[House Hearing, 105 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
GARRISON UNIT REFORMULATION
=======================================================================
OVERSIGHT HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER
of the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 29, 1998, WASHINGTON, DC
__________
Serial No. 105-114
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/house
or
Committee address: http://www.house.gov/resources
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
51-878 WASHINGTON : 1998
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman
W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana GEORGE MILLER, California
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
JIM SAXTON, New Jersey NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
ELTON GALLEGLY, California BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan
JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland Samoa
KEN CALVERT, California NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii
RICHARD W. POMBO, California SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia
HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
LINDA SMITH, Washington CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California
GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto
WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North Rico
Carolina MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York
WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam
JOHN SHADEGG, Arizona SAM FARR, California
JOHN E. ENSIGN, Nevada PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island
ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon ADAM SMITH, Washington
CHRIS CANNON, Utah WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
KEVIN BRADY, Texas CHRIS JOHN, Louisiana
JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania DONNA CHRISTIAN-GREEN, Virgin
RICK HILL, Montana Islands
BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado RON KIND, Wisconsin
JIM GIBBONS, Nevada LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas
MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho
Lloyd A. Jones, Chief of Staff
Elizabeth Megginson, Chief Counsel
Christine Kennedy, Chief Clerk/Administrator
John Lawrence, Democratic Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Water and Power Resources
JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California, Chairman
KEN CALVERT, California PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
RICHARD W. POMBO, California GEORGE MILLER, California
HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia
LINDA SMITH, Washington CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California
GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California SAM FARR, California
WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas ADAM SMITH, Washington
JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona RON KIND, Wisconsin
JOHN E. ENSIGN, Nevada LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas
ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon ---------- ----------
CHRIS CANNON, Utah ---------- ----------
MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho
Robert Faber, Staff Director/Counsel
Joshua Johnson, Professional Staff
Steve Lanich, Minority Staff
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held September 29, 1998.................................. 1
Statement of Members:
Conrad, Hon. Kent, a Senator in Congress from the State of
North Dakota............................................... 7
Prepared statement of.................................... 9
DeFazio, Hon. Peter, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Oregon............................................ 2
Doolittle, Hon. John, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California........................................ 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 2
Dorgan, Hon. Bryon, a Senator in Congress from the State of
North Dakota............................................... 11
Pomeroy, Hon. Earl, a Representative in Congress from the
State of North Dakota...................................... 3
Prepared statement of.................................... 5
Statement of Witnesses:
Beard, Dan, Senior Vice President, Public Policy, National
Audubon Society, Washington, DC............................ 33
Prepared statement of.................................... 77
Dorso, Hon. John, State Representative and Majority Leader,
North Dakota State House of Representatives................ 20
Prepared statement of.................................... 57
Furness, Hon. Bruce, Mayor, Fargo, North Dakota.............. 27
Prepared statement of.................................... 57
Haak, Norman, Chairman, Garrison Diversion Conservancy
District, North Dakota..................................... 44
Koland, David, Executive Director, North Dakota Rural Water
Systems Association........................................ 50
Prepared statement of.................................... 87
Martinez, Eluid, Commissioner, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation,
Department of Interior, Washington, DC..................... 25
Prepared statement of.................................... 88
Mason, Russell, Sr., Chairman, Three Affiliated Tribes, North
Dakota..................................................... 29
Prepared statement of.................................... 68
McCormack, Michelle, Southwest Water Authority, North Dakota. 31
Prepared statement of.................................... 76
Nargang, Ronald, Deputy Commissioner, Minnesota Department of
Natural Resources.......................................... 48
Prepared statement of.................................... 81
Peterson, Scott, President, North Dakota Chapter of The
Wildlife Society........................................... 46
Prepared statement of.................................... 79
Schafer, Hon. Edward, Governor, State of North Dakota........ 13
Prepared statement of.................................... 16
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON GARRISON UNIT REFORMULATION
----------
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 29, 1998
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Water and Power,
Committee on Resources,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:05 p.m., in
room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. John Doolittle
(chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN DOOLITTLE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Doolittle. The Subcommittee on Water and Power will
come to order.
The Subcommittee is meeting today to hear testimony
concerning the Garrison Reformulation Unit and to also receive
testimony regarding H.R. 1213, the Perkins County Rural Water
Systems Act of 1998.
Today's hearings will cover these two projects. So these
projects, and particularly Garrison, have been the subject of
thousands of hours of debate over the last several decades. In
the last couple of years, many of those who are presenting
information today have made a dedicated effort to resolve some
of the major outstanding issues. We acknowledge their hard work
and their thoughtful consideration regarding this complicated
situation. I believe that everyone involved in these projects
has a genuine desire to address the fundamental needs for
water.
The Garrison Unit of Pick-Sloan Land has a colorful
history. It represents a longstanding effort to develop North
Dakota's water resources. It has been at times controversial,
both inside the State and in the Nation's Capitol. Management
of these water needs in North Dakota is incredibly complex,
from too much water at Devil's Lake to too little water quality
in the Red River Valley.
The project remains an issue with the Canadian Government,
several other States, and interest groups outside North Dakota.
Very much related to the Garrison project is the Perkins
County project to provide Garrison water to Perkins County,
South Dakota. The Perkins project was considered when the
Garrison Diversion Unit Reformation Act of 1986 was passed.
I hope that these hearings will provide a discussion on the
available alternatives to provide reliable, high-quality water
supplies in both these North Dakota and South Dakota project
areas.
Several different agencies have participated in rural water
system development projects over the years, including the
Bureau of Reclamation. However, rural water development does
not have a regular place in the Federal budget. In imperative
declining budgets, it remains a serious challenge to provide
for these programs while continuing to meet the other
obligations we must fund such as existing authorized projects,
the Safety of Dams Program, and the substantial backlog of
maintenance activities.
We look forward to hearing from our witnesses today and be
pleased to recognize our Ranking Member, Mr. DeFazio, for his
statement.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Doolittle follows:]
Statement of Hon. John T. Doolittle, a Representative in Congress from
the State of California
Today's hearings cover the Garrison Unit in North Dakota,
and the Perkins County Rural Water System in South Dakota.
These projects, and particularly Garrison, have been the
subject of thousands of hours of debate over the last several
decades. In the last couple of years, many of those who are
presenting information today, have made a dedicated effort to
resolve some of the major outstanding issues. We acknowledge
their hard work and their thoughtful consideration regarding
this complicated situation. I believe that everyone involved in
these projects has a genuine desire to address the fundamental
needs for water.
The Garrison Unit of the Pick-Sloan plan has a colorful
history. It represents a long-standing effort to develop North
Dakota's water resources. It has been at times controversial,
both inside the state and in the Nation's Capital. Management
of North Dakota's water needs is incredibly complex, from too
much water at Devil's Lake to too little quality water in the
Red River Valley. The project remains an issue with the
Canadian government, several other states, and interest groups
outside North Dakota.
Very much related to the Garrison Project is the Perkins
County Project to provide Garrison water to Perkins County,
South Dakota. The Perkins project was considered when the
Garrison Diversion Unit Reformation Act of 1986 was passed.
I hope that these hearings will provide a discussion on the
available alternatives to provide reliable, high quality water
supplies in both these North Dakota and South Dakota project
areas. Several different agencies have participated in rural
water system development projects over the years, including the
Bureau of Reclamation. However, rural water development does
not have a regular place in the Federal budget. In a period of
declining budgets, it remains a serious challenge to provide
for these programs while continuing to meet the other
obligations we must fund, i.e., existing authorized projects,
the dam safety program, and the substantial backlog of
maintenance activities.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today.
STATEMENT OF HON. PETER DEFAZIO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF OREGON
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will not be able to
stay for a good part of the hearing today but will review the
testimony. We have an impressive list of witnesses, and I look
forward to the discussion.
I am best described as a skeptic on the issue, particularly
the original proposal and aspects of the current proposal which
might reflect that or move us back in that direction. But I
also represent a very large district and a district where I
have communities that are water poor and need some Federal
assistance with rural water development, so I'm sympathetic
particularly to those aspects of it.
And I've got to say that our colleague, Earl Pomeroy, has
done a tremendous job in advocacy and in bringing this forward
to fruition in the hearing because, you know, they're sort of
the initial reaction for those members who have been around
here for a long time is, ``Oh, no, not again.''
[Laughter.]
So I congratulate him on his persistence and the fact that
he has convinced those of us who have concerns, you know, to
work with him and work through the process and see if we can
resolve those as we go forward.
I'd be remiss if I didn't mention a letter from the
Ambassador of Canada who was expressing grave concerns about
the interbasin transfer, similar to ones they've expressed in
the past, and so there are some big hurdles that we have to--
that the advocates will have to overcome.
So I appreciate the chairman making the Committee available
and gathering information on this.
Mr. Doolittle. Thank you.
We have a distinguished panel of witnesses before us.
As I understand, Senator Conrad is on his way and Senator
Dorgan, his whereabouts is being ascertained, so perhaps we'll
begin with the representative for the State of North Dakota,
Mr. Pomeroy, who has done so much to get us to hold this
hearing.
STATEMENT OF HON. EARL POMEROY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA
Mr. Pomeroy. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I think this afternoon's hearings is amazing in two
respects. First, that it's being held at all; this is a day
where no recorded votes are scheduled, and the fact that you
have proceeded to hold the hearing as you promised me you
would, I think really reflects very, very highly on you. And
you're a man of your word, and the State of North Dakota
appreciates it because we've been looking forward to this
opportunity.
The second thing that's amazing about this hearing is here
we are, 5 weeks from a general election and you'll see the
senior elected leadership of the State of North Dakota before
you. We are not all of one party, yet we will all be singing
from the same play book this afternoon. This is a broad,
bipartisan consensus on behalf of this Dakota Water Resources
Act, and I think it--especially at a time when many issues are
highly polarized and extremely political--it's remarkable the
depth of unity in North Dakota behind this bill.
We all see H.R. 3012 and it's companion bill, Senate Bill
1515, as critical to the future of North Dakota. We think that
the broad support it has among the political leadership is also
reflected upon the depth of support it has back in North
Dakota, across not just the people of North Dakota, but a host
of groups that represent a variety of important perspectives.
To that end, Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer into the
record today, letters from these groups. There are in excess of
20 entities represented in these letters, as well as the
testimony of the Spirit Lake Tribe. Now one of the tribes will
be testifying on behalf of all of the tribes in the course of
this hearing, but this testimony I'd like to introduce as well.
Mr. Doolittle. Yes, without objection, so ordered.
[The information referred to may be found at end of
hearing.]
Mr. Pomeroy. In the mid-1950's, construction was completed
on six mainstem dams on the Missouri River, and the flooding
began in North Dakota creating our largest lake, Lake
Sakakawea. The flooding destroyed prime farmland, about 500,000
acres of it. It cut the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation into
two separate geographic units which has caused tremendous
hardship over the years in terms of transportation, economic
development, administrative demands.
In addition, the Oahe Dam, created in South Dakota on the
Missouri, flooded up into North Dakota and split the Standing
Rock Sioux Reservation in North and South Dakota. Unlike the
floods most folks are used to, this flood is with us for good,
flooding an area in our State about the size of the State of
Rhode Island, to let you know the North Dakota contribution to
this Missouri River management plan.
Now when we agreed to play host to this flood, we were also
given some commitments, commitments that water from the Fort
Peck Dam in eastern Montana would be used in western North
Dakota for irrigation. Over the years, it was determined
through extensive testing that irrigation was not feasible in
light of the soil and other issues, and attention turned to
irrigating the eastern part of our State with water from the
Garrison reservoir.
This plan has been changed and changed and changed over the
years, yielding to feasibility difficulties as well as to
political realities. The status right now is that we've got
more than 100 miles of supply works constructed delivering
water to nowhere.
In response to the concerns involving the feasibility of
widespread irrigation and our frustration with the status of
the existing project, the elected leadership of North Dakota
has refocused the priorities of the Garrison project to address
our needs going on into the next century, primarily by focusing
the project on to creating a safe, reliable water supply for
municipal, rural, and industrial use.
The Dakota Water Resources Act completes the journey
started in 1944 by providing safe water to these communities.
The irrigation feature has shrunk from more than 100 million
acres envisioned in the first design of the project to now
70,000 acres of authorization is what we're seeking in this
plan before you.
I can personally tell you, Mr. Chairman, about the
difficulties we have across this State with quality potable
water. I grew up three miles outside the town of Valley City.
My family had to haul drinking water because our well water
wasn't fit to drink, and that is precisely the situation many
North Dakota families continue to find themselves in.
Now the MR&I feature of the existing Garrison
authorization, has met the drinking water needs of a number of
families. For example, the Southwest Water Pipeline, to date,
has taken families--we're dealing with tap water of this color
and turned it into safe, potable drinking water, now delivered
through the Southwest Water Pipeline. I think this is an
example of what can be accomplished through MR&I works in the
State of North Dakota.
It should certainly be noted that there's a lot of work to
be done. We have a number of communities across the State and
on our Indian reservations where people every morning turn on
tap water to this rather than this. It's especially ironic when
you consider the States of the reservations being adjacent to
this tremendous reservoir of water and yet not able to find
potable water in light of the destruction done to their artisan
wells and the aqueducts in their region.
We have reformulated a project so that it has $300 million
geared to the State MR&I needs. This will continue on a 75-25
cost share basis with the State. We also pay particular
attention to Indian MR&I needs, moving funding from $20.5
million provided in the 1986 Act, up to $200 million. The 1986
Act was represented to be a place holder figure while the full
extent of Indian MR&I needs was ascertained. Even at the $200
million figure, we estimate that it is only 80 percent of
meeting the full water needs presently experienced on our
Indian reservations.
The final major component of H.R. 3012 is $200 million
designed for developing reliable water supply to the Red River
in eastern North Dakota. I call your attention to the pictures
on the charts. They reflect two different occasions--we have a
third illustrated as well--where the Red River essentially ran
dry. Now the Red River is two of our largest cities; Fargo and
Grand Forks, are on the Red River, and you can take a look at
what history has dealt us to know why we're concerned about the
adequacy of Red River water supply to our major metropolitan
areas going on into the future.
We construct a canal--to begin with, we constructed canals
under the earlier versions of the project which create water
supply heading to eastern North Dakota. The key linking
structure didn't work under the 1986 Act. And what we do in the
bill before you is have a pipeline connection that delivers the
water from the canals to waterways that can carry the water to
the Red River Valley and deal with this issue.
To address the concerns that have existed in the past about
interbasin transfer of water, we actually provide for the
treatment of this water in the pipeline supply works to deal
head-on with that problem that has been central to the fate of
this bill in the past.
The final issue I'd mention in the bill before us, $25
million for the expansion of existing Wetlands Trust, $6.5
million for recreation and ecotourism development, and $40
million for construction of a new bridge across Lake Sakakawea
on the Fort Berthold Reservation.
We believe, Mr. Chairman, that there's a commitment that
was made to us that has gone unfulfilled, and the sheer weight
of the needs of the people of North Dakota for safe and clean
water drive this legislation. We should not have people dealing
with the water quality issues that presently exist in all too
many homes in North Dakota. We need better water, and the bill
before us would help us get this water.
I thank you for your interest. I can't emphasis how
critical we believe this project is to the future of North
Dakota.
[The statement of Mr. Pomeroy follows:]
Statement of Hon. Earl Pomeroy, a Representative in Congress from the
State of North Dakota
Thank you Mr. Chairman for holding this hearing on the
Dakota Water Resources Act of 1998.
I am grateful for the opportunity to express my strong
support for this legislation--H.R. 3012 in the House, and its
companion, S 1515 in the Senate. This legislation is a critical
component to the future of North Dakota and has a very broad,
bipartisan base of support in my state as you will hear from
the testimony today.
In the mid 1950s, construction was completed on one of the
six main stem dams on the Missouri River. At this time, the
flooding began which eventually created North Dakota's largest
lake--Lake Sakakawea. This flooding destroyed prime farmland on
the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation and created a geographic
separation which has caused numerous hardships in terms of
transportation, economic development, and various
administrative demands. In addition, the Oahe dam in South
Dakota created Lake Oahe, which is partially situated on the
Standing Rock Sioux Reservation of North and South Dakota.
Unlike the floods most folks are used to--the type where a
spring snow melt causes a river to rise, or a storm temporarily
makes a river flow over its banks, this flood is with us for
good. In total, almost 550,000 acres of North Dakota land--a
chunk of real estate the size of Rhode Island--has been lost
for the sake of this project.
When North Dakota agreed to play host to this flood, a
commitment was made to our state that we would be able to use
water from the Fort Peck dam in eastern Montana for irrigation.
Extensive testing of the soils in western North Dakota
revealed that the land was not suited to such irrigation
development and attention turned to irrigating the eastern part
of our state with water from the Garrison reservoir. Numerous
problems arose as we pursued this plan and further studies and
negotiations resulted in a series of changes, most notably
reducing the irrigation component from an original figure of
over 1.2 million acres to the 70,000 acres in this bill--none
of which will be located in the Hudson Bay drainage basin.
In response to the concerns involving the feasibility of
wide-scale irrigation, elected leaders of North Dakota have
refocused the priorities of the Garrison Project to better
address the need across the state for safe, reliable water
supplies for municipal, rural, and industrial use. The Dakota
Water Resources Act completes the journey started in 1944 and
will provide this safe water to communities across the state.
Today you will hear of the tremendous success of the
Southwest Water Pipeline, a feature of the Garrison Project
which has brought clean water to thousands of North Dakotans
who no longer have to haul their water from town. Mr. Chairman,
I can personally attest to the difficulties of growing up with
poor well water. For years, my family hauled water from town to
our home outside Valley City. Prior to the Southwest Pipeline,
water in some communities was both unreliable and unsafe.
I would like to show you just exactly what these folks
dealt with and what many still deal with in North Dakota where
good water isn't available. I have a pop bottle here that I'm
glad no one mistook for a Pepsi and tried to drink. This is
water from a community in Southwest North Dakota prior to the
construction of the Southwest Pipeline. Now, these people enjoy
clean, safe drinking water, but there are plenty of other
communities across North Dakota, and on our Indian
Reservations, where people get up every morning and turn on
their tap to find water like this. I believe Chairman Bud Mason
of the Fort Berthold Reservation has brought some samples of
his own to show you today--a sad irony considering the people
who use the water he will show you are little more than a
stone's throw away from Lake Sakakawea itself, yet cannot tap
into its vast store of clean, safe water.
To continue to the progress we have made with features such
as the Southwest Water Pipeline, the Dakota Water Resources Act
authorizes $300 million to continue work on this pipeline and
develop other projects across the state which will bring safe,
clean water to many North Dakota communities. This will
continue on a 75-25 cost-share basis with the state. In
addition, a second major component of this legislation is the
commitment to the Indian Reservations in North Dakota. The
Garrison Reformulation Act of 1986 provided for MR&I funding of
$20.5 million for The Standing Rock Sioux, the Three Affiliated
Tribes, and the Spirit Lake Nation. It was understood this
number was not representative of their needs, but rather a
starting point. Of course, we now recognize this was a wholly
inadequate level of funding and the unique and pressing needs
of the reservations in North Dakota are much greater. The
Dakota Water Resources Act provides $200 million for water
development on the reservations in North Dakota--which, in
fact, is still short of meeting their documented needs.
The final major component of H.R. 3012 is the $200 million
designated for developing a reliable water supply to the Red
River Valley in eastern North Dakota. This area of North Dakota
is the most heavily populated, and the city of Fargo is one of
the most rapidly growing cities in the region.
The Red River is known for its dramatic changes in stream
flow from one year to the next. We all recall the vivid
pictures from the great flood of 1997, yet vivid pictures of
just the opposite are something we've experienced on many
occasions in the past. A photo here taken in 1932 of the Red
River shows children playing within its banks.
To address this, we began building canals under earlier
versions of this project which were designed to connect the
water supply created by the Garrison dam to the Sheyenne River,
which flows into the Red River. However, after building canals
from each end of this project, the key linking structure in
this plan was deemed unworkable, leaving approximately 20 miles
between these two canals which remains unconnected today. A
number of issues led to the stoppage of this project, one of
which was that bringing water from the Missouri basin to the
Red River Valley would result in an interbasin transfer of
water. Should the study of water needs and supply in the valley
conclude that this is the most appropriate method for
delivering water to communities in eastern North Dakota, the
interbasin transfer of water concerns would be addressed by
using a pipeline link the two canals which would incorporate
treatment of this water to meet the environmental concerns of
downstream interests.
This component of the legislation, as well as the portion
of those structures already in place which may be used to move
water to the east will be reimbursable. This is considerable
value to the U.S. Government, as the state would not be repay
the Federal Government for existing project features which will
never be placed into service.
Finally, the bill before us today includes $25 million for
the expansion of the existing Wetlands Trust, $6.5 million for
recreation and ecotourism development, and $40 million for
construction of a new bridge across Lake Sakakawea on the Fort
Berthold Reservation.
Mr. Chairman, while we believe a commitment was made to us
which has gone unfulfilled, it is the sheer weight of the needs
of the people of North Dakota for clean and safe water which
drive this legislation. No child should have to bathe in water
like this. The resource is available, the need is significant,
and this legislation is our answer. This is a fair and
reasonable closure to the commitment by the Federal Government
to the state of North Dakota. The need across the state and on
our Indian reservations for an improved water supply--one that
is safe and reliable--is well-documented. The bill before us
today is the product of numerous, intense negotiations among
the elected leaders of both parties in North Dakota, tribal
leadership, the environmental community, city leaders, and
others to develop a plan that effectively addresses these water
needs and fulfills the commitment of the Pick-Sloan Missouri
Basin Program. I would like to submit for the record almost
thirty letters recently received from organizations across the
state which demonstrate the support I mention for this Act.
Again, I thank you Mr. Chairman for your interest in this
project and for scheduling this hearing. This is one of the
most critical issues before the people of North Dakota and your
willingness to hold this hearing is very important as we move
forward to bring clean, safe water to the people across my
state.
Mr. Doolittle. Thank you.
Our next witness is Senator Kent Conrad from the State of
North Dakota. Senator.
STATEMENT OF HON. KENT CONRAD, A SENATOR IN CONGRESS FROM THE
STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA
Senator Conrad. Thank you, Congressman; thank you very
much, very much, for holding this hearing, and thank you very
much for your patience.
I believe this project is fiscally responsible, is
environmentally sensitive, and is a treaty-compliant approach
to completing the Garrison project.
Mr. Chairman, we started on this effort five long years
ago. When we recognized, in a bipartisan basis in the State of
North Dakota, that with the 1986 reformulation, we were never
going to achieve the results promised to the people of North
Dakota. It was just very unlikely that the Sykeston Canal would
ever be completed to deliver water to eastern North Dakota.
And so 5 years ago, we started on what we called the
``Collaborative Process.'' And in that collaborative process,
we tried to involve all of the stakeholders. The Governor was
involved, the congressional delegation; the Bureau of
Reclamation worked with us on a technical basis. We had all of
the tribes of North Dakota represented, and we asked both the
national environmental community as well as the environmental
community in the State of North Dakota to participate. It is a
result of the lengthy deliberations through the collaborative
process, a myriad of studies that were done by the Bureau of
Reclamation that has brought us to where we are today.
Mr. Chairman, in 1997, in February, we held in my office a
10-hour marathon negotiating session to reach agreement on the
12 principles that would guide the drafting of the legislation.
With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to enter those 12
principles into the record at this point.
Mr. Doolittle. Certainly. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information referred to follows:]
Senator Conrad. Mr. Chairman, we believe we have been
faithful to those 12 principles. They form the foundation of
the bill that is before us today.
And I want to especially highlight organizations that help
bring this all together in North Dakota. The North Dakota Water
Users and the North Dakota Chapter of the Wildlife Society,
they played absolutely critical roles in bringing us together.
And, Mr. Chairman, what you see is remarkable. I've never
in my experience in public life in North Dakota, seen more
agreement in our State than on this measure, on a bipartisan
basis, with every stakeholder signed up to support the Dakota
Water Resources Act. So we believe we've made enormous
progress.
Mr. Chairman, we have been working very closely with the
Bureau of Reclamation, and they had a whole series of things
that they believed we ought to change. And so for 3 months, we
have worked with them, and now we believe we're down to four
issues. We met with them again last week, and we think dramatic
progress has been made. Let me just highlight the four, and
then I will end.
They're still concerned about the OM&R costs in this bill.
They estimate they are from $5 to $12 million a year, with $200
million available in their budget on a yearly basis, they're
concerned with that amount of money.
Second, they are concerned about the revolving loan fund
feature of the $300 million of State MR&I.
Third matter, is they are concerned about the Four Bears
Bridge that is included here. Mr. Chairman, we understand this
is unusual to have a bridge in a reclamation bill. The reason
that it's here is because it is project-related and because
this bridge, which is going to cost $45 million, is truly a
hazard. I'd invite the chairman and anybody else who is
interested to come and go across that bridge with us sometime--
about midnight on a Saturday night would be a good time. Mr.
