, 2000

ecutive Committee of the Red River Institute for Research and Watershed Education.2 We are working concurrently to establish an Audubon Nature Center for

the Fargo-Moorhead community, to promote an understanding of our natural world,

and what it means to live responsibly within the Red River ecosystem. Finally, Audubon/Dakota serves on both the Technical Team and the Study Review Team for

the Red River Valley Needs and Options Report being prepared by the Bureau of

Reclamation.

As the Subcommittee may be aware, the interstate and international watershed

of the Red River covers 45,000 square miles. Because the basin is the remnant of

glacial Lake Agassiz, the north-flowing Red River mainstem and valley proper are

very flat, with the outer edges of the old lakeshore at 400 feet higher than the river’s edge. The Red River Basin is faced with competing demands for water quality;

water supply; mitigation of flood damage; agriculture; recreation and wildlife habitat; and natural resource enhancement.

Although water resource protection/management in the Red River Basin is complex and challenging, the Red River Valley Water Supply Project (RRVWSP) coincides with several unprecedented basinwide water planning initiatives. Many of

these efforts were encouraged by the International Joint Commission’s report 3 to

the U.S. and Canadian federal governments, which recommends that governments

‘‘should develop and implement comprehensive, multi-faceted plans.for concurrently

reducing flood damage, protecting and enhancing the natural environment; and provide opportunities for multi jurisdictional problem solving and the exchange of best

practices information. ’’ In the same year, Section 8 of the Dakota Water Resources

Act called for ‘‘an open and public comprehensive study of the water quality and

quantity needs of the Red River Valley in North Dakota and possible options for

meeting those needs’’, which is the genesis for the RRVWSP.

Table 1 below summarizes many of the multi jurisdictional water resource initiatives and projects that are currently ongoing in the Red River Basin. These are in

addition to the Red River Basin Commission, which has taken leadership in setting

a basinwide vision and decisionmaking framework. These efforts can potentially contribute to and/or benefit from the RRVWSP. They provide a means to ascertain how

water resources should be utilized and safeguarded over the long term with multiple

stakeholders in the Red River Basin.

Ongoing initiative Description/stakeholders

Red River Basin Institute for Research

& Watershed Education.

The Research ‘‘Center’’ of the Institute is

comprised of an international partnership of government agencies, private

and public basin organizations, and

university professionals to identify research needs in the Red River Basin,

and to ensure research objectivity

through sound science and peer review. The Watershed Education ‘‘Center’’ is working to provide seamless

watershed education programs at K12, post-secondary and community levels, with an emphasis on developing

leadership throughout the basin. The

Institute’s Research arm serves as the

technical committee for the Greenway

on the Red.

27

Ongoing initiative Description/stakeholders

Greenway on the Red. Audubon/Dakota is working to promote

the development of a 600-river mile

Greenway system on the Red River of

the North and its tributaries from

Lake Traverse in South Dakota to

Lake Winnipeg in Manitoba, with

partners in North and South Dakota,

Minnesota and Manitoba. Anticipated

benefits of this Greenway include flood

damage reduction, enhanced water

quality, improved riparian habitat for

birds and other wildlife, riparian and

wetland restoration, increased recreation and tourism, and economic benefits to agriculture and communities

adjacent to the Red River.

Red River Basin Decision Information

Network (RRBDIN).

Creates an internet-based data dissemination system for the Red River Basin,

for monitoring and decision-making.

Current and potential data includes

base map; spatial data (i.e., imagery,

topography), water quality, etc.

Red River Riparian Project. Works with landowners, project sponsors

and contributing agencies to protect

water resources and improve water

quality through land management

planning and restoration in the riparian areas of the Red River Basin.

Red River Feasibility & Reconnaissance

Study.

The basin-wide/main stem feasibility

study being implemented through the

USACE will provide a comprehensive

perspective of the basin’s water-related problems, issues, needs, and opportunities and a blueprint and analytical

tools for future feasibility studies of

tributary sub-basins and generate implementation strategies for projects to

meet the subbasins’ water resource

needs and opportunities.

Basinwide Flood Control/Waffle Project. The Energy and Environmental Research Center (EERC-UND) is working to determine the feasibility of developing a basinwide system for temporary storage of floodwaters utilizing

low-relief (agricultural) fields bounded

by roads as temporary micro-storage

pools during major flood events.

International Red River Board Aquatic

Ecosystem Health Committee.

The International Red River Board

(IRRB) was formed to consider water

related issues in the bi-national watershed and to monitor the health of the

Red River transboundary aquatic ecosystem; this committee is working to

develop an integrated biological and

water quality monitoring network.

28

Ongoing initiative Description/stakeholders

Minnesota Flood Damage Reduction

(Workgroup) Initiative.

Also referenced as the ‘‘Minnesota Mediation’’ model, this effort focuses on

water storage strategies and projects

that reduce flood damage and also

have natural resource benefits. Some

of these projects involve flood plain

and wetlands restoration. To date, the

state of Minnesota has expended approximately $10 million on this initiative. These land-based water storage

strategies theoretically increase river

base flows during droughts, in tributary streams and in the mainstem.

These water storage activities also

have the potential to augment groundwater recharge.

Investigation of potential sources of additional water in Minnesota for North

Dakota cities.

The state of Minnesota (MN-DNR;

MPCA) is seeking solutions within the

Red River Basin to address periodic

and rare droughts through the identification of: 1) potential water supply

alternatives during droughts; 2) water

conservation strategies; and 3) economic development that is less dependent on water consumption.

Red River Basin Watershed Initiative

[pending—USEPA].

This watershed-based strategy addresses

water resource issues across state, federal and international jurisdictional

boundaries. It has been submitted to

USEPA for funding by the Red River

Basin Commission & the Red River

Basin Institute. The goal of this Watershed Initiative is to protect the ecological integrity of the Red River.

Components to be addressed by this

goal include flooding, adequate and

clean water, wildlife habitat, and recreational and natural aesthetic values.

Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) [pending—NRCS/FSA].The Proposal under development is for a

multi-state CREP in the Red River

Basin. In cooperation with multiple

agencies and landowners, the CREP

targets 200,000 acres for restoration

and management to reduce flood damage, improve water quality, and enhance wildlife and fisheries habitat.

Mr. Chairman, as you can see from the table, there are a host of Federal, State

and local entities both in the United States and in Canada who are devoting considerable attention to solving the problems of the Red River Basin. They are doing so

because the stakes are great. We cannot afford to duplicate past damage we have

sustained in the Basin from flooding and poor water resource protection. We need

to implement solutions. The table demonstrates a diversity of participants who are

dedicated to sustainable, justifiable, and affordable solutions to problems. In addition, these participants feel this is a high priority issue worthy of their participation.

Audubon/Dakota hopes that the Bureau of Reclamation places the same high priority on their approach to conducting the Red River Valley Water Supply Project.

The Dakota Water Resources Act established a clear mandate and timetables. Audubon agrees that this study is critical and should be undertaken. In addition, we beVerDate 11-SEP-98 13:01 Mar 07, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\DOCS\85-416 SENERGY3 PsN: SENERGY3
29

lieve it should be undertaken using a fair and open process, and conducted with unbiased and scientifically sound procedures. This effort provides an unprecedented

opportunity to resolve the longstanding issue of Red River Basin water supply. It

is essential for the Bureau to undertake an impartial, peer reviewed study. The

study design should be comprehensive and integrate the needs and alternatives

with all of the other Red River Basin efforts being undertaken. The Bureau can obtain essential objectivity by utilizing existing research capability within the Valley

such as the Red River Basin Institute, or through an external science review panel.

It is unclear whether the Bureau has undertaken this study in a consistently fair

and inclusive manner. The Specific Plans of Study as proposed by the Bureau of

Reclamation for the Needs and Options Report and EIS requires the assessment of

multiple variables of water need (i.e., existing and future MR&I; rural, aquatic environmental; recreation; etc.), as well as the identification of options to meet those

needs. It is imperative that these studies, subsequent recommendations, and the

analysis of the positive and negative impacts of those recommendations are conducted in an open and ‘‘transparent’’ process that is fair, open, and maintains scientific credibility. Public involvement should be facilitated and maximized, to increase the likelihood of subsequent acceptance and implementation. Initially, this is

likely to be a cumbersome and slow process. However, adherence to sound science

and stakeholder participation will save time in the long term, because it will help

to ensure that the option(s) selected to meet the credible water needs of the Red

River Basin are economically feasible, ecologically sound, and can be implemented.

While it is premature to dictate what the preferred option(s) will be prior to the

implementation of the Plans of Study and analysis of alternatives, both individually

and in a range of combinations, several challenges exist at the outset to the effective

implementation of the Bureau’s Red River Valley Water Supply Project Needs and

Options study. These include:

• The region experiences temporal and spatial extremes in precipitation patterns

that range from severe flooding as a result of spring runoff and/or heavy summer rainfall events, to prolonged droughts as seen in the period between 1988-

1992. This exacerbates the difficulty of accurately projecting water needs from

both a population demand standpoint and from an industrial needs perspective.

