[House Hearing, 106 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
H.R. 2918, DAKOTA WATER RESOURCES ACT OF 1999
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER
of the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 30, 1999, WASHINGTON, DC
__________
Serial No. 106-66
__________
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
64-145 WASHINGTON : 1999
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpr.gov Phone (202) 512�091800 Fax: (202) 512�092250
Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman
W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana GEORGE MILLER, California
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
JIM SAXTON, New Jersey BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota
ELTON GALLEGLY, California DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American
JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California Samoa
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii
KEN CALVERT, California SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
RICHARD W. POMBO, California OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
HELEN CHENOWETH-HAGE, Idaho CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California
GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto
WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North Rico
Carolina ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam
WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island
CHRIS CANNON, Utah ADAM SMITH, Washington
KEVIN BRADY, Texas CHRIS JOHN, Louisiana
JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania DONNA MC CHRISTENSEN, Virgin
RICK HILL, Montana Islands
BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado RON KIND, Wisconsin
JIM GIBBONS, Nevada JAY INSLEE, Washington
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
GREG WALDEN, Oregon TOM UDALL, New Mexico
DON SHERWOOD, Pennsylvania MARK UDALL, Colorado
ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York
MIKE SIMPSON, Idaho RUSH D. HOLT, New Jersey
THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado
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 CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California
RICHARD W. POMBO, California GEORGE MILLER, California
HELEN CHENOWETH-HAGE, Idaho PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia
WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas ADAM SMITH, Washington
GREG WALDEN, Oregon DONNA MC CHRISTENSEN, Virgin
MIKE SIMPSOM, Idaho Islands
GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
Robert Faber, Staff Director/Counsel
Joshua Johnson, Professional Staff
Steve Lanich, Minority Staff
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held Thursday, September 30, 1999........................ 1
Statement of Members:
Pomeroy, Hon. Earl, a Representative at Large in Congress
from the State of North Dakota............................. 67
Prepared statement of.................................... 68
Vento, Hon. Bruce, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Minnesota, prepared statement of.................. 47
Cubin, Hon. Barbara, a Repesentative in Congress from the
State of Wyoming, prepared statement of.................... 81
Statement of Witnesses:
Chandler, James, Counsel, U.S. Section of the International
Joint Commission........................................... 59
Prepared statement of.................................... 61
Conrad, Hon. Kent, Senator, North Dakota, U.S. Senate........ 40
Prepared statement of.................................... 41
Dorgan, Byron L., Senator, North Dakota, U.S. Senate......... 43
Prepared statement of.................................... 43
Hall, Tex,................................................... 53
Prepared statement of.................................... 55
Koland, Dave, Executive Director, North Dakota Rural Water
Systems Association........................................ 62
Prepared statement of.................................... 63
Martinez, Hon. Eluid, Commissioner, U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation, U.S. Department of the Interior............... 49
Prepared statement of.................................... 51
Schafer, Hon. Edward T., Governor, North Dakota.............. 34
Prepared statement of.................................... 37
Additional material supplied:
City of Grand Forks, Grand Forks, North Dakota, prepared
statement of............................................... 100
Wildlife Society, North Dakota Chapter, prepared statement of 91
Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, prepared statement of............. 96
Ventura, Jesse, Governor of Minnesota, prepared statement of. 81
Communications submitted:
Furness, Bruce, Mayor, Fargo, North Dakota, prepared
statement of............................................... 85
National Water Resources Commission, letter to Mr. Doolittle. 89
Text of H.R. 2918............................................ 2
H.R. 2918, DAKOTA WATER RESOURCES ACT OF 1999
----------
Thursday, September 30, 1999
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Water and Power,
Committee on Resources,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2 p.m., in Room
1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. John Doolittle
[chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Mr. Doolittle. The Subcommittee on Water and Power will
come to order. We are meeting today to hear testimony
concerning H.R. 2918, the Dakota Water Resources Act of 1999.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4145.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4145.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4145.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4145.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4145.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4145.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4145.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4145.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4145.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4145.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4145.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4145.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4145.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4145.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4145.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4145.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4145.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4145.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4145.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4145.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4145.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4145.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4145.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4145.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4145.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4145.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4145.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4145.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4145.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4145.030
HR 2918 IH
Mr. Doolittle. Today's hearing covers this Act, and it is a
project that has provoked thousands of hours of debate over the
last several decades. It is the most expensive water project
this Subcommittee has considered in the last 5 years.
In the past 2 years, while negotiations have been under way
in North Dakota, I have remained neutral concerning the
specific pro-
visions of the bill. I have consistently indicated that there
were some issues we wanted to see addressed, but that I
remained sympathetic to the needs of the people of North
Dakota.
Today I am glad that we have such a comprehensive turnout,
representing the political leadership of the State, for it
gives me an opportunity to address an important issue
concerning the future of this legislation.
Over the last few months, the sponsors of this project have
spent little time, frankly, working with our Subcommittee to
address the issues we have raised. Some individuals interested
in the advancement of this legislation have dissuaded witnesses
who this Subcommittee has sought to testify concerning the
legislation before us, and we have heard from several sources
that it is the intent of the advocates of this bill to dismiss
the concerns of this Subcommittee and have the project placed
on some major end-of-the-session legislative package without
separate committee and House action.
Let me just be clear and direct about this. Such an
approach would be ill-advised and opposed by this Subcommittee,
and I would hope that there are members on both sides of the
aisle who would join me in actively opposing such a course of
action, should it be undertaken.