Chairman, it is a hazard; it needs to be replaced. The State
doesn't have the money to do it. It is project-related, and we
thought the best place to put it was here.
Finally, they raised the issue of total cost. I think we
probably understand that they make the point that we still need
to have a shave and a haircut here. I'm hopeful that it will be
just a minor shave and a minor haircut, because frankly, Mr.
Chairman, we've gone a long way toward making this project
fiscally responsible, environmental sensitive, and Treaty-
compliant. We believe we have delivered a project like that to
the Committee and to the Congress.
We are certainly prepared to listen as you counsel us in
what other changes need to be made so that we can cross the
line.
And again, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for your
patience and your interest.
[The statement of Mr. Conrad follows:]
Statement of Hon. Kent Conrad, a Senator in Congress from the State of
North Dakota
Mr. Chairman, I greatly appreciate your willingness to hold
this hearing. It is a pleasure to indicate my strong support
for the Dakota Water Resources Act of 1998.
I believe this legislation represents a fiscally-
responsible, environmentally-sound, Treaty compliant approach
to completing the Garrison project. I will focus my comments on
the history of the development of the bill before the
Committee, because the process we have followed has been an
unprecedented and cooperative process that has taken more than
five years. Our approach has been to seek input from every
quarter.
THE COLLABORATIVE PROCESS
In 1993, after it became apparent that the project
authorized by the 1986 Garrison Diversion Reformulation Act
would not be constructed, we began the ``Collaborative
Process'' to seek ways to again reformulate the project into
one that could be completed. That process involved a group of
representatives from the North Dakota congressional delegation,
the State of North Dakota, the Indian Tribes within North
Dakota, and local and national environmental organizations.
Additionally, the Bureau of Reclamation provided technical
support to the group and acted as a facilitator to the
discussions. Those initial discussions, while not leading to an
immediate compromise, began the 5-year long process of
formulating a new project.
Following the ``Collaborative Process'' and time for
organizations to develop alternatives, we organized meetings
with all stakeholders to begin a new effort to complete the
project.
DEVELOPING THE DAKOTA WATER RESOURCES ACT
We held public meetings in North Dakota in December, 1996,
to get a fresh start with the various stakeholders to develop
the plan to meet the contemporary and future water needs of
North Dakota. Those meetings were used to solicit views from
all interested groups about how the project should be
reformulated.
In February, 1997, we met with several North Dakota and
national environmental interests in my Washington office to
discuss how to develop an environmentally-sensitive approach to
completing the project. From that 10-hour meeting, we developed
12 principles that have guided our efforts to craft the
detailed legislative language to settle this issue. I ask
consent to have a copy of the ``12 Principles'' included in the
record.
The bill, based on those 12 points, requires full
compliance with NEPA and the Boundary Waters Treaty with
Canada. It includes additional funds for wetland enhancement
and other natural resource conservation in the state. The
bottom line, Mr. Chairman, is that we have developed a bill
that is an environmentally-sensitive proposal based on the
agreement we reached at that marathon negotiating session in
February, 1997.
Let me emphasize that all parties came to an agreement at
that meeting, including two organizations that will present
testimony today in opposition to the bill. We have continued to
reach out to those organizations to hear their views about how
the substitute amendment before Congress differs from the 12
Points. We remain willing to hear their specific concerns.
Following the February, 1997 discussions, we worked to
write the legislative language that would remain true to the 12
Points. After going through several drafts and seeking reaction
from interested groups, we reconvened all the stakeholders for
a day-long meeting in Washington last October. Unfortunately,
at that time the Na-
tional Audubon Society and the National Wildlife Federation
chose to withdraw from the process, and invited us to introduce
the legislation we had developed for a thorough public debate.
That October session helped us further narrow differences
on the draft bill. At this point I would like to highlight the
yeoman's effort of two organizations--the North Dakota Water
Users and the North Dakota Chapter of the Wildlife Society.
Those groups put forward an extraordinary effort to help us
complete drafting the bill in a way that meets North Dakota's
water needs in an environmentally-acceptable manner. That
effort culminated in S. 1515 and H.R. 3012, which were
introduced November 10, 1997, in the Senate and House of
Representatives.
PROGRESS SINCE INTRODUCTION
Since we introduced the bill, we held a field hearing in
Fargo, North Dakota, in February to hear the reaction of North
Dakotans to the proposal. At that hearing, virtually every
organization or interest that testified supported the Dakota
Water Resources Act. I have never seen such broad, bipartisan
support for anything in our state.
That support ranges from North Dakota's bipartisan elected
leadership, the four Indian Tribes located in North Dakota, a
wide variety of water interests across the state, the North
Dakota Wildlife Society, the North Dakota Rural Electric
Cooperatives, the state's Chamber of Commerce (called the
Greater North Dakota Association), the North Dakota Farmers
Union, the North Dakota Education Association; and many more.
Following that hearing in Fargo; the Interior Department
raised questions about the legislation and interpreted parts of
the bill differently than we intended. For more than three
months this summer we held an intensive effort to re-write the
bill to clarify provisions that were open to interpretation and
to make substantive changes to address concerns expressed by
the Department.
From those discussions, we significantly narrowed the
differences between the Bureau and the sponsors of the bill.
The substitute amendment before the Subcommittee represents
those changes, and I believe the Administration's testimony
today will acknowledge that effort.
I believe we have substantially narrowed the differences on
this legislation so that we now have only a handful of issues
remaining with the Department. We have been working since the
July hearing before the Senate Energy Committee to continue to
discuss those issues with the Department.
CONCLUSION
Mr. Chairman, the work of the past two years has brought us
to where we are today--ready to move forward with a plan to re-
direct, and complete, the Garrison Diversion project. The
process we have followed in developing the bill is one of
inclusiveness.
The legislation represents a fiscally-responsible,
environmentally-sound, Treaty-compliant approach to completing
the Garrison project. I urge the Committee to approve this bill
and send it to the full House for its consideration.
SUMMARY OF GARRISON DISCUSSIONS
FEB. 24, 1997, WASHINGTON D.C.
As a result of the non-binding talks on Feb. 24, the
following are areas of potential agreement.
1. Form of legislation--offer as amendments to the 1986
Reformulation Act.
2. Indian MR&I--increase current authorization by $200
million. Will need to: (1) net BUREC OK on needs assessment and
(2) require Sec. Interior to rank projects and set a timetable
in consultation with Indian Health Service.
3. Indian Resources--keep existing authority for irrigation
at Standing Rock and Ft. Berthold; add an estimated $40 million
to replace Four Bears Bridge at Ft. Berthold; get refined
bridge cost estimates from DOT and ND DOT, seek funding for Ft.
Yates Bridge in Highway Reauthorization Bill once tribe agrees
to move ahead.
4. State MR&I--increase current authority by $300 million.
Should fund 80 percent of 40-year needs.
5. Water to Red River Valley--increase current authority by
$200 million for construction of facilities to provide Missouri
River water to RRV or for alternative solutions preferred by
the local communities and the state. Establish a process by
which the BUREC would complete its phase 2 study so that all
stakeholders could make a decision by the end of 1997.
6. State Role--continue to share MR&I and other costs;
handle O&M on completed facilities.
7. Devils Lake--do not include outlet or inlet in
amendments to '86 Act. Outlet is being considered on a separate
emergency basis.
8. Integrated Projects--(a) require Corps review of
Missouri River bank stabilization options downstream of
Garrison Dam, (b) retain authorization for Turtle Lake
demonstration and deal with next steps in report language after
peer review is completed, and (c) increase authority for
recreation projects by $5 million.
9. Repayment--reaffirmed principle that ND should only pay
for capacity or features it uses. Feds pay 100 percent of
Sheyenne treatment/distribution. Define a specific plan for
forgiving capital and operation/maintenance costs for existing
facilities and apportioning costs for future facilities. Power
Rates--leave as in '86 Act to retain existing rate structure.
10. Irrigation--Keep irrigation as an authorized purpose.
Retain canal-side irrigation on McClusky Canal of 10,000 acres
and authorize 1,200 acres along New Rockford Canal if full
costs are paid. Do not provide Federal funding for 5,000 acre
Oakes site. Deauthorize other designated irrigation except as
provided in Indian Resources and Integrated Projects.
11. Wildlife and Water Resource Management--keep current
authority for Kraft Slough; turn the Wetlands Trust into a
broader Resources Trust, which would then deal with grasslands
conservation and riparian areas, too; increase Trust by $25
million; earmark a specific share of the Trust to prevent any
decrease for wetlands; funci a $1.5 million Intepretive Center
through the Trust; deauthorize Lonetree Reservoir and convert
to a Wildlife Management Area; keep operation's maintenance/
repairs of mitigation projects as a Federal responsibility.
12. Economic Recovery Fund--do not include in legislation.
Mr. Doolittle. Well, thank you very much.
Our next witness is the other Senator from the great State
of North Dakota, Senator Byron Dorgan.
STATEMENT OF HON. BRYON DORGAN, A SENATOR IN CONGRESS FROM THE
STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
My colleagues have pretty well covered it. Let me add a
couple of points.
First, a more historical note, I wasn't here back in the
1940's when those viewing the Missouri River decided it was
kind of a ornery river from time to time. Especially in the
spring it would create chaos and massive flooding in the
downstream cities, and softball would be interrupted in the
city parks in Kansas City because of a river that was
overflowing and wild and ornery.
So, Federal officials decided the way to harness the
Missouri River and get some benefits from that river was to
build a series of mainstem dams. They decided they wanted to
have one of those dams in North Dakota. So they came to North
Dakota with this plan, the Pick-Sloan Plan, and told North
Dakotans, ``In order to control this river and prevent flooding
from downstream and all of the problems it causes, we'd like to
propose that we have a permanent flood in your State. If you'd
just be willing to accept this, the flood will come and visit
your State and stay forever. We propose it be about the size of
Rhode Island. We propose that it never leave, and we understand
that it would be kind of a dumb thing for you to say, `Yes,
we'd love to have a permanent flood without getting something
in return.'
``So what we'd do is this; we'd propose a bargain with you.
We'd have the flood visit your State, and you be host to it
forever, and we will understand that you are a semi-arid State
and would be able to use water from behind that dam to move
around your State for the benefit of your State--for safe
drinking water, clean water, municipal and industrial needs,
industrial development and so on.''
The State thought about that and decided, well, that was a
pretty good trade and a pretty good bargain to make, and so we
did, and so the flood came. And President Eisenhower went out
and cut the ribbon to dedicate the dam, and the water came, and
so we're now host to a permanent flood.
We got the costs of this bargain, but have never realized
the full promise. It's not to say we haven't realized anything;
we have received benefits--about a half a billion dollars and
the clean water that Congressman Pomeroy held up which comes to
my hometown and many others in North Dakota. There are very
significant benefits from this project.
Throughout the years this project, we were promised as much
as a million acres of irrigation--which is a very significant
issue for a semi-arid State like ours. Imagine! A million acres
of irrigation we were told. That project has now, like a plum
to a prune, has shrunk and shriveled. And now with all of its
wrinkles, is 70,000 acres of irrigation in the reformulated
plan pending before the Subcommittee.
The plan itself is necessary because in 1986 we
reformulated the then-Garrison Diversion project to best meet
the State's needs at that point. But in this room and in the
agreement that was made, there was one piece called the
Sykeston Canal which was the connecting link needed to
accomplish a lot of the project's purposes. It was uncertain
whether that link was going to work as intended. Of course,
over time, it was clear. It was from an engineering standpoint,
not workable; from a cost standpoint, not workable.
And so we had, then, to retool this project one additional
time, one last reformulation to fine tune the project to better
meet the needs of the State.
The latest revisions in S. 1515 include all of the features
my two colleague have just mentioned. I will not mention them
again. But I do want to mention three final issues very
quickly.
First is the issue dealing with North Dakota Indian
reservations. My father spent some time in his youth in Elbow
Woods, North Dakota, and that doesn't exist anymore. That's at
the bottom of our permanent flood. Chairman Russell Mason of
the Three Affiliated Tribes is here to testify; he comes from
that part of North Dakota. His tribe very much needs the
resources that were promised and the resources that will be
delivered in this piece of legislation, as do the people of
eastern North Dakota and many other communities throughout the
State who will benefit from this legislation.
Second, we dealt with this with a realistic budget. One, we
retained the cost share of 25 percent for the MR&I projects.
Two, we repay the $200 million for Red River water supplies.
Three, we also reimburse the government for the share of the
capacity of the mainstem delivery features, index MR&I features
only from date of enactment, and we target the State's critical
water development needs. Meanwhile, the Federal Government will
earn tax revenues from economic growth and receive
reimbursement from the project users.
And finally, let me just make another quick point. We
addressed the legitimate concerns of the environmental groups,
the Canadi-
ans, and the downstream States. Those who say that we didn't
address those problems are just dead wrong. We expressly bar
any irrigation in the Hudson Bay Basin. We give the Secretary
of the Interior the authority to select the Red River Valley
water supply feature, determine the feasibility of newly
authorized irrigation areas in the scaled-back project, and we
extend the EIS period. As far as boundary water measures are
concerned, biota transfers is a non-issue because only treated
water would be transferred, and so on.
Moreover, we scale back the authorized irrigation for
130,000 to 70,000 acres and limited withdrawals from the
Missouri River to 200 cfs.
All of this is in my full statement that I would hope you'd
make a part of the record.
All of these provisions reflect those of us in this group,
Republicans and Democrats who are interested in this project
from the standpoint of benefiting our State. We understood what
kinds of criticisms were being leveled at this project, and we
dealt with those criticisms in a very direct way. I'm proud, as
Senator Conrad and Congress Pomeroy indicated, to be sitting
here with the Governor and the majority leader of the State
house; we're united on what's important for our State and what
we'll invest and build for the future of our State, and I'm
pleased to be here to present this testimony.
Mr. Doolittle. Thank you. I must say, I've never
experienced nor do I know of a situation where we've had this
kind of top-elected leadership of the State assemble all for
one purpose such as this. It is quite remarkable I think.
As Governor, we've talked several times about this. I know
you, along with the others, have been a real leader and
proponent of bringing this issue to the forefront. I'd like to
recognize you now for your testimony, Governor Ed Schafer,
Governor of North Dakota.
STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD SCHAFER, GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF
NORTH DAKOTA
Governor Edward Schafer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you
for the opportunity to be here and testify. We do appreciate
the time.
For the record, my name is Edward T. Schafer. I'm the
Governor of North Dakota, and I do thank you for the
opportunity to testify in support of the Dakota Water Resources
Act.
As Governor of North Dakota, I am here today to address the
current and future water needs of our State, and to show how
this Act will serve the Federal Treasury--will save the Federal
Treasury--compared to the cost of completing the Garrison
Diversion project under current law.
The Dakota Water Resources Act is the key to solving these
needs. The project unlocks North Dakota's future as an
indispensable element for water supply, economic development,
agriculture, recreation, tourism, and wildlife enhancement.
The Bureau of Reclamation has stated that the cost of the
Dakota Water Resources Act is no more than the cost of the 1986
Garrison Diversion Reformulation Act. As a matter of fact, the
cost of meeting the needs of the 1986 Act is far in excess of
the cost of the Dakota Water Resources Act, and for these
reasons, what is good for North Dakota is good for the Nation
as well.
The greatest challenge before us is to find a solution for
a dependable water supply for current and future generations of
North Dakotans. Good drinking water is necessary for economic
stability and growth. Presently, much of North Dakota suffers
from either insufficient quantity or/and a lack of adequate
supply of water quality for drinking. The solution to this
challenge is the delivery of water from the Missouri River
throughout our State. By providing Missouri River water
throughout the State, we will also be able to support the
growth experienced in certain areas of our State in recent
years. This growth has come about largely because of new
manufacturing and new industry service centers. As communities
grow, so does the demand for water and so does the need for a
safe water supply.
The Dakota Water Resources Act ensures our citizens an
adequate supply of high quality and reliable water for MR&I
water systems across this State. The greatest single need in
this regard is to provide citizens of the Red River Valley with
long-term water supply. This includes the need for our citizens
as well as the need for our neighbors in Minnesota.
An important aspect of the Red River water supply is the
fact that the cost of delivery of Missouri River water is
reimbursable with interest. This is an important factor which
helps reduce the impact of the Federal Treasury.
Water supply development for Native Americans on our Indian
reservations within our State also is included in this Act, as
well as opportunities to manage and conserve the natural
resources of North Dakota through an expanded Natural Resources
Trust.
When Congress authorized the MR&I Water Supply Program in
1986, it was a positive first step in fulfilling the water
needs of our State. The total identified needs then were more
than $400 million. And unfortunately, even after addressing
some of these needs under current law, the total remaining
water supply needs in the State today exceeds $600 million
because of inflation and newly identified needs.
The current need is outlined in a report that I have
provided to the Committee for the record.
[The information referred to may be found at end of
hearing.]
Governor Edward Schafer. This report lists water supply
needs for more than 520,000 people in 144 water systems,
including community and rural needs as well. The report does
not cover the water supply and water treatment needs of the
Indian reservations in North Dakota. A separate needs
assessment reports are to be completed for the reservations.
Also, the means for contributing the non-Federal share of the
State MR&I program are already in place.
MR&I funds include local, State, and Federal funds, have
improved the quality of life for many North Dakotans; 32
communities and rural water projects have been developed since
1986 at a cost of more than $200 million. And the non-Federal
contribution to these projects has been approximately $73
million.
I might take a minute, Mr. Chairman, you mentioned in your
comments about the Perkins County project. The South Dakota
project, however, ties into North Dakota water supply projects,
and unlike some other States or neighbors, North Dakota is
cooperating with this project and certainly support the needs
of South Dakota, their people, and this water development
project in Perkins County.
The water supply needs of the Red River Valley are being
addressed separately in order to evaluate the best available
method to solve the Red River Valley water supply problem. And
as you've heard, this is a cooperative effort of Federal,
State, and local agencies. Water conservation, available water
supplies in the basin, and diversion of water from outside the
basin are all being considered for the future Red River Valley
needs.
The preliminary estimates for total water requirement for
Red River Valley ranges from 100 to 200 cubic feet a second in
the Cheyenne and Red Rivers to meet the supply needs of the
valley by 2050. And under any scenario, the amount of water
necessary for the Red River Valley represents less than 1
percent of the annual Missouri River flow leaving North Dakota.
You know the Red River Valley Water Supply projects, the
Southwest Water Pipeline, the Northwest Water Pipeline,
evidenced here, the projects that we've been working on, but it
is equally important to complete the project to allow North
Dakota to use the Missouri River water properly throughout our
State.
That distribution of the water will also provide a habitat
to sustain fish and wildlife through drought years and will
allow enhanced recreation during normal years.
We have identified $1.6 billion of water management
projects in the State. Since 1986, local and State entities
have spent more than $88 million; therefore, we do believe we
are showing our willingness to continue to fund our share of
these water supply projects.
We've talked about the reduction of irrigation acres, but
it's important to note that no additional Federal funds are
being sought for the developing of these acres. This results in
a further reduction to the Federal Treasury in cost, and that
is authorized under current law. None of the irrigation is
located in the Red River Basin or in the Devil's Lake Basin.
Water supply to North Dakota is a great concern to Manitoba
and Canada, and these concerns will be thoroughly addressed
through the consultative process to ensure compliance with the
United States-Canada Boundary Waters Treaty Act of 1909. And
from a technical standpoint, compliance is clearly attainable.
I know that there's also been a concern raised about the
efforts of our State to control the flood at Devil's Lake. Some
suggest that this is a back-door approach to diverting Missouri
water to Devil's Lake, and this is simply not the case. And for
the record, the proposed Devil's Lake outlet cannot be operated
in any way to divert Missouri River water to Devil's Lake.
These two issues are totally separated physically, as well as
by law.
In addition, you will hear testimony from folks and
organizations from outside of our State that purport to be
testifying in our best interest. And I want to assure you that
the people of North Dakota that live and work in our State
understand our needs and desires, including the wildlife and
environmental organizations, support this project in our State.
We are 100 percent committed to meeting the quality and
environmental standards and safeguards that Congress has had
the foresight to put in place. And the Dakota Water Resources
Act is written in such a way that there is no question that we
will fully comply with the National Environmental Policy Act,
as well as the Boundary Water Treaties Act.
I know my time is up here, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
opportunity to testify.
In closing, I do have more comments which I'll submit for
the record, but I would like to enter into the record also the
Resolution of the North Dakota State Water Commission, which I
chair, supporting the authorization of the Dakota Water
Resources Act.
[The information referred to may be found at end of
hearing.]
Governor Edward Schafer. North Dakotans from cities, from
farms, from businesses are committed to this Garrison Diversion
project. The project we know will never be what was promised to
us in 1944, but it will continue to be the most important water
management project in our State.
I want to thank you for your past support for the Garrison
Diversion project, and I hope that you will continue your
support to helping secure a brighter, better, and bolder future
for North Dakota through this water resources Act. Let's bring
this 50-year project to closure.
In closing, let me ask--I guess I'm kind of curious when we
receive a letter from Canada, when we have a neighboring State
comment, when a national environmental or wildlife group, or a
downstream State makes some testimony, I guess I'm curious as
to why those efforts get the credence, the creditability, and
the priority over North Dakotans when we who live and work in
our State know the needs. We love the environment, our clean
air, and our clean water, and we would never do anything to
ruin the quality of life in our State or for anybody else in a
neighboring State or country.
I thank you for the opportunity, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Governor Schafer follows:]
Statement of Hon. Edward T. Schafer, Governor, North Dakota
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, my name is
Edward T. Schafer, Governor of North Dakota. Thank you for the
opportunity to testify in support of the Dakota Water Resources
Act.
As Governor of North Dakota, I am here today to address the
current and future water needs of our state, and to show how
this Act will serve the Federal treasury compared to the cost
of completing the Garrison Diversion Project under current law.
The Dakota Water Resources Act is the key to solving these
needs. The project unlocks North Dakota's future and is an
indispensable element for water supply, economic development,
agriculture, recreation, tourism, and wildlife enhancement. The
Bureau of Reclamation has stated that the cost of the Dakota
Water Resources Act is no more than the cost of the 1986
Garrison Diversion Reformulation Act, and as matter of fact,
the cost of meeting the needs of the 1986 Act is far in excess
of the cost of the Dakota Water Resources Act. For these
reasons, it is good for North Dakota as well as the nation.
The greatest challenge before us is to find the best
solution for a dependable water supply for current and future
generations of North Dakotans. Good drinking water is necessary
for economic stability and growth. Presently, much of North
Dakota suffers from either insufficient quantity or lack of an
adequate supply of good quality water for drinking. The
solution to this challenge is the delivery of water from the
Missouri River throughout the state. By providing Missouri
River water throughout the state, we will also be able to
support the growth experienced in certain areas of the state in
recent years. This growth has come about largely because of new
manufacturing and new industry service centers. As communities
grow, so does the demand for water and so does the need for a
safe water supply.
The Dakota Water Resources Act ensures our citizens an
adequate supply of high quality and reliable water for
municipal, rural and industrial water systems across the state.
Our greatest single need in this regard is to provide the
citizens of the Red River Valley with a long-term water supply.
This includes the need for our citizens as well as the need for
some of our neighbors in Minnesota. An important aspect of the
Red River water supply is the fact that the cost of the
delivery of Missouri River water is reimbursable with interest.
This is an important factor which helps to reduce the impact to
the Federal treasury. Water supply development for Native
Americans on the Indian reservations within our state is also
included in the Act, as well as opportunities to manage and
conserve the natural resources of North Dakota through the
expanded Natural Resources Trust.
When Congress authorized the Garrison Municipal, Rural and
Industrial (MR&I) Water Supply program in 1986, it was a
positive first step in fulfilling the water needs of our state.
The total identified needs then were more than $400 million.
Unfortunately, even after addressing some of these needs under
current law, the total remaining water supply needs in the
state today exceeds $600 million because of inflation and newly
identified needs. The current need is outlined in a report I
have provided to the Committee for the record. The report lists
water supply needs for more than 520,000 people in 144 water
systems including community and rural needs. The report does
not cover the water supply and water treatment needs of the
Indian reservations within North Dakota. Separate needs
assessment reports are to be completed for the reservations.
Also, the means for contributing the non Federal share of the
state MR&I program is already in place.
MR&I funds including local, state and Federal funds have
improved the quality of life for many people across North
Dakota. Thirty-two (32) community and rural water projects have
been developed since 1986 at a cost of more than $200 million.
The non-Federal contribution to these projects has been
approximately $73 million.
The water supply needs of the Red River Valley are being
addressed separately in order to evaluate the best available
method to solve the Red River Valley water supply problems.
This is a cooperative effort of Federal, state and local
agencies. Water conservation, available water supplies in the
basin, and diversion of water from outside the basin are all
being considered to meet future Red River Valley needs. The
preliminary estimates for the total water requirement for the
Red River Valley ranges from 100-200 cubic feet per second to
the Sheyenne and Red Rivers to meet the water supply needs in
the year 2050. Under any scenario, the amount of water
necessary for the Red River Valley represents less than 1
percent of the annual Missouri River flow leaving North Dakota.
