Date: 1983-11-09
Speaker: JACK ANDERSON (democrat)
Chamber: S

United Features Syndicate New York. N.Y. DEAR JACK: I am glad that you are Interested in the Garrison Diversion Project. I will send two 1983 publications uhfch will assist you and your aides in putting the project In perspective. As at former Governor of North Dakota. 19611973. 1 have been deeply interested In all the states natural resources including water and thle environment. November 9. 1.983 The Garrison Diversion story started in the Flood Control Act of 1944. Congress said to North Dakota. "Let thle 10state PickSloan Plan permanently flood 550.000 acres of your Missouri River bottomland to prevent flood damage and enhance navigation in downstream states. and we will offset your permanent loss by Increasing farm production on one million North Dakota acres by irrigating them with Mlissouri River water." North Dakota reluctantly agreed to give uip forever nearly all of its. mnre than a half million acres of irrigable Missouri River bottomland. Congress did not keep its word. but cut the project down to 250.000 when they funded the startup in 1965. None of these acres are on the Canadian border. The project cost at that time was less than $500 million. Downstream Interests have always openly and covertly opposed upstream Missouri River water diversion. When they were unable to prevent the 1965 funding of thle Garrison Projects start by Congress. they resorted to a whole array of covert attacks to undermind the Public confidence in thle project. Their activity enlisted environmentalists. outofstate duck hunters. Canadian politiclans. and local farmers who would lose some farm land to ditches. They have now come out in the open and the states of Missouri. Iowa. and Nebraska are challenging in court South Dakotas right to sell 50.000 acre feet of Missouri River water to the ETSI Pipeline Company. Well meaning news people have been taken in by the shrill rhetoricmostly from outside North Dakota. that oppose the Project. If downstream states will go to court to prevent 50.000 acre feet of Missouri River water from beil)#g diverted. then you can readily grasp what they will do to prevent the diversion of 871.000 acre feet for the 250.000 acre Garrison Diversion Project In North Dakota. But to comment on your article. North Dakota politicians do not support the project "to please their rural constituency" of 1200 irrigation farmers. Over the years and very recently polls tell us that more than 75 percent of all North Dakotans continue to support the project. Secretary Watt did not "quietly award thle first contract for an Irrigation project known as thle Garrison Diversion Unit." Actually. Stuart Udall awarded the first contracts in 1966 and contracts have been awarded continuously since. The recent awarding by Watt was done after tense Con.gressional lobbying by opponents and proponents and after several noisy lawsuits. Thle Phase I of the Garrison Diversion Project does not move Missouri water to "irrigate farm land near the Canadian border." nor does any water escape to Canadian drainage. The "average cost of $1 million per farm" i% misleading. The real cost is not to irrigate farmns. but is to replace some of the $96 million of annual Income lost to the state fromt Permanently flooding 5511.000 acres of North Dakotas irrigable land. To be fair and honest. much of the project cost must be levied against the flood control and navigation benefits downstreamnot against North Dakota irrigated acres. They would never have achieved downstream benefits from North Dakota impoundment of the Missouri if North Dakota did not get some benefit to offset Its annual loss. Tile project does not cause Canadian fisheries to face irreversible damage." Like the sinil darter controversy. thle Canadians already have thle biota and fish species they object to. How could it be otherwise when for hundreds of years. Missouri River water and Canadian drainage waters have Intermingled at flood stage. and millions of mudcarrying wild waterfowi annually waddle and migrate a few feet between the two drainages. Why do you deplore a claimed possible degree of loss to a $10 million Canadian fishing industry but shrug off North Dakotas proven annual permanently flooded land loss of $96 million In 1983 dollars? If you believe the Canadian "problem" Is measured by their vocalizing and trips to Washington. then you dont understand the David and Goliath posture of Canadian political parties. By outcondemning the United States. one party hopes to be more of a hero than the opposing party. The Garrison Diversion Project is made to order for them and gives them a chance to massage a deep inferiority complex. The destruction of "130.000 acres of wetlands and grasslands" by the project is not borne out by the facts. L.et me assure you that farm drainage will continue as before in this state whether there is a project or not. I firmly believe that when you bring Missouri River water into other parts of the state. you create opportunities for maintaining aquifers and wetlands far in excess of the losses claimed by opponents. The Department of Interior has not Ignored scientific data concerning the project. But the International Joint Commission did ignore its Technical Committees scientific recommendations and instead turned to a political finding to placate Canadian objections. How can three unidentified Department of Interior biologists describe a plan using words like "bogus. suspect. reality. and ludicrous" when they "hadnt even seen the data" supporting the plan? I can asisure you that many other unidentified environmentalists who have seen the data support the plan. In defense of the memo supposedly written by Governor Olsons aide. it Is true that downstream and outofstate interests have "sandbagged" thle plan at every opportunity. In contrast to the complaint about the cost of the Garrison Diversion Project. the antiballistic missile facility was built in North Dakota over my strong written objections at a cost of $5.2 billion. It was never even plugged In to see if It worked. The federal funds spent on the AD3M project would have built ten Garrison Diversions at thle time. I am not immune to cost benefit ratios. but please know that the Garrison Project costs are reimbursable to the federal government. whereas ABM costs are not. Thle flood control and navigation benefits downstream. the hydroelectric sales from the six mainstem dams. and water user fees from irrigators. Industrial water users. and municipal water systems are the benefits of the PickSloan Plan that must be applied to the costs of the Garrison Diversion Projectnot the Irrigation of 1200 farms. (And where did you get 1200?) Except for the subsidy of the low interest rates that existed In 1965. the federal government will be paid back its irrigation investment in a few decades. These reimbursements to the federal government do not include the Increased federal Income from increased economic activity caused by managing thle Missouri River water. You should note that thle opponents downstream get their flood control aind navigation benefits for nothing! No user fees. no local government cost sharing. no nothing! I am sorry to disagree with you. Jack. I know that writing a daily column does not permit time to check facts or get *the rest of thle story"-hence my letter to You. With warm regards. Sincerely. WILLIAM L. Guy.