I will be including for the record a letter from the
Canadian Ambassador to the United States and testimony from the
Governor of Minnesota strongly opposing the legislation in its
current form. Both indicate opposition to the substance of the
legislation, as well as to the lack of inclusion in the process
that led to the current draft of the bill.
I would have to say, based on my own experience, that they
may have some legitimate concerns. I do not feel that the
current witness list represents the true range of opinions
concerning this project. For instance, with the understanding
that there would be other witnesses here that would address the
diversity of views, the National Audubon Society agreed to
withhold their testifimony to keep the length of the hearing
more manageable. Although they will not present oral testimony,
they will submit written testimony and do remain strongly
opposed to the legislation.
While there are numerous technical details requiring
attention, let me mention three major issues that I believe we
must address prior to taking action on this legislation.
One, the financing of the project in light of the
traditional funding alternatives for Bureau of Reclamation
authorizations must be adjusted. While I believe there are some
legitimate concerns about how to handle expenditures for
unusual portions of the project which have already been
constructed, there are major portions of the proposed project
that should be either reimbursable or financed through other
mechanisms.
Indeed, we specifically held a hearing on this subject 2
months ago to highlight the need for developing a responsible
approach, funding approach to these projects. When we look at
the reality of the Federal budget, we have to realize we do not
have the money there to simply start another new grant program
to fund all the projects requested before this Subcommittee.
For all you hear in the news about vast Federal surpluses, the
reality is that we have enough money to maintain economic
health and pay down a portion of our national debt.
Two, this bill as currently drafted is so complex and
poorly structured that it is nearly incomprehensible. We have
been provided with a strike-out-and-add version of the
underlying legislation that is to be amended by the bill before
us today.
Comparing that version, the bill that is before us today
and the testimony of the witnesses, there are major
discrepancies. For instance, there are provisions which some
witnesses contend are reimbursable that are either clearly not
reimbursable or that contain exemption clauses that render them
likely to be nonreimbursable.
Three, a tremendous amount of the authorization is not tied
to any particular development project. Much of it is simply a
preauthorization for the expenditure of hundreds of millions of
dollars.
With that, I would like to look forward to hearing the
testimony, and I am going to recognize Mr. Dooley for his
statement.
Mr. Dooley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you
for holding this hearing today to review H.R. 2918, the Dakota
Water Resources Act of 1999.
I wish to welcome our witnesses today. It is certainly a
measure of the importance of this legislation to the people of
North Dakota that we have here today with us both of our
Senators, as well as the congressional representative from
North Dakota.
I am aware that there are serious water supply and water
quality needs in North Dakota, and coming from an area in which
water is in chronically short supply, I am very sympathetic to
these efforts to address such concerns.
Amending the Garrison Diversion Reformulation Act of 1986
to better address these concerns, as H.R. 2918 does, may well
be the most appropriate way to approach the problem. I look
forward to today's hearing, during which we will hear more
about this particular legislative proposal, and I also look
forward to working with the chairman and my colleagues from
North Dakota to achieve a longer term solution to the water
supply needs of the people of North Dakota.
Mr. Doolittle. Thank you.
The Chair will recognize Mr. Pomeroy, who will introduce
our guests to begin.
Mr. Pomeroy. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you
for holding this hearing, and just by way of format, I would
make some brief opening remarks and be joined by North Dakota's
Governor, Ed Schafer, and our Senators when they get done
voting and return, and then we will have a second panel in
addition, with further testimony in support.
Mr. Chairman, just to quickly address a couple of the
concerns you have raised, we have believed that I negotiated in
the past with you the witnesses to attend today from our part,
and we agreed that Garrison Diversion Conservative District
would not be attending so we might keep the hearing length
short and not be redundant.
It certainly has not been my intention to exclude any of
you from any perspective, although, further, I did not view it
as my responsibility to put on the panel the project's major
detractors. Obviously, I am for the project. What we have
assembled for you in support of the project are the various and
diverse component parts of this collaborative effort producing
this vital project for North Dakota.
Similarly, we have requested that this hearing be held in
July. I certainly, and the chairman has been accommodating, so
I'm not saying that to carp, but in no event have I tried in
any way to exclude the primacy of this Committee in considering
this very important matter to North Dakota.
What is more, I have enjoyed working with your staff, Mr.
Faber, who has gone over this legislation line by line, in
addition to the minority staff, two of which recently came to
North Dakota, Mr. Lanich and Mr. Cramer.
While visiting a farmstead in the southwestern part of the
State, they were given a test, three bottles: Which is the
Pepsi, which is the tap water, which is the coffee. They could
not pass the test. I wonder if you can?
Let me make it short, this is the tap water. That is why
this project is so very, very important.
The project, as will be explained, is a consensus plan born
initially out of North Dakota's participation in the Pick-Sloan
project. Per that project, we were hosts to two reservoirs
resulting from dams placed on the Missouri River. A flood the
size of Rhode Island visited North Dakota, and has not left. We
lost over 500,000 acres of bottom land. In exchange for that,
we were promised a water project. The initial version of it was
a grand irrigation type project. That was obviously something
not concluded, and the plan was reformulated in a 1986 Act.
Now, as we look at it, we have agreed across the political
spectrum, rather than look back, let us look forward and
evaluate whether this design best meets our needs in the 21st
century. It does not. We have advanced this plan, which
involves greater consensus than we have ever had on this
important water project, including very highly credible
representatives of the environmental community; in addition, at
a total authorized cost of $500 million below the existing
authorization.
The bill before you represents cost-effective, treaty-
compliant, and environmentally sound water policy, and brings
fair and reasonable closure to the commitment by the Federal
Government to the State of North Dakota.