The suggestion by stakeholders within the Basin that some of the uncertainty

associated with projecting industrial needs might be ameliorated by encouraging economic development that is less reliant upon water consumption is worthy

of consideration. Examples include Microsoft Great Plains, Marvin Windows

and the NDSU Research & Technology Park. Audubon/Dakota also encourages

and supports research that helps industries find ways to reduce water use such

as American Crystal Sugar. • There is a long history of controversy and opposition surrounding the alternative of transferring water from the Missouri to the Red River Basin. An unbiased evaluation of all available alternatives as assessed in the Plans of Studies

will help to evaluate and ameliorate this controversy. With regard to alternatives that involve the delivery of Missouri River water to the Red River Valley, the evaluation process should address:

—the impact of water removed for the Red River Valley singularly, and

in combination with all of the other current and projected demands and

withdrawals from the Missouri River;

—the likelihood that if drought conditions create water shortages in the

Red River Basin, is the Missouri River Basin similarly stressed and in a

low-water condition;

—if the Red River Basin is dependent upon a water supply that is outside

the hydrologic basin and that supply becomes impeded, do demands within

the Missouri River Basin (i.e., Montana, South Dakota, etc.) take precedence;

—the assessment of interbasin transfer of water from the Missouri River

to the Red River Basin should include an analysis of the potential risks

that may result from invasive species and/or foreign biota transfers, and

from potential habitat or wetland loss.

• Minnesota has provided leadership through the Technical Team/Study Review

Team in the identification of potential solutions within the Red River Basin to

address both periodic and extreme drought conditions. They are working on a

more in-depth assessment of water sources that include groundwater and base

flow in rivers such as the Otter Tail, which could be a potential source of water

to the Red River Basin during drought conditions.

• The evaluation of sustainable strategies to meet Red River Basin water needs

should address options that may require accompanying changes in current

30

water policy. For example, the Red River Valley MR&I Water Needs Assessment documented regions within the Basin where 82-97% of the current permitted use was in irrigation, for aquifers where rural water systems use

groundwater sources. In the future it may be judicious to have a strategy in

place that enables the transfer of these ‘‘allocations’’ from irrigation to rural

water systems when it is necessary to meet rural water system shortages. • This process represents an excellent opportunity to identify and implement

basinwide water conservation and reuse strategies that could contribute significantly to reducing water supply demands in the Red River Basin. There are

proven models both nationally and internationally, that include incentive programs for water-efficient appliances; leak and system loss detection; use of

‘‘gray water’’ where appropriate; xerioscape landscaping practices; and education/outreach programs. A good first step may be for a delegation of city and

state representatives working on Red River Valley water needs to attend the

American Water Works Association’s upcoming, ‘‘Water Conservation Workshop’’, February 20-22, 2003 in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. • Basinwide hydrologic modeling is not yet complete, yet the information is essential to realistically estimate Red River flows during drought cycles (i.e., when

tributaries on the southeast and east in Minnesota are believed to contribute

most of the water). It is hoped that the Bureau will take advantage of ongoing

hydrologic modeling efforts in the Basin, such as the Digital Elevation Modeling

and Floodplain Mapping Summit being coordinated by the Red River Basin Institute. • There are a very large number of essential stakeholders involved, across state

and national borders. Stakeholder coordination is time consuming and challenging, but it is crucial if the outputs of the RRVWSP are to obtain both scientific

credibility and widespread public acceptance. The current composition of the

Technical Team and the Study Review Team for the Red River Studies represents a broad cross-section of stakeholders. The diversity of stakeholder representation and professional expertise across state and national boundaries

should be maintained.

The process before us, as lined out in the Draft Master Plan of Study for the Red

River Valley Water Supply Project and the EIS, is daunting. There are a number

of complex and interrelated variables and unknowns, compounded by an overarching

mandate to consider the comprehensive water quality and quantity needs of the Red

River Basin, in the context of MR&I, aquatic environment, recreation, and water

conservation. In addition to the needs, there are multiple potential and interactive

alternatives to meet those needs, with a diversity of users and stakeholders. Water

is a precious resource, and the strategies that evolve from the Red River Valley

Water Supply Project to meet the needs of the Red River Basin must also be sustainable, and environmentally sound. Audubon/Dakota supports an open and scientifically credible process to ascertain needs and strategies. We believe that the

Bureau needs to exert strong leadership to move this important issue forward in an

open, proactive, and scientifically credible process. We strongly support collaboration

with ongoing efforts at watershed-based planning to ensure that the health of the

Red River Basin ecosystem is maintained over the long-term.

Senator DORGAN. Ms. Thompson, thank you very much. I must

say, when you asked that there be a comprehensive evaluation of

the Missouri River, you certainly are getting your wish. Twelve

years is about as comprehensive as this country can possibly provide.

Ms. THOMPSON. We appreciate that, Mr. Chairman.

Senator DORGAN. Let me call next on Michael Dwyer, North Dakota Water Users.

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL DWYER, EXECUTIVE VICE

PRESIDENT, NORTH DAKOTA WATER USERS ASSOCIATION

Mr. DWYER. Mr. Chairman, Senator Dorgan, I also thank you for

the opportunity to testify, and thank you for the subcommittee

holding this hearing. Much of what can be said has been said already here tonight, but I’d just like to add a few things.

First of all, I’d like the committee to know that there is Statewide support—strong Statewide support for this issue of a water

31

supply for the Red River Valley. If you look at the testimony that—

the written testimony that I have, you will see that the North Dakota Water Users Association is part of the North Dakota Water

Coalition which consists of over 30 organizations that have come

together in a united manner to support the Dakota Water Resources Act, and are now supporting this effort to address and

solve the problems of a lack of adequate water for the Red River

Valley. You’ll see that all the cities are involved, that the rural

electrics are involved, the business community, the agriculture

community, the education community, the Indian community and,

of course, the water community all participate in the Water Coalition, and we strongly support and are deeply concerned about this

current effort to provide a water supply to the Red River Valley.

Now, Warren has adequately addressed the issue of drought and

the fact in many areas of the country, the drought that is being experienced is greater than the droughts that were experienced in the

1930’s. We know that the Red River went dry for a continuous period in each year of the 1930’s and so, if we experienced a drought

that exceeded that benchmark, we would indeed have a catastrophe

on our hands.

I’d also like to mention that the Bureau does need to be complimented for the work that it did in the NAWS project. It provided

meticulous attention to detail and was very thorough, and its work

should help us withstand the litigation that is being filed there.

But at the same time, I think the Bureau sometimes pays too much

attention to the naysayers—the people that would have us do nothing in the valley—that would have us not provide adequate water

supply. I think we need to look at the NAWS project as an example

of, if you think that you’re going to avert litigation by doing everything possible, look at the NAWS project. The Bureau, the State

had done everything possible. I don’t think there could be an organism that possibly could be moved in that project, yet we are being

subject to litigation assault. Sometimes we need to move forward,

as Genevieve said, we need to be careful. We need to be inclusive.

But at the same time, we can’t not move forward because there are

naysayers that say there might be a problem or two.

I think we also to need to look at the Corps of Engineers on the

Missouri River as an example of long-term delay. We cannot afford

to have another government example of that kind of delay.

In conclusion, I would say that the Red River Valley needs a dependable water supply for the cities of Fargo, Grand Forks, smaller

communities, rural water systems, industries, ag processing, manufacturing and other purposes to protect and enhance the economic

stability and the quantity of life for the exploding population in the

Red River Basin. The failure to address the water supply needs of

the Red River Basin would jeopardize our economic stability, including industry, ag processing, manufacturing, and municipal

growth, and will adversely affect the lives of people who are suffering from both poor quality or inadequate quantities of water and

that also will also have a negative impact on the entire State of

North Dakota.

Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Dwyer follows:]

32

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MICHAEL DWYER, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT,

NORTH DAKOTA WATER USERS ASSOCIATION

I. INTRODUCTION

Senator Dorgan, thank you for the opportunity to talk to you today about the critical water needs of the Red River Valley. My name is Michael Dwyer and I am the

Executive Vice President of the North Dakota Water Users Association. I am speaking today on behalf of grassroots water users and members across North Dakota.

We currently have more than 1,000 members representing individuals, businesses,

water districts, irrigators and companies across our great state of North Dakota.

The North Dakota Water Users has joined together with other statewide and regional organizations to form the North Dakota Water Coalition, which is a coalition

of regional and statewide organizations in North Dakota that have come together

for the purpose of completing North Dakota’s water infrastructure for economic

growth and quality of life. We are especially concerned about the water supply

needs of the Red River Valley.

The North Dakota Water Coalition considers the water supply needs of the Red

River Valley to be a critical priority for all of North Dakota. The Water Coalition

includes the following groups:

Associated General Contractors of North

Dakota

BOMMM Joint Water Resource Board

Cass County Joint Water Resource

Board

City of Bismarck

City of Devils Lake

City of Dickinson

City of Fargo

City of Grand Forks

City of Minot

City of Williston/Upper Lake Sakakawea

Planning Co.