Projects such as the Red River Valley Water Supply, the
Southwest Pipeline Project, the Northwest Area Water Supply,
and many other city and rural projects are all important parts
of the Dakota Water Resources Act. Furthermore, and equally as
important, completing this project will allow North Dakota to
use its Missouri River water right.
Distribution of Missouri River water in the state will also
provide habitat to sustain fish and wildlife through drought
and to allow for enhanced recreation during normal years.
Providing additional water from the Missouri River is a
potential solution to low stream flows as well as meeting
municipal, rural and industrial needs.
Besides need for water supply, North Dakota's State Water
Management Plan shows overall needs for flood control,
recreation, irrigation water supply, bank stabilization, and
fish and wildlife. The Plan identifies $1.6 billion of total
water management needs in the state. Since 1986, the state and
local entities have spent more than $88 million on water
management projects alone, and are willing to continue to fund
their share of future projects. These efforts are in addition
to our efforts for water supply projects.
It is important to note that the Dakota Water Resources Act
will reduce the number of acres of irrigation from 130,000
acres to 70,000 acres. No additional Federal funds are being
sought for developing these acres, resulting in a further cost
reduction from the Federal treasury as authorized under current
law. Also, none of the irrigation is located in the Red River
Basin or the Devils Lake Basin.
Water supply to eastern North Dakota has been a great
concern to Manitoba and Canada. These concerns will be
thoroughly addressed through a consultative process to ensure
compliance with the United States-Canada Boundary Waters Treaty
of 1909. From a technical standpoint, compliance is clearly
attainable.
Concern has also been raised about the state's effort at
flood control at Devils Lake, which some suggest is a back-door
approach to diverting Missouri River water to Devils Lake. This
is not the case. The proposed Devils Lake outlet cannot be
operated in any way to divert Missouri River water to Devils
Lake. These two issues are totally separated physically, as
well as by law. In addition, you will hear testimony from some
folks and organizations from outside of our State, that purport
to be testifying in our best interest. I want to assure you
that the people of North Dakota that live and work in our state
and understand our needs and desires, including wildlife and
environmental organizations, support this project. We are all
100 percent committed to meeting the quality and environmental
standards and safeguards that Congress has had the foresight to
put in place. Some of these folks will give you misguided
information and numbers in an attempt to subvert this project.
The Dakota Water Resources Act is written in such a way that
there is no question that the project will fully comply with
NEPA, the National Environmental Policy Act, as well as the
Boundary Waters Treaty.
The Dakota Water Resources Act also provides for the
continuation of our efforts to manage and conserve wetlands as
well as other essential natural resources. Operating since
1986, the North Dakota Wetlands Trust has been successful in
protecting wetland areas, and when expanded to a Natural
Resources Trust will manage and protect other areas as well,
such as tall grass prairies, woodlands and river bottoms.
Overall, the Dakota Water Resources Act will greatly enhance
our environment, and the State's natural resources.
Everyone must cooperate to meet the challenge of providing
safe, affordable and reliable water to our citizens and
neighbors, and to address our water management needs. There are
problems in all corners of our state, and there is agreement
that cities, rural areas, agricultural interests,
conservationists, and water managers can solve these problems
by working together. The completion of the Garrison Diversion
Project, through the Dakota Water Resources Act, is the best
approach to solving our difficult water problems for current
and future generations of North Dakotans.
The Dakota Water Resources Act is a reasonable solution
from the Federal perspective as well. As I stated earlier, we
have reduced the acres of irrigation and although our total
MR&I need is more than $600 million, we have agreed to provide
$100 million upfront to projects and to also reimburse $200
million for the delivery of water to the Red River. As you can
see, the people of North Dakota are willing to provide for 50
percent of the identified MR&I need.
In 1944, when the Pick-Sloan Missouri River program was
authorized, North Dakota agreed to give up 550,000 acres of
valuable Missouri River bottomland for the creation of dams and
reservoirs providing a multitude of benefits for our country.
We, in turn, hoped to realize the benefits promised for our
state. Passage of the Dakota Water Resources Act is necessary
to help our state recover its losses from the development of
the Pick-Sloan reservoirs. The Act will bring to a reasonable
and final conclusion, the long and sometimes controversial
history of Garrison.
Finally, I am providing a December 1, 1997 resolution of
the North Dakota State Water Commission, which I chair,
supporting the authorization of the Dakota Water Resources Act.
North Dakotans from cities, farms and businesses are committed
to the Garrison Diversion Project. The project can never be
what it once was planned to be in 1944, but it will continue to
be the most important water resource management project in our
state. I thank you for past support for the Garrison Diversion
Project, and it is my hope you will continue your support in
helping to secure a better, brighter, and bolder future for
North Dakota through the Dakota Water Resources Act, and bring
this 50 year project to a final closure.
Thank you.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1878.001
Mr. Doolittle. Thank you.
Our final witness at the beginning here will be
Representative John Dorso, who is the majority leader in the
State House of Representatives, who has also been a vigorous
proponent and been in contact with the Committee on various
occasions.
Representative Dorso.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN DORSO, STATE REPRESENTATIVE AND MAJORITY
LEADER, NORTH DAKOTA STATE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Mr. Dorso. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the
Committee. For the record, my name is John Dorso; I'm North
Dakota House of Representatives majority leader.
I really appreciate the opportunity to testify today in
support of the Dakota Water Resources Act. As part of the
leadership of the North Dakota Legislature, I am here to speak
in behalf of the State legislature.
Also with me today and sitting behind me is the State
senate majority leader, Gary Nelson. Unfortunately, neither
State Minority Leader Tim Mathern nor State House of
Representatives Minority Leader Merle Boucher could be here
today, although, as well as Senator Nelson, they asked me to
stress the importance of the Dakota Water Resources Act to the
State of North Dakota, and the total bipartisan support of the
legislature, and the past and present willingness of the State
to contribute to the implementation of the Garrison Diversion
project.
You have heard from our congressional delegation, as well
as the Governor, on the importance of this Act to the State of
North Dakota. Senator Nelson, Mathern, and I all live in the
Red River Valley in eastern North Dakota. Our principal water
supply, the Red River, has gone dry several times in the past.
Also, the population of the Red River Valley has increased
substantially where today more than 25 percent of our
population resides within 15 miles of our eastern border with
Minnesota. It is obvious that we need to develop the future
water supply for that area. The Red River Valley is a
significant and critical economic engine for North Dakota.
Without a water supply for it, as would be reauthorized by this
Act, our whole State will suffer.
Every State legislative assembly since 1944 has gone on
record by resolution supporting this project, and most recently
in 1997, the framework for the Dakota Water Resource Act. That
resolution has come completely by bipartisan support, urges the
completion of the project, and recognizes the critical priority
of the project for water management and development in North
Dakota. Be it for municipal, rural, industrial, tribal,
recreation, or fish and wildlife needs, the Dakota Water
Resources Act is essential for economic sustainment and
development of our State.
Because of the importance to North Dakota, the State
legislature has provided funding to show its commitment to the
Garrison project. In the past, we have appropriated general
funds for water projects, including the Garrison Diversion
project, and we have also dedicated, by constitutional measure,
a Resources Trust Fund for water development. Most recently in
1997, we provided authority for bonding for the Garrison
project as part of our comprehensive statewide water
development program. The State legislature stands ready to
address ways to meet future needs for funding the non-Federal
share of the Dakota Water Resource Act as proposed.
Mr. Chairman, I'm going to just digress a little bit from
my written testimony here. I heard you mention, or maybe it was
Representative DeFazio earlier, about Representative Pomeroy's
persistence in this matter. The fact of the matter is, is I
think any of us who live in North Dakota and are elected to be
political leaders of our State, will continue to be persistent.
I don't think we have any choice because of the nature of the
changing economy of our State where we have tried, through
bipartisan efforts, to diversify our economy, water has become
so critical. We have no choice but to be here and continue to
ask to get something done, because the Red River Valley cannot
sustain itself without a sustainable, clean source of water.
So I would appreciate your support and members of the
Committee. We will continue to be here and work with you as
much as we can to solve this problem for our people.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Dorso may be found at end of
hearing.]
Mr. Doolittle. Well, thank you.
I just have a couple of questions. Maybe Mr. Dorso--let me
just ask you, do you and your colleagues accept the present
cost share that's proposed for the State in this bill? I mean
you think you'd be able to meet that?
Mr. Dorso. Well, Mr. Chairman, to be completely honest, I
didn't really like the formula. I thought it should be quite a
bit less, the State's share, based on what we've spent in the
past. But, through the compromise process, I can assure you
that the legislature will support this formula for funding, and
hopefully we'll be able to do something in 1999 as we meet to
move forward.
Mr. Doolittle. I know you're not going to like the
direction of this and, hopefully from your standpoint, it will
be what it is in the bill, but does the State's legislature
have the will--does the State have the capacity if it took even
a higher share of local cost to accomplish this, do you think
you could rise to that occasion?
Mr. Dorso. Well, Mr. Chairman, I think that that's a fair
question, but I think I have to ask you, if we have to do
something about the Devil's Lake problem, and that's the
outlet, and all of the costs there, I think in the short run,
``No.'' I think we'd be very hard pressed with all of the
problems that we have dealing with water in North Dakota. We
also have the Grand Forks Dike issue that we have to face. I
just don't know where, in the short term, we could come up with
additional funds.
Mr. Doolittle. Let me jump in and ask, I notice in this
emergency supplemental that's moving through the Congress now,
there's an amount of money for Devil's Lake. I don't know how
that relates to--does that solve the problem for Devil's Lake
or not?
Mr. Dorso. Well, we have to have a State share for that,
too, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Doolittle. So, you're saying that when you meet that
State share, you think you wouldn't be able to go much above
the 25 percent?
Mr. Dorso. Mr. Chairman, in the short term, I don't believe
we would be able to.
Mr. Doolittle. Thank you.
Governor, what has been the nature of your discussion with
the Government of Manitoba and other governmental officials on
the Garrison issue?
Governor Edward Schafer. Well, I obviously have met several
times with the premier, especially of Manitoba. We've had
technical exchanges with some of their folks up there as well
through our Water Commission, and there are ongoing
discussions. Certainly, they understand our problems, are
interested in our needs. I found it interesting that the
premier, Premier Filman, from Manitoba, is an engineer. And he
said, ``Normally, I look at, as an engineer, I look at ways at
how you solve problems. If you have a barrier, how do you get
through them?'' However, he told me directly that he is
unalterably opposed this project. I think this project is
emotional there. I think there are political considerations in
Canada that just won't allow us to be able to deal with this.
It just seems to me that even though that we can show it to be
technically safe, that it will not have risk to the Canadians
and to our friends and neighbors, the Manitobans. I just think
that we will never get them to support this project, and it's
going to be necessary for the U.S. State Department to just
say, you know, ``You will comply with the Boundary Water
Treaties Act.'' We're committed to it. I don't think we're ever
going to convince them that we can do it, but I guarantee that
our State will make sure we meet the requirements at the border
of the Boundary Water Treaties Act.
If I might go back to your previous question, as far as
what we've been able to do, the State has already, in the
current projects, committed funds in the range from 25 to 35
percent. I mean we're putting our share of dollars in as
needed, but as Representative Dorso mentioned, we have such
huge needs for water projects in our State, including the flood
problems in the Red River Valley. I know it seems strange to
talk about flood problems----
[Laughter.]
[continuing] in for Red River Valley when we're talking
about moving water over there, but those are the up and down
cycles of water, and certainly the needs are there. And our
State has shown the willingness to contribute our fair share.
Mr. Doolittle. Coming from California, I can fully
appreciate how you can be faced with both drought and flooding
in the same year.
I'd also like to recognize the presence--acknowledge the
presence of the Senate majority leader, so we have everybody;
that's impressive. Welcome.
Well, Mr. Farr has joined us. Did you wish to address
questions to the witnesses?
Mr. Farr. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate
you having this hearing.
It's ironic that two Californians, both from northern
California who have all the water, are sitting here. Usually
we're battling with our colleagues in southern California who
want our water.
[Laughter.]
So we're very sympathetic to the needs. As I just read the
quick summary of it--and I want to thank Congressman Pomeroy
for coming into my office and briefing me on this issue--I was
very sympathetic to your needs.
But looking over here, is there really--is the cost of
this, as it adds up to be about $725 million? Is the analysis
here--the overview, is that the additional $300 million for the
municipal, rural, and industrial water for the MR&I under the
1986 reformulation, an additional $200 million for the tribal
MR&I, authorization of $200 million to meet the Red Valley
water needs, and adding $25 million to the existing Wetlands
Trust for broadened purposes, and then some offsets, reducing
the authorized irrigation from 130,000 acres to 70,000 acres,
and provide protection for the Western Area Power
Administration's rate payers. What is the bottom line need?
Mr. Pomeroy. Mr. Chairman, if I might.
Mr. Farr, it's about a $770 million tag and the three
principal components of it. Three hundred million dollars State
MR&I, the conversion of this project from primarily an
irrigation project to primarily a municipal water supply
project, and that's the $300 million figure. All right, in
addition, as was recognized at the time of the 1986
reauthorization, the water needs on our Indian reservations are
enormous, and once more the equity claim in particular of two
of the four tribes that have literally been split apart by this
reservoir are very significant. It's $200 million to the Native
American MR&I needs. Two hundred million dollars as the third
central feature of this project, Congressman Farr, relating to
the transport of water from the reservoir in the west to the
population in the east.
And so those are the three most significant features of
this project. And then there are some other issues; the
Wetlands Trust and the Four Bears Bridge allowing this
particular tribe at Fort Berthold to have a workable
transportation artery over the reservoir itself.
Mr. Farr. Can you segment that? Is that where you can get
$200 million for the project for the pipeline and then work on
the formulas in subsequent years, because those don't all come
due at the same time, or do they?
Mr. Pomeroy. Well, the $200 million is reimbursable on that
water, west to east, so there would be an income stream coming
back repaying that obligation to the Federal Government.
Mr. Farr. OK. Well, I'll be on the Appropriations Committee
next year, so I'll be looking forward to working with you.
Mr. Pomeroy. You know, as was said, actually you missed our
presentations, and this is a big price tag, but we have put
this project together. It's a comprehensive project for our
State's water needs and represents the quo and the quid pro quo
the State entered into at the time we got flooded with a
reservoir that's literally the size of the State of Rhode
Island.
We are the host to the flood, but we have yet to get the
optimal plan in place that gives us a fair use of the water
from that reservoir. And so, that's why this is as it is, and
we haven't asked the Federal Government, ``Well, fund this
little leg; fund that little leg.'' We put it together in a
comprehensive package that would represent the culminating of
the Federal Government's response to North Dakota for the
building of the dam on the Missouri River and the flood that
resulted in Lake Sakakawea.
Mr. Farr. It's too bad you couldn't have that pipeline
reach Los Angeles. You'd sell it in a quick minute.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Doolittle. I'd like to thank our witnesses'
extraordinary appearance by the officials of North Dakota. We
certainly know you are committed to this project, and we thank
you for taking the time to be here.
We may have additional questions we'll wish to address, and
we'll do that in writing, and we'll hold the record open for
your responses.
And with that, we thank you for being here. We'll excuse--
--
Mr. Pomeroy. Mr. Chairman, as this panel breaks up, I would
have two requests for the record. We held a couple of hearings
in the State of North Dakota, one in Fargo and one in Minot, to
illicit responses from and to allow the general public in the
State to show what they thought of this particular plan. We
would like to introduce the testimony from those two hearings,
one held in Fargo on February 14, 1998, one held in Minot,
August 11, 1998, into the record.
Mr. Doolittle. We'd be pleased to, without objection,
include that in the record.
[The information referred to may be found at end of
hearing.]
Mr. Pomeroy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And finally, we'd
like to add to the records a letter from Robert Griffin,
Brigadier General U.S. Army, division engineer with the Army
Corps of Engineers, basically assessing the impact on
downstream flows from the proposed project.
Mr. Doolittle. And we'll include that as well, without
objection.
[The information referred to may be found at end of
hearing.]
Mr. Pomeroy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Farr. And I think for the record, I've--and I'm still
new to this place--but I have never seen a more distinguished
panel in the entire political leadership; House, Senate, and
Governor are sitting at one table from any one State. I don't
think any other State could do that, and I compliment you on
your ability to bring it all together.
Mr. Pomeroy. Thank you.
Governor Edward Schafer. Thank you.
Mr. Doolittle. As the witnesses are leaving, let me invite
the members of panel one to come forward.
Any objections to Mr. Pomeroy joining us at the desk? Being
none, he is invited.
Let me ask, please, the members of panel one if you will
rise and raise your right hand.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Doolittle. Let the record reflect that each answered in
the affirmative. We appreciate your being here, and we will
begin with our Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation, Mr.
Martinez.
STATEMENT OF ELUID MARTINEZ, COMMISSIONER, U.S. BUREAU OF
RECLAMATION, DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR, WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Martinez. Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee, I
have submitted by written testimony for the record, and if
appropriate, I'd like to summarize my statement.
I'd like to start off by extending my appreciation to the
North Dakota delegation, the Governor's office, State
legislative leaders, their State engineer, and the Conservancy
district with working with reclamation over the past year to
try to address some of the outstanding issues and the concerns
of the administration.
While we have not been able to adequately address all those
issues, we are a lot closer today than we were 6 months ago in
trying to resolve the administration's concerns with this,
including a meeting I had last week with the delegation. I'm
optimistic that additional progress can and will be made.
There is still some concerns that need to be addressed, and
if I may, I'll divert from my prepared statement. We have the
issue of the concern by Canada about water quality. I view that
as a technical issue and a political issue. I think from a
technical prospective, these issues can be addressed.
The other issue that my testimony addresses is a question
of tieing the Wetlands Trust funding to development or to the
progress of development on the Red River Valley initiative. The
administration believes they should be decoupled and stand on
their own merits.
I'd like to, if at all possible, try to help you, Mr.
Chairman, and the Committee with some of the questions that you
raised and try to place this in some kind of a perspective. And
my figures might be a little bit off, and if so, I'll correct
the record. But it's my understanding that in 1965, under
Public Law 98-108, where Congress sort of adopted or fashioned
a project that involved 250,000 acres of irrigated land. It was
at that process at that time that the amount of money necessary
to construct that project was about $2.2 billion, 1965.
In 1986, by the time this project had sort of been
reformulated, Public Law 99-294, was looking at a total project
cost of about $1.5 billion with no indexing involved. In other
words, no escalation for increases in price of construction.
And, to date, out of that $1.5 billion, $800 million has been
authorized, and the Bureau of Reclamation has, through this
year, gotten appropriations of about $614 million.
The current proposal before you now, as proposed by this
legislation, is about $1.6 billion and does not include index
cost. In other words, that price will escalate based on the
time it takes to construct and the indexing of those costs, so
I think from all----
Mr. Doolittle. Commissioner, just to clarify, you said that
it will escalate?
Mr. Martinez. Yes. The $1.6 does not include indexing
costs.
Mr. Doolittle. Right.
Mr. Martinez. So it would escalate. So I think the argument
could be made that it's sort of a wash in terms of the total
number of Federal dollars that were contemplated to be
committed sometime in 1986 versus the current proposal.
Within this $1.6 billion that the project sponsors are
seeking, is an increase of about a billion dollars to fund, in
essence, a $200 million part of the project for bringing water
into the Red River Valley. Now as I understand, this would be
reimbursable with interest, paid back to the Federal Treasury,
but it is my understanding that the payments would not occur
until such time as the project would be put in operation.
There's a $300 million increase in the non-Indian MR&I, or
municipal, rural, and industrial portion of this project. That
$300 million represents a 75 percent cost share of the Federal
Government of what I assume to be a $400 million project. The
administration has concerns about the 75 percent cost share.
It's longstanding policy at the Bureau of Reclamation that
these kind of projects, that the project sponsor fund 100
percent, reimbursable with interest, with these kind of
projects.
Now I fully understand that the Committee is aware that
there is, within the Garrison project right now, $200 million
which has been authorized for similar projects that are being
funded with a 75 percent cost share by the Federal Government.
Mr. Chairman, if I may, I might want to exceed----
Mr. Doolittle. You just take the time you need, Mr.
Martinez.
Mr. Martinez. OK.
So, and I think the administration is committed to that
$200 million, so we're talking about an additional $300
million. And the question is, whether that should be a 75
percent Federal cost share to the extent that that cost share
reduced that $300 million requirement would come down, bringing
down the total cost of the project.
There's a $200 million portion for Indian municipal, rural,
and industrial water supply. And I understand that would only
meet 80 percent of the Indian needs in the State. The
administration supports that. I believe that the Indian
community needs to have their needs addressed. But we are
concerned about the operation and maintenance, perpetual costs
associated with that project.
The Bureau of Reclamation, as Commissioner, I'm concerned
about the $40 million in this proposal for the Four Bears
Bridge. Now I understand the need, and I don't question the
need, for the bridge, but given the fact that the Bureau of
Reclamation's budget has been decreased and continues to be in
a decreasing mode for the last few years, I would find it
difficult to be able to seek the appropriation for $40 million
for a bridge when I have competing needs, as you know, toward
reclamation efforts westwide.
So I think from my perspective, Mr. Chairman, assuming you
get past the water quality issue with Canada and some of the
environmental concerns, it's really a question of funding and
where the money is going to come from if Congress sees fit to
move this project forward.
We will continue to work with the Committee and the
project's sponsors to try to find ways to reduce the Federal
expenditure on this project by reductions in the Federal OM&R
expenses as well as the total project outlay.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my comments.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Martinez may be found at end
of hearing.]
Mr. Doolittle. Thank you.
Our next witness will be the Honorable Bruce Furness, Mayor
of the city of Fargo, in North Dakota.
Mayor Furness.
STATEMENT HON. BRUCE FURNESS, MAYOR, FARGO, NORTH DAKOTA
Mayor Furness. Chairman Doolittle, Congressman Farr,
Congressman Pomeroy, thank you for the opportunity to be with
you today.
I do represent the city of Fargo, but, in addition, today
I'm representing the Eastern Dakota Water Users group and the
North Dakota League of Cities, which just this past Saturday,
the North Dakota League of Cities, 361 cities, approved a
resolution of support for the Dakota Water Resources Act which
I'd like to have entered into the record if I may.
Mr. Doolittle. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information referred to may be found at end of
hearing.]
Mayor Furness. Fargo is located right on the edge of North
Dakota on the Red River. It is the largest city in North Dakota
and with Moorhead, Minnesota, right across the river,
represents about 165,000 people in population. We have enjoyed
a growth rate of about 2 percent over the last 15 to 20 years
and see that continuing in the near future. In fact, we think
it's actually accelerating at this point. This is one of the
reasons why we're concerned about the quantity of water
available. And from a statewide prospective, nearly 40 percent
of the State's population live in the six counties that border
the Red River.
I am going to paraphrase my report, but I would like to
read two parts of this. And the first is a summary of the
problem characterized by a report from our consultant, Black &
Veatch, when we designed our new water plant. They say that,
``The city of Fargo has rights to two water sources for
treatment and subsequent supply to its citizens for potable
use: the Red River of the North and the Cheyenne River.
Unfortunately, both sources are of poor quality and, even taken
together, they do not offer a reliable quantity of water to
meet Fargo's present and certainly the future water needs. The
diversion of Missouri River water to Fargo by way of Garrison
Dam would provide a long-term lifeline for the community.''
That's their conclusion.
We are concerned about the quantity of water. You've seen
the pictures of some of the drought situations, and I want to
also describe to you a commentary, I guess, by former Governor
William Guy of Fargo. ``If you were to look at the Red River
near the water plant in the 1930's, you would wonder how they
ever made the water fit to drink. The searing hot drought hung
over heavily the Upper Midwest through the entire decade of the
1930's. The Geological Survey records say that the murky Red
River ceased to flow at Fargo for a period in every year of
that decade. The driest year was 1936 when the Red River
stopped flowing for 166 continuous days. Cars were not washed.
Lawns went unsprinkled. There was talk of returning the Fargo
Sewage Plant discharge to the river above the city water intake
for reuse. Moorhead, across the river, was drawing all of its
water from wells east of the city, and their tap water tasted
good. With a population of around 25,000 at that time, Fargo's
water situation was desperate. Today--'' and I'm still quoting
Governor Guy--``both Fargo and Moorhead draw their water from
the Red River, while their combined population has increased
five fold from the dry 1930's. Industries not even dreamed of
65 years ago now use copious amounts of Red River water. It is
easy to understand why the Garrison Diversion project to bring
Missouri River water east to the Red River Valley has been on
the minds of thinking people for more than 50 years.'' and
that's the end of his quote.
We are concerned about low flow quantities as well. There
has been a study performed in the past that suggested that a
seven cubic feet per second minimum flow in the Red River is
sufficient, and that is totally unacceptable. You won't be able
to see this chart----
[Laughter.]