Allow me to introduce North Dakota's Governor, Governor Ed
Schafer.
Mr. Doolittle. Governor Schafer.
STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD T. SCHAFER, GOVERNOR, NORTH DAKOTA
Governor Schafer. Thank you, Congressman Pomeroy. Mr.
Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate the
opportunity to be here today to once again testify in support
of the Dakota Water Resources Act.
I promised I will be brief. I will try not to duplicate the
testimony. But I do have a couple of important points on this
legislation and what it means to our State of North Dakota.
This Dakota Water Resources Act unlocks North Dakota's
future. It is an indispensable element for water supply, for
economic development, for agriculture, recreation, tourism, and
wildlife enhancements in our State.
Why, I suppose you ask, are we looking for this project? I
think we can point to the fact that North Dakota suffers from a
lack of an adequate water supply of good quality water for
drinking, and in many places we have an insufficient quantity
of water to meet the needs of our communities.
I think the solution to this challenge is the delivery of
water from the Missouri River throughout the State,
particularly to the Red River Valley, which is on the
easternmost part of North Dakota. In fact, it encompasses the
eastern third of our State.
The drafters of the Act have asked everyone with interest
in this legislation in our State to participate in developing
an acceptable project for all interests involved. In fact, I
find it very interesting that in a bipartisan approach, we have
the congressional delegation, the Governor's administration, a
unanimous resolution in the legislature on both sides, our
wildlife, our environmental interests, and everybody is on
board in North Dakota for this project.
In that effort, I would also like to introduce our majority
leader of the House of Representatives, Representative John
Dorso, he is here with us today, who generated this unanimous
resolution from our legislature. John is over here. Thanks for
being with us, John.
Mr. Doolittle. We welcome you, Mr. Dorso. You and I have
met before on an earlier occasion, at last year's hearing,
where you voiced strong support for the project.
Governor Schafer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
We have tried to engineer this project to meet the needs
and to address the concerns that people have had with this
project. We have scaled down what was originally a multi-
billion dollar federally-funded irrigation project, and that
has disappeared into a management program for really the
municipal, rural, and industrial water needs of our State.
The new approach emphasizes supplying water to small
communities, rural residents, Indian reservations, and cities
that are in desperate need of quality, affordable, and reliable
water supplies.
This bill enhances the wildlife and natural resources. It
requires strict compliance with all environmental laws and the
Boundary Waters Treaties Act of 1909 between the United States
and Canada. Acting responsible and as good neighbors to the
peoples of Canada and Minnesota has always been a priority to
the supporters of this legislation.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your comments about including
witnesses and other interested parties in this process, but I
can tell you from my conversations with the ambassador in
Canada, my conversations with the premier of Manitoba about
this issue, whose province, obviously, would be affected, they
have mentioned to me directly that they are unalterably opposed
to this program. They are not interested in debate. They are
not interested in facts or changes or new technology. This is
just opposition, pure and simple. They will not move, as much
as we have tried.
I also had a chance to read the testimony and comments of
Governor Jesse Ventura. I take exception to the things he said.
I know he is a new Governor, and I certainly do not want to get
into the wrestling ring with him over this, but really, these
are pulled out of an old file from 10 and 15 years ago. They
totally disregard the commitments that have been made in this
new legislation. They totally disregard the new technologies of
biota transfer with a buried pipeline and the opportunity to
treat that water within drinking water standards as it moves
across the Continental Divide.
I appreciate the comments, but these are old and totally
disregard what is going on today.
The opponents of the legislation really have four major
concerns. They say we must guarantee and prove beyond any doubt
that harm will not occur to another water supply. Of course,
that is impossible. Nobody can guarantee beyond a shadow of a
doubt. But what we do guarantee is that we will comply with all
regulations, all laws that are established by the Boundary
Waters Treaties Act. We have two safeguards in the legislation,
the compliance to the 1909 Boundary Waters Treaties Act will be
determined prior to construction, and the Secretary of
Interior, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the
Environmental Protection Agency, must certify compliance before
construction of any interbasin transfer system.
I think the second concern is biotic transfer. As I
mentioned, this is a big issue, but there has been for more
than a decade an ongoing potential impact study going on by the
interbasin biotic transfer study program. It is a cooperative
program by the Universities of Manitoba and North Dakota. No
credible scientific evidence has been found to identify
specific foreign biota or any threat to these particular water
resources. To be thorough, this Act does address those
undocumented concerns by agreeing to deliver this by a buried
pipeline of treated water that will result in a 99.99 percent
removal of any virus. That is an extraordinary and
unprecedented precaution.
Third, some believe this is some kind of a back door
approach to divert Missouri River water into another problem
area that we have there of Devil's Lake. As you are also aware
of that project, Devil's Lake has risen 25 feet in the last 6
years. We are trying to desperately decrease that, not increase
it with diverting water in there, I can assure you.
The issues of flood control in an inlet intake, which are
some peoples' concerns, are totally separated not only
physically but by law.
Fourth, there are some concerns about diversion causing
harm to downstream Missouri States. I am not sure how that
happens, but the diversion of the Missouri River water to the
Red River-Red River Valley for this Act is less than 1 percent
of the river flow.
Now that I have outlined quickly here what this Act does
not do, let me tell you quickly what it does do. It supplies--
the total remaining water needs in our State are about $600
million. That was for more than 520,000 people that are
affected in 144 water systems.
This gets us moving in that direction. The water supply and
water treatment needs also of the Indian reservations within
North Dakota are addressed in this bill with $200 million
authorized towards those needs.
Finally, the State of North Dakota stands ready to
contribute the non-Federal share for the State MR&I program.