Devils Lake Basin Joint Board

Eastern Dakota Water Users

Economic Development Association of

ND

Garrison Diversion Conservancy District

Greater North Dakota Association

ND County Commissioners Association

North Dakota Association of Rural

Electric Coop.

North Dakota Atmospheric Resource

Board

North Dakota Education Association

North Dakota Farm Bureau

North Dakota Farmers Union

North Dakota Irrigation Caucus

North Dakota League of Cities

North Dakota Municipal Bond Bank

North Dakota Rural Water Systems

Association

North Dakota State Water Commission

North Dakota Water Resource Districts

Association

North Dakota Water Users Association

North Dakota Weather Modification

Association

Red River Joint Water Board

Souris River Joint Water Resource Board

Southwest Water Authority

Three Affiliated Tribes

West River Joint Water Board

Government does a better job of responding to disasters than it does in preparing

for those situations in advance. Those of us involved in water in North Dakota can

easily see that we are facing potential critical water shortages in the Red River Valley in the future. We also can see those areas in the Red River Valley where the

water quality is not fit to drink. It is for these reasons that there is such strong

and broad-based support in North Dakota for the Dakota Water Resources Act, and

the Red River Valley water supply component of that Act.

II. DROUGHT READINESS

Unless you have chosen to put your head in the sand, one cannot help recognize

that many areas of our country have suffered drought conditions over the past few

years far greater than the drought conditions of the 1930’s. During the 1930’s, the

Red River itself, which is the source of water for many of the water supply needs

of the Red River Valley, was completely dry for several extended periods of time.

Not a single drop of water was flowing.

Listen to a recollection of former North Dakota Governor William Guy: 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 were 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

33

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.

When you consider that some areas are experiencing drought conditions worse

than the 1930’s, and you look at the drought conditions in the Red River Valley in

the 1930’s, it is not a question of whether we are going to face those conditions in

the future, but it is only a matter of when. To not be prepared to address such conditions when we know they will occur is extremely poor government. Rather than

responding to a disaster, we should prepare for a certain future, and leave the legacy for our children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren, that we looked into

that past, and learning from the past, satisfied the water supply needs of the future.

That is why we have so strongly supported the Dakota Water Resources Act, and

the provisions of that Act that address the water supply needs of the Red River Valley.

III. RED RIVER VALLEY STUDIES AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

It has been two years since the passage of the Dakota Water Resources Act, and

little of the work called for under that Act to address the water supply needs of the

Red River Valley has been completed. We applaud the Bureau of Reclamation’s thoroughness and meticulous attention to details in its work related to the Northwest

Area Water Supply Project (NAWS), particularly as it relates to the environmental

assessment and the Finding Of No Significant Impact (FONSI) on that project. That

project will likely be able to withstand the legal challenges that it is facing because

of the careful approach utilized by the Bureau of Reclamation. We understand that

thoroughness and carefulness must also be applied by the Bureau of Reclamation

to the Dakota Water Resources Act, and the studies for the water supply needs of

the Red River Valley called for under that Act. Yet, we must also not shirk our duty

due to the threats of nay sayers that would prefer us to do nothing. We must move

forward in a vigorous and aggressive matter, recognizing that the water supply

needs of the Red River Valley are North Dakota’s most critical long-term water supply need.

If you review the demographics of our state, it is easy to see that the Red River

Valley will continue to grow in population. It is estimated that the city of Fargo

itself will be a city of over 20,000 within the next 20 years. Whatever the exact population turns out to be, we do know that the population of the valley, and particularly the city of Fargo, is expanding by leaps and bounds.

We cannot afford to have another government example of long-term delay and inaction. The Corps of Engineers is entering its fourteenth (14th) year of studying the

Missouri River mainstem dam operations master manual. The Bureau of Reclamation must not impose a similar travesty on the people of North Dakota or the Congress, which authorized the Dakota Water Resources Act. A management system

must be developed which allows these important studies to move forward and be

completed, so that the Congress and the state of North Dakota can take the next

step of implementing measures to address the long-term water supply needs of the

Red River Valley.

IV. CONCLUSION

Benjamin Franklin once said ‘‘When the well is dry, we know the worth of water’’.

North Dakotans cannot afford to wait until the well is dry before we address the

water supply needs of the Red River Valley. As I said at the beginning of my testimony, government does a better job of responding to disasters than preparing for

the future, but we know the worth of water, and we must prepare for the future.

On behalf of the North Dakota Water Coalition, and all of the members and organizations participating in that Water Coalition, we do not want to put undue focus

on the delays of the last two years. However, we would like to focus on the critical

nature of this issue, and urge the committee in partnership with the Bureau of Reclamation and the state of North Dakota, to assist in making sure that the next two

years are fruitful in terms of effort in completing the studies that are necessary before long-term measures to address the water supply needs of the Red River Valley

can be implemented.

The Red River Valley needs a dependable water supply for the cities of Fargo,

Grand Forks, smaller communities, rural water systems, industry, ag processing,

manufacturing, and other purposes, to protect and enhance the economic stability

and quality of life for the exploding population in the Red River Basin. Failure to

34

address the water supply needs of the Red River Basin will jeopardize our economic

stability, including industry, ag processing, manufacturing, and municipal growth,

and will adversely affect the lives of people who are suffering from both poor quality

or inadequate quantities of water, as well as the entire state of North Dakota.

Thank you very much.

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

I should say that while I have great angst about the time line

here, I indicated Ms. Bach is a dedicated public servant. The Bureau was very helpful on NAWS, no question about that, and I

think the suit that’s been filed by Canada has no merit.

So if anybody is within listening distance that can dismiss that,

feel free to do it, but I think it has no merit because the Bureau

did what it should have done at the front end of this process. I perhaps should have said that at the start.

But coming back to this issue of the Red River Valley, my great

concern is this potential spreading of the drought could be, as—you

used the word catastrophe, Mr. Dwyer—I think it could be catastrophic for the Red River Valley. This is the one area of the State

that is growing, growing very rapidly. I will just give you a couple

statistics. The demographer for the State says that in 1980, we had

652,000 citizens. He says in the year 2020, we’re going to have

651,000 citizens. In other words, what he’s saying in 40 years, we’ll

have about the same number of people, except Fargo will have

60,000 more people, and Bismarck will have 20,000 more people.

Grand Forks and Minot will have about the same population. So,

the State will have about the State population. The four largest cities, two of them will be unchanged, two of them will be up a combined 80,000, which means the remaining 300,000 people which

live in the 95 percent of the State, there will be a 25 to 30 percent

reduction in population in the next 30 to 40 years. Pretty ominous.

So facing all these challenges, and understanding that the one portion of the State that has really grown is particularly Cass County,

particularly in the Red River Valley, but that growth is dependent

on assured long-term supply of water and the potential of a

drought spreading over a period of years causing catastrophic economic consequences here in the Red River Valley. I think is appropriate for us to say wait a second, we better get moving, we better

get something done. This ought not be business as usual. And

that’s the point I’m making this evening.

Mr. Jamison, you’ve heard the discussion about missed deadlines. I ask the question, was there kind of a fan dance here between the State, the Bureau and the Conservancy District trying

to figure out who was supposed to do what and does that take too

long, or was this just being extra careful?

Mr. JAMISON. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the question. It took

too long, obviously. Who’s to blame? That would be an easy game

to get into.

Let me discuss the process a little bit that has frustrated me. In

negotiating contracts, somebody usually starts the process by putting a piece of paper on the table. Normally, we would assume that

that piece of paper has been cleared, and is ready to negotiate on

it. In too many cases, we have responded to the piece of paper, or

an initial draft of an agreement, commented on it, or comments

have been accepted or largely accepted only to find out that the

basic piece of paper that we started negotiating on has been

35

changed again, or—changed by some other office. And I think, and

maybe I’m a part of the problem because I had so many years of

Federal service. As you know, I was a Federal official, and I was

sued by environmental organizations, many lawsuits, so I’m very

familiar with this process. Maybe too familiar. But one of things

that tends to happen, not just from the Bureau of Reclamation and

lot of Federal agencies, I have worked for several, is you’re negotiating with a back bench that you can’t see. It’s not the person

you’re sitting across the table with, but the person—we’ve sat

across the table. People we sat across from table from are honorable and worked very well with us. What happens to them is that

somebody on the back bench someplace in another office then pulls

the paper back, changes it and leaves the untoward situation of the

person your negotiating with have to come back and start the process all over again.

I’m a firm believer that to make an efficient organization people

to have to be personally accountable. Personally impassioned about

something, and government is another big organization, but it’s not

limited to government. It can happen to any of us. But until you

designate somebody, that person feels it’s personally his or her responsibility to make it happen in a reasonable time frame, the system will take over, and you will just get eaten up slowly but surely

by review after review after review. And what I think is needed is

a passionate person to be dedicated to this job, and to have the authority and the chutzpa, if you will, to go back to the back bench

and say look, we’re already through that.