I can hardly see the chart from here. So I'll just have to
describe it to you. But it is a chart; I think it was in the
packet of information that was sent to you. It's a chart of
annual 7-day duration low flows in the Red River from 1900 to
the present time. And what it shows is--what it takes is 7-day
periods, 1-week periods, and finds the lowest of those for the
given year, and that's what is recorded on the chart.
So you can see that there's a green line toward the bottom
of that chart. That represents the current capacity or the
current average daily use of our water plant in Fargo, 12
million gallons a day. And when the blue line goes below that
green line, that means there's insufficient water to handle
that average usage of water. So it doesn't happen too often.
You can see in the 1930's that there is no blue line there.
That's when we had that zero flow. You can see in the 1970's
there was some, but of recent years it has been fairly good.
The next line above that is a black line and it represents
the capacity of our new water plant at 30 million gallons per
day, which we just invested $60 million in, and the line above
that, the kind of dark blue line, horizontal line, represents
our future capacity. The plant was designed to be expanded to
45 million gallons per day. If you look at that line, the 45
million gallon line across, and then look below that for all of
the blue trend lines, those would be situations where in the
past there would not have been enough water to run that plant
at capacity. So we think we didn't enter into that investment
of $60 million lightly. We have that capacity now, and we'd
like to have the water available for that as well.
The obvious source of that kind of water is the Missouri
River water; 96 percent of the usable surface water in North
Dakota is in the Missouri River, and it makes sense, we think,
to transport that east. And as was pointed out before, the 100
cubic feet per second that would go potentially to eastern
North Dakota is about 1 percent of the entire water flowing
through the State in the Missouri River.
And I had a graphic description which didn't get here, but
if you were to take a pail of water that represents the water
in the Missouri River going through Garrison and down out of
the State, the amount that would be diverted into the eastern
part of the State would be represented by just a single thimble
of water.
We are also concerned about quality, and I'll let the
written report deal with that. And we are also concerned about
conservation, which we are doing in our community now and will
continue to do and enhance that.
The last point I would like to make is my last paragraph in
the written statement. Although impossible to predict with any
certainty, it is believed that the Red River Valley has
adequate water supply for the next 10 to 15 years. Should
drought conditions occur, however, that estimate may be reduced
3 to 5 years. Consequently, little time remains to resolve
these concerns. Activity must begin now to address the many
issues relating to water quantity and quality. And I urge your
favorable consideration of this critical legislation.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Furness may be found at end
of hearing.]
Mr. Doolittle. Thank you.
Now our witness will be Mr. Russell D. Mason, Sr., chairman
of Three Affiliated Tribes, in North Dakota.
Mr. Mason.
STATEMENT OF RUSSELL MASON, SR., CHAIRMAN, THREE AFFILIATED
TRIBES, NORTH DAKOTA
Mr. Mason. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the
Subcommittee, Congressman Farr, and our good friend Congressman
Earl Pomeroy. I want to thank you for the opportunity to
present testimony today concerning H.R. 3012, the Dakota Water
Resources Act.
I am Chairman Russell Mason of the Three Affiliated Tribes
of the Bandan, Hidatsa, and Arikara Nations. Also, accompanying
me is Chairwoman Mira Pearson of the Spirit Lake Nation, who is
sitting in the audience here.
I'd like to share with you a little bit about the Three
Affiliated Tribes. As you may recall, the Three Affiliated
Tribes greeted Lewis and Clark in the early 19th century as
they made their expedition up the Missouri River and over to
the Pacific coast. And if it wasn't for the Three Affiliated
Tribes, I don't think he would have survived his first winter.
And also, I don't know if he would have been able to find his
way if it hadn't been for a guide that was one of our women
from the tribes up there, and that was Sakakawea who provided a
guide as well as an interpreter.
But also, in sitting here and listening to the testimony
and having testified at a number of hearings and on the Senate
side, the Three Affiliated Tribes were one of the tribes that
signed the 1851 Fort Laramie Treaty, at the time when we were
given over 11 million acres.
Since that time, lands were taken by Executive Order, by
congressional actions, and the last land grab--and if you were
to look at the map of the Garrison Reservoir--is that the Three
Affiliated Tribes gave the most and sacrificed the most. About
69 percent of the land needed for that dam belonged to the
Three Affiliated Tribes. We occupied that valley; 99 percent of
our people lived in that valley, and I grew up there. I can
never go back, and I can never say, ``This is where I was
born.'' like any one of you can go back wherever you were born.
It caused social disorganization that we're still
recovering from. It disorganized our clanship systems, our
medicine societies, and caused havoc. It took some of our most
fertile lands from us.
What I want to say that, today--and I think that
Congressman Farr identifies with this--we're one of the few
States that has a solid working relationship with not only our
congressional delegation, but also with our Governor, with our
State legislatures, and our friendship goes across partisan
lines. And I think many States could follow this example.
I want to say, clearly, that the Three Affiliated Tribes
strongly supports the Dakota Water Resources Act and urges its
immediate passage. And, I would like to show--everyone has
their water bottles here, but I brought mine, too. But this is
the water that we get from most of the wells in North Dakota.
Someone just brought this to me. They said this was from the
Committee coffee shop----
[Laughter.]
[continuing] which really isn't very far off from these
other colors. In fact, my mother is 86 years old, and she lives
out in the country. Her water was darker than this. We shut her
well down, otherwise, I would have brought a sample. We have to
haul her water. And so, without laboring--and I think that my
good friends have given all of the information that is needed--
is that we need this.
But also we were promised many things in the same manner
that we were promised many things in our treaties. We were
promised the replacement of a hospital; we have never received
that.
We were promised a bridge, and that bridge that spans the
Missouri River that we were talking about, Four Bears Bridge,
is not an Indian bridge; it's a North Dakota bridge, and it has
a lot to do with the commerce in western North Dakota. You have
farmers and rangers that live on each side of the river who
farm on the other side of the river. That needs to be replaced.
Those spans for those bridges were taken from bridges that were
constructed in the 1930's, and it is one of the most dangerous
bridges in the country. And as Senator Conrad had mentioned is
that one only needs to drive, not only on a Saturday night but
anytime of the day, to see how dangerous that bridge is.
I would have several remaining issues that I hope this
Committee could address, at a minimum in the final committee
report of H.R. 3012.
One, is that we would ask that the language be in the final
committee report recognizing the reserved water rights of the
Three Affiliated Tribes to water from the Missouri River and
its tributaries that are within the Fort Berthold known as
Winters doctrine rights.
Two, we would also request that authority be provided for
Federal funding of additional irrigation sites for the Three
Affiliated Tribes, should they prove feasible other than those
already authorized.
Finally, we would ask that the final Committee report
accompany the bill include language that states that this bill
fulfills some of the goals set forth in the Garrison Unit Joint
Tribal Advisory Committee report, dated May 23, 1986. I have
attached a copy of that report to my original copy of my
written testimony and would ask that this be included in the
record of this hearing.
As I mentioned, we were promised many things when we lost
our homelands almost 50 years ago. And as Senator Dorgan said
on the floor of the Senate when the Senate version of this bill
was introduced, ``We expect the Federal Government this time to
keep their promise.''
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Mason may be found at end of
hearing.]
Mr. Doolittle. Thank you.
Our next witness will be Ms. Michelle McCormack, of
Southwest Water Authority, in North Dakota.
Ms. McCormack.
STATEMENT OF MICHELLE McCORMACK, SOUTHWEST WATER AUTHORITY,
NORTH DAKOTA
Ms. McCormack. Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, my
name is Michelle McCormack, and I have been a resident of
southwest North Dakota for the past 17 years.
I am one of the many people in North Dakota that has
benefited from the partially completed Southwest Pipeline
project. I support the passage of legislation on the completion
of Garrison Diversion because I know firsthand, the social,
economic, and personal hardships of having poor water.
My first home in southwest North Dakota had clear water,
but it was ``hard enough to walk on'' according to the water
tester. It was high in sodium and high in iron. It left rust
stains on our clothes and it left stains and deposits on
fixtures. It was so invasive that lifetime faucets had to be
replaced every 7 years. Water pipes and shower heads filled up
with hard lime deposits, so the water pressure was reduced, and
eventually plumbing would leak and have to be replaced.
My husband and I built a house 10 years ago on a building
site with an existing well. The well water was light brown, the
color of tea, and it was soft, but it was very limited. When
the cattle were drinking there was no water in the house.
That well began to fail after a few years. Because of the
soils in our area, wells often fail, filling in with a light
silt. We added filters, attempted to clear the water through
the use of settling tanks, and finally we had to accept the
fact that we needed a new well. At a cost of $12 a foot, we dug
until we had spent over $6,000. And we found water--abundant,
soft, potable, safe for cattle, but dark brown. We had the
choice of digging deeper, hoping to find better water; however,
there was no guarantee that it would be there. Or we could live
with the brown water that we had and wait for the pipeline to
come.
That brown water stained everything. One washing would turn
a white dishtowel grey. Even dark clothes were dulled and
dingy. My children learned to dry their hair after a shower; if
they did not, their damp hair would stain the collars of their
white t-shirt.
The picture you see here of the baby in the bathtub is my
son. When he was five, he asked me if there was a rule that
only motels and grandmas got to have white sheets. We bought
dark towels, dark linens, and very little white clothing. We
had to haul all our white laundry to the nearest laundromat, a
30-mile trip one way.
It took full strength toilet bowl cleaner to remove dried
stains from sinks, showers, and fixtures. We distilled all the
water we used for cooking and drinking and cleaning. The water
had tested safe for human use, but boiling pasta or potatoes in
that water was unappetizing at best. Our distiller ran 24 hours
a day.
It wasn't pretty and we endured it because we had to. Our
family and friends hated to visit or stay overnight, and the
kids' friends didn't like to see it. So there was a social cost
and a high economic cost to distill, and haul laundry, and a
long-term cost to the house plumbing and fixtures.
Our friends and our neighbors, they all have stories like
this. They tell stories of faucets that erode away every 5
years; garbage disposal blades eaten by the water; stains,
costs, frustrations, and hard work over a resource that most
Americans take as a given part of their life.
I've been lucky; I am one of the people who benefited
greatly from the Southwest Pipeline project. There are others.
Don and Sarah Froehlich from Belfield were about to sell
their dairy cattle operation before the pipeline arrived at
their farm. High levels of sulfate contaminated their water
causing Don to be sick with flu-like symptoms for over a month.
In addition, the water caused a bad taste in the milk and
cheese their cattle produced.
Douglas Candee from Dickinson has expanded his buffalo herd
to over 200 head which he attributes to the abundant,
dependable water he receives from the Southwest Pipeline
project.
Joe and Mag Kathrein, of New England, have struggled
constantly with water in the past, hauling water twice a day to
their cattle herd 20 miles round trip. Now they enjoy quality
water in abundance.
Bernice Jahner, of Hettinger, appreciates the health
benefits she receives from Southwest Pipeline water. For the
past 5 years, she has been doctoring for ulcers on her legs,
taking whirlpool baths twice a day. After using pipeline water
for just 1 month, her doctors were amazed at her improvement.
The North Dakota State Water Commission has currently
identified 524 projects that are necessary for water
development in the State with an approximate cost of $1.8
billion. One hundred twenty-four of these projects are targeted
specifically for the next biennium, at a total cost of $362
million. Several large projects, such as flood control for
Grand Forks and Devil's Lake and the Maple River Dam are
included in this cost.
I can personally say the cost of a pipeline water bill
every month is a bargain, compared to what we paid to make our
water usable. Pipeline water is better for our health,
affordable, less work, and a real blessing to all of us in an
area where wells are not reliable.
I have some supporting documents that I ask be made part of
the record.
Thank you for the opportunity to share my experience.
[The prepared statement of Ms. McCormack may be found at
end of hearing.]
Mr. Doolittle. Thank you, and the documents that you and I
think Mr. Mason referred to will be admitted, without
objection.
[The information referred may be found at end of hearing.]
Mr. Doolittle. Our final witness in this panel is a former
staff director of this Subcommittee in a previous life and is
the former Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation, and now
is senior vice-president for Public Policy of the National
Audubon Society, Mr. Dan Beard.
Mr. Beard, welcome.
STATEMENT OF DAN BEARD, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, PUBLIC POLICY,
NATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY, WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Beard. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's nice to be back.
I appreciate the opportunity to testify before the
Subcommittee today. For the reasons I'll detail below, we
strongly oppose enactment of the Dakota Water Resources Act.
We appreciate all the time and hard work Congressman
Pomeroy has put into this proposal. We also recognize it
reflects a consensus among a variety of interests in North
Dakota. And while we appreciate all that work, we still oppose
the legislation.
Mr. Chairman, the Garrison Diversion Unit water project has
been the subject of controversy for 50 years. It has generated
countless lawsuits, legislative battles, diplomatic
negotiations, interstate controversies, and environmental
confrontations. Even worse, the taxpayers have spent about $600
million on the project facilities, many of which don't fulfill
their intended purpose.
In our view, H.R. 3012 would not end the controversies
surrounding the Garrison project and water development in North
Dakota; this legislation would just continue old controversies
and create new ones.
Mr. Chairman, rather than go through the bill line-by-line
and detail our objections, I would prefer to focus on several
important reasons why we believe this legislation is deficient.
We believe the proposal is premised on a faulty assumption.
As you've heard today, the major premise for this legislation
seems to be that a debt is owed North Dakota as a result of a
construction of the mainstem Pick-Sloan reservoirs.
Rather than revisit the historical accuracy of this
supposed commitment, let me point out that the Congress in 1986
expressly said that whatever commitment may have existed was
fulfilled by the 1986 legislation. Subsequent Congresses and
administration, both Democratic and Republican, with the
support of the environmental community, have met this
commitment by making available over $400 million to the State
of North Dakota for the construction of rural water systems,
Indian water projects, and other project facilities. Over
80,000 North Dakotans have directly benefited from these
expenditures, as you've heard today with things like the
projects like the Southwest Pipeline. In addition, according to
data provided by the Corps of Engineers, the State also
receives about $130 million in benefits each year from the
mainstem Missouri River facilities.
Thus, the State has received well over a billion dollars in
benefits and direct Federal appropriations since 1986. In our
view, the Dakota Water Resources Act fails to present a
forceful and compelling case why the taxpayers should make
available an additional $900 million in Federal funds and debt
forgiveness.
The Congress should know the facilities and features it is
authorizing. We believe it is absolutely essential that the
Congress only authorize construction of features that have been
thoroughly considered and planned. As currently drafted the
legislation directs the Secretary to build facilities that are
not clearly described or known, may not be needed, and perhaps
cannot be used. The Federal Government should take the lead for
implementing any legislation.
There are interstate and international issues and a host of
environmental challenges surrounding this project. We don't
believe it is appropriate for the Federal Government to cede
authority for addressing these issues to the State of North
Dakota, as it would in several sections of the bill.
There are several sections of the bill that would provide
for forgiveness or changing the rules for reimbursable
expenditures made in the past. We don't believe inclusion of
these provisions is appropriate.
The legislation would provides that the State will play an
integral part in the planning and design of facilities, and in
the preparation of an environmental impact statement on Red
River Valley water supply facilities. Given the interstate and
international problems surrounding this issue, we believe it
would be inappropriate to give the State this authority.
The final problem we would like to raise is the opposition
of the Government of Canada to importing water from the
Missouri River into the Red River drainage. In 1977, the
International Joint Commission recommended the construction of
those portions of the Garrison project delivering water from
the Missouri River into streams that ultimately drain into
Canada not be built, due to the potential for violation of the
Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909. Twenty-one years later, there
still is no assurance that project facilities that will be
completed and operated under this legislation would not violate
the Boundary Waters Treaty.
Now, as we said, we appreciate the opportunity to detail
our objections to the legislation. Let me outline a suggested
list of elements that we believe could lead to a positive
resolution of the issues surrounding this controversy.
First, we oppose the legislation to complete the Garrison
Unit because the project does not represent responsible,
economically sound, or environmentally acceptable water
resource development.
Second, if legitimate need is demonstrated for importing
Missouri River water to the Red River Valley for MR&I use, we
support formal consultations with Canada and discussion with
Minnesota to determine if an acceptable means can be developed
to deliver treated Missouri River water by pipeline directly to
the targeted cities.
Third, we support projects to meet tribal MR&I needs using
cost-effective delivery systems.
Fourth, we support irrigation development on tribal lands
adjacent to the Missouri River using water directly from the
river.
Fifth, we support other MR&I water projects in North Dakota
utilizing local water supplies or pipelines where they are
economically feasible and environmentally acceptable.
Sixth, we oppose the expenditure of additional Federal
funds for the construction, operation, or maintenance of the
Garrison Diversion Unit principal supply works, which have been
authorized previously.
And finally, the Garrison Diversion Conservancy District is
the entity primarily responsible for insisting that
construction proceed on the principal supply works. They have
done so before major problems associated with the project were
resolved and despite the objections of landowners and other
groups. Therefore, the costs associated with abandonment of the
principal supply works should be borne by the C-District rather
than by the American taxpayer.
I appreciate the opportunity to be here today and would be
happy to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Beard may be found at end of
hearing.]
Mr. Doolittle. Thank you.
I realize that we have--it does seem strange to me that
with all the planning of the expenses of these projects that we
could build them, and then it just turns out they just don't
work. I know that's happened various times, and apparently it's
happened here.
I personally think all of the upset about the interbasin
business is a little exaggerated. We have enormous transfer of
water that crosses basins in the State of California and
doesn't seem to be causing too many problems in that regard.
I would like to ask the Commissioner, it's obvious to me
you have a real problem with water like that in the picture,
but we do have a shrinking budget for the Bureau of
Reclamation, and I guess I'd ask our Commissioner if you'd tell
us how this project ranks with the other authorized projects
that you have. In your mind, how does it fit in?
Mr. Martinez. My perspective of this particular project
merits the same consideration as a lot of other projects. And
from my perspective, the question is not the authorization, the
question is the funding. And that's a very difficult decision
when we look at the projects that we have to fund under the
Bureau of Reclamation budget.
And when I'm looking at costs associated with dam safety
and operation and maintenance, fixing our facilities, I need to
place emphasis on those versus requesting from the Congress
appropriations for new ongoing projects.
As I stated, there's no question in my mind, once you get
past the environmental issue and the water quality problem with
Canada, that it really centers on economics. And I'm telling
you the way I see it.
Mr. Doolittle. Well, Commissioner, I don't expect you to be
an expert on the economics of North Dakota, but is there from
what you do know about the situation, is there a better way
they could solve their problem than the way that's being
proposed in this legislation? I mean, do you see any
suggestions that you could offer them as to how to go about
this?
Mr. Martinez. With respect to the water supply needs in the
Red River Valley, it's my understanding that studies are taking
place to determine an assessment as to how those needs can or
will be met and, you know, to the extent that that's
incorporated in the legislation, I think we'll probably look at
the best and most feasible approach.
But with respect to the other issues dealing with the
question of the $300 million additional dollars that the State
is requested for MR&I needs, again, to the extent that the
State would fund that at a 100 percent, like what we're
requesting, it would reduce the total project cost by $300
million. Or, if the Congress decides on another appropriate
cost share, that would reduce that cost.
I have no reason to question that the studies will reflect
probably the best engineering and least costly way to address
these problems, but they're still going to be very, very
expensive.
Mr. Doolittle. It was your testimony, wasn't it, that
there's already on the books of what an authorization for--
maybe it was an appropriation, but I think it said
authorization--for $200 million worth of rural water supply
already in the Garrison?
Mr. Martinez. That's my understanding; yes, and that's what
is being sought is an additional $300 million for the non-
Indian component.
Mr. Doolittle. To your knowledge, are those the main
exceptions to the policy that the Federal Government doesn't
provide money for rural water supply, or do we have other
examples as well?
Mr. Martinez. Well, I think what I tried to express is
the--as the Senator addressed as the issues--the main issues
are the question of who pays for the appropriate share of O&M
costs.
Mr. Doolittle. In this case, the O&M costs would be O&M for
that pipeline and all the related facilities.
Mr. Martinez. The O&M costs associated with the Indian part
of the project, the O&M costs associated with what has already
been constructed, and of course the O&M of the future
facilities.
Mr. Doolittle. Well now let me ask for the Indian part of
it, does the Federal Government normally fund that, or how does
that get handled?
Mr. Martinez. I'd have to get back to you, but it is my
understanding it has been dealt with differently in different
projects.
Mr. Doolittle. OK. That's the answer I thought you were
going to give.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Martinez. Now the other issue has to do with a $300
million increased request for MR&I purposes. Not only is the
request being made for $300 million, which represents a 75
percent cost share, but it is also being requested to put that
money in a State revolving fund to be able to use that money
for the State to lend out that money, to earn interest on that
money, be able to enable itself to make limited dollars
stretch.
The administration has some concerns with the use of that
revolving fund, to the extent that that type of revolving fund
is perhaps appropriate and to the extent that if the State
would generate interest revenues, maybe the $300 million can be
reduced.
These are the kind of things that we're willing to sit down
and discuss with the project sponsors in the Committee.
Mr. Doolittle. Let me interrupt and ask about that
revolving fund. Is that a unique proposal, or do we have
examples where that's been done before?
Mr. Martinez. I'm not aware of a proposal in the Bureau of
Reclamation, but we do make reference to a APA-type revolving
fund that this might be able to be modeled after. So I'm sure
there's something that guides us within the Federal bureaucracy
on these issues.
Then the other issue is the Four Bears Bridge, $40 million
bridge. Like I said, I have no reason to question the need of
it. The concern I have is the Bureau of Reclamation, the
appropriate place to fund a State bridge.
And those, I guess, basically, are the big financial issues
as I view them.
Mr. Doolittle. Let me ask about the bridge, because I'm
aware of--bridges are an issue, actually, in my district. You
said it's a State bridge, but Mr. Mason said there was
somebody--I guess I was going to ask him, and maybe I will ask
now.
You said you were promised--North Dakota was promised--I
guess it was North Dakota--was promised this bridge. Was that
you mean by the Federal Government?
Mr. Mason. Yes, sir.
Mr. Doolittle. And that was back when they built the
Garrison Dam, you mean?
Mr. Mason. Yes, this was in the 1940's.
Mr. Doolittle. And Mr. Beard said that in 1986 in that
legislation that reformed the 1940's legislation that they had
basically declared all those prior claims were settled by the
1986 legislation. Is that your understanding, Mr. Mason?
Mr. Mason. Yes, sir.
Mr. Doolittle. But was the bridge set aside as a separate
outstanding issue unresolved, or how do you----
Mr. Mason. I'm not sure of that.
Mr. Doolittle. Anybody want to comment on that who might
know about it?
Mr. Beard. Well, if I could, Mr. Chairman. I think there's
a couple of things. There is the issue of whether the Federal
Government has an obligation since the bridge was built and has
been maintained on a State road. And the question is, does the
Federal Government have an obligation to replace that bridge?
Mr. Doolittle. So, the bridge was built originally by the
Federal Government; now it's deteriorated, and so North Dakota
wants a replacement for the bridge.
Mr. Beard. I need to throw another thing on the table. In
1992, the Congress passed legislation, title 35 of Public Law
102-575, which provided authorization to divert surplus Western
Area Power Administration revenues in the amount of about $250
million to the tribes in North Dakota because the Congress felt
the tribes had not been fairly compensated for the taking of
their land at the time the mainstem reservoirs were built. This
recommendation came from the Garrison Commission in 1984, and
it was a rec-
ommendation addressed in the Committee reports in 1985, and
then in the 1992 legislation.
So, in addition to the amount that have been made available
for the Garrison project, I'd also point out that an additional
amount has been made available to the tribes in recognition of
the fact that they were not compensated fairly at the time that
the original mainstem reservoirs were built.
Mr. Doolittle. And that amounted to $250 million?
Mr. Beard. The authorization is for $250 million of surplus
Western Area Power Administration revenues to be diverted to
the tribes.
Mr. Doolittle. Do you know how much of that they've
actually----
Mr. Beard. I don't have that figure with me.
Mr. Pomeroy. Mr. Chairman, that legislation was passed
before I came to Congress, but was not in any way related to
either the bridge issue or the MR&I needs of the reservations.
It was a settlement related to the fact that at the time
they went ahead with this ``let's dam the Missouri River
plan,'' the Pick-Sloan plan, it just so happened, probably not
coincidentally, that the flooded lands were quite often Indian
reservation lands, and that this was a fundamental inequity
that needed to be addressed. And as a measure of addressing it,
the JTAC legislation was passed.
On the bridge, specifically, this was an area that didn't
need a bridge because we didn't have water before the reservoir
was flooded. At the time they were doing this grand project,
they bought a bridge somewhere. If I understand it, Mr.