I want to ask you quickly to support this legislation for
three reasons. The legislation is a bipartisan effort, and has
broad-based support across the State of North Dakota. As I
mentioned, the congressional delegation, the Governor's
administration, the wildlife and environmental groups, and
unanimous action by the legislature in our State deems that we
move forward with this legislation.
Congressman Pomeroy mentioned it is economically sound,
environmentally proper, and it tends to solve some problems of
water issues of high-quality affordable water in areas of our
State.
This Act I think is a reasonable solution from the Federal
perspective. We have reduced the acres of irrigation. We know
that is a problem with you. Although our MR&I needs total more
than $600 million, we have agreed to provide $100 million to up
front projects and also to reimburse $200 million for the
delivery of water to the river.
The people of North Dakota are willing to pay our 50
percent share of identified MR&I needs. The Dakota Water
Resources Act will deliver the promises made to our citizens in
1944 to bring a final and reasonable conclusion to this long
and often controversial history of the Garrison diversion
project.
Finally, let me mention one more issue. I am very proud of
the opportunity or the issue that we have put together, the
partnership we have put together with the Natural Resources
Trust Fund. We have established a great working partnership
with the Federal Government and State government on this issue.
We have funded, with our State funds, our portion and
share. It has gone to restore wildlife and wetlands areas. I am
pleased that this trust fund will also continue in the new
legislation.
The Dakota Water Resources Act has laid out a plan for
continued consultation. Legitimate concerns should be and will
be addressed. No one should be allowed to hold up the
conclusion of this project simply because they have outdated
philosophies on using surplus Missouri River water, or they
have some outdated technology mentality; of meeting legitimate
needs of the State of North Dakota.
Mr. Chairman, I have submitted more testimony than that in
writing. I appreciate the opportunity to be with you today. We
would be glad to answer any questions that you may have.
[The prepared statement of Governor Schafer follows:]
Statement of Edward T. Schafer
Mr. Chairinan 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.
Much of the day-to-day living that goes on in North Dakota,
Minnesota, Manitoba and Saskatchewan takes place without giving
much consideration to borders created by governments. The
natural resources that move between the borders are the
people's to manage, not only for the well being of any one
individual or group, but for the well being of everyone living
on the prairie, for the land, water and wildlife itself . . .
for today and the future.
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 drafters of the Dakota Water Resources Act realize this
responsibility, have asked others to participate in the process
of finding an acceptable project for all interests involved and
have scaled down what was originally a multi-billion dollar,
federally funded irrigation project into a management program
for municipal, rural and industrial water needs. The new
approach emphasizes supplying water to small communities, rural
residents, Indian reservations, and cities that are in
desperate need of a quality, affordable and reliable water
supply. At the same time, the bill enhances wildlife and
natural resources and requires strict compliance with
environmental laws and the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909
between the United States and Canada.
Acting responsibly, as good neighbors to the people and
governments of Canada and Minnesota has always been a priority
among the sponsors of the Garrison Diversion legislation. While
attempting to do so in every way possible, we cannot lose sight
of our ultimate purpose . . . to deliver on the promise of a
dependable water supply system that meets the needs of the
people who live and work within the Red River Basin. That being
the most-important priority, the very real needs of these
people should not allow uncontested veto powers by Minnesota or
Canada. We can no longer delay project completion because of
philosophical differences or unwarranted criticism.
The water supply needs of the Red River Valley are being
evaluated for 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. 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.
The argument opponents have raised is that the Act should
be able to guarantee or prove beyond any doubt that harm will
not occur to another water supply. That is, of course,
impossible. What we can guarantee is that we will comply with
all the regulations and laws established by the Boundary Waters
Treaty. In fact, the Dakota Water Resources Act requires that
compliance with the 1909 Boundary Waters Treaty be determined
prior to construction. The Act also requires the Secretary of
Interior, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the
EPA, to certify compliance before construction of any
interbasin conveyance system. This recent change in the DWRA
language was made to accommodate Canadian concerns, and adopted
by the sponsors of the bill.
The issue of trans-basin biota transfer has plagued the
project for years. For more than a decade, these potential
trans-basin biota transfer impacts have been studied by the
Interbasin Biota Transfer Study Program, a co-operative venture
of Universities in Manitoba and North Dakota. The series of
studies conducted by teams of scientists from both the United
States and Canada have attempted to identify foreign biota and
the future environmental impact they might have on Red River
Basin water. No credible scientific evidence has been found to
identify specific foreign biota or any threat to these
particular water resources. Although these conclusions do not
totally dismiss the chances that such biota does exist, and
that it may be potentially harmful, no specific cause for alarm
has been documented.
The sponsors of the Dakota Water Resources Act of 1999 have
even gone so far as to address the undocumented concerns by
agreeing to treat water delivered by a buried pipeline to the
Red River Valley in eastern North Dakota. In fact, treatment
levels for this water would equal disinfection standards for
drinking water and result in a 99.99% removal of viruses--an
extraordinary and unprecedented precaution--especially when you
consider the fact that a number of interbasin water diversion
projects in the Western United States have been completed
without disinfection.
Concerns have also been raised about the state's effort at
flood control at Devils Lake, which some suggest is a back door
approach to divert Missouri River water to Devils Lake. The
proposed Devils Lake outlet cannot be operated to divert
Missouri River water into Devils Lake. The lake has risen 25
feet in the last 6 years and the Federal agencies involved in
finding a solution, understand that the goal is to decrease
rather than increase the water levels in Devils Lake. These
issues of flood control and an inlet are totally separated
physically, as well as by law. 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. 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.