Senator DORGAN. Mr. Jamison, you have been at this a long

time. Tell me what you think the time estimate is going to be—

what is the real time estimate of when folks here in the Red River

Valley might expect a needs assessment to be completed, and then

expect action to take to respond to the needs assessment?

Mr. JAMISON. In my judgment, 2 years would be the time frame

for a study. Now, there are considerable challenges. Ms. Thompson

has indicated a number of interesting things that we should look

at and we should, but I still think that the engineering work can

be done in 2 years. Now it will require close cooperation. It will require multitasking. We’ll have to do several things at once. We

can’t stop because somebody writes us a nasty letter, and we go

focus on that for a while. We have to keep on going on a lot of different fronts at one time. But from an engineering prospective we

should be able to get the needs and options study and an analysis

of alternative studies in 2 years. Certainly the environmental impact statement that accompanies that should follow closely behind

that.

Senator DORGAN. Mr. Dwyer, I want to ask you and Ms. Thompson both about the subject of conservation because in Ms. Thompson’s testimony, she talked about conservation a fair amount and

it is the case, is it not, that there are several ways to develop new

supplies of water. One is to find a new supply of water and, second

is to conserve water that would otherwise have been used, provided

that you don’t conserve it at the expense of your economy. Tell me

about conservation and your view of conservation as part of this

process.

36

Mr. DWYER. Senator Dorgan, I do disagree with Ms. Thompson’s

statement that we have to look for industry that is less dependent

on water. I think we ought to look for all industry, and there are

some industries that are less dependent on water, and there is

some industry is water-intensive and we ought not to say well, we

are not going to try to develop and solicit those industries that use

a lot of water because that’s only taking half of the whole. I think

we need to develop every possible opportunity that we can in our

economy because we need that. Now, certainly we shouldn’t encourage any wasteful use of water. Certainly we ought to encourage

conservation that involves not wasting water, but it does not, it

does not include limiting our opportunities.

Senator DORGAN. Ms. Thompson, would you agree that getting it

right—we have heard that phrase several times—getting right has

several different meanings? One is doing it the right way, crossing

all the t’s, dotting all the i’s, making sure you covered it all. But,

second, getting it right would also mean getting these things done

in time that Fargo and Grand Forks and the Red River Valley not

be hung out to dry with the encroaching drought that could very

well be catastrophic to their economies, having the opportunity to

put in place some kind of mechanism to assure a water supply before that would happen. Is that also part of getting it right in your

assessment?

Ms. THOMPSON. I think they’re both certainly elements of getting

it right. I think on the former, the idea is if the plans of study and

the overlap between them are undertaken so they’re peer-reviewable, then no one can come back later and say in a letter or a dart

or what have you that was done under cloak of darkness, that was

a relationship that was inappropriate. If those studies are peer-reviewable, i.e., you know, through an institute, or we have a great

university system in the Basin—if the studies themselves stand

alone, then that part of the crossing of the t’s and the i’s obviates

subsequent lawsuits because they’ve already taken all of those

variables.

The other part of getting it right, I think, does tie into at least

my interest in looking at conservation as one avenue. North Carolina was faced until quite recently with a very significant drought,

and they experienced a 20 percent reduction in demand just based

on, you know, conservation measures that the communities could

implement. So, as we look at some of the options, you know, can

we do different lawn kinds of care, a whole host of different things.

My interest, I think, is in getting those conservation strategies

that can address the short-term. Even, no matter what option is

taken, we’re looking at the implementation time frame that you

were asking about. So can we have a first tier? It’s my understanding when you look at ground water based irrigation in the Basin.

Maybe, I think there is precedence for farmers to have a drought

insurance program in areas of severe drought that ensure irrigation allotment can go to municipalities in payment of a drought insurance payment. It’s my wish that through this process we can

identify not just one avenue, but a whole host of complementary

avenues that are either greater or lesser. That might be one.

Again, the interest, my understanding that east of the Red, rather than west of the Red, that’s where a lot of the water stays when

37

we start to dry out on the North Dakota side, so I think it’s identifying, and maybe prioritizing in a temporal way the things that can

be implemented sooner, the things that can be, or should be implemented on a longer scale.

Senator DORGAN. Let me describe why I wanted to hold this

hearing now. I think the Bureau has some very dedicated employees. I have seen a lot of the good work they’ve done. I think the

Conservancy District has good leadership. I have worked with Mr.

Jamison for a long time. I have admiration for Mr. Frink and the

folks at the State Water Commission. So we have a number of different entities involved in this process, and I have respect for all

of them. But it seems to me that you have to have some markers

here in this process, and what I want to do is set the marks here

to figure out where we are going and how we are going to get there

and when we are going to get there. And I held a hearing on trade

about 10 months ago on international trade issues and had Ambassador Johnson in front of me. He told me what he was going to do.

I said I tell you what, I’m going to hold another hearing 6 to 8

months from now, and you’re going to come up here and sit at this

table and we are going to find out what you’ve done. Well, I called

him 2 weeks ago and said you don’t have to do that hearing because you did exactly what you told me you were going to do. But

that happened, I’m convinced, not because he was spending a lot

of time trying to figure out how he should do it, but because he

knew he was going to have to be called to a hearing and answer

to it. And so he got it done.

I want the same thing to happen with this project. The Congress

with great angst passed an authorization bill. It’s not perfect, and

there are people who wish it had never passed. But in that authorization bill, a significant piece, $200 million, and a process which

involved the partnerships determined how we were going to assess

the needs of the Red River Valley and then go about meeting those

needs. That process is not an open-ended process. It’s not out in

Never-Never Land. And the encroaching drought, I think, ought to

persuade all us there is some urgency here.

So, what I’m going to do with this hearing is set some markers.

I know there are many people here from water commissions and

boards throughout the region. I’m going to ask any of you who

wish, you want to have a statement from your particular water

board or commission as a part of this permanent record, feel free

to submit that statement to my office or the Senate Energy Committee within 2 weeks. We’ll make that part of this hearing, and

my hope is that this hearing can establish a record that we can

measure against next year, the year after and the year after that

as we move down this road because this problem is one that begs

or a solution, and it, too, has been going on for some long, long

while. We have a Phase I study, a Phase II study, and now we are

going to duplicate part of that. I understand why all this is going

on. But, still and all, in the end we need to address the proposition

that some day in some way this vibrant part of the State’s economy

could find itself short of water or out of water. If that happens, it

will be ruinous to the economy in this part of North Dakota, and

we should not let that happen. So I want to thank the folks who

have presented testimony this evening, and we will use the results

38

of this hearing and all that you submit between now and the final

two weeks from various parts of our State as the marker by which

we will try to measure next year and the year after that what is

happening here to satisfy the needs—the water needs of the Red

River Valley that’s contemplated in the authorization bill that Congress passed two years ago.

Thank you all for attending. This hearing is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 8:35 p.m. the hearing was adjourned.]

(39)

APPENDIX

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF FARGO MOORHEAD,

Fargo, ND, December 7, 2002.

Senator BYRON DORGAN,

U.S. Senate, Hart Office Building, Washington, DC.

DEAR SENATOR DORGAN: As you know, the Chamber of Commerce of Fargo Moorhead is a bi-state, regional chamber of commerce with more than 1,600 member

firms that collectively employ more than 66,000 people in our region. Our mission

is unifying and advancing business and community interests in our region.

This letter is written to thank you for conducting a field hearing on Monday, December 9th in Fargo to examine the Red River Valley’s water needs and the U.S.

Bureau of Reclamation’s lack of progress on a series of water projects authorized

by the Dakota Water Resources Act, which you sponsored and which our Chamber

has strongly encouraged and supported in the past.

As you know, adequate, available and carefully managed water resources are important to citizens, commerce and communities throughout our region and in fact

across our entire nation. Periods of both drought and deluge have negatively impacted our community and region in the past, adversely affecting our economy, community infrastructure and daily life. They have also had a negative impact on federal, state and local government operations and budgets.

We appreciate your using your position as Chairman of the U.S. Senate Energy

and Natural Resources Subcommittee on Water and Power to conduct this field

hearing and receive testimony from a variety of entities that are concerned about

water resources and water resource issues in the Red River Basin. We also appreciate your efforts to work with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation to encourage the Bureau to improve the Red River Valley’s water supply in the future.

Warm regards always,

DAVID K. MARTIN,

Public Affairs Director.

MOORHEAD PUBLIC SERVICE,

Moorhead, MN, December 20, 2002.

Hon. BYRON DORGAN,

U.S. Senate, Hart Office Building, Washington, DC.

DEAR SENATOR DORGAN: Thank you for conducting the field hearing on Monday,

December 9, 2002, in Fargo, to examine the Red River Valley’s water needs and the

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation’s lack of progress on a series of water projects authorized by the Dakota Water Resources Act. The City of Moorhead believes that addressing the water resource needs of the Red River Valley is extremely important

for the future economy of this region.