Chairman--you can correct me if I'm not correct--they bought a
bridge which was an existing bridge; it wasn't built from
scratch for this purpose and stuck it in here. The problem was
that it was never adequate because it wasn't wide enough. It
was always an extremely narrow hazardous bridge, and we've just
lived with it for all these many years. So this isn't kind of a
road maintenance issue; this artery never worked, and we didn't
even need an artery if we wouldn't have had this federally
constructed reservoir.
And that's how this all ties together. We understand that
it is an unusual feature of a water project.
Mr. Doolittle. What does this bridge span anyway? Is it an
arm of the reservoir?
Mr. Pomeroy. Yes.
Mr. Doolittle. OK. Well let me recognize Mr. Pomeroy for
some questions.
Mr. Pomeroy. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I, in particular, want to express my appreciation for
Director Martinez who has, I think, demonstrated on behalf of
the Bureau and understanding that this is a Federal
relationship to North Dakota's water needs that has not been
met and needs to be met, specifically, as to the point made by
Dan Beard. Did the 1986 Act absolve the Federal Government of
some kind of obligation back to the State of North Dakota?
The 1986 Act really had a--represented a plan, and the plan
included some MR&I funding, but it included a water
distribution works that was to allow the State to access and
use this Missouri River water. Now this distribution works,
known as the Sikeston Canal didn't work. And so the central
part of the 1986 reformulation--a central part of the 1986
Act--simply has failed.
That's what got us back to the drawing board so that we
might come up with something that does meet our needs going
forward. And we have reconfigured the needs. We haven't just
said, ``Well this distribution piece doesn't work. How else do
we maintain this exact project?''
We basically took a look at--let's go back to the drawing
board, stay within the dollars that were represented by the
1986 Act, but come up with a plan that better meets our needs
into the 21st century. And so that's really the plan that is
before us.
Because the 1986 Act represents, and specifically states--
the 1986 Act recognizes this could be a commitment of the
Federal Government by declaring as a purpose of the bill,
quote, ``to offset the loss of farmland resulting from
construction of major features of the Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin
program by means of a federally assisted water resource
development project.'' unquote.
Well, that project didn't work, so we don't believe that
the 1986 Act extinguishes the obligation. Rather, we think, it
represents part of the ongoing Federal-State relationship as we
try to come up with an appropriate resolution of what the State
ought to have for its role in this comprehensive Missouri River
management plan that has caused us this flood.
Specifically, I would respond to Dan Beard, in saying that
of your list of seven, I mean I think there are four points of
general agreement between North Dakota and the Audubon Society.
Now to the extent that you rely on you would transport water
from west to east by piping it all the way to Fargo, Mr.
Chairman, a distance in excess of 200 miles, we would use an
existing--we'd use first of all the 100 miles of canals that
have already been constructed and natural terrain features to
get the water over there. But we're basically talking about the
same thing--water, west to east.
You indicate we shouldn't breach the Boundary Waters
Treaty. We agree; we shouldn't breach the Boundary Waters
Treaty, and obviously this will not go forward if it does. But
on the other hand, we don't think it's simply up to Canada to
indicate whether or not that treaty is breached. We've actually
put in a treatment capacity to make certain that the treaty is
in all respects complied with. So this isn't a treaty violative
proposal we're putting forward; it's a treaty compliant measure
that addresses more than any of the iterations of Garrison have
in the past of those concerns raised by our friends to the
north.
There are a number of issues, obviously, that we would take
exception to. I mean while we agree, maybe conceptually in
certain respects, we certainly have other points of what I'd
call adamant disagreement with the Audubon Society's testimony.
But rather than take your time, Mr. Chairman, hammering it out
here, we recognize these will be discussions to be held going
forward.
I would like to describe, though, so you understand how
this project came together. We really opened the door to all
interested parties as we tried to come up with a reformulated
plan for Garrison Diversion. That included a number of
representatives of the environmental community. At some point,
the Audubon Society elected not to continue at the table with
us, and they decided instead to resist. Other representatives
of the environmental community stayed at the table and have
signed off on the completed plan.
We don't want to continue this debate another 40 years. We
want a completed water project that meets our State's needs
into the 21st century. To the extent, I think we have made
concessions that have gone far beyond what have ever been done
before to try and get a comprehensive consensus of views that
this is the plan that gets this done.
Obviously, the concerns raised by Director Martinez will be
a source of ongoing discussions and negotiations, and we'll
continue to be available to discuss these other issues that we
recognize we'll have to deal with them in the legislative
process anyway. But I particularly am appreciative of the
Bureau's interest in the proposal and the supportive words you
have made, as well as those representatives of the
environmental community that stayed at the table and helped us
bring this plan to its present state.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Doolittle. Thank you.
Commissioner, could I ask you--or maybe somebody else wants
to volunteer--if this thing in 1986, these canals or whatever
it was, had worked as they were designed, then would this
problem have been resolved then or not?
Mr. Martinez. I'd have to--maybe former Commissioner Beard
might be able to give us some insight on this. My knowledge is
limited on this. It's not the question they didn't work; it's
just that they stopped building them. They left a gap in the
middle.
Mr. Doolittle. Well, that's why they didn't work.
Mr. Martinez. Because of concerns. So, what you've got, is
you've got some oversized canals. The project has changed; the
formulation of the project has changed.
Mr. Doolittle. Well, I want to hear from Mr. Beard. Maybe
he'll comment on that. But, that's a useful clarification. So
they stopped the construction of these canals----
Mr. Pomeroy. Mr. Chairman, the Sikeston Canal feature,
Commissioner, was not going to work. I mean it was--
construction wasn't begun because even before we began we
realized that that which the Act had provided for physically
wasn't going to do that which was intended, and, therefore, the
construction didn't begin. But it was a design feature that
simply didn't work as had been envisioned at the time the Act
was passed.
Mr. Martinez. Mr. Chairman, for the purpose of clarifying
the record, we'll present something in writing to sort of give
a little history on that.
Mr. Doolittle. That would be useful.
Mr. Martinez. Thank you.
Mr. Doolittle. Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard. Yes, if I could, Mr. Chairman, I think maybe I
can, hopefully, bring some clarity to the discussion by
characterizing it this way. This is my view, certainly, and it
isn't, I'm sure, held by the delegation, Mr. Pomeroy, and
others. But, we're here today, not because we're addressing a
``project.'' We're here today for political reasons. We're here
today because, as the delegation stated and I stated in my
testimony, that there is a feeling on the part of--and
earnestly felt--on the part of people in North Dakota that
there's an obligation from the Federal Government to provide
something to the State of North Dakota in compensation for the
construction of the mainstem reservoirs. That's why we're here.
And so the legislation you have is essentially not one
project, it's a whole bunch of things to take care of
individual interest groups. There's a bridge; there's $25
million for some in the environmental community who want more
grant-making authority. There's more money for MR&I all
throughout the State, which is a legitimate need. There's some
money for Indian MR&I and Indian irrigation, and there's some
money to move water to eastern North Dakota.
All of these are specific interests. They've all been
collected, put together in one bag, and called the ``Dakota
Water Resources Act,'' and in that sense, fulfills a political
problem, which is this feeling that there is a commitment owed.
I think the principal question for you and the rest of the
Committee members is, should this Congress address this
political issue, this commitment issue? And, should it address
the commitment in the ways that have been suggested in the
legislation? That's the challenge before you, because we're not
here for some engineering reason, certainly. We're here to
fulfill a political obligation.
As I tried to point out in my testimony, I think a very
compelling case can be made that the Federal Government has
gone a long way to fulfilling this commitment already. And the
question is, how much more should it undertake on behalf of
fulfilling this obligation?
So I hope that helps.
Mr. Martinez. Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Doolittle. Mr. Martinez.
Mr. Martinez. I don't think the place is appropriate for me
to be debating the issue with a former Commissioner but I think
that there's a need. There's no question there's a need out in
that area to deliver this service. And it appears to me that
not only North Dakota, but also South Dakota and other western
States are coming before this Subcommittee and asking for these
kind of projects, and will continue to ask for these kind of
projects.
The question is how the Congress wishes to deal with this
issue. It's either a total package, if in fact it believes that
it owes something to North Dakota because of what happened back
50 years ago, or because it wants to address this issue
comprehensively rather than having it piecemealed to death.
Because, in essence, if you look at what's happening in other
parts of the west--and we have another project coming right
behind this one where they're coming in one after another,
rather than comprehensive. And, you know, that's what I want to
leave with you.
Mr. Doolittle. Well, I'd have to agree with you on that
score, and I'm afraid I haven't been very encouraging to Mr.
Pomeroy and the people that--or Mr. Thune from South Dakota
because, heretofore, we haven't made great ventures into the
area of MR&I supply as we're now being asked to do. And yet I
certainly understand the need is legitimate.
I'm not sure I have a solution. I know we need one. I guess
we're looking for one, really, in this Committee. And that's
the purpose of this hearing and others like it to try and
develop the facts that we need in order to, I guess, ascertain
how serious the problem is, how extensive it is, and what we're
going to do about it.
Ms. McCormack mentioned that the water from the pipeline
was a bargain compared to what they paid to treat the water and
deal with it there. I mean, I would pay three or four--maybe
more than that--times our present water bill if I had that to
deal with. I don't know if three or four or five or six times,
even if you paid that, would be enough to develop what you'd
have to do in order to get the better water.
But I would be interested in the economics. I mean
certainly all the people raising cattle, or anybody involved in
industry, or anything like that, is this Red River Valley area
where this computer industry, Gateway, and all that, isn't that
where that is?
Mr. Pomeroy. Gateway is South Dakota, Mr. Chairman,
although we have some----
Mr. Doolittle. Oh, that's South Dakota----
Mr. Pomeroy. Well, actually--I grew up very close to Fargo.
And what we've seen Fargo do is actually enter a new plateau of
economic development where it's really taking off. It's
becoming a regional powerhouse, and we do have a significant
software company in Fargo and a number of other--it's just
gangbusters as a regional economic trade center.
But to sum up where North Dakota is coming from on this, it
isn't as though we got into a room and said, ``Hey, I've got an
idea. Let's have the Federal Government fund our State water
needs.''
What happened way back was we agreed to host a flood
forever in exchange for a million acres of irrigation. We never
got the million acres of irrigation. And what's more, we can
even agree that right now there's more important--if you take
the dollar value of what it would take to create a million
acres of irrigation--we, the State's elected leadership, has
agreed that there are ways that that dollar value could be
spent in North Dakota that would better meet our water needs
into the next century. And we've written that down in a
comprehensive fashion, as the Commissioner has noted, and
advanced us in this legislation. We have operated within the
parameters of what it was our understanding the Federal
Government was going to return to us in exchange for us hosting
this flood reflected in the reservoir on the Missouri River.
Mr. Doolittle. I must say having a reservoir, I've never
thought of that argument; that's interesting. I have to see if
I can put that to good use in my own area there.
[Laughter.]
Hosting a flood, therefore, we're owed some compensation of
some sort.
Mr. Pomeroy. For your support of----
[Laughter.]
[continuing] our project, we will waive all copyright----
[Laughter.]
[continuing] interests in that line argument.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Doolittle. I mean in the case of our flood, we've
always thought those afforded rather considerable advantages,
through recreation and water supply and power generation, all
kinds of things.
Mr. Pomeroy. The issue with us is that we have the water,
but for recreation we really have not been able to use it. So
you've got the--and this is why, as Representative Dorso said,
we will stay at it.
You have a State with tremendous water needs hosting a
tremendous water resource, and yet we're not applying that
resource to our water needs. And that's created a situation
where we just have to keep at this until we can, at some point,
have a reasonable access or reasonable application of that
resource to our needs.
Mr. Doolittle. Let me--maybe you're the one to ask, Mr.
Pomeroy, being the only North Dakota official, I think--well,
Mr. Mason, but you're the elected official--let me ask you, in
California, you know, we would sell bonds to build some of
these vast water projects--conveying water, say, from the San
Joaquin Delta down to southern California, things like that.
Has that been contemplated? Is it a possible source of revenue
in maybe getting this water to the east like you wanted?
Mr. Pomeroy. I've seen--I will answer your question more
generally than that. We have spent a lot of State dollars
developing the resources developed to date. There have been
MR&I expenditures, and we've paid generally 35 percent of the
cost share. Is that correct? Up to 35 percent.
The bonding capacity of a State of $600,000 is much less
than a State of $33 million. And so we've got vast distances,
sparse population, tremendous water needs, and real finite
limits on the amount of local costs we can carry.
Mr. Doolittle. And I understand that, but I guess I'd like
to explore, you know, taking into account with the comments of
Ms. McCormack who, while I'm sure expressed the sentiment of
most people who would deal with that.
And the Committee will try and work with you and see if we
identify a solution. Obviously, it would be some sort of a
partnership. But still even if it is a partnership, that's
getting the Federal Government into something that's
traditionally not been its area of concern at a time when the
budgets are shrinking, and we have a huge, long list of
authorized projects already with the Bureau of Reclamation.
Mr. Pomeroy. The feature of the project, getting the water
to the east, that is the reimbursable, and the economics do
make that a----
Mr. Doolittle. OK.
Mr. Pomeroy. [continuing] real reimbursable component.
Mr. Doolittle. Well, maybe we should entertain the idea of
maybe it will have to be done piece by piece. Maybe it can't be
done in a comprehensive package, or maybe it can; I don't know.
But has it been designed so that you could isolate several of
these and eat the elephant piece by piece, not in one fell
swoop?
Mr. Pomeroy. Well, the project--not really. And they are in
certain respects severable, but this is a package that has been
built with an awful lot of give and take. And the compromise
and the consensus that has evolved is because everybody has
given something for that which they've received. So it's a deal
that is not--it doesn't neatly come apart. It's kind of a--it's
all tied together, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Doolittle. Well, I understand that that is your
position, and I'm sure it needs to be your position because
it's quite a consensus you've developed.
I'd like to thank the members of our panel. I'm sure we'll
have extra questions to ask you as we sort through the
testimony, and we'll ask you to respond expeditiously.
And with that we will excuse you, and I'm going to declare
a 10-minute recess, and we'll come back for panel two.
[Recess.]
Mr. Doolittle. The Subcommittee will reconvene.
We have panel two already assembled. Let me ask you
gentlemen to please rise and raise your right hands.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Doolittle. Thank you.
Let the record reflect each answered in the affirmative.
We are very pleased to have you here gentlemen. We'll try
not to drag this out too long, but the information being
developed is very useful.
We'll begin with Mr. Norman Haak, chairman of the Garrison
Diversion Conservancy District of North Dakota.
Mr. Haak.
STATEMENT OF NORMAN HAAK, CHAIRMAN, GARRISON DIVERSION
CONSERVANCY DISTRICT, NORTH DAKOTA
Mr. Haak. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My name is Norman Haak; I am the chairman of the district
and also farm in the Oakes Test area. I'm an irrigator. And I
have three main topics that I would like to cover with you.
The first one being irrigation. We feel that irrigation
would have been the best way to repay North Dakota for the loss
we had from Lake Sakakawea. There were many people who thought
that that would be a great economic development for North
Dakota. One million acres irrigated today would have made it
easier for power revenues to pay for this project, but as we
see today, the 1944 dream did not come true.
In 1986, there also was a dream of 130,000 acres, which was
also a dream. But there was a block grant program with it which
has helped, and as we look at the 1997 Dakota Water Resource
Act, the acreage is reduced to 70,000 acres. No money is
provided for the development of these acres from the Federal
Government. The function of irrigation is retained as a purpose
of the project enabling the existing facilities to be used for
irrigation. However, this will not cost the Federal Government
any money.
The second point I'd like to make is on water supply
problems and how they are addressed in this Act. The Bureau and
the Indian tribes have identified the water supply needs on the
reservation to be significantly higher than the $200 million
first thought. The tribes agreed to a formula to distribute
these funds. The $40 million bridge replacement is also there.
The bridge was installed in the 1930's. It's not very good;
I've been over it. I'd hate to drive a truck over it and try to
meet someone. It's very risky.
The water supply needs in the non-Indian rural area could
exceed a billion dollars. The Act calls for a $300 million
extension to the 1986 grant program. Adjusted for inflation,
this amount matches the program originally envisioned by the
Commission report in 1986, with the 75-25 percent cost share
authorized in 1986. The cost share is typical of projects in
the region.
According to the Bureau of Reclamation report, the water
supply needs for the Red River Valley are currently estimated
to be as much as 300,000 acre feet annually. All previous
legislative authorities have specially provided for delivery of
Missouri River water to the Red River Valley in order to meet
these needs.
This legislation does not presume that Missouri River water
is the only solution, or the best solution. The Act calls for
$200 million to be authorized for a yet to be determined
solution. The process for determining the best solution is an
evaluation of all the reasonable alternatives and their
environmental impacts through a cooperative effort between the
State and the Bureau of Reclamation. The moneys allocated for
delivery of municipal water to the Red River Valley will be
repaid with interest.
One of the alternatives will be to use the existing
facilities--as Congressman Pomeroy pointed out, to deliver
municipal water to the Red River Valley. If this alternative is
chosen, the cost assigned to deliver Missouri River water to
the Valley for municipal purposes will be repaid in accordance
with existing and longstanding reclamation law.
The third point is justification. I would like to emphasize
the economic justification for the Dakota Water Resource Act.
To justify this expenditure, we must first examine the
alternatives.
The first alternative, and often the favorite, is to do
nothing and hope it will go away. And thinking that would be
the cheapest. It isn't and it won't happen. The cheapest is not
always the best. In this case, it fails on both counts. If
nothing is done, the expense of the existing works, which
currently brings no money to the U.S. Treasury, will continue.
The minimal level of operation and maintenance costs is about
$2 million a year. It's not likely to go down.
The unmet needs of the Indian reservation are considered a
longstanding responsibility. Whether these needs are funded in
this bill or not, they are not going to go away. As a practical
matter, we probably can agree the Federal Government will
someday pay that bill. Similarly, if we do nothing, the water
needs in the rural areas will not go away. If we ignore them,
the economics and the rich heritage of these areas will
continue to erode. The needs I've identified will need to be
met in one form or another.
The current program that we know is cost effective,
workable for rural communities, and is the best approach that
we have been able to identify.
Some have proposed that the existing 120 miles of canals
and pumping plants be abandoned. Meeting our current water
needs by putting these facilities to use and getting repayment
on the investment makes a lot more sense to me than spending
$200 million to cover them up. It appears to be a lot of money
when we talk about it at first, but upon deeper examination, it
really is a responsible package that brings a reasonable return
to the Federal Government.
Mr. Chairman, this legislation is the result of a lot of
hard, bipartisan work to incorporate the concerns and interests
that are normally competing or at odds with each other. We
believe it is fair and reasonable. A better alternative has not
been identified, and we hope you will support this package,
putting an end to the historic problems of Garrison Diversion.
Thank you. If you have any questions, I'd like to try to
answer them.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Haak may be found at end of
hearing.]
Mr. Doolittle. Thank you.
Our next witness will be Mr. Scott Peterson, president of
the North Dakota Chapter of the Wildlife Society.
Mr. Peterson.
STATEMENT OF SCOTT PETERSON, PRESIDENT, NORTH DAKOTA CHAPTER OF
THE WILDLIFE SOCIETY
Mr. Peterson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon.
My name is Scott Peterson; I am the president of North
Dakota Chapter of the Wildlife Society, and I am here today to
present a brief statement regarding the Dakota Water Resources
Act on behalf of the North Dakota Chapter of the Wildlife
Society.
The North Dakota Chapter of the Wildlife Society is a
professional organization of fish and wildlife biologists,
educators, and students. The chapter has been actively involved
with issues concerning the Garrison Diversion Unit since the
project was originally authorized by Congress in 1965. In 1986,
the chapter helped to forge an agreement that led to the
passage of the Garrison Diversion Unit Reformulation Act. The
chapter has submitted statements for the record at previous
hearings in Washington and North Dakota in support of this
legislation before us now, and we stand by those earlier
statements.
During the past 2 years, the Chapter has participated in
discussions that led to the introduction of the Dakota Water
Resources Act. Throughout this process, the chapter has focused
its attention on three main objectives.
No. 1, clearly defining the provisions of the Dakota Water
Resources Act.
No. 2, ensuring that the contemporary water needs of North
Dakota include the conservation of fish and wildlife resources
and their habitats.
And three, modifying the legislation to eliminate provision
that will adversely affect the environment.
The Dakota Water Resources Act is primarily a municipal and
rural water supply plan which will benefit North Dakotans by
providing a dependable supply of safe drinking water to
communities throughout the State. We believe this work can be
completed without significant environmental impacts. The
current version of the legislation strengthens the process for
making environmentally sound, cost-effective decisions
concerning the future water needs of Fargo, Grand Forks, and
other communities in the Red River Valley. The Environmental
Impact Statement will evaluate a range of practicable
alternatives to meet the projected water needs and assess the
environmental impacts associated with each option.
Today, I would like to address and offer our further
support for two specific provisions of the Dakota Water
Resources Act, namely the expansion of the North Dakota
Wetlands Trust and the oper-
ation and maintenance needs of the project wildlife mitigation
and enhancement features.
The Dakota Water Resources Act recognizes the conservation
of fish and wildlife resources as an essential project feature
to meet the contemporary water needs of North Dakota. The
chapter wholeheartedly supports expanding the mission and
funding base of the North Dakota Wetlands Trust to include
riparian and grassland conservation initiatives. The chapter
further endorses the trust's wetland education initiatives and
supports the complimentary funding that is earmarked for the
North American Prairie Wetland Interpretive Center.
The trust serves as an important bridge between landowners
and the conservation community as clearly demonstrated by the
trust's lists of accomplishment during the past 10 years. These
impressive accomplishments include involving 37 organizations
and over 200 landowners in trust-funded projects and programs;
170 landowners signed wetlands protection, restoration and
enhancement agreements; 578 farmers and land managers
participated in field tours on conservation practices; and over
$1.7 million have been provided as either direct payments or
incentive payments to landowners for various conservation
practices.
I have also attached a one-page summary of the Wetland
Trust's activities during the past 10 years to highlight their
accomplishments.
Voluntary projects such as these are just some of the
reasons that the various North Dakota Wetlands Trust programs
have become so popular with landowners and conservationists
alike. The trust is continually looking for cooperative
ventures that benefit both the agricultural producer and our
State's natural resources. Expanding opportunities to
cooperatively work with landowners throughout North Dakota
benefits both our natural resources and the State's economy.
Further evidence of the trust's popularity can be found in one
Ramsey County landowner's comments regarding a trust project
when he stated, and I quote, ``I feel that we've worked well
together as a group. It's a win, win situation for producers
and wildlife.''
The primary provisions of the Dakota Water Resources Act
are designed to meet North Dakota's existing and projected
water supply needs. Along similar lines, we believe that
establishing an account to operate and maintain the project's
fish and wildlife mitigation and enhancement features is an
important step in meeting the project's conservation
objectives.
The operations and maintenance account will benefit
wildlife resources, neighboring landowners, and the people
using those public lands. The account is essential to ensure
the stated conservation commitments of the project are met in
the future. We recommend that the authority to establish the
operations and maintenance account be timed to coincide with
the record of decision concerning the Red River Valley water
supply features. With a secure mechanism to fund the wildlife
development areas, we are confident that the projects losses
associated with identified irrigation development can be
adequately mitigated.
In closing, we believe that substantial progress has been
made since the first draft of the Dakota Water Resources Act
was cir-
culated. The North Dakota Congressional Delegation, Senator
Conrad in particular, and North Dakota's State political
leaders are to be given credit for their leadership abilities
in keeping a diverse group representing many interests, moving
forward.
We wish to thank you for the opportunity to express our
opinions here today, and we respectfully request the
opportunity to continue negotiations directed toward developing
legislation that meets the contemporary water needs of North
Dakota and conserves the State's natural resources.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Peterson may be found at end
of hearing.]
Mr. Doolittle. Thank you.
Our next witness will be Mr. Ronald Nargang, deputy
commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources.
Mr. Nargang.
STATEMENT OF RONALD NARGANG, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, MINNESOTA
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
Mr. Nargang. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
For the record, I am Ron Nargang; I'm the deputy
commissioner for the Minnesota DNR, and I'm here representing
Minnesota Governor Arne Carlson.
I want to thank you for the opportunity. We do have a
number of concerns to present. I have submitted written
testimony to the Committee and would ask that it be included as
part of the record, and then I'll simply summarize in my oral
comments.
Mr. Doolittle. That will be just fine; thank you.
Mr. Nargang. As one of the eight States bordering the Great
Lakes, Minnesota is no stranger to ambitious water development
projects. We've seen any number of proposals over the years to
move water from Lake Superior, Lake Michigan, and other lakes
to the arid southwest. And the concern that those eight States
had over those kinds of proposals led us to form a Great Lakes
compact, among the eight States and the one province involved,
and in that compact to provide for review and consultation
among all affected parties on any diversion of water from the
Great Lakes.