Further concerns about diversion causing harm to downstream
Missouri states is unfounded. Diversion of Missouri River water
to the Red River Valley for the Dakota Water Resources Act is
less than 1 percent of the river. If 200 cfs is diverted daily
for nine months from the Missouri River into the Red River
Valley, only 108-thousand acre-feet of the annual total of 95-
million acre-feet of water that flows by Herman, Missouri would
be diverted. That's less than 0.2 percent of volume.
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 water supply needs are for more than
520,000 people in 144 water systems including community and
rural needs. In preparation for passage of this legislation,
the State of North Dakota has established the means for
contributing the non-Federal share of the state MR&I program.
The water supply and water treatment needs of the Indian
reservations within North Dakota are also addressed in the bill
with $200 million authorized towards those needs. The North
Dakota citizens who are tribal members, deserve to have their
exceptional needs addressed. This legislation includes an MR&I
component, that makes great strides towards meeting the needs
of our Native American citizens.
The Dakota Water Resources Act has laid out a plan for
continued consultation, but the limit needs to be realized.
Legitimate concerns should and will be addressed, but no one
should be allowed to hold up completion of this project simply
because they have an outdated philosophy on using surplus
Missouri River water to meet the legitimate needs of the State
of North Dakota.
This bill is supported by Republicans as well as Democrats
across North Dakota. In 1994 we began a process in the state to
bring together all interests to forge an agreement regarding
Garrison. We have struggled for years until all interests
within the state have reached an agreement that is embodied in
this legislation. It is supported by the Democrats and
Republicans in the North Dakota Legislature, by the Democrats
in our congressional delegation, by the Republican in the
Governor's office, and by diverse groups of people ranging from
farm organizations to education associations. This legislation
is truly a bi-partisan effort at finding agreement on an
enormously important piece of legislation that has languished
for a decade waiting for completion. It is an economically and
environmentally sound plan that attempts to solve some of the
water issues and help provide high quality, affordable water to
areas of need across the state.
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. 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.
The Dakota Water Resources Act will bring to a reasonable
and final conclusion, the long and sometimes controversial
history of Garrison. 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 and as well to the growth of
the nation. 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.
Thank you.
Mr. Doolittle. Thank you, Governor.
I will recognize Senator Kent Conrad for his testimony.
Welcome.
STATEMENT OF HON. KENT CONRAD, SENATOR, NORTH DAKOTA, U.S.
SENATE
Senator Conrad. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
If I could just start by saying that I respect the
jurisdiction of this Committee, Mr. Chairman, and I don't know
what the legislative process, how it will unfold, but I have
great respect for the jurisdiction of this Committee.
I have great respect for the chairman of this Committee. We
are going to do everything we can to be responsive to the
concerns of this Committee. I want to say that up front and
very clearly.
Mr. Chairman, this bill, as the Governor describes, enjoys
incredibly broad support in the State of North Dakota. This is
truly bipartisan. Every water group in North Dakota supports
this, every affected city supports this. The major business
organizations in our State support it. The North Dakota rural
electrics support it. Every water users group support it. So I
think this has broad support in the State of North Dakota,
including, and I want to emphasize this, the major
environmental groups of North Dakota.
The reason we have had such a breakthrough since our last
hearing, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, is because
we have altered this project dramatically. This is not the old
Garrison project. This is a new project that is taxpayer-
friendly, that is environmentally sensitive, and that makes
sense for the water needs of North Dakota.
So I hope we won't look at this project through the lens of
the old project, because we have dramatically changed it in
negotiations with members on this side, on the Senate side, and
the administration. That is what has led the administration to
endorse this project.
Mr. Chairman, the need, I think, is really very clear. This
is a sample of water from the Leonard Jacobs residence in
Reeder, North Dakota. It looks like coffee or iced tea, but I
can tell you, it is a lot less drinkable than that. This is a
problem we have all over North Dakota.
Mr. Chairman, this chart shows the comparison of the
typical water supply for rural North Dakotans, that jar on the
right. The jar on the left represents water that is delivered
via pipeline: clean, healthy water. That is why we need this
project, Mr. Chairman. We need it desperately.
This chart shows a young child bathing in the typical water
we see in southwestern North Dakota and northwestern North
Dakota. Can you imagine putting your child in that kind of
water for a bath? But that happens every night in hundreds and
thousands of households across North Dakota. We need your help.
We need your help to change that.
Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, we also need to be
able to deliver water to eastern North Dakota, because in the
past we have seen repeatedly that the Red River has become so
dry you could walk across it without getting your shoes wet.
This is 1910. The Red River was virtually dry then. It happened
also in the thirties. We can fairly anticipate it is going to
happen again. That is why this project is so important.
Let me just say what this bill contains. It contains $200
million for statewide municipal, rural, and industrial water
projects, $200 million for tribal MR&I.
I might say that tribal water supplies in many cases are
even worse than what I have shown here. There is $200 million
to deliver water to the Red River Valley, $25 million for an
expanded natural resources trust, and $6.5 million for
recreation projects. This represents, in negotiations with the
administration, a $140 million reduction from the legislation
as introduced, and it represents a $600 million reduction from
the cost of the currently-authorized project. That is why we
believe this is taxpayer-friendly.
As I have indicated, we also enjoy the support of the
environmental organizations in North Dakota, because we have
made it environmentally sensitive.
We have also made this project treaty-compliant. I know
some of you have heard from our neighbors to the north. As the
Governor has indicated, we have no intention to violate the
Boundary Waters Treaty. We intend to comply with it, because we
know we can.
Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, I hope very much
that you will work on this legislation, suggest to us how it
could be improved, but help us move it forward, because it is
needed. It is broadly supported in North Dakota, and I believe
it deserves your support.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the Committee.
[The prepared statement of Senator Conrad follows:]
Statement of Hon. Kent Conrad, a Senator in the Congress from the State
of Morth Dakota
INTRODUCTION
Mr. Chairman, thank you for providing me the opportunity to
testify in strong support of the Dakota Water Resources Act of
1999. I appreciate your willingness to hold this hearing--the
second in 2 years on this bill--and hope to be able to
demonstrate the significant progress we have made on this
legislation in recent months.
I am especially pleased that this bill enjoys incredibly
broad support. As you heard last year, and as you will hear
today, the bill has the unanimous support of the bipartisan
elected leadership of the State of North Dakota. It is
supported by North Dakota water users and North Dakota
conservation organizations--groups that have historically
disagreed on water policy in our state. The bill is supported
by the Greater North Dakota Association (our chamber of
commerce) and the North Dakota Education Association. Mr.
Chairman, this bill enjoys the broadest support of any piece of
legislation affecting my state that I have worked on in my two
terms in the Senate.
Additionally, we are extremely pleased that the bill is
supported by the Administration. After more than a year of
discussions, covering more than 60 issues, last spring we
reached agreement on this bill. In reaching that agreement, we
reduced the cost of the legislation by $140 million,
strengthened environmental provisions in the bill, and provided
additional assurances to our Canadian neighbors.
The bill before the Committee is not our grand-daddy's
Garrison project. The bill enjoys the support of North Dakota
and the Administration because it is a fiscally-sound,
environmentally-sensitive, and Treaty-compliant plan to
complete the Garrison Diversion project. We believe the bill
deserves the support of this Committee, and we are ready to
work hard with you to garner your support.
THE NEED
On the verge of the 21st century, North Dakota still faces
significant water development needs to meet the basic water
demands of our citizens and to ensure a bright economic future
for our state. North Dakota is a semi-arid state that
historically has suffered from insufficient water supplies as
well as water quality problems.
These charts show the dramatic need for water development
in North Dakota.
This chart shows a sample of the poor quality water
directly from the tap of some of our residents. This water
sample on the left is well water from a farmstead in southwest
North Dakota. It is as dark as weak coffee, but not nearly as
fit to drink. The water sample on the right in the chart shows
water delivered by the Southwest Pipeline Project, which is
clear and clean and fit to drink. Only through the funds
provided by the cost-shared Garrison MR&I program could this
clean water have become a reality.
I recently attended a ``turning on the tap'' ceremony in
Hettinger, North Dakota sponsored by the Southwest Pipeline
project. The Southwest Pipeline project is one of North
Dakota's true success stories, bringing more than 900 million
gallons of water annually to more than 28,000 homes and
businesses across Southwest North Dakota.
The dedication event represented the completion of another
phase of the project to bring water to the Hettinger and Reeder
areas in Adams County North Dakota. You should have seen the
elation in people's faces as clean, clear water flowed from the
faucet. For the first time in their lives, people in the area
do not need to haul water several times a month and the project
means white clothes will come out of the wash white, not grey.
This next chart shows a picture of a baby bathing in dirty
water from southwestern North Dakota. It is the same kind of
water shown in the first picture, and is as unfit to bathe in
as it would be to drink. This is what we need to change in
North Dakota.
We also must meet the water needs of the Red River Valley.
The next chart shows Red River nearly dry in Fargo in 1910.
While we all remember the flooding of 1997, we must also
remember that the Red River has been nearly dry on many
occasions. At times you could walk across the river without
getting your feet wet. This picture illustrates the times the
river has been nearly dry, leaving the communities up and down
the Red River Valley without a reliable source of water.
THE BILL
As I said at the beginning of my statement, the Dakota
Water Resources Act is not our grand-daddy's Garrison project.
It represents a new vision to address the 21st Century water
needs of my state. The bill before the Committee today reflects
the realistic contemporary water needs of the State, and
represents a realistic settlement to the long-standing
commitment made to our state when we agreed to host a permanent
500,000-acre flood.
Fundamentally our bill proposes to further reduce
irrigation in exchange for additional MR&I development, and
also proposes innovative ways to meet the other purposes of the
project.
Our bill includes:
$200 million for statewide MR&I projects;
$200 million for Tribal MR&I projects;
$200 million for a Red River Valley Water project;
$25 million for an expanded Natural Resources Trust;
$6.5 million for recreation projects;
Requires the state to pay for existing features at the
time and to the extent those features are actually used;
About 70,000 acres of irrigation, and a prohibition on
irrigation development in the Hudson Bay drainage basin;
Requires compliance with the National Environmental Policy
Act and the Boundary Waters Treaty with Canada; and
Encourages the State to establish a water conservation
program using funds from the bill.
The bill will result in a project that will cost about $600 million
less than the currently-authorized project would cost the government to
fully construct.
THE PROCESS
We have engaged in an unprecedented and cooperative process. The
six years of effort have included discussions with interested North
Dakotans representing every interest, with the Federal agencies, and
with National and North Dakota environmental organizations. In
February, 1997, we held a marathon 10 hour negotiating session with
environmental interests. That meeting resulted in an agreement on 12
principles that would guide our legislative proposal. The bill before
the Committee remains true to the agreement we reached with the
conservation organizations more than two years ago, and we are
extremely pleased that the North Dakota Wildlife Society and the North
Dakota Chapter of the Wildlife Federation support the bill.