You mentioned at the December 9 hearing that you were accepting statements for

the record for the Red River Valley water needs. Attached is the presentation from

Mayor Mark Voxland of the City of Moorhead, along with a resolution from the

Moorhead City Council which address the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation’s Red River

Valley Supply Project. Moorhead supports having Minnesota communities in the

Red River Valley included in future studies and projects for water resource needs

addressed in the Dakota Water Resources Act.

Moorhead is working very hard to ensure a sufficient supply of water for its economy well into the future. Please enter Mayor Mark Voxland’s presentation and the

Moorhead City Council’s resolution into the record. We appreciate your work as

chairman of the U.S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on Water

40

and Power. We also appreciate that you conducted the field hearing and received

testimonies on the issue of water resources in the Red River Valley.

Thank you for all you do for this region.

Sincerely,

BILL SCHWANDT, PE MBA,

General Manager.

PRESENTATION FOR THE RED RIVER VALLEY WATER SUPPLY PROJECT ENVIRONMENT

IMPACT STATEMENT SCOPING MEETING

October 28, 2002

To participants of the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation’s Red River Valley Water Supply Project. My name is Mayor Mark Voxland. I am the Mayor of Moorhead, Minnesota. I would like to thank you for the opportunity to speak to you this evening

on an issue that is very important to the city of Moorhead. We would like to have

the comments and the resolution that I will provide submitted for your consideration as you work on this Environmental Impact Statement of the Red River Valley

Water Supply Project.

I read on the front cover of the Red River Valley Water Needs Assessment, Phase

II, the mission of the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. That mission is to, ‘‘manage, develop, and protect water and related resources in an environmentally and economically sound manner in the interest of the American public.’’ It disturbs me when

I read through the Volume 1, Issue 1, Red River Valley Water Supply Project Environmental Impact Statement Newsletter, November 2002, and find that any reference to the previously included communities in Minnesota are absent.

It is my understanding that Minnesota communities of Moorhead, Breckenridge,

and East Grand Forks were included in the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Red River

Valley Water Needs Assessment, Phase II, Appraisal of Alternatives to Meet Project

Shortages report. On Page 2-10, in Table 2.6, ‘‘Shortages for Cities, Industries and

Rural Systems in the Red River Valley,’’ included Moorhead with the reference to

a 1934 shortage and a cumulative 54-year shortage during the study period of

24,870 acre-feet.

Moorhead is working very hard to supply water for its economy well into the future. In 1995, Moorhead completed a new water treatment facility that strategically

shifted its resources away from taking water from our Buffalo Aquifer in order to

reserve that water for periods of long-term drought. Therefore, Moorhead takes approximately 80 percent of its water from the Red River of the North. Moorhead has

worked extremely hard to develop measures to protect he sensitive Buffalo Aquifer.

Moorhead, like the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, is looking 10 years into the future

when Moorhead has grown and there is more demand for its water apply resources.

The Phase II report shows significant shortages under either the U.S. Bureau of

Reclamation’s or Moorhead’s and other participants’ year 2050 projections. This is

the concern of Moorhead.

The significant concern of Moorhead, at this time, is the fact that Moorhead and

other Minnesota communities could be eliminated from further studies of the Garrison Diversion Project. Moorhead believes that it would be very unfortunate when

the Missouri River project is finally completed and Moorhead may not be able to

receive water from that project for future economic growth of all Red River Valley

communities on both sides of the Red River.

As I mentioned previously, at the present time Moorhead has enough water for

normal growth, even in a drought situation because of the strategic efforts that will

continue into the future. Moorhead, however, does believe that future economic development efforts to attract business and industry into our community will require

water supplies that are greater than what we currently have. The Missouri River

water is a water supply necessity for Moorhead.

Finally, Moorhead shares the Red River of the North as a water supply resource

with other Minnesota and North Dakota communities. The city of Moorhead is very

concerned about water resources for the existing and future municipal and industrial water uses. We have plans in place to use water in the most efficient manner.

Moorhead is part of the Red River Valley. Moorhead believes that it, and other Minnesota Red River Valley communities, should be included in the Red River Valley

Water Supply Project and other studies subsequent to studies that are being proposed.

Therefore, as the Mayor of Moorhead and along with the Moorhead City Council,

we request that the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, once again, include the Minnesota

communities in the Red River Valley Water Supply Project. I have a resolution from

the Moorhead City Council and me, which I would like to submit to you.

41

Once again, thank you for the opportunity to speak to you about this issue. We

ask that you will take our comments very seriously. If there are any questions or

concerns, I encourage you to please contact me.

RESOLUTION

WHEREAS, the development of a reliable water supply for the Red River Valley

has been a subject of great interest to Red River Valley residents of both eastern

North Dakota and western Minnesota, government agencies, and entities concerned

with water management and development; and

WHEREAS, although rivers in the Red River Valley are prone to flooding and excessive runoff, there are also periods of low flow and drought conditions; and

WHEREAS, Moorhead and other Minnesota communities in the Red River Valley

are vital to the success of the region and provide resources for the regional economy;

and

WHEREAS, in 1994, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation began a planning study

called the Red River Valley Water Needs Assessment to investigate and evaluate

existing and future municipal, rural, and industrial water use in the Red River Valley communities; and

WHEREAS, from 1994 to 2000, Moorhead, East Grand Forks, and Breckenridge

were included in the study; and

WHEREAS, Phase II of the Red River Valley Water Needs Assessment included

water needs and several alternatives to meet the needs of both eastern North Dakota and western Minnesota communities in the Red River Valley; and

WHEREAS, the Dakota Water Resources Act of 2000 (DWRA) was signed into law

on December 21, 2000, which authorizes the Red River Valley Water Supply Project;

and

WHEREAS, Section 8 (b)(1) of Public Law 106 554 states ‘‘The Secretary of the

Interior shall conduct a comprehensive study of the water quality and quantity

needs of the Red River Valley in North Dakota (emphasis added) and possible options for meeting those needs’’; and

WHEREAS, a 2002 Memorandum of Understanding was developed between the

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and the State of North Dakota for implementation of

the DWRA; and

WHEREAS, Minnesota cities in the Red River Valley were removed from the Red

River Valley Water Supply Project in both the DWRA and in the 2002 Memorandum

of Understanding; and

WHEREAS, Moorhead and other communities have been asked to provide comments at the Public Scoping meeting in Fargo, North Dakota, on October 28, 2002,

to discuss the Red River Valley Water Supply Project Environmental Impact Statement; and

WHEREAS, Moorhead shares the Red River as a water supply resource with

other Minnesota and North Dakota communities; and

WHEREAS, the City of Moorhead is very concerned about water resources for the

existing and future municipal and industrial water use in the city; and

WHEREAS, the City of Moorhead believes it and other Minnesota Red River Valley communities should be included in the Red River Valley Water Supply Project,

and

WHEREAS, the Eastern Dakota Water Users Group has similar concerns regarding Minnesota being removed from the Red River Valley Water Supply Project.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mayor and City Council of the

City of Moorhead request the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation to, once again, include

the Minnesota communities in the Red River Valley Water Supply Project.

PASSED by the City Council of the City of Moorhead this 21st day of October,

2002.

APPROVED BY:

/s/ Mark Voxland

————————————————

MARK VOXLAND, Mayor

ATTEST:

/s/ Kaye E. Buchholz

—————————————————

KAYE E. BUCHHOLZ, City Clerk

(SEAL)

42

STATEMENT OF GARY L. PEARSON, D.V.M., JAMESTOWN, ND

According to the December 4, 2002, news release regarding the Senate Committee

on Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on Water and Power’s December

9, 2002, hearing on ‘‘Red River Valley Water Needs,’’ the stated purpose of the hearing was:

‘‘To examine the Red River Valley’s water needs and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation’s lack of progress on a series of water projects authorized by the Dakota Water Resources Act.’’

Subcommittee Chairman Senator Byron Dorgan of North Dakota was quoted in

the release as stating that:

‘‘The Bureau of Reclamation is failing to meet its obligation to improve the

Red River Valley’s water supply. Today, the Bureau is a full four years behind

schedule on the Red River Valley studies it is required to complete.

The delays by the Bureau will not go unchallenged. In this hearing, I want

to hold the Bureau’s feet to the fire and get action on these Red River Valley

water studies.’’

It may be appropriate, therefore, to review the history of the Red River Valley

water studies to which Subcommittee Chairman Dorgan refers in order to understand better some of the factors contributing to their delay.

MISINFORMATION REGARDING RED RIVER VALLEY WATER NEEDS

One of the principal factors contributing to delays in the identification of Red

River Valley water needs and alternatives for meeting those needs has been the frequent dissemination of misinformation regarding those needs and alternatives by

proponents of the Garrison Diversion Unit and other North Dakota water development interests.