In committing to that compact, we also committed to going
into State law and building a body of legislation to prevent
the diversion of water from the Great Lakes and from, in our
case, the State of Minnesota. And further, those States got
together and approached Congress and succeeded in 1986 in
including section 1109 in the 1986 WRDA (Water Resource
Development Act) that provided, in effect, a veto authority for
each of the eight States for any diversion of water out of the
Great Lakes basin.
And I think, Mr. Chairman, that you've heard frustrations
from Governor Schafer here on why his neighbors won't agree to
this. And, frankly, I think I've just described for you the
reason. We have a fundamental, philosophical difference about
the interbasin diversion of water. Our State is not only
opposed to diversions out of our State, we are opposed to
diversion into our State. And we believe, philosophically, that
what we ought to do is live within the limits of the water
resources available to us. And that, frankly, is the approach
we take in Minnesota. We are blessed with a plentiful water
resource across much of our State, but in a great area of the
northwest and a large area of the southwest part of our State,
we also face water shortages, the same water shortages you've
heard described here for North Dakota on our side of the Red
River, and very similar problems in the southwestern corner of
Minnesota.
And that really leads me to my next objection--is that we,
frankly, don't consider the Garrison supply to be a reliable
source of water. The Red River represents the break between
eastern and western water law. There is a radical difference in
the way Minnesota treats water rights from the way North Dakota
treats water rights. And North Dakota is only one player in the
water rights battle on the Missouri River. And that battle is
heated right now. And frankly, we're not confident at all of
where a Garrison appropriation would come out in the prior
appropriation hierarchy in times of drought.
We are aware that the tribal interests along the Missouri
River are claiming their water rights from the Missouri. I've
heard it mentioned earlier that the Corps of Engineers has been
asked for a statement about the impact of this diversion on
downstream interests and has indicated that there is no impact.
I wonder if the response from the Corps would be the same if,
in fact, the tribal claims are perfected. Our information
indicates that their initial claims would reduce the base flows
in the Missouri at the confluence with Mississippi by 40
percent.
Now you begin to pile that in with the increased diversion
here for the Garrison Diversion and any other appropriations
that may be proposed from the Missouri River, and we have a
major concern about depletion of flows downstream.
Because of the question about the reliability of the claim
involved here, we certainly don't believe that the project
should be considered for construction until the tribal claims
issue is resolved because of the major impact that will have on
the total water resource of the Missouri. And we don't want
Minnesota's growth to be dependent on an unreliable water
supply. The last thing that we want in an area of our State
that has a water shortage is to have a supply developed around
which we develop industrial, municipal, residential demand and
then find that the supply will not be supportive during times
of drought because we, frankly, have no options to support that
kind of increased growth.
Our response to this problem is then to work with
communities in the area on water conservation measures, to
develop what limited areas of groundwater are available, and to
fold that in with a combination of surface water supplies in
the Red River so that we use groundwaters as an emergency back
up when we have low flow conditions in the river.
So to summarize, our two main concerns are consistent
opposition to interbasin diversions and, frankly, living within
the limits of the resource that we have available. Our written
testimony also itemizes concerns about water quality, exotic
species, and I've touched briefly on the navigation flow issue.
I do want to make the point with the Committee that
Congress is dealing with the Garrison as a separate and
distinct project from Devil's Lake, and we understand that. And
we have heard North Dakota's plea that we look at it the same
way. But we have and will continue to evaluate the Devil's Lake
outlet as part and parcel of a Garrison Diversion project, and
I think we need to do that as we evaluate the impacts on our
State.
I thank you for the opportunity to comment to the Committee
and will be happy to stand for any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Nargang may be found at end
of hearing.]
Mr. Doolittle. Thank you.
I want to mention at this point, we had a witness
scheduled, and because of a death he had to attend a funeral.
That's Mr. David Conrad with the National Wildlife Federation.
So our final witness will be Mr. Dave Koland, executive
director of the North Dakota Rural Water Systems Association.
STATEMENT OF DAVID KOLAND, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NORTH DAKOTA
RURAL WATER SYSTEMS ASSOCIATION
Mr. Koland. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, my name is Dave
Koland. I serve as the executive director of North Dakota Rural
Water Systems Association. Our association has 31 rural water
systems and 225 municipal water systems as members.
The sons and grandsons of the pioneers that settled North
Dakota founded our association. They had experienced the
``dirty 30's'' and sought a solution to the unreliable and
uncertain water supplies they depended on for a domestic water
supply.
Since the earliest days of our State, the people who
settled here were driven by the need for water. The first
settlements were located along streams or lakes. The
homesteaders who came later dug shallow wells or endured by
hauling water from a nearby creek or slough. Many had to move
on when the dry years withered their crops and left them
without the precious water needed to survive.
In the late 1970's, many rural areas began constructing a
water distribution system to serve rural areas. Farmers without
water or with an unreliable source joined together and with the
help of the Federal Government, built rural water systems to
meet their needs. But at the insistence of the Federal
Government, they were not allowed to build beyond their own
current domestic needs.
The Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1986 with
stringent testing requirements and mandated maximum contaminant
levels brought North Dakota face to face with the reality that
the groundwater being used in many smaller communities for
drinking water would not meet the MCL for fluoride or arsenic
mandated by the Safe Drinking Water Act.
The answer for many communities was to work out a solution
with the rural water system that served a rural area close to
their city. Rural water systems now provide clean, safe water
to 187 communities in North Dakota, but many still wait for the
water they so desperately need. Communities like Mohall, 931
people; Munich, 310; and Bisbee, 227; have few other
alternatives to provide their citizens with clean, safe water.
The key to providing water to small communities and rural
areas of North Dakota has been the Grant and Loan program of
Rural Development and the Municipal, Rural, and Industrial,
MR&I program, of the Garrison Conservancy District. Without the
assistance of these two grant programs, the exodus from the
rural areas would have been a stampede.
The desperate need for clean, safe water is evidenced by
the willingness of North Dakota's rural resident to pay water
rates well above the rates the Environmental Protection Agency
consider to be affordable. The highest general guidelines sets
an affordability threshold at 2 percent of the median household
income. Rates beyond that threshold are considered to be
unaffordable.
In North Dakota that translates into a monthly cost of
$38.69 per month. The average monthly cost on a rural water
system for 6,000 gallons is currently $48.97. Only one system
in the State has a monthly cost below the maximum affordable
cost set out in the EPA study, and that system charges $37.60 a
month for 6,000 gallons of water. Twelve systems must charge
their consumers $50 or more, with one system charging 170
percent of the affordable rate, or $66 a month for 6,000
gallons of water.
The water rates in rural North Dakota would soar to
astronomical levels without the 75 percent grant dollars in the
MR&I program. For instance, our current rates would average a
truly unaffordable $134.19 per month, or a whopping 7 percent
of the median household income. They could have ranged as high
as $198.80 or a prohibitive 9.9 percent of the median household
income.
The people waiting for water in our rural communities are
willing to pay far more than what many consider would be an
affordable price for clean, safe water. Across North Dakota we
have seen the impact of providing good water to rural areas and
witnessed the dramatic change in small communities.
We must continue to support the growth of our existing
rural systems into regional water delivery systems and provide
water to those areas that are not now being served.
Water alone will not solve the problems of rural North
Dakota, but without water, there is little hope that any
proposed solution will work.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Koland may be found at end
of hearing.]
Mr. Doolittle. Thank you.
Mr. Nargang, you mentioned that your side of the Red River
is similar to the North Dakota side. And I think you described
you're using groundwater there on an emergency basis, but when
you've got surface water, then you'll use it from the Red
River; is that right?
Mr. Nargang. Mr. Chairman, that's correct.
Mr. Doolittle. Is your groundwater as bad as their
groundwater?
Mr. Nargang. Mr. Chairman, we have stuff that looks a lot
like this----
Mr. Doolittle. OK.
Mr. Nargang. [continuing] in much of the area. We do have
some isolated buried drift aquifers, little containers of sand
and gravel that contain pretty high quality water. What we've
tried to do to respond to water needs for the city of Moorhead,
for instance, is we've done an extensive geologic mapping
program in that area to isolate those pockets. And then to help
the city distribute their well fields, so that out of those
limited aquifers, they don't draw them down irregularly during
times of emergency. But they use it only to supplement their
use of river water.
Mr. Doolittle. Mr. Haak, do you have those little isolated
pockets? I don't know, is your area--well maybe your area--does
it include the Red River Valley or not?
Mr. Haak. No.
Mr. Doolittle. It doesn't.
Do you know, Mr. Nargang? Do they have those on their side
of the river?
Mr. Nargang. Mr. Chairman, I would really hesitate to
respond on North Dakota's groundwater situation.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Doolittle. Well, I mean it would be logical they
probably do, but we'll have to--maybe that will be one of our
written questions.
Is it your impression that geologic mapping has gone on in
North Dakota like it has in the Minnesota-side of the Red
River?
Mr. Nargang. Well, Mr. Chairman, I think that's certainly
true. Despite our disagreement on this, we cooperate on an
awful lot of things, and one of the things we've tried to do is
to match up the geologic mapping we've done on the two sides of
the river. We have some very interesting connections that
crossed under the Red River. And how we use groundwater, how
North Dakota uses groundwater, will affect the other
communities.
Mr. Doolittle. Sure.
Mr. Nargang. We have saline upwelling that occurs in some
of those systems if one community pumps too hard on their
groundwater system.
Mr. Doolittle. So you cooperate in that respect now?
Mr. Nargang. Certainly.
Mr. Doolittle. Mr. Koland, was it your testimony that the
Federal MR&I money you used to reduce what would otherwise be
the water rates that people pay?
Mr. Koland. Mr. Chairman, that's correct. The grant program
is used to lower the cost of building the system to a point
where it's deemed affordable to the people. I've attached two
charts to my testimony, and one chart was passed around that
gave an illustration of I think the willingness of people to
pay----
Mr. Doolittle. Yes.
Mr. Koland. [continuing] above that affordability.
Mr. Doolittle. Is 6,000--I don't know--is 6,000 gallons
about what a household of 4 is expected to use in a month?
Mr. Koland. I think you would consider that an average. In
North Dakota, it's actually a little bit below the average. On
a rural water system, we averaged about 13,000 gallons a month
per connection, but that also involves some bulk water usage--
--
Mr. Doolittle. All right.
Mr. Koland. [continuing] in some communities.
Mr. Doolittle. Mr. Pomeroy.
Mr. Pomeroy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, you might be interested in noting that Dave
Koland and I were in the State legislature together many years
ago--him on the Republican side of the aisle and me on the
Democratic side of the aisle--that we have worked well together
then; we've worked well together since.
A couple of questions for Mr. Nargang.
First of all, I'd like to submit for the record a letter
submitted--this will be part of the transcript coming in from
the Fargo hearing. But it is a letter from Morris Laning, the
mayor of Moorhead, Minnesota, specifically endorsing the Act in
front of us and talking about the significant need of water for
the Fargo-Moorhead communities. They are sister cities sitting
across the Red River, Moorhead in Minnesota, and their support
for this project and their concern about their future water
need.
Mr. Doolittle. We'll enter this in.
[The information referred to may be found at end of
hearing.]
Mr. Pomeroy. Mr. Nargang, honest to God, the testimony that
you presented irritates me in a significant way. And that isn't
because I'm not prepared to take debate on this issue. I just
want the debate to be on the real issues, not to be on bogus
issues just floated for purposes of stopping this initiative.
And you have raised a couple of utterly bogus issues.
And while you say you're reluctant to talk about what might
be the situation of groundwater in North Dakota, you certainly
weren't reluctant to talk about the downstream States' interest
in the Missouri River.
Now does Minnesota begin to have an interest in Missouri
River water?
Mr. Nargang. Mr. Chairman and Congressman Pomeroy, since
all of our grain goes down the Mississippi, absolutely. And
given the fact that in the 1988 drought and the 1976 drought,
we had barges stacked up all up and down the river because we
didn't have enough flow in the Missouri to support the
Mississippi River flows. We have a keen interest in what comes
out of the mouth of the Missouri.
Mr. Pomeroy. And you're suggesting--and this is where you
blow your creditability apart in the testimony this afternoon.
You're suggesting that a 200 cfs pipe linking the supply works
with the reservoir on the Missouri River is sufficient to
threaten barge traffic downstream on the Missouri?
To put it in perspective, you go down to like Saint Louis
for the confluent. The Missouri River is so wide that Mark
McGuire couldn't hit a home run over it.
[Laughter.]
You come up to North Dakota and come to the 200 cfs pipe,
Mark McGwire can jump across it. Don't tell me that that
threatens capacity down there. But you don't have to take it
from my argument; you're the expert, not me. But I do have
already introduced into the record a letter from the Corps of
Engineers that indicates that this would impact flows by a
factor of less than one one-thousandth. Now that doesn't float
barges; that doesn't materially, visually, or any other way
impact flowage capacity downstream. That is, in my opinion, a
bogus argument, Mr. Nargang.
Mr. Nargang. Well, Mr. Chairman, Congressman Pomeroy, in
all due respect, that's the same argument that has led to
things like a depletion of flows on the Colorado River, on the
Arkansas River. And if you want to use your example, you can
look at the wonderful story that's out there about the Aural
Sea in Russia that makes our Great Lakes look like puddles. And
they argued in each case that this small appropriation will not
deplete the flows. The problem is, when you take a number of
small appropriations and look at the cumulative impact of them,
they do deplete the flows. And you bleed the water off at
multiple points in the system, and pretty soon there is nothing
left.
Mr. Pomeroy. And North----
Mr. Nargang. Now, I put that in the context of the claims
by the tribal interests up and down the Missouri. And if you've
been studying the Missouri River issues, you know that those
tribal claims may well prove to be valid. We've been to court
with tribal interests in Minnesota on several occasions. I
don't think you stand a very good chance of prevailing on
those, which is going to turn your prior appropriation system
on the Missouri upside down. Where is Garrison going to come
out now?
Mr. Pomeroy. You know, what we have before us is a
proposal. Now you can argue world precedence, but what we're
talking about is a 200 cfs pipe, and that doesn't have the
capacity to do that which you suggest, and the Corps of
Engineers indicates it doesn't.
Another issue that you raise which is utterly bogus----
Mr. Nargang. Well, Mr.----
Mr. Pomeroy. [continuing] we got to get to this other point
before my time runs out--and that's this Devil's Lake issue.
Now you've got to direct your testimony and your objection if
you're going to be a good neighbor and appropriate a deal with
this issue substantively to the bill before us, not the old
bill, not some bill that you think may be out there, but the
bill before you. And there is not a feature in any way, shape,
or form for a Devil's Lake inlet in this reauthorization
proposal. And I want the record to reflect that very, very
clearly.
In the past, it was considered about ultimately getting
water into the Devil's Lake, a closed basin that fluctuates
dramatically. One of the significant concessions, but made
without qualification or wiggle room, is that North Dakota is
not providing for any kind of inlet into Devil's Lake in this
reauthorization bill. And so the Devil's Lake issues--the
flooding in Devil's Lake issues are not related to this. And
you can say you object to it because it's got an inlet in
Devil's Lake. The bill specifically does not have an inlet--
very specifically does not have an inlet.
So we've addressed that concern, I think, that Minnesota
has previously raised in this regard.
Mr. Nargang. Well, Mr. Chairman and Congressman Pomeroy,
two issues on the table. First, just quickly to dispose of the
issue of the right that would exist for the Garrison, we've
asked in writing for someone to show us documentation that that
right will be there, and we have not had any assurance from
North Dakota. All I get is a statement that it will be OK.
With regard to your final issue, I have heard exactly the
argument that you just made. I've heard it repeatedly. And then
I pick up by clipping service, and I go through and I read
articles out of the Fargo Forum or the Bismarck paper, and the
next delegation is heading down here to Washington, DC, and the
first priority is the Devil's Lake outlet, and the second
priority is the Devil's Lake inlet. And unless I'm mistaken,
you don't have any other source of water for Devil's Lake inlet
than the Garrison Diversion.
Frankly, the argument that these are not connected projects
is no longer creditable to me, because that keeps happening.
The people coming down to lobby this Congress make it clear
that they have two key priorities on Devil's Lake. One is an
outlet; one is an inlet.
Mr. Pomeroy. Just to conclude, Mr. Chairman, I'm the
elected Congressman for North Dakota, the only one. In that
respect, I'm one of the State's elected leaders. We do not have
the intention to seek an inlet into Devil's Lake. It is not
provided for in the legislation before us. You could pass the
Dakota Water Resources Act as presently proposed and it
wouldn't have an inlet feature, nor would it have the mechanism
that would provide for an inlet. It would take an entirely
different legislative act to achieve it. I would not be part of
trying to seek that act. But if someone did, you'd have the
opportunity at that point in time to raise your objection to
that proposal. It simply is not before us.
And, you know, I did not take much exception to the
testimony of the Audubon Society this afternoon. I disagreed
with it roundly. But we've got issues that we'll continue to
work on. At least they were on point, but what I resent about
Minnesota's testimony today, as you have made it, is that it
addresses issues not before us and issues that simply don't
really exist as presented by this project.
Mr. Nargang. Well, Mr. Chairman and Congressman Pomeroy, if
I may, I think I made clear in my comments that we acknowledge
that Congress has separated the issues, but it's our intention
to continue to review the potential impacts of these projects
as being connected. And I think we're entitled to that.
Mr. Pomeroy. My time has expired. We could go on, but the
chairman has been indulgent with his time.
Mr. Doolittle. I'd like to thank the members of this panel
for their testimony. I have a feeling we've just scratched the
surface on this issue, but we've brought a number of important
facts to light. It certainly has been beneficial to me to
better understand what we're dealing with here.
We will have, no doubt, further questions and would ask for
your timely responses and hold the record open until we've
received them.
And with that, we'll excuse the panel and conclude this
oversight hearing on this subject and commence with the South
Dakota subject.
Mr. Pomeroy. As the North Dakotans get up to leave, Mr.
Chairman, I know I speak for them in expressing to you our
heartfelt thanks. I mean this is an afternoon that you didn't
have to be here. You promised me you'd hold this hearing this
session, and you made good on your word, and we are all deeply
appreciative that you conducted the hearing this afternoon.
Mr. Doolittle. Thank you, and I'll look forward to
continuing to work with you.
And with that, this hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 5:45 p.m., the Subcommittee adjourned
subject to the call of the Chair.]
[Additional material submitted for the record follows.]
Statement of Hon. John Dorso, Majority Leader, State Representative,
North Dakota
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, my name is
John Dorso, North Dakota House of Representative Majority
Leader.
I appreciate greatly the opportunity to testify today in
support of the Dakota Water Resources Act. As part of the
leadership of the North Dakota Legislature, I am here to speak
on behalf of the State Legislature. Also with me today, is
State Senate Majority Leader Gary Nelson. Unfortunately,
neither State Senate Minority Leader Tim Mathern nor State
House of Representatives Minority Leader Merle Boucher could be
here, although both, as well as Senator Nelson, asked me to
stress the importance of the Dakota Water Resources Act to the
State of North Dakota, the total bipartisan support of the
State Legislature, and the past and present willingness of the
state to contribute to the implementation of the Garrison
Diversion Project.
You have heard from our Congressional Delegation, as well
as from the Governor, on the importance of this Act to the
State of North Dakota. Senator Nelson, Senator Boucher, and I
all live in the Red River Valley in eastern North Dakota. Our
principal water supply, the Red River, has gone dry several
times in the past. Also the population of the Red River Valley
has increased substantially to the point where today more than
25 percent of our state's population resides within 15 miles of
our eastern border with Minnesota. It is obvious that we need
to develop the future water supply for that area. The Red River
Valley is a significant and critical economic engine for North
Dakota, without a water supply for it, as would be re-
authorized by the Dakota Water Resources Act, our whole state
will suffer.
Every state legislative assembly since 1944 has gone on
record by resolution supporting the Garrison Project, and most
recently in 1997, the framework for the Dakota Water Resources
Act. That resolution, which has complete bi-partisan support,
urges the completion of the Garrison Project recognizing the
critical priority of the project for water management and
development in North Dakota. Be it for municipal, rural,
industrial, tribal, recreation, or fish and wildlife needs, the
Dakota Water Resources Act is essential for economic
sustainment and development for our state.
Because of the importance to North Dakota, the State
Legislature has provided funding to show its commitment to the
Garrison Project. In the past, we have appropriated general
funds for water projects, including the Garrison Diversion
Project, and we have also dedicated, by constitutional measure,
a Resources Trust Fund for water development. Most recently in
1997, we provided an authority for bonding for the Garrison
Project as part of our comprehensive statewide water
development program. The State Legislature stands ready to
address ways to meet future needs for funding the non-Federal
share of the Dakota Water Resources Act as proposed.
In closing, there is no question of the support for the
Dakota Water Resources Act in North Dakota. As you go back in
history, even before the project was first authorized in 1944,
our state strived for a means to meet our water needs. In 1889,
the year our state was created, the Constitutional Convention
delegates recognized the importance of managing our share of
the Missouri River for our people. Even then, they knew we
would have to provide a water supply for the whole state,
especially eastern North Dakota. We ask that you help us to
realize this more than 100 year old vision by passage of the
Dakota Water Resources Act.
Thank you.
Statement of Hon. Bruce W. Furness, Mayor, Fargo, North Dakota
Mr. Chairman and Honorable Members of the Subcommittee on
Water and Power, I am Bruce Furness, Mayor of the City of
Fargo, North Dakota. Thank you for this opportunity to testify
before the Committee in support of S. 1515--The Dakota Water
Resources Act of 1997.
Benjamin Franklin once said, ``When the well is dry, we
know the worth of water.'' North Dakotans want to be proactive
in managing our ``well''; we can't wait until it is dry. We
have become unified behind this Act through the North Dakota
Water Coalition, a group of widely diverse interests which has
come together to advance water development in our State. We are
unified in developing a consensus piece of legislation that
will assure future water supply for all our citizens.
Fargo is located on the eastern edge of North Dakota,
separated by the Red River of the North from Moorhead,
Minnesota. Together the Fargo-Moorhead area is the largest U.S.
population center in the Red River Valley with approximately
165,000 people. Fargo has enjoyed an annual growth rate of
about 2 percent for the last 20 years and is actually
accelerating in growth at this time. The requirement for more
water is a direct result of this growth. From a statewide
perspective, nearly 40 percent of our population resides in the
six border counties adjacent to the Red River.
Our area does not have an overabundance of water supply
resources. Extended dry conditions and droughts have shown us
that current resources cannot alone meet the water supply needs
of this growing region. Development of a dependable water
supply, along with careful management of the resources
currently utilized, will allow the region to meet its changing
water needs.
Our concern is best summarized by the introductory
paragraph of a report by Black & Veatch, the design consultant
for our new water purification plant:
``The City of Fargo has rights to two water sources for
treatment and subsequent supply to its citizens for potable
use: the Red River of the North and the Sheyenne River.
Unfortunately, both sources are of poor quality and, even taken
together, they do not offer a reliable quantity of water to
meet Fargo's present and certainly future water needs. The
diversion of Missouri River water to Fargo by way of Garrison
Dam would provide a long-term lifeline for the community.''
QUANTITY
A good supply of water is key to our City's continued growth and
development. Although record-setting floods have recently occurred,
history shows that low water in this river has occurred more often and
caused more problems for our residents than has flooding. For example,
during the 1930's the Red River had stream flows at Fargo below 10
cubic feet per second (cfs) for seven straight years. This same
phenomena has occurred in the late 1970's and once in the 1980's. A
flow of ten cfs of water in the Red River represents less than one foot
of water in the streambed at any given point.
Listen to a recollection by former Governor William Guy of Fargo.
``If you were to look at the Red River near the water plant in
the 1930's, you would wonder how they ever made the water fit
to drink. The searing hot drought hung heavily over the Upper
Midwest through the entire decade of the 1930's. The Geological
Survey records say that the murky Red River ceased to flow at
Fargo for a period in every year of that decade. The driest
year was 1936 when the Red River stopped flowing for 166
continuous days. Cars were not washed. Lawns went unsprinkled.
There was talk of returning the Fargo Sewage Plant discharge to
the river above the city water intake. Moorhead was drawing all
of its water from wells east of the city and their tap water
tasted good. With a population of around 25,000, Fargo's water
situation was desperate . . . . . Today both Fargo and Moorhead
draw their water from the Red River while their combined
population has increased five fold from the dry 1930's.
Industries not even dreamed of 65 years ago now use copious
amounts of Red River water. It is easy to understand why the
Garrison Diversion Project to bring Missouri River water east
to the Red River Valley has been on the minds of thinking
people for more than 50 years.''
Though difficult to project, future regional water requirements
will be determined by several factors:
Population growth and economic expansion in Fargo will
continue into the next century at the same 2 percent annual
growth rate. The entire region is expected to grow
correspondingly.
Per capita usage is currently below national and
regional averages but could increase without stringent use of
conservation measures.
In 1995, a large corn-processing plant went on-line in
the Red River Valley. It is projected that a minimum of three
additional plants will be constructed in the basin over the
next forty years. Water usage for each of these plants may well
equal what the City of Fargo uses in an average day. Thus, any
needs analysis must include future economic growth resulting
from increased 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. Fifty cfs
is a bare minimum to be considered, 75 cfs is desirable.