The result is a product that has nearly unanimous support of
leaders in North Dakota. This bill has the support of the bipartisan
elected leadership of North Dakota from every level of government--
Federal, state, tribal, and local. It has the support of water
interests; business leaders; ND conservation organizations; large and
small cities; agriculture; rural electric co-ops; even the ND Education
Association.
CONCLUSION
Mr. Chairman, this legislation represents a fiscally-sound,
environmentally-sensitive, Treaty-compliant approach to completing the
Garrison project. The bill will help meet the contemporary water needs
of our state while enhancing our natural resources. I hope this
represents the final chapter in the history of this project, and urge
the Committee to join us in supporting passage of this bill.
Mr. Doolittle. Thank you. Our next witness will be Senator
Byron Dorgan.
STATEMENT OF BYRON L. DORGAN, SENATOR, NORTH DAKOTA, U.S.
SENATE
Senator Dorgan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much. I am a
member of the authorizing committee in the Senate as well on
this issue, and we have just recently voted this bill out of
the Senate committee. It is now going to be going to the Senate
floor at some point.
We did that because this bill makes good sense. There has
been a great deal of work done. A Republican Governor, a
Democratic congressional delegation, a bipartisan group of
leaders of the State House and the State Senate have all agreed
on this project and the changes and the alterations that have
been necessary to advance to this piece of legislation.
It is not just officials, however, it is a representative
group of North Dakotans, representing a wide range of
interests, including environmental groups, who have joined us
and work with us. This is almost unprecedented in our State.
All of us agree that this represents the best approach, a sound
approach to respond to the needs of our State.
I want to talk just for a moment about what this is and
what it is not, because that is very important to understand.
First of all, this project is not some historical accident,
and it is not the result of some thick slather of pork that
someone attached to some bill 40 years ago. It is not that.
This project is the second half of a contract that the Federal
Government made with the people of the State of North Dakota.
That contract says we will have two parts. In both the Federal
Government initiated it and signed it and the people of North
Dakota agreed to it. The contract was to say, we want to
harness the Missouri River, and we want you in North Dakota to
have a permanent flood forever the size of the State of Rhode
Island, right smack in the middle of your State.
Fellow citizens of North Dakota, the Federal Government
said, if you will allow a permanent flood to visit your State
forever, we will give you something in return. We pledge to
that you by contract will have an opportunity to move the water
behind that permanent flood, now called a reservoir, around
your State. You will then be able to address the issue of the
Red River running dry and a wide range of other serious water
quality problems in North Dakota.
That was the bargain. We did not come hat in hand asking
anybody for anything, and never have. The bargain was, take the
flood, keep the flood forever, and we promise you we will
provide water development benefits as a result.
We got the flood. We invite all of you to come and see it.
There is good fishing, good recreation. There are some benefits
to it, but nonetheless, it is a permanent flood in the middle
of our State. Moreover, we have not yet received the full
flower of develpoment benefits promised us by the Federal
Government to move this water around our State and have the
other capabilities that are necessary for our future.
Our State, of all the western reclamation States, is the
one that has been left behind. We come to you today with a
final revision of this project, saying that this is what is
necessary for the Federal Government to do to keep its bargain
with the people of North Dakota.
Senator Conrad indicated this proposal reduces the
authorized project by over $600 million. These changes that are
proposed will reaffirm the decision-making of the Secretary of
Interior on key issues. Some were worried that the decision-
making on whether the Red River Valley needs, for example,
would exclusively go to North Dakota. That will not be the
case. This bill addresses forthrightly and completely the
concerns of Canada. Those who say different are wrong. This
bill addresses those Canadian concerns completely.
Further, the bill deauthorizes the Lonetree feature to
which Canada had previously objected and on which it demanded
consultation. This deauthorizes it and converts it into a
wildlife enhancement area.
This bill, fourth, strengthens environmental protection,
and does so by incorporating specific recommendations of the
North Dakota wildlife and conservation groups. This bill
creates a project that does not destroy wetlands, it preserves
wetlands. In short, this bill is very important for the future
of our State.
If we speak about this with some passion and some
impatience, I expect you will understand why. Fifty years, 30
years, 20 years, at some point the Federal Government must keep
its bargain with the people of North Dakota. It can do so by
passing a piece of legislation that has broad bipartisan
support, makes good common sense, reduces by over $1 billion
according to Administration testimony the authorized project
that now exists, and enhances the ecomomy and assists the
people of our region of America in a manner that was envisioned
50 years ago when the dual promise for flood control and other
development was made.
[The prepared statement of Senator Dorgan follows:]
Statement of Hon. Byron L. Dorgan, a Senator in congress from the State
of North Dakota
Mr. CHAIRMAN:
I welcome the opportunity to testify today in support of
the Dakota Water Resources Act (H.R. 2918) introduced by
Representative Pomeroy. Senator Conrad and I have introduced S.
623 which, as amended, is identical to the House bill.
Let me say a few words about the Dakota Water Resources
Act. Senator Conrad, Rep. Pomeroy, and I have worked with North
Dakota Governor Edward Schafer and the statewide elected
leaders of North Dakota to develop a bipartisan consensus in
support of this bill. The bill is widely supported by tribal
and local governments as well as North Dakota wildlife, water
user, and business groups.
With amendments adopted in the Senate Energy Committee
mark-up last week, it is now supported by the Clinton
Administration as well. So we have achieved some very strong
support for this critical legislation.
This is a water development bill that I am proud to
sponsor. It reduces Federal costs, meets environmental and
international obligations, and very importantly, fulfills the
Federal promise to address North Dakota's contemporary water
needs. This bill meets the Federal obligation to compensate
North Dakota for farm lands lost to a Federal flood control
project. It cannot be judged as just another rural water bill.