The Promise of Water for the Red River Valley

After the Dakota Water Resources Act of 2000 was passed in the closing minutes of the 106th Congress as a rider on the $450 billion Fiscal Year 2001 Labor and

Health and Human Services Appropriations bill, North Dakota Senator Kent

Conrad declared that:

‘‘The DWRA was the first Garrison plan written by North Dakotans for North

Dakotans and is a realistic plan to complete this project.’’ (Conrad, 2001)

Six months later, a story in The Jamestown Sun reported:

‘‘Fargo and the rest of the Red River Valley have been waiting 50 years for

Garrison Diversion to bring Missouri River water east.’’ (Cole, 2001)

It should be noted, however, that the Garrison Diversion Unit authorized in 1965

included, in addition to 250,000 acres of federal irrigation development, municipal

water supplies for 14 towns in eastern North Dakota, but the only one in the Red

River Basin was Pekin, with a 1970 population of 120, located near the Sheyenne

River in northeastern North Dakota. The original Garrison Diversion Unit did not

include water supplies for Fargo or any other cities in the Red River Valley. In fact,

it was only after a lawsuit by the National Audubon Society forced a reevaluation

of the project in 1977 that Fargo (but not Grand Forks) was eventually identified

as a ‘‘potential municipal water user’’ from the project.

The Garrison Diversion Unit Reformulation Act of 1986 authorized a ‘‘Sheyenne

River water supply and release facility . . . capable of delivering 100 cubic feet per

second of water for the cities of Fargo and Grand Forks and surrounding communities,’’ but the authorization was not based on a comprehensive study of municipal

water needs and options for meeting those needs, or the feasibility of such a facility.

It was not until 1993 when, at the request and with the agreement of the Governor of North Dakota and the North Dakota Congressional Delegation (Schafer et

al., 1993), the Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation established a North Dakota Water Management Collaborative Process involving all stakeholders to identify

the contemporary water needs of the State that a comprehensive study of the future

water needs of the Red River Valley was initiated. However, when it became evident

that the Collaborative Process would not endorse the completion of the Garrison Diversion project to deliver Missouri River water to the Red River Valley, the North

Dakota Congressional Delegation withdrew from the process, stating that:

‘‘We need to agree on proposed changes to the current authorized Garrison

Diversion Project in North Dakota . . .

. . . we intend to make a fresh start to collaborate in a way that produces

concurrence among all of the interests in North Dakota. We intend to produce

43

consensus legislation that we will introduce in Congress to modify the Garrison

Diversion Unit Reformulation Act.’’ (Dorgan et al., 1994)

Although the North Dakota Water Management Collaborative Process collapsed

when the North Dakota Congressional Delegation withdrew in 1994, the Bureau of

Reclamation, with the active participation of a representative of the National Wildlife Federation representing other stakeholders on the study’s Technical Steering

Team, continued the appraisal level Red River Valley Water Needs Assessment

study that had been initiated under the Collaborative Process.

The Debt Owed to North Dakota

North Dakota’s political leaders frequently dismiss the absence of a demonstrated

need for additional water supplies for cities in the Red River Valley by claiming

that, in equity, the State is owed a Red River Valley water supply project in payment for lands flooded by the Oahe and Garrison dams on the Missouri River, e.g.:

‘‘When the Garrison Dam and Reservoir were built to provide downstream

protection and to safeguard navigation, the state lost 500,000 acres of prime

farm land, a major part of its economic base.’’ (Dorgan, 1998)

However, of the 462,000 acres of land in North Dakota actually inundated by the

Oahe and Garrison reservoirs, only 108,300 acres were cropland (Fish and Wildlife

Service, 1952; Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, 1960). The impact on North

Dakota’s economic base can be appreciated by considering that the entire 551,706

acres acquired for the reservoirs is only 1.2 percent of the total land base of the

State. Moreover, North Dakota already receives $130,200,000 annually in flood control ($1,400,000), hydropower ($80,300,000), water supply ($28,500,000) and recreation ($20,000,000) benefits from the Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program under

which the Garrison and Oahe dams and the Garrison Diversion Unit were authorized (Bureau of Reclamation, 1996). This is equivalent to an average of over $1,200

per acre per year for the 108,300 acres of cropland inundated in North Dakota by

the Garrison and Oahe reservoirs. These annual benefits are 30 percent more than

the 1997 market value of the State’s best agricultural land in the Red River Valley

(MacDonald, 1998).

The Imminent Threat of Drought

The Subcommittee has been told that a drought even more severe than the 1930s

‘‘Dust Bowl’’ is imminent and that any delay in completing studies of Red River Valley water needs will be seen as deadly to the people and would shut down the economy of the Valley and destroy their hopes for the future. Such dire predictions certainly warrant careful examination.

First, it should be noted that the Governor of North Dakota, the North Dakota

Congressional Delegation, the State Water Commission, the Garrison Diversion

Conservancy District, the North Dakota Water Users Association and other water

development interests who are calling for acceleration of the Red River Valley Water

Supply Study and Red River Valley Water Supply Project Environmental Impact

Statement because of the urgency of protecting cities in the Valley from the impacts

of drought are the same ones who are promoting the construction of an outlet from

Devils Lake to the Sheyenne River, a tributary of the Red River, on the assumption

that the record levels of precipitation that occurred from 1993 to 1999 will continue

until at least 2014 (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2002; Schmidt, 2002). Obviously,

it is not credible to promote a Red River Valley Water Supply Project on the urgency

of impending drought while at the same time promoting a Devils Lake outlet on the

urgency of on-going flooding.

Second, Fargo has an allocation of 56.1 percent, and Grand Forks has an allocation of 31.3 percent, of the water in Lake Ashtabula, which was constructed on the

Sheyenne River in 1951 (Bureau of Reclamation, 1998). The reservoir has a total

storage capacity of 68,000 acre-feet at a pool elevation of 1266.0 feet above mean

sea level, with 38,000 acre-feet of storage between a minimum pool elevation of 1257

feet and 1266 feet (Bureau of Reclamation, 1998). Therefore, Fargo has an allocation

of at least 21,000 acre-feet and up to 38,000 acre-feet of water from Lake Ashtabula.

This would meet Fargo’s current water demands for 1.5-2.5 years if there were no

additional flows in either the Red or Sheyenne rivers—something that did not occur

even in the 1930s. However, in the 50 years since the reservoir was constructed,

Fargo has tapped its Lake Ashtabula supply only a few times to meet brief minor

shortages, such as occurred occasionally during the 1988-1992 drought, and Grand

Forks has never used its allocation.

Third, information from the Bureau of Reclamation’s appraisal level Red River

Valley Water Needs Assessment shows that, even if Fargo’s population should double to 192,000 (which is not expected to occur until 2050) and four new hypothetical

44

high water use agricultural processing industries were to locate in the Red River

Valley, significant municipal water shortages would not develop unless another

1930s style drought were to occur (Bureau of Reclamation, 2000). Moreover, implementation of drought contingency measures could reduce the projected 115,000 acrefeet year 2050 Red River Valley total municipal and industrial water demand by at

least 30 percent, or 38,000 acre-feet, which would be more than sufficient to eliminate the 32,650 acre-feet greatest annual municipal shortages even in another 1930s

style drought (Bureau of Reclamation, 2000).

Fourth, if a severe drought is, in fact, imminent, even if construction of a Red

River Valley Water Supply Project were begun immediately, it would not be completed in time to avoid the need to implement water conservation and drought contingency measures. And, as information from the Bureau’s Red River Valley Water

Needs Assessment shows, implementation of those measures would eliminate the

need for a Red River Valley Water Supply Project.

Consequently, not only is there no credible evidence that a severe drought is imminent in the Red River Valley, but the available evidence shows that the implementation of water conservation and drought contingency measures would be sufficient to eliminate any significant impacts on the people or the economy of the Red

River Valley.

UNDUE INFLUENCE OF GARRISON DIVERSION UNIT PROPONENTS

The second major factor that has contributed to delays in the Red River Valley

Water Supply Study and Environmental Impact Statement has been the repeated

and continuing attempts by proponents of the Garrison Diversion Unit and diversion

of Missouri River water to the Red River Valley to exert undue influence over the

studies.

The Red River Valley Water Needs Assessment that was initiated under the 1993

North Dakota Water Management Collaborative Process included participation by

various stakeholder groups. However, before the study had been completed in August 2000, the Bureau of Reclamation’s Area Manager, the North Dakota State Engineer and the Manager of the Garrison Diversion Conservancy District had, without informing other stakeholders, negotiated and signed a Memorandum of Understanding that established a three-member Study Management Team composed of

representatives of those agencies to direct and supervise a feasibility level study of

alternatives to meet future municipal, rural and industrial water needs in eastern

North Dakota.