The use of Missouri River water is an obvious solution to this
availability problem. Ninety six percent of the usable surface water in
North Dakota is in the Mis-
souri River. It represents the best source of highly available water
and has an extremely small impact on downtstream sites. Analysis shows
that the potential allocation of 100 cfs for Eastem North Dakota is
less than \1/2\ of 1 percent of Missouri water flowing through our
state. A graphic description of this minimal impact is to think of the
entire flow as a gallon of water. The proposed allocation is then
represented by a thimbleful of water (\1/2\ fluid ounce).
QUALITY
When water is not available in adequate amounts, the quality of
water also declines. This fact has a high impact on processing costs.
Relying on the Red River as its main source of water requires cities
from Fargo to Pembina to take extraordinary measures to treat raw
water. Both Fargo and Moorhead have recently built new water treatment
facilities which use ozone (an electrically charged liquid oxygen), the
latest available technology to disinfect the water. Ozone is a
treatment process which has become the favored disinfectant for raw
water having high organic characteristics.
Ozone can do in 3 seconds what it takes chlorine 3 minutes and
chloramine (chlorine and ammonia) 12 minutes to accomplish. However,
this highly efficient treatment comes with a price--the cost of
producing the ozone. To electrically charge liquid oxygen, the power
costs for Fargo's treatment plant will double to $600,000 per year.
Another advantage of treating better quality water can be shown by
comparing the cost of treating Missouri River water at Bismarck with
Red River water. Our staff analyzed the chemical costs to treat a
gallon of water and discovered that Fargo's cost is about 22 cents per
1,000 gallons while Bismarck's costs are 9 cents per thousand. As water
quantity and quality decrease, the cost of its treatment increases.
Each of these examples demonstrates the preference for treating
higher quality water such as that found in the Missouri. As with
quantity, water of better quality is a vital need for our community and
region.
CONSERVATION
Water conservation strategies employed by the City of Fargo include
the adoption of odd/even lawn watering restrictions beginning in 1989
and continuing through today. In 1997, a demonstration xeriscaping
program was implemented with over 100 homes participating. We intend
for this program to grow. A 15-year project to replace deteriorating
water mains has begun. The result will be a significant reduction in
water loss. Using all these tactics, water management will remain a
high priority item in our City.
TIME-FRAME
Although impossible to predict with any certainty, it is believed
the Red River Valley has adequate water supply for the next 10 to 15
years. Should drought conditions occur, however, that estimate may be
reduced to 3-5 years. Consequently, little time remains to resolve
these concerns. Activity must begin now to address the many issues
relating to water quantity and quality. I urge your positive
consideration of this critical legislation.
I will be pleased to respond to any questions you may have. Thank
you once again for the opportunity to testify in support of S. 1515.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1878.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1878.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1878.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1878.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1878.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1878.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1878.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1878.009
Statement of Russell D. Mason, Sr., Chairman, Three Affiliated Tribes,
Chairman, United Tribes of North Dakota
Chairman Doolittle, Members of the Subcommittee:
Thank you for the opportunity to present testimony today concerning
H.R. 3012, the ``Dakota Water Resources Act.'' The Three Affiliated
Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation are the Mandan, Hidatsa and
Arikara Nations. We strongly support H.R. 3012 and urge its passage, as
it provides long promised and much needed funding for our municipal,
rural and industrial water needs, as well as needed funds for a new
bridge over Lake Sakakawea, to replace a bridge whose center spans have
not been maintained and which are more than 60 years old.
Further, we want to expressly thank our Congressional delegation
and our current Governor, Ed Schafer, for their continued recognition
of our needs in this legislation, and their willingness to consider our
views. We look forward to working with them to seek passage of this
vital legislation.
Background
As you may recall, the Three Affiliated Tribes named above greeted
Lewis and Clark in the early 19th century as they made their expedition
of discovery up the Missouri River and over to the Pacific coast. Even
prior to Lewis and Clark our Tribes had lived together peacefully for
hundreds of years along the Missouri River. The Mandan particularly
were agricultural, and tended corn and other crops.
As we, like all other Indian people, were forced to live on
reservations in the late 1800's, we were able to retain a spot along
the Missouri River where we could maintain to a considerable degree a
self-sufficient life style, tending to our crops and livestock on the
rich bottomlands along the river. Few of our members were ever on
welfare. Our reservation, which straddles the Missouri River, is
approximately 1,500 square miles in size, although almost one-half of
the reservation is owned by non-Indians and more than 15 percent of the
area is covered by the water of the reservoir behind Garrison Dam.
Despite our protests, our council resolutions, our delegations to
Washington and our tears, our lives were turned upside down when the
Garrison Dam was completed in the early 1950's. Over 156,000 acres of
our best agricultural lands were taken from us for the creation of the
reservoir behind the dam, and represented 69 percent of the land
needed. By October 1, 1952, we were almost all forced from our homes
because of the ``great flood,'' as many of our elders call the
formation of the reservoir, now known as Lake Sakakawea. I was one of
the last students at Elbowwoods High School, which was also the home of
the Bureau of Indian Affairs Agency and a small Indian Health Service
hospital. Our once close-knit communities, separated only by a river,
which was then connected near Elbowwoods by a bridge, were now split
apart and separated by as much as 120 miles. Our rich farmland and
self-sufficient lifestyle were gone forever.
Before the dam was completed, in addition to the inadequate
compensation we received for our lands, we were promised many things by
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, whose generals came and listened to
our protests and our needs. Among other things, we were promised a lot
of new infrastructure to allow us to rebuild our communities, including
a new hospital, which was never built; community buildings, only now
being completed, partly with Tribal funds; and a rural water system,
using some of the water from the lake for which we had sacrificed our
way of life.
That water system, fifty years later, is even now only partly
constructed. In just the past three years, several of our communities,
which are generally a few miles from the lake, have been provided with
adequate water from Lake Sakakawea. But the current system does not yet
begin to serve our real needs, as specified below in more detail.
In 1985, after nearly 33 years, and much lobbying in Washington and
in our state capital, the U.S. Secretary of Interior established a
committee to make recommendations for just compensation to the Three
Affiliated Tribes and the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe for their losses.
The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe had suffered also, like the Three
Affiliated Tribes, following the construction of the Oahe Dam near Ft.
Pierre, South Dakota. This committee was called the Garrison Unit Joint
Tribal Advisory Committee (GUJTAC), which issued its final report on
May 23, 1986. A copy of this Committee Report, which we commonly refer
to as the ``JTAC'' report, is attached to my original written
testimony, and I would ask that the Report be made a part of the record
of this hearing, as it provides substantive justification for some of
the components of H.R. 3012 that directly affect us.
Partly as a consequence of the JTAC report, some of the needs for
rural infrastructure of the Three Affiliated Tribes and the Standing
Rock Sioux Tribe were included in the Garrison Unit Reformulation Act
of 1986, Public Law 99-294. These included partial funds for a
municipal, rural and industrial water system (MRI), shared between the
Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and the Three Affiliated Tribes, and
authorization for irrigation projects. The understanding of Congress
when the Garrison Unit Reformulation Act was passed is that Congress
knew the funds were insufficient, and expected a full report of the
actual needs of the Fort Berthold Reservation at some later date. That
later date has arrived.
While the irrigation projects authorized for the Three Affiliated
Tribes were never funded, we did receive a part of the $20 million
which was eventually appropriated over the next 11 years, which have
allowed some of our MRI water system needs to be satisfied. A summary
of our current water needs is included in this written testimony.
Principal Benefits of H.R. 3012 for the Three Affiliated Tribes and
northwest North Dakota
Now, in 1998, the State of North Dakota is back before Congress
seeking further authority to complete what has been known as the
Garrison Diversion Project. The state rightfully states that it has
been waiting more than 50 years for the completion of this project. We
too, have been waiting for more than 50 years for the infrastructure
promised to us as a result of the completion of the Garrison Dam, and
are asking for what was promised us before our homes were flooded and
our land taken.
This bill has three features which are of tremendous importance to
the Three Affiliated Tribes and for all of northwest North Dakota,
including our MRI water system needs, continued authorization for
approximately 15,000 acres of irrigation projects (which were meant to
replace lost agricultural lands), and funds for a new Four Bears Bridge
across the Missouri River near New Town, North Dakota (now the site of
the Tribal Administration offices and the Bureau of Indian Affairs
Agency). These are discussed in more detail below.
1. Municipal, rural and industrial water needs (MRI)
H.R. 3012 provides that the four tribes in North Dakota share in a
total authorization for MRI water needs of $200 million. The amounts
needed by each tribe, and as agreed to by the Tribal chairs, are
specifically stated in the bill, so that there need be no guess work
afterwards about how much each tribe should receive. The share for the
Three Affiliated Tribes is $70 million, contained in Section 9 of the
bill.
As required by the Committee Report on the Garrison Unit
Reformulation Act, Public Law 99-294, we have documented our water
needs to Congress and have provided detailed studies of these needs to
our Congressional delegation. We would ask that the Committee recognize
those reports in its final Committee report language concerning the
bill.
We believe that the figure of $70 million will be sufficient for
our water system needs, if provided over time and indexed for inflation
as currently allowed by law. The funds authorized, once appropriated,
will provide, among other things, much needed usable drinking water
that will contribute greatly to the health, economic and environmental
needs of approximately 10,000 residents of the reservation, including
non-Indian and Indians alike. The system, as designed, will be able to
become part of a larger regional water system that will have an impact
far beyond the Fort Berthold Reservation.
At present, our ground water supply over most of the reservation is
very poor. Dissolved solids, salts and other minerals often makes
available water unusable for cooking, washing, drinking, and even home
gardening. As an example of the danger of the poor water, sodium
concentrations of more than double normal standards, often present in
reservation well water, can aggravate hypertension, a common affliction
on the Reservation.
Even more of a problem are homes that have no local water source at
all. Close to the end of the 20th century, we still have many families
who must haul in their water from some outside source, often many miles
away. In addition to the obvious inconvenience, this causes an undue
risk of water borne diseases. Also, the many private wells on the
reservation are simply undependable, often with low flows, and
generally provide poor quality water, as well.
Further documentation of the problems we face was just published in
the September, 1998 issue of the magazine North Dakota Water, a
publication produced for North Dakota water users. The sub-title of the
article is called ``Reservations lack access to quality water
systems.'' The article says, among other things: ``There is a
tremendous need for rural water lines,'' which applies to both the Fort
Berthold Reservation and the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation, and it
documents the plight of a young family on our reservation which has to
constantly haul water, as well as the sorry condition of our New Town
water treatment plant. New Town is the largest town on the reservation,
with both a large Indian and non-Indian population. A copy of this
article is attached to my testimony, and I would request that this
article be made a part of the record in this matter.
As we all can appreciate with the Garrison Diversion Project, the
lack of good water systems at present blocks effective economic
development in most of our reservation districts, which we call
``segments.'' Unemployment is still a large problem on our reservation,
even with the modest success of our casino, Mandaree Electronics, the
Northrup Grumman plant in New Town, and other Tribal enterprises. The
1990 census pegged our average per capita income at $4,849, one-third
of the national average.
Now, we are faced with welfare reform requirements of meeting
national goals for work partition rates within a specified timetable
over several years. This means that economic development must become an
even higher priority for our reservation. And, as we all know, economic
development requires good water. Projects that are possible users of
good water include a feed lot, meat processing plant, fiber board plant
and ethanol plant, as well as further development of recreational areas
along the shore of Lake Sakakawea, new housing development, expansion
of various tribal facilities, and so forth.
At the same time as water systems are developed and water use is
increased on the reservation, we must also be mindful of environmental
concerns, such as wastewater disposal. We know that a successful MRI
program will not only address water distribution needs, but also
wastewater disposal needs.
The major components of the needed MRI projects are as follows,
segment by segment:
1. Mandaree: (west side of reservation, west of lake)
In Mandaree, the water distribution system needs to be expanded
and the existing system improved. Mandaree already has an
adequate water treatment plant and water intake.
2. White Shield: (southeast corner of reservation,
north of lake) In White Shield, again, the water distribution
system needs to be expanded. A new water treatment plant is
just being completed, but the water intake was completed in
1991.
3. Twin Buttes: (south side of reservation, south of
lake) While Twin Buttes already has a water intake and water
treatment plant, both facilities need to be completely
replaced. Further, the water distribution system needs to be
expanded. For reference, Twin Buttes is 120 miles from New
Town.
4. Four Bears: (northwest corner of reservation, west
of lake) The Four Bears area has a water intake, but no water
treatment plant and no distribution system. This area needs a
water treatment plant and a distribution system.
5. New Town: (also northwest part of reservation, east
of lake) New Town, the largest community on the reservation,
has no water intake system from the lake, less than a mile from
the center of town, the best and closest supply of fresh water.
While the aquifer under New Town supplying the city's wells is
a relatively good source of water, when the lake is low, the
aquifer is low and water quality declines. Thus, New Town needs
a water intake system and improvements to its water treatment
plant, as well as an expanded distribution system.
6. Parshall: (northeast part of reservation, east of
lake) Parshall, also called Lucky Mound, has a water intake
from the lake, which isn't always working. Further, the water
intake is not deep enough in the lake, and doesn't function at
all when the lake is low. Parshall needs a new water intake,
improved water treatment plant and an expanded distribution
system.
I want to emphasize that we need prompt action on supplying our
needs, because our MRI funds are exhausted at the end of this fiscal
year. It is also important to note that each of the newly expanded
distribution systems will allow for future expansion, both within and
outside of the reservation areas. These are just a few of the principal
elements of the MRI projects we were promised more than 40 years ago.
2. Four Bears Bridge.
When the Garrison Dam was built, the bridge at the old town of
Elbowwoods was removed and its center spans, then already more than 20
years old, were placed near New Town in the northwest part of the
Reservation, to cross the lake at its narrowest point. The bridge was
inadequate when constructed because the center spans were too narrow,
making the rest of the bridge equally narrow. Now, with a much
increased traffic load, it is increasingly dangerous. In a few years
will be in need of massive repair.
The Four Bears Bridge is the only bridge on a stretch of the
Missouri River more than 150 miles in length. It is on a road which is
part of the National Defense Highway System, and serves as part of an
essential farm-to-market road connecting two U.S. highways, Nos. 83 and
85. If the bridge were to be closed for an extensive period of time for
any reason, or if it structurally became too weak to carry traffic, the
state has no funds to repair it and massive disruption of the local
economies would occur.
The Four Bears Bridge was part of the Garrison project when the dam
was built, and replacement of the Bridge ought to be part of the
overall Garrison Diversion project now. The State of North Dakota
doesn't have any money to replace the bridge, and even with the new
highway bill will not have funds. The 1996 estimated cost of the bridge
is approximately $40 million, and the authorization for that amount is
provided for in the bill. It is understood that the state will be
assisting with the final cost of the bridge; the Tribe is contributing
land to the site of the new bridge.
3. Irrigation:
Finally, I want to urge this Committee to retain the authorization
for irrigation on the Fort Berthold reservation contained in H.R. 3012.
As noted above, we lost 156,000 acres of land, much of it prime bottom
land as a result of Garrison Dam, and the $63 million irrigation
dollars authorized in the Garrison Unit Reformulation Act of 1986 were
to be used to help us recover some of that good farm land. Our studies
show that irrigation is feasible in the Lucky Mound-White Shield areas.
We do have several remaining concerns about the legislation:
Reserved water rights. We would ask that language be included in
the final Committee report on this legislation that would recognize the
reserved water rights of the Three Affiliated Tribes to water from the
Missouri River and its tributaries that are within the Fort Berthold
Reservation, known as Winters doctrine rights, and that it be made
clear in the final Committee report that this legislation, including
the part of it which allows for diversion of water from the Missouri
River, does not in any way diminish or compromise those rights. This
was a fundamental consideration of the JTAC Report, attached. Our water
rights as a Tribe are no less important than those expressed as a
stated purpose of H.R. 3012: ``to preserve any existing rights of the
State of North Dakota to use water from the Missouri River.''
Irrigation. We would also request that consideration be given to
expand our authority for irrigation acres, should such additional acres
prove feasible. As mentioned above, our best agricultural lands were
taken from us. We are hopeful that in the future, some additional lands
can be successfully irrigated and added back to our agricultural land
base.
JTAC Report. Finally, we would ask that in the final Committee
report accompanying the bill, language be included that states that
this legislation fulfills some of the goals set forth in the Garrison
Unit Joint Tribal Advisory Committee Report, dated May 23, 1986, as
attached. Such language simply recognizes what the bill actually does,
and helps explain why portions of this legislation are dealing with the
needs of the North Dakota tribes.
In summary, we believe we, the Three Affiliated Tribes, and indeed,
all of the residents of the Fort Berthold reservation have waited long
enough for our fundamental water needs to be met. To have people on our
reservation still carrying water to their homesites is unacceptable in
the late 20th century. For us, the passage of H.R. 3012 cannot come
soon enough. We cannot accept any alternative.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify before this Committee.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1878.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1878.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1878.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1878.013
Statement of Michelle McCormack, Southwest Water Authority, North
Dakota
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee:
My name is Michelle McCormack, and I have been a resident of
southwest North Dakota for the past 17 years. I am one of the many
people in North Dakota that has benefited from the partially completed
Southwest Pipeline Project. I support the completion of Garrison
Diversion because I know first-hand the social, economic, and personal
hardships of having poor water.
My first home had clear water that was ``hard enough to walk on''
according to the water tester. It was high in sodium, and high in iron.
It left rust stains on clothes that were washed in the water, and it
left stains and deposits on fixtures. It was so corrosive that lifetime
faucets had to be replaced every seven years. Water pipes and shower
heads filled up with hard lime deposits so that water pressure was
reduced, and eventually, plumbing would leak, and have to be replaced.
My husband and I built a house 10 years ago on a building site with
an existing well. The well water was light brown, the color of tea, and
was soft, but very limited. When the cattle were drinking, there was no
water in the house.
That well failed after a few years. Because of the soils in our
area, wells often fail, filling in with a light silt. We added filters,
attempted to clear the water through use of settling tanks, and finally
we had to accept the fact that we needed a new well. At a cost of $12 a
foot, we dug until we had spent over $6,000. And we found water--
abundant, soft, potable, safe for cattle, but dark brown. We had the
choice of digging deeper, hoping to find better water, however; there
was no guarantee that it would be there. Or we could live with the
brown water we had, and wait for the pipeline to come.
The brown water stained everything. One washing would turn a white
dishtowel grey. Even dark clothes were dulled and dingy. My children
learned to dry their hair after a shower--if they did not, their damp,
long hair would stain the collar of their white t-shirts.
The picture you saw of the baby in the bathtub is my son. When he
was five, he asked me if there was a rule that only motels and grandmas
got to have white sheets and towels. We bought dark towels, dark
sheets, and very little white clothing. We had to haul all white
laundry to the nearest laundromat--a 30 mile trip one way.
It took full strength toilet bowl cleaner to remove dried stains
from sinks, showers and fixtures. We distilled all the water we used
for cooking and drinking. The water had tested safe for human use, but
boiling pasta or potatoes in that water was unappetizing at best. Our
distiller ran 24 hours a day.
It wasn't pretty, and we endured it because we had to. Our family
and friends hated to visit or stay overnight, and the kids friends
didn't like to see it. So there was a cost--socially, and a high
economic cost to distill, haul laundry, and long term costs to the
house plumbing and fixtures.
Friends, neighbors--all have stories like this. They tell stories
of faucets that erode away every five years; garbage disposal blades
eaten by the water; stains, costs, frustrations and hard work over a
resource most Americans take as a given part of their life.
I've been lucky--I am one of those people who benefited greatly
from the Southwest Pipeline Project. There are others:
Don and Sarah Froehlich from Belfield, were about to sell their
dairy cattle operation before the pipeline arrived at their farm. High
levels of sulfate contaminated their water, causing Don to be sick with
flu-like symptoms for over a month; and a bad taste in the milk and
cheese their cattle produced.
Douglas Candee from Dickinson, has expanded his buffalo herd to
over 200 head, which he attributes to the abundant, dependable water he
receives from the Southwest Pipeline Project.
Joe and Mag Kathrein, New England, have struggled constantly with
water in the past--hauling water twice per day to their cattle herd, 20
miles round trip. Now they enjoy quality water in abundance.
Bernice Jahner, Hettinger, appreciates the health benefits she
receives from Southwest Pipeline water. For the past five years, she
has been doctoring for ulcers on her legs, taking whirlpool baths twice
a day for treatment. After using pipeline water for just one month, her
doctors were amazed at her improvement.
The North Dakota State Water Commission has currently identified
524 projects that are necessary for water development in the state with
an approximate cost of $1.8 billion. One hundred twenty-four of these
projects are targeted specifically for the next biennium, at a total
cost of $362 million. Several large projects, such as flood control for
Grand Forks and Devils Lake, and the Maple River Dam are included in
this cost.
I say the cost of a pipeline water bill every month is a bargain,
compared to what we paid to make our water usable. Pipeline water is
better for our health, affordable, less work, and a real blessing to
all of us in an area where wells are not reliable.
______
Statement of Daniel P. Beard, Senior Vice President--Public Policy,
National Audubon Society
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before the
Subcommittee to present this testimony on H.R. 3012, the ``Dakota Water
Resources Act of 1997,'' as amended by the amendment in the nature of a
substitute introduced by Mr. Pomeroy.
I'm here today to present the views of the National Audubon Society
on H.R. 3012. The Society has nearly one million members and supporters
in the Americas, and it is dedicated to the preservation and protection
of birds, other wildlife and their habitat.
To our members, protection and enhancement of the Prairie Pothole
wetlands of North Dakota and other portions of the Central Flyway is a
critical issue. For over 30 years we have worked hard to protect these
internationally significant resources, and we are prepared to continue
this effort.
The purpose of today's hearing is to take testimony on the ``Dakota
Water Resources Act of 1997'' introduced by Congressman Pomeroy. For
reasons I will detail below, we strongly oppose enactment of this
legislation and we urge the Committee to take no further action on the
bill. Should the Committee report the bill, we will work diligently to
oppose its enactment by the Congress.
We appreciate all the time and hard work Congressman Pomeroy has
put into this proposal. We also recognize that it reflects consensus
among a variety of interests in North Dakota. While we appreciate their
hard work, we still oppose the legislation.
Mr. Chairman, the Garrison Diversion Unit water project has been
the subject of controversy for over 50 years. It has generated
countless lawsuits, legislative battles, diplomatic negotiations,
interstate controversies, and environmental confrontations. Even worse,
the taxpayers have spent more than $600 million on project facilities,
many of which don't fulfill their intended purpose. In our view, H.R.
3012 would not end the controversies surrounding the Garrison project
and water development in North Dakota; this legislation would just
continue old controversies, and create new ones.
Mr. Chairman, rather than go through the bill line-by-line and
detail our objections, I would prefer to focus on several important
reasons why we believe this legislation is deficient. We hope these
comments will lead you and other members of the Committee to the
conclusion that this legislation should be rejected.
The legislation is based on a faulty premise.
We believe this proposal is premised on a faulty assumption. The
major premise of the legislation seems to be that a ``debt'' is owed
North Dakota as a result of the construction of the mainstem Pick-Sloan
reservoirs. The quid pro quo for these facilities is the often-cited
``commitment'' that North Dakota would receive 1 million acres of
irrigation.
Rather than revisit the historical accuracy of this supposed
``commitment,'' let me point out that the Congress in 1986 expressly
said that whatever commitment may have existed was fulfilled by the
1986 legislation. Subsequent Congresses and Administrations--both
Democratic and Republican, with the support of the environmental
community--have met this commitment by making available over $400
million to the State of North Dakota for the construction of rural
water systems, Indian water projects and other project facilities. Over
80,000 North Dakotans have directly benefited from these expenditures.
In addition, according to data developed by the Corps of Engineers, the
State also receives approximately $130 million each year in benefits
from mainstem Missouri River facilities.
Thus, the state has already received well over a billion dollars in
benefits and direct Federal appropriations since 1986. In our view,
H.R. 3012 fails to present a forceful and compelling case why the
taxpayers should make available an additional $900 million in Federal
funds and debt forgiveness.
The Congress should know the specific facilities and features it is
authorizing.
Given the long history of controversy surrounding water development
in North Dakota, we believe it is absolutely essential the Congress
only authorize construc-
tion of facilities that have been thoroughly considered and planned. As
currently drafted, the legislation directs the Secretary to build
facilities that are not clearly described or known, may not be needed,
and perhaps cannot be used. In the past, there has been considerable
controversy about what facilities ought to be built, why and how they
should be operated. The legislation would continue this controversy.
The Federal Government should take the lead for implemenfing any
legislation.