It is much more.
The Federal Commitment to North Dakota
Over fifty years ago, the Federal Government began building
a series of mainstream dams on the Missouri River to provide
flood protection, dependable river navigation, and inexpensive
hydro power--primarily for the benefit of states in the Lower
Missouri Basin. These problems became acute when flooding
during WWII disrupted the transport of war supplies and spawned
disaster relief needs in a budget already overstretched.
When North Dakota allowed the Garrison Dam and Reservoir to
be built in the state (along with the added impact in North
Dakota created by the Oahe Reservoir in South Dakota), it
agreed to host permanent floods that inundated 500,000 acres of
prime farm land and the Indian communities on two reservations.
The state and Tribes agreed to this arrangement in exchange for
a promise that the Federal Government would replace the loss of
these economic and social assets with a major water development
project, the Garrison Diversion Unit.
But 50 years later, the project is less than half done.
We were promised a major water and irrigation project. It
was designed to help meet the agricultural needs of a semi-arid
state that gets only 15-17 inches of rainfall per year. We
originally expected the funding to provide for the irrigation
of over a million acres of land, most of it in areas much less
productive than the land lost to the Garrison Reservoir. The
Federal Government eventually started a scaled-down version of
the project, with 250,000 acres of irrigation. In response to
criticisms that the project was too costly and too
environmentally disruptive, a Federal commission proposed a
major revision in 1984 and made recommendations on how to meet
North Dakota's contemporary water needs.
In 1986, I renegotiated the project with the Reagan
Administration, the then-House Interior Committee, and national
environmental groups. These talks resulted in the Garrison
Diversion Reformulation Act of 1986. The law implemented the
Garrison Commission's findings and recommendations and included
a 130,000 acre irrigation project for the state and Tribes, the
promise of Missouri River water to augment water supplies in
the Red River Valley, an installment on municipal, rural, and
industrial (MR&I) water for communities across the state,
initial water systems for the Standing Rock, Fort Berthold, and
Ft. Totten Indian reservations and a range of activities to
enhance wildlife and habitat.
The Completion of the Promised Project
The Dakota Water Resources Act would scale back this
project even more. It reduces federally authorized irrigation
from 130,000 to 70,000 acres and eliminates funding for
irrigation development. This will reduce project costs and
target limited funds in the bill to high priority irrigation
and MR&I water development.
The bill does provide $630 million in new resources to
complete the major MR&I delivery systems for the four Indian
tribes and the state's water supply network, and includes a
process for choosing the best way to address the Red River
Valley's water needs. It also makes wildlife conservation a
project purpose, expands the Wetlands Trust into a more robust
Natural Resources Trust, and funds a few priority recreation
projects.
The State has worked with the Bureau of Reclamation to
resolve several concerns about the bill in a series of
negotiations and discussions over the past months. The
revisions reduce costs, meet tough environmental standards,
strengthen compliance with an international border agreement,
and reaffirm the role of the Secretary of the Interior in
decision-making.
Mr. Chairman, permit me to outline the modifications made
over several months:
1. Retain the cost share of 25 percent for MR&I projects,
along with a credit for cost share contributions exceeding that
amount. This, in place of a 15 percent cost share.
2. Reimburse the Federal Government for the share of the
capacity of the main stem delivery features which are used by
the state. This, instead of writing off these features.
3. Index MR&I and Red River features only from the date of
enactment, not since 1986.
4. Expressly bar any irrigation in the Hudson Bay Basin.
5. Give the Secretary of the Interior the authority to
select the Red River Valley Water Supply feature and determine
the feasibility of any newly authorized irrigation areas in the
scaled-back package.
6. Extend the Environmental Impact Studies period.
7. Require that, prior to construction of any Red River
Valley delivery features, the Secretary of the Interior, in
consultation with the Secretary of State, and the EPA
Administrator, must determine that the project complies with
the Boundary Waters Treaty.
8. Reduce the project costs by $140 million by cutting $100
million in MR&I and $40 million for the Four Bears Bridge.
9. Set cost-sharing on operations and maintenance.
Revision that Pass Muster
Taken together with prior provisions, these changes achieve
four purposes. First, they reduce total project costs by over
$500 million--by limiting indexing; by defining specific state
responsibility for repayment of existing features instead of
blanket debt forgiveness; by de-authorizing such major
irrigation features as the Lonetree Dam and Reservoir, James
River Feeder Canal, and Sykeston Canal; and by retaining
current law with respect to MR&I cost-sharing and repayment for
Red River supply features. The state will also contribute about
$435 million through repayments and cost-sharing.
Second, the changes affirm the decision-making authority of
the Secretary of the Interior on key issues. The Secretary
would consult with the state of North Dakota on the plan to
meet the water needs of the Red River Valley but make the final
selection of the plan that works best and certifies compliance
with the Boundary Waters Treaty. The Secretary also negotiates
cooperative agreements with the state on other aspects of the
project. These arrangements protect the Federal interest while
assuring that North Dakota is a partner in a project so closely
linked to its destiny.
Third, the bill forthrightly addresses concerns of Canada.
The U.S. and Canada have a mutual responsibility to abide by
the Boundary Waters Treaty and other environmental conventions.
The Dakota Water Resources Act states in the purpose that the
United States must comply strictly with the Treaty. It further
bars any irrigation in the Hudson Bay drainage with water
diverted from the Missouri River, thus curtailing biota
transfer between basins. Again, the Secretary of the Interior
would choose the Red River Valley water supply plan, but if
that choice entails diversion of Missouri