The Dakota Water Resources Act of 2000, which was not passed until six months

later, specifies, however, that:

‘‘The Secretary of the Interior shall conduct a comprehensive study of the

water quality and quantity needs of the Red River Valley in North Dakota and

possible options for meeting those needs.’’ (Emphasis added) (DWRA Section

8[b][1]).

and that:

‘‘In conducting the study, the Secretary, through an open and public process

shall solicit input from gubernatorial designees from the states that may be affected by possible options to meet such needs as well as designees from other

federal agencies with relevant expertise.’’ (DWRA Section 8[b][3])

The Act also specifies that:

‘‘. . . the Secretary and the State of North Dakota shall jointly prepare and

complete a draft environmental impact statement concerning all feasible options

to meet the comprehensive water quality and quantity needs of the Red River

Valley and options for meeting those needs, including the delivery of Missouri

River water to the Red River Valley.’’ (DWRA Section 8[c][2])

Despite the fact that Senator Dorgan, in congressional debate on the Dakota

Water Resources Act, had noted that the bill lays out a process for meeting the

water needs of the Red River Valley and pointed out specifically that:

‘‘First, the Secretary of the Interior will identify these needs and evaluate options for meeting them.’’ (Congressional Record, Senate S10534, October 13,

2000)

The Red River Valley Water Supply Study and Environmental Impact Statement

were initiated immediately after the Dakota Water Resources Act was passed under

the direction and control of the same Study Management Team consisting of the Bureau’s Area Manager, the State Engineer and the Manager of the Garrison Diversion Conservancy District that had been established by the July 2000 Memorandum

45

of Understanding. Both the Garrison Diversion Conservancy District (North Dakota

Century Code § 61-24-01) and the North Dakota State Water Commission (North

Dakota Century Code § 61-01-26.1) are mandated by statute to promote the completion of the Garrison Diversion Unit and the delivery of Missouri River water to the

Red River Valley.

On April 20, 2001, Daniel P. Beard, Chief Operating Officer of the National Audubon Society, sent a letter to the Great Plains Regional Director of the Bureau (Attachment No. 1) pointing out that:

‘‘To the best of our knowledge, the MOU, which predates DWRA by more than

5 months, involved neither disclosure nor public participation prior to or during

its development. As far as we know, this document never saw the ‘light of day’

until after the DWRA was enacted . . .

The MOU presumes to create a Study Management Team (SMT) comprised

of one official each appointed from the GDCD, SWC, and BOR. The SMT is then

referred to as a ‘partnership’ implying that the traditional project proponents

have two out of three votes on matters deliberated by SMT. The Framework

[February 15, 2001, Framework for Red River Valley Water Supply Study] is replete with unwarranted and excessive assignments of the responsibilities of the

Secretary to the SMT. Among other things, the Framework states that the

‘MOU created a partnership among the three parties to direct completion of necessary studies and to oversee the preparation of reports to Congress’ (emphasis

added). Even worse, the signors have assigned themselves decision-making responsibilities. For example, ‘The Study Management Team will be responsible

for overall guidance, scheduling, report concurrence (sic), financial issues, and

major decision-making activities on difficult issues’ (Framework, page 4).’’. . .

We urge that you carefully review all the documents that have been entered

into with respect to this work and make an independent determination that

they comply with all applicable laws and policies, and that they will help promote impartiality for all the studies to be undertaken . . .

If there is to be an SMT, it should be clarified that the responsibility for decision-making remains with the Secretary not with outside parties. If there is to

be an SMT, it should be advisory only . . .’’

Although Mr. Beard addressed his letter to the Regional Director, the initial response came, not from the Bureau of Reclamation, but from the Manager of the Garrison Diversion Conservancy District (Attachment No. 2), thus further confirming

the preponderant role assumed by Conservancy District in the Red River Valley

water supply studies authorized by the Dakota Water Resources Act of 2000. However, Mr. Jamison’s response did not address the fundamental issue raised by Mr.

Beard regarding the assignment of responsibilities reserved to the Secretary to a

Study Management Team dominated by those having a statutory mandate to promote completion of the Garrison Diversion Unit and the diversion of water from the

Missouri River to the Red River Valley.

In her July 23, 2001, response to Mr. Beard (Attachment No. 3), the Regional Director said:

‘‘Some of the issues you raised are legitimate, especially because the MOU

was developed under the authority of the 1986 Garrison Diversion Unit Reformulation Act. However, as the DWRA is very specific in certain provisions, the

MOU may not accurately reflect the intent of the Congress. Therefore, I am revisiting the MOU and Framework with respect to the DWRA. Ultimately, I assure you that we are committed to a full and open process which invites the

meaningful participation of all stakeholders. I further assure you that the decision making authority will remain solely with the Secretary of the Interior as

provided in the DWRA or other relevant statutes such as the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). This includes both process decisions, such as the appropriate application of NEPA, as well as final decisions such as selecting a preferred alternative for the FEIS.’’

In her August 15, 2002, letter to Mr. Beard (Attachment No. 4), the Regional Director reported that the Study Management Team for the Red River Valley Water

Supply Study and Environmental Impact Statement had been abolished and the

July 2000 Memorandum of Understanding was being replaced. She indicated that

the Red River Valley Water Supply Study would instead be conducted by the Bureau, and that the Environmental Impact Statement would be prepared jointly by

the Secretary and the State of North Dakota, as specified by the Dakota Water Resources Act.

The revised Memorandum of Understanding (Attachment No. 5) deals only with

the joint preparation by the Secretary and the State of North Dakota of the EnviVerDate 11-SEP-98 13:01 Mar 07, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 J:\DOCS\85-416 SENERGY3 PsN: SENERGY3
46

ronmental Impact Statement for the Red River Valley Water Supply Project. The

revised Memorandum of Understanding states in Section VI. Primary Contacts that:

‘‘The Governor of the State of North Dakota has authorized the GDCD [Garrison Diversion Conservancy District] to be the State’s primary contact to serve

as co-lead for North Dakota on the EIS.’’

However, as is pointed out in the attached October 7, 2002, letter to the Bureau

of Reclamation (Attachment No. 6), the Constitution of the State of North Dakota

specifies that:

‘‘The governor shall transact and supervise all necessary business of the state

with the United States, the other states, and the officers and officials of the

state.’’

As the letter notes, there is no statutory provision for the Garrison Diversion Conservancy District to represent the State of North Dakota, or for the Governor to

‘‘transact and supervise’’ business with the United States through the Conservancy

District. The letter goes on to point out that State Water Commission has statutory

authority to represent the interests of the State in dealing with the Federal Government, but North Dakota Century Code § 23-01-01-02 explicitly provides that:

‘‘The state department of health is the primary state environmental agency.’’

On October 18, 2002, the Regional Director forwarded the letter to the Office of

the Governor of North Dakota for a response, but the revised Memorandum of Understanding was signed on November 6, 2002, without a response having been received from the Governor addressing the ineligibility of the Garrison Diversion Conservancy District to represent the State in jointly preparing the Environmental Impact Statement for the Red River Valley Water Supply Project. Six weeks later, a

response still has not been received.

Not only does the designation of the Garrison Diversion Conservancy District to

represent the State of North Dakota in jointly preparing the Environmental Impact

Statement for the Red River Valley Water Supply Project reflect continued undue

influence by proponents of the Garrison Diversion Unit, but the designation of an

ineligible agency to represent the State leaves the process open to question and the

Environmental Impact Statement it produces open to challenge, thus potentially resulting in further delays in completing the Red River Valley water studies.

CONCLUSION

The dissemination of misleading information regarding Red River Valley water

needs by proponents of the diversion of Missouri River water to the Red River Valley and their persistent attempts to exert undue influence over studies of Red River

Valley water needs not only undermine their credibility and raise significant questions about their motive, but these activities also create serious impediments to the

completion of an objective, scientifically sound evaluation of Red River Valley water

needs and options for meeting those needs. It is important, therefore, for the Subcommittee on Water and Power to exercise its oversight authority to assure that the

Bureau of Reclamation conducts its studies of Red River Valley water needs in an

open and professional manner that will assure the thorough and unbiased products

that the Congress expects and the citizens of the Red River Valley deserve.

REFERENCES

Bureau of Reclamation. 1996. Overview of Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program (PSMBP) Benefits. Summary of Information contained in the Corps of Engineers’

Missouri River Draft Environmental Impact Statement, July, 1994.

Bureau of Reclamation. 1998. Red River Valley Water Needs Assessment, Phase I

Part A: MR&I Appraisal Report. U.S. Department of the Interior.

Bureau of Reclamation. 2000. Red River Valley Water Needs Assessment, Phase II.

Appraisal of Alternatives to Meet Projected Shortages. U.S. Department of the

Interior.

Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife. 1960. A Plan for Fish and Wildlife Resources of the Oahe Reservoir, North Dakota and South Dakota. Report Prepared by the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Missouri Basin Studies,

Billings, Montana, in Cooperation With the North Dakota Game and Fish Department and the South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Minneapolis, Minnesota.

Cole, Janell. 2001. Garrison water to Fargo: ‘‘Closer than we’ve ever been.’’ The

Jamestown Sun, July 30, p. 5.

Conrad, Kent. 2001. Victory! North Dakota Water, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 5-7.

47

Dorgan, Byron L. 1998. Testimony of U.S. Senator Byron L. Dorgan, House Resources Committee. September 29. 5 pp.