As noted earlier, the reason we are here today is because the
Garrison project has a long and controversial history. There are
interstate and international issues, and a host of environmental
challenges surrounding this project. We don't believe it is appropriate
for the Federal Government to cede authority for addressing these
issues to the State of North Dakota. Several sections of the bill give
the State unusual authority to influence planning processes and to be
involved in the construction of facilities. The State's role in this
effort should be curtailed, not expanded as proposed in H.R. 3012.
The debt forgiveness portions of the bill should be deleted.
There are several sections of the bill that provide for forgiveness
or changing the rules for reimbursable expenditures made in the past.
We don't believe inclusion of these provisions is appropriate. Since
1965, nearly $600 million dollars has been spent on Garrison-related
facilities and programs; we feel the taxpayers deserve the maximum
repayment possible for these expenditures.
The State of North Dakota should not have a role in environmental
compliance.
The legislation provides that the State will play an integral role
in the planning and design of facilities, and in the preparation of the
environmental impact statement on Red River Valley water supply
facilities. Given the interstate and international problems surrounding
this issue, we believe it is inappropriate to give the State this
authority. The problems involved in delivering Missouri River water to
eastern North Dakota are interstate and international in nature, and
they are very controversial. Given the gravity of these issues, the
Secretary should have the sole responsibility for undertaking the
analysis to review and recommend appropriate solutions.
We should honor our treaty commitments to Canada.
The final problem we would like to raise is the opposition of the
Government of Canada to importing water from the Missouri River into
the Red River drainage. In 1977, the International Joint Commission
recommended that construction of those portions of the Garrison project
delivering Missouri River water to streams ultimately draining into
Canada not be built, due to the potential for violation of the Boundary
Waters Treaty of 1909. Twenty-one years later, there is still no
assurance that project facilities that would be completed and operated
by the Dakota Water Resources Act would not violate the Boundary Waters
Treaty.
The United States has an obligation to honor this treaty and
develop solutions to its water resource problems that won't result in
exporting our problems to Canada. As presently drafted, H.R. 3012
provides no assurances that the United States will meet these
commitments.
Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to detail for you some
of the problems we see with this legislation. Let me outline for you a
suggested list of elements the National Audubon Society believes could
lead to positive resolution of the issues surrounding the Garrison
controversy.
1. We oppose legislation to complete the Garrison Diversion
Unit, such as the ``Dakota Water Resources Act,'' because the
project does not represent responsible, economically sound or
environmentally acceptable water resource development.
2. If a legitimate need is demonstrated for importing Missouri
River water to the Red River Valley for MR&I use, we support
formal consultations with Canada and discussions with Minnesota
to determine if an acceptable means can be developed to deliver
treated Missouri River water by pipeline directly to the target
cities.
3. We support projects to meet tribal MR&I water needs using
cost-effective delivery systems.
4. We support irrigation development on tribal lands adjacent
to the Missouri River using water directly from the river.
5. We support other MR&I water projects in North Dakota
utilizing local water supplies or pipelines where they are
economically feasible and environmentally acceptable.
6. We oppose the expenditure of additional Federal funds for
construction, operation or maintenance of the Garrison
Diversion Unit principal supply works.
7. The Garrison Diversion Conservancy District is the entity
primarily responsible for insisting that construction proceed
on the principal supply works. They have done so before major
problems associated with the project were resolved despite the
objections of landowners, conservation organizations, taxpayer
organizations, numerous Federal agencies, the State of
Minnesota, and the Governments of Manitoba and Canada.
Therefore, costs associated with abandonment of the principal
supply works should be borne by the C-District rather than by
American taxpayers.
Mr. Chairman, once again I want to thank you for giving me this
opportunity to be here with you today. I'd be happy to answer any
questions you might have.
______
Statement of Scott Peterson, President, North Dakota Chapter of The
Wildlife Society
Good afternoon, my name is Scott Peterson and I am the President of
the North Dakota Chapter of The Wildlife Society. I am here today to
present a brief statement regarding the Dakota Water Resources Act on
behalf of the North Dakota Chapter of the Wildlife Society.
The North Dakota Chapter of The Wildlife Society is a professional
organization of fish and wildlife biologists, educators, and students.
The Chapter has been actively involved with issues concerning the
Garrison Diversion Unit since the project was originally authorized by
Congress in 1965. In 1986, the Chapter helped to forge an agreement
that led to the passage of the Garrison Diversion Unit Reformulation
Act. The Chapter has submitted statements for the record at previous
hearings in Washington and North Dakota in support of the Legislation
before us now and we stand by those earlier statements.
During the past two years, the Chapter has participated in
discussions that led to the introduction of the Dakota Water Resources
Act. Throughout this process, the Chapter has focused its attention on
three main objectives:
1. Clearly defining the provisions of the Dakota Water
Resources Act;
2. Ensuring that the contemporary water needs of North Dakota
include the conservation of fish and wildlife resources and
their habitats; and,
3. Modifying the legislation to eliminate provisions that will
adversely affect the environment.
The Dakota Water Resources Act is primarily a municipal and rural
water supply plan which will benefit North Dakotans by providing a
dependable supply of safe drinking water to communities throughout the
State. We believe this work can be completed without significant
environmental impacts. The current version of the legislation
strengthens the process for making environmentally sound, cost-
effective decisions concerning the future water needs of Fargo, Grand
Forks, and other communities in the Red River Valley. The Environmental
Impact Statement will evaluate a range of practicable alternatives to
meet the projected water needs and assess the environmental impacts
associated with each option.
Today I would like to address, and offer our further support for
two specific provisions of the Dakota Water Resources Act, namely the
expansion of the North Dakota Wetlands Trust and the operation and
maintenance needs of the project wildlife mitigation and enhancement
features.
The Dakota Water Resources Act recognizes the conservation of fish
and wildlife resources as an essential project feature to meet the
contemporary water needs of North Dakota. The Chapter wholeheartedly
supports expanding the mission and funding base of the North Dakota
Wetlands Trust to include riparian and grassland conservation
initiatives. The Chapter further endorses the Trust's wetland education
initiatives and supports the complimentary funding that is earmarked
for the North American Prairie Wetland Interpretive Center. The Trust
serves as an important bridge between landowners and the conservation
community as clearly demonstrated by the Trust's list of
accomplishments during the past ten years. These impressive
accomplishments include involving 37 organizations and over 200
landowners in Trust funded projects and programs; 170 landowners signed
wetlands protection, restoration and enhancement agreements; 578
farmers and land managers participated in field tours on conservation
practices; and over $1.7 million have been provided as either direct
payments or incentive payments to landowners for various conservation
practices. I have also attached a one page summary of the Wetland
Trust's activities during the past ten years to highlight their
accomplishments.
Voluntary projects such as these are just some of the reasons that
the various ND Wetlands Trust programs have become so popular with
landowners and conservationists alike. The Trust is continually looking
for cooperative ventures that benefit both the agricultural producer
and our state's natural resources. Expanding oppor-
tunities to cooperatively work with landowners throughout North Dakota
benefits both our natural resources and the state's economy. Further
evidence of the Trust's popularity can be found in one Ramsey County
landowner's comments regarding a Trust project when he stated, ``I feel
that we've worked well together as a group . . . it's a win:win
situation for producers and wildlife.''
The primary provisions of the Dakota Water Resources Act are
designed to meet North Dakota's existing and projected water supply
needs. Along similar lines, we believe that establishing an account to
operate and maintain the project's fish and wildlife mitigation and
enhancement features is an important step in meeting the project's
conservation objectives. The operations and maintenance account will
benefit wildlife resources, neighboring landowners, and the people
using these public lands. The account is essential to ensure the stated
conservation commitments of the project are met in the future. We
recommend that the authority to establish the operations and
maintenance account be timed to coincide with the record of decision
concerning the Red River Valley water supply features. With a secure
mechanism to fund the wildlife development areas, we are confident that
the projected losses associated with identified irrigation development
can be adequately mitigated.
In closing, we believe that substantial progress has been made
since the first draft of the Dakota Water Resources Act was circulated.
The North Dakota Congressional Delegation, Senator Conrad in
particular, and North Dakota's state political leaders are to be given
credit for their leadership abilities in keeping a diverse group,
representing many interests, moving forward.
We wish to thank you for the opportunity to express our opinions
here today and we respectfully request the opportunity to continue
negotiations directed toward developing legislation that meets the
contemporary water needs of North Dakota and conserves the State's
natural resources.
Thank you.
North Dakota Wetlands Trust, Summary of Projects
1997-1997
The North Dakota Wetlands Trust, a non-profit corporation, has been
involved in 62 wetland conservation projects since its inception in
1986.
$4,907,980 have been committed to projects and
$2,067,102 have been spent to date.
This $4,907,980 is leveraged with $18,185,766 through
partnership agreements with organizations and agencies.
Projects completed conserve wetlands on 53,663 acres:
13,336 wetland acres
40,327 upland acres.
Acquired 4,154 acres.
Engaged private landowners and the public in wetlands
conservation:
37 organizations and over 200 landowners are involved in Trust
funded projects and programs.
170 landowners signed wetlands protection, restoration and
enhancement agreements
578 farmers and land managers participated in field tours on
conservation practices
22,900 adults are estimated to have participated in wetlands
education programs
64,135 children are estimated to have participated in classroom
and field trip opportunities to learn about wetland habitats.
Provided economic benefits to landowners and
communities:
Expended 22 percent of the Trust's cumulative budget over the
last four years on landowner incentive projects with long-term
educational and demonstration value
$776,737 in direct payments to landowners for conservation
practices, incentives and cost shares
$935,000 is committed for wetland restoration and native grass
incentives to landowners for Conservation Reserve Program lands
Helped fund no-till drills in nine counties, providing
conservation tillage options for over 110 landowners
Paid $36,330 in property taxes to local political subdivisions
(counties, townships, school districts).
Improved 20,194 acres of privately owned agricultural land
through incentives for no-till drilling, conservation tillage,
soil moisture enhancement through temporary wetlands, upland
habitat restoration, and grazing system improvements.
Removed agricultural uses on 10,950 acres through wetlands
restoration and enhancement and associated upland habitat
restoration. Provided payments for removing agricultural land.
______
Statement of Ronald Nargang, Deputy Commissioner, Minnesota Department
of Natural Resources (MDNR)
Mr. Chairman, on behalf of Governor Carlson, thank you for the
opportunity to brief the Subcommittee on Water and Power on Minnesota's
concerns regarding the ``Garrison Diversion'' project. I am Ronald
Nargang, Deputy Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources (MDNR) and I have been asked by Governor Carlson to provide
testimony for the State of Minnesota on this matter. Historically, the
states of Minnesota and North Dakota have a long-standing tradition of
working together cooperatively on interstate natural resource issues,
such as the great floods of 1997. However, the State of Minnesota
remains very concerned about the proposed Garrison Diversion project
and appreciates the opportunity to provide comments.
Issues of concern are:
Consistency--The eight states and one province surrounding
the Great Lakes have a compact that provides for prior notice
and consultation of transfers of water out of the basin. Given
the high value of the Great Lakes as a resource and the
concerns of the eight Great Lakes states, no transfers are
allowed out of the basin without unanimous approval of all
parties. Federal law (Section 1109 of the WRDA of 1986)
requires the approval of all eight great lakes governors before
an out of basin transfer could occur. Congress has set a
standard in law that protects specific basins (e.g., the Great
Lakes) from losing water to other areas. All Missouri River
states should be expected to concur in a diversion of Missouri
River water outside the natural watershed boundaries. The State
of Minnesota has grave concerns about the precedent that would
be established if water from the Garrison Diversion project
were directed out of its natural basin to the Red River. The
State of Minnesota has no intention of jeopardizing our ability
to stop the transfer of water out of the state by accepting the
water from the Garrison Diversion and establishing a precedent
for interbasin diversion.
Sustainable Use--Minnesota uses the principles of sustainable
use when forming natural resource policy and in decision making
as regards the use of natural resources. All communities within
Minnesota are encouraged to make decisions based on sustainable
use of existing resources. Within this framework, the residents
of the Red River Valley should be looking at ways to reduce
consumption of water and live within their means in terms of
naturally available water supplies. It is our belief that we
must begin to live within the confines of our natural resources
and not be as willing to import solutions to our resource
problems. Bringing water to the arid areas of the southwest has
been in the short-term an economic boon to that part of the
country. It remains to be seen whether we will continue to look
at it as a boon in the years to come as the population and
water demand continue to increase and the sources of supply are
exhausted.
Water supply (both groundwater and surface water) in this
region is limited. Demands may surpass supply at certain times
of the year. Minnesota incorporates the principles of
sustainable use in environmental policies and decision making.
This principle would mean that we should first focus on lower
cost demand management measures and not be considering higher
cost alternatives for developing new sources of supply. This
region of Minnesota and North Dakota should not be encouraging
water intensive uses and should be pursuing vigorous
conservation measures. Water conservation measures that reduce
demands by improving water use efficiencies can extend water
supplies in the region. The December 1990, Red River Valley
Municipal Supply Study completed for the North Dakota State
Engineer and Garrison Diversion Unit Conservancy District
states that per capita water use rates can be reduced by
measures such as installing water saving devices, providing
general education about water conservation, industrial
recycling, reducing lawn water use and increasing water rates.
This report also states that it is the Mayor of Fargo's belief
that the city can extend its surface water supplies to meet
future needs with higher water rates and by reducing demands
for low valued uses. Water use projections should reflect
reduced demands achievable through conservation programs and
water conservation measures should be implemented prior to
authorization of this project. We must question whether
transporting water across a watershed divide would be
sustainable for either watershed.
Doctrine of Prior Appropriation--The Red River is the
dividing line between riparian water law or ``equal right to
use of water'' and the doctrine of prior appropriation or
``first in time, first in right'' for the use of water. In
addition, there is a climatic shift from a wet-humid climate to
a dry-arid climate in western Minnesota. The State of Minnesota
has reservations about the availability of water in dry periods
as North Dakota operates under the Doctrine of Prior
Appropriation. Prior water interests on the Missouri River
would first have to be met before any water could leave the
Missouri River Basin for the Red River Basin. We question the
expenditure of hundreds of millions of dollars on a water
diversion project that might not have any water available for
the end users in periods of drought when the need for water is
the greatest. Does the water right clearly exist, has it been
perfected, and/or could there be any challenge to this water
right? The State of Minnesota has concerns that the source of
water may not be legally valid. The State of North Dakota will
need to address the unresolved issues of water supply to the
various Indian bands as well as other interests. In a letter
dated March 20, 1998, we raised this concern to Governor
Schafer and have not received a response. If these rights are
not perfected and additional demand is created based on the
Garrison water supply, we have few options to meet this
increased demand for water.
Water supply (both groundwater and surface water), overall,
in this region is limited. Flows on the Red River at Fargo/
Moorhead were less than 100 cfs for approximately 22 percent of
the period of record (1901 to 1989) and were less than 50 cfs
for approximately 13 percent of the period of record. The
average use in 1990 at Fargo/Moorhead is 68 cfs. The additional
growth in this region that would be spurred by additional water
supply would place severe demands on surface water supplies in
this region, which already are often low and insufficient to
meet demand. There is potential for significant changes in
flows during periods of low flow that would critically stress
the ecological system of the Red River. Studies have shown that
the Red River contains an internationally recognized trophy
fishery for channel catfish; the changes in flow regime have
the potential to damage this fishery resource.
It is likely that existing ground water supplies would be
looked to during periods of low flow in the Red River to
augment and even replace surface water supplies.
Ground water supply in this region is also very limited.
Ground water levels are likely to be low during times when
surface water flows in the Red River are low and municipal
water demands are likely to be high; therefore, it is doubtful
that ground water will be available during periods of low flow
to meet all demands. Past water level declines and water
quality problems indicate that any new development of ground
water supplies should be approached with caution. The MDNR
believes that the recharge potential of the regions aquifers is
not likely to be substantially greater than the current levels
of appropriation. Additionally, we are concerned that a
reduction in ground water head levels caused by increased
appropriation could result in upward movement of deeper saline
water from Cretaceous rock formations that underlie some of the
regions aquifers. This would adversely affect ground water
quality and further exacerbate an existing shortage of quality
water for potable use.
There are interstate, hydrologic connections of the regions
underlying aquifers. At the Wahpeton, North Dakota sugar beet
plant, sugar beet waste leaking from a lagoon contaminated
Wahpeton municipal water supply wells. During ground water
pumping to clean up this contamination, the yield of the
Breckenridge, Minnesota municipal water supply wells was
reduced by approximately 50 gallons per minute per well as a
result of the water level declines due to pumping. This clearly
demonstrates the hydrologic connection across the state line.
There is the potential for interstate conflicts in water use
during periods of low surface water levels when the regions
aquifers will be looked to for increased water supply.
Navigation Impacts--We are concerned about the cumulative
effects that the diversion would have on navigation in the
lower Mississippi River. There were barges stranded during the
droughts of 1976 and 1988 because of inadequate flows in the
Mississippi River below the confluence with the Missouri River.
When the needs for water for navigation and commerce are
highest, so too will be the demand for pumping water out of the
Missouri River basin, which will jeopardize navigation and
commerce on the Mississippi River.
Relationship to the Devil's Lake project--We acknowledge that
Congress is handling the Garrison Diversion and the Devil's
Lake Outlet as separate projects. Despite this fact and the
State of North Dakota's repeated statements that the projects
are in fact separate, Minnesota must consider these projects to
be linked for the purposes of our evaluation. It is important
that any planned connection between the two projects be fully
explained up front. Governor Carlson requested clarification of
this issue from Governor Schafer in a letter dated March 20,
1998 (copy attached). We have not received a response.
It has been proposed that this project could provide an inlet
to Devil's Lake during periods of drought. The Upper
Mississippi River Basin Association passed a resolution on
September 24, 1997, in opposition to any construction on
Devil's Lake inlets and/or outlets until an Environmental
Impact Statement has been completed. No one can say with any
degree of certainty what impacts this project would have on the
Missouri and Mississippi River Basins as a result of this
project. The Devil's Lake inlet significantly complicates the
issues surrounding the Garrison Project.
While the total impact to public water supplies of a decision
to bring Devil's Lake water by artificial means into the Red
River of the North may not be known for years, there exists at
this time a preponderance of evidence that such a move would be
poor public policy. Discussions surrounding mitigation to
downstream water supplies have centered around existing surface
water supplies. It is important that this mitigation level be
extended to future water supplies and for future water
parameters for which such an outlet would necessitate
additional treatment over existing water quality. According to
the Minnesota Department of Health, the effect of Devil's Lake
outlet water on public water suppliers ability to comply with
more than 100 water quality parameters mandated for public
water supplies through the Safe Drinking Water Act has not been
adequately evaluated at this time.
Biota Transfer and Water Quality--A connection of the
Missouri River to the Red River is a clear cause for a high
level of concern with respect to exotic species. Water
transferred directly from the Missouri River or leaving via
Devil's Lake outlet increases the likelihood of transfer of
exotic species into the Red River Basin. Such a discharge of
water from Devil's Lake would also result in an increase in
total suspended solids (TSS) in the Red River Basin. Coupled
with the operations of the Pro-Gold corn processing plant in
Fargo and its resultant increase in TSS, there is a good chance
that municipal water suppliers will have great difficulty in
treating water to the standards of the Safe Drinking Water Act.
There are examples of past connections between watersheds
that have caused severe regional and international problems
because of biota transfer. The introduction of sea lamprey into
the Great Lakes because of canals is a multi-million dollar
problem for the United States and Canada. Also, the man-made
connection between Lake Michigan and the Mississippi River
watershed, via the Illinois waterways, has allowed the spread
of zebra mussels to dozens of states. This water is now the
route used by round gobies, an exotic species that is
displacing perch in Lake Michigan, to invade the Mississippi
River and Missouri River watersheds.
Finding technical solutions to the biota transfer issue is
not easy. There are considerable amounts of local, state and
Federal funding going into this area of research because there
is little known and so few technologies available (ie. the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers dispersal barrier study for the
Illinois waterways and a ballast water demonstration project).
While the level of knowledge is increasing, it is far from
complete. Even the best technologies are unlikely to remove
fish pathogens from the water, and thereby could threaten fish
populations and angling opportunities in the receiving
watersheds. Just this type of problem is currently being played
out with the introduction of ``Whirling Disease'' in western
trout populations.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is a member of the Federal
Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force established by Congress. An
issue of this scale should be reviewed by the Task Force and
the Western Panel on Aquatic Nuisance Species, which includes
states west of Minnesota and was also mandated by Congress to
determine if adequate technology is available to ensure that
biota transfer can be avoided or whether we can afford the
consequences of transfer.
Proponents of the Garrison Diversion concede that adverse
blots transfer is a problem, but they say that technology can
overcome any issues through water treatment and screening of
the discharge. Any treatment plan must meet a very high
standard of proof for fail-safe reliability before there is
authorization to fund this project. The State of Minnesota
would ask to see detailed plans of any proposed method of
treatment.
The State of Minnesota would request that any appropriation
include monies for the continued review of the biota transfer
issue. Minnesota's exotic species control program is one of the
best in the country, however, the level of review that is
required for this project requires both technical competency
and the appropriate level of funding to ensure that the project
meets the standards of Minnesota's exotic species control
program.
I ask the Committee to review these issues very carefully as it
deliberates authorizing this project. We have consistently voiced our
opposition to the Garrison Diversion and to the outlet project at
Devil's Lake. The State of Minnesota will continue to view these as one
project. As the impact of this project on Minnesota could be
substantial, I also ask that our state be included in deliberations to
the greatest extent possible. To that end, please call on me for any
further information you may require regarding Minnesota's position on
the Garrison Diversion project.
Thank you.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1878.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1878.015
Statement of David J. Koland, Executive Director, North Dakota Rural
Water Systems Association
Mr. Chaimman and members of the Committee. My name is Dave Koland.
I serve as the Executive Director of North Dakota Rural Water Systems
Association. Our association has 31 rural water systems and 225
municipal water systems as members.
The sons and grandsons of the pioneers that settled North Dakota
founded our association. They had experienced the dirty 30's and sought
a solution to the unreliable and uncertain water supplies they depended
on for a domestic water supply.
Since the earliest days of our state the people who settled here
were driven by the need for water. The first settlements were located
along streams or lakes. The homesteaders who came later dug shallow
wells or endured by hauling water from a nearby creek or slough. Many
had to move on when the dry years withered their crops and left them
without the precious water needed to survive.
In the late 1970's many rural areas began constructing a water
distribution system to serve rural areas. Farmers without water or with
an unreliable source joined together and with the help of the Federal
Government built rural water systems to meet their needs. But at the
insistence of the Federal Government they were not allowed to build
beyond their own current domestic needs.
The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) Amendments of 1986 with
stringent testing requirements and mandated Maximum Contaminant Levels
brought North Dakota face to face with the reality that the groundwater
being used in many smaller communities for drinking water could not
meet the MCL for fluoride or arsenic mandated by the SDWA.
The answer for many communities was to work out a solution with the
rural water system that served a rural area close to their city. Rural
water systems now provide clean safe water to 187 communities in North
Dakota. But many still wait for the water they so desperately need.
Communities like Mohall (931 people), Munich (310 people), and Bisbee
(227 people) have few other alternatives to provide their citizens with
clean safe water.
The key to providing water to the small communities and rural areas
of North Dakota has been the Grant and Loan program of Rural
Development and the Municipal, Rural, and Industrial (MR&I) program of
the Garrison Conservancy District. Without the assistance of these two
grant programs the exodus from the rural areas would have been a
stampede.
The desperate need for clean safe water is evidenced by the
willingness of North Dakota's rural residents to pay water rates well
above the rates the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) consider to
be affordable. The highest general guideline sets an affordability
threshold at 2.0 percent of the median household income. Rates beyond
the threshold are considered to be unaffordable.
In North Dakota that translates into a monthly cost of $38.69 (ND
MHI=$23,213). The average monthly cost on a rural water system for 6000
gallons is currently $48.97. Only one system in the state has a monthly
cost below the ``maximum affordable cost'' set out in the EPA study and
that system charges $37.60/month for 6000 gallons. Twelve systems must
charge their consumers $50 or more with one system charging 170 percent
of the ``affordable rate'' or $66/month for 6000 gallons.
The water rates in rural North Dakota would soar to astronomical
levels without the 75 percent grant dollars in the MR&I program. For
instance our current rates would average a truly unaffordable $134.19/
month or a whopping 7.0 percent of the Median Household Income. They
could have ranged as high as $190.80/month or a prohibitive 9.9 percent
of MHI.
The people waiting for water in our rural communities are willing
to pay far more than what many consider an affordable price for clean
safe water. Across North Dakota we have seen the impact of providing
good water to rural areas and witnessed the dramatic change in small
communities.
We must continue to support the growth of our existing rural
systems into regional water delivery systems and provide water to those
areas that are not now being served.
Water alone will not solve the problems of rural North Dakota but
without water there is little hope that any proposed solution will
work.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1878.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1878.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1878.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1878.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1878.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1878.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1878.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1878.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1878.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1878.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1878.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1878.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1878.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1878.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1878.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1878.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1878.032