Dorgan, Byron L., Kent Conrad and Earl Pomeroy. 1994. Letter to Michael

Whittington, Area Manager, Bureau of Reclamation, Bismarck, North Dakota.

2 pp.

Fish and Wildlife Service. 1952. A Report on Development of Wildlife and Fishery

Resources for Garrison Reservoir, North Dakota. U.S. Department of the Interior, Billings, Montana.

MacDonald, John. 1998. Land values rise in ’97 despite dismal crop year. The

Jamestown Sun (Jamestown, North Dakota). May 6.

Schafer, Edward T., Kent Conrad, Byron Dorgan and Earl Pomeroy. 1993. Letter

to Bruce Babbitt, Secretary, U.S. Department of the Interior. November 12. 12

pp.

Schmidt, Helmut. 2002. Delegation reports breakthrough in getting outlet for Devils

Lake. The Forum (Fargo, North Dakota). July 30.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2002. Draft Devils Lake North Dakota Integrated

Planning Report and Environmental Impact Statement. St. Paul District, St.

Paul Minnesota.

STATEMENT OF TEX G. HALL, CHAIRMAN, MANDAN, HIDATSA AND ARIKARA NATION

(THREE AFFILIATED TRIBES)

Dosha! (Hello). Thank you for the opportunity to present testimony today concerning ‘‘Red River Water Needs’’. As you know, I am the Chairman of the Three Affiliated Tribes, located in northwest North Dakota. I apologize to the Committee and

to everyone present that I am unable to be here today due to prior commitments.

INTRODUCTION

One may ask what interest the Mandan, Hidatsa and Arikara Nation has in the

water needs of the Red River Valley. However, anyone familiar with the history of

North Dakota, and in particular, the history of the Pick-Sloan project and later, the

Garrison Diversion project. and its relationship to the Indian tribes along the Missouri River, may understand our interest in this matter. Nevertheless, a bit of background would be helpful.

The original goals of the Pick-Sloan project, conceived in the 1930’s, were to control flooding along the Missouri, provide for electricity generation, provide for irrigation and later, provide for additional recreational opportunities for North Dakotans.

Our Tribe understands those goals. There are seven principal reservoirs behind the

seven dams that make up the principal features of this project.

Each of those reservoirs greatly affected the Indian tribes whose reservations and

ancient homelands were along the Missouri River. As one of our former Chairman

has put it, Carl Whitman, the dams seemed placed so that the maximum impact

of the permanent flooding caused by the dams would be on the Indian reservations.

At no other place was a Tribe more greatly affected than behind the Garrison

Dam, which created a reservoir ironically known as Lake Sakakawea, in honor of

the famous Lewis and Clark guide who originated from our Tribe. That Tribe was

the Mandan, Hidatsa and Ankara Nation, the homeland of my people.

Prior to the Garrison Dam being built, we still had a small part of what had been

our homelands, along the Missouri River, our ‘‘holy grandfather’’ as it was known

to us. The rich bottom lands along the river provided us wood for fuel, let us tend

our animals and raise our crops. We were generally self sufficient.

But that all changed forever with the Garrison Dam, which submerged 156,000

acres of our most important asset, our land, under water. 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.

Despite how we have been affected by, and despite how much we have suffered

from the Garrison Dam, we also understand that a secondary goal of the Pick-Sloan

project, and one that has been fundamentally important to North Dakota, has been

the diversion of water from the Missouri, the water that makes up Lake Sakakawea,

to the eastern part of North Dakota to satisfy long-standing water shortages there.

We are well aware of the history of the ‘‘Garrison Diversion Project’’. as it generally

is known’’ and will not repeat it here. Despite a recent opinion issued by the North

Dakota Attorney General declaring that Lake Sakakawea is not within our reservation boundaries, an opinion which makes no sense given the history of our reservation, because we also depend on water from Lake Sakakawea in many ways, as will

be discussed a bit more below, we remain vitally interested in this diversion effort.

48

It should be emphasized that in the past, we have supported the Garrison Diversion Project reformulation acts as they have been enacted by Congress; going back

at least to the 1986 Act. This has been, in part, because within those statutes, the

rural water needs of the Three Affiliated Tribes, as well as other Tribes in North

Dakota, have been provided through the authorizations for appropriations provided

in those Acts’’ most recently the Dakota Water Resources Act of 2000.

THE INTERESTS OF THE THREE AFFILIATED TRIBES IN WATER FROM THE MISSOURI

Our interests in the Garrison Diversion project are several:

1. We want to ensure that in any diversion of water to the eastern part of

North Dakota, our ‘‘Winters doctrine’’ water rights are recognized;

2. We want to ensure that any diversion of water to the eastern part of North

Dakota does not unduly affect water levels of Lake Sakakawea, because we depend on for our water source, and because we, too, have interests in recreational sites along the lake which depend, in part, on sufficient water levels

for their success.

3. We are also sensitive to the needs of our Indian relatives to the north, in

Manitoba, who have made it clear to myself and other Tribal leaders from

North Dakota that they are concerned about the possible effects untreated

water could have on their fishing, on which they rely in part for their subsistence.

With these concerns in mind, we have not changed our support of the overall

goals of the Garrison Diversion project, to provide water during times of drought

to the Red River Valley. I would like to discuss our concerns a bit more.

1. ‘‘Winters Doctrine’’ Water Rights

The ‘‘Winters Doctrine’’, based on a famous case decided early in the past century,

basically states that when a water course, or river, goes through or alongside a reservation that has historically used water from that river, that Indian Tribe has

paramount, or first rights to the water in the river. Through various additional decisions and Congressional statutes, Tribes may quantify those water rights, and must

show how they will use the water to which they claim ‘‘paramount rights’’.

The Three Affiliated Tribes have not sought judicial action to quantify their rights

to the Missouri River’s waters that flow through their reservation. But, simply because we have not quantified our Winters doctrine rights to the waters of the Missouri does not imply that those rights are not paramount when it comes to manipulation of the lake levels behind the dams that have so seriously impacted the Missouri River tribes. We have repeatedly asked that Congress recognize those rights

as plans for the Garrison Diversion project go forward.

One argument seems to be that because the rivers flow is so large, our Mandan,

Hidatsa and Ankara Nation cannot possibly claim enough of the water of the river

to have an impact on water levels, or to have an impact on the amount of water

that is proposed to be used in the Red River Valley. That is a tremendously uncertain assumption to make. The entire river flow has once been used by the tribes

to sustain their way of life. There exists no reason now to suggest that the entire

river flow is still not necessary for the tribes to regain some semblance of an economy which supports their needs.

2. Affect on Water Levels

A practical example of this is the recreational needs of the Mandan, Hidatsa and

Arikara Nation. Maintaining the level of Lake Sakakawea at certain elevations is

critical to improving recreational opportunities for the Tribe along the extensive

part of the shoreline in which it has an interest. Keeping lake levels high enough

for recreational interests to thrive is, for all intents and purposes, the exercise of

a fundamental Winters doctrine right and becomes critically important during years

of drought that we are now experiencing and, during the upcoming years of the

Lewis and Clark Bicentennial Celebration during the years 2003-2006. Without adequate lake levels, the business ventures of the Tribe and its members will simply

not realize their potential.

Recommendation

We recognize that we cannot control drought situations, which is certainly one the

things that the Garrison Diversion project is intended to remedy for the Red River

Valley. But we also do not want our interests in this matter to be forgotten. Therefore, we urge that in all future planning efforts for the Garrison Diversion project

that a representative of our Nation be included. Generally, we have had some representation as the legislation has gone forward through Congress. But now that legVerDate 11-SEP-98 13:01 Mar 07, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 J:\DOCS\85-416 SENERGY3 PsN: SENERGY3
49

islation has in fact passed Congress, we believe we must continue to be a part of

the planning effort for the completion of the long-awaited project, on a governmentto-government basis.

3. Affect on Water Quality in Manitoba

As I mentioned, I visited several years ago with Tribes in Manitoba about their

concerns regarding water quality and the affect that the introduction of biota that

are unknown to the Red River of the North. The Red River empties in part into a

very large wetlands and lake system in Manitoba, and many tribes depend on the

fish and other wildlife of that system. While these issues are not generally within

the control of the Three Affiliated Tribes, we simply express our interest in making

sure that the concerns that have been raised are satisfied to the maximum extent

practicable.

SUMMARY

We believe that all of the above concerns we have raised can be resolved satisfactorily for all parties. But to the extent that Red River Valley water needs will be

met by diversion of water from the Missouri River basin, we request that we continue to be involved so that our interests in the protection the water in Lake

Sakakawea can be met. We request that we be included in these continuing discussions, by both the State of North Dakota and the Federal government, on a government-to-government basis, and that we be notified when important meetings are

held regarding how water will be diverted from Lake Sakakawea to the Red River

Valley.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to testify. If you have questions,

I would pleased to submit written answers to questions you may submit to me in

writing after this hearing to be included in the record.

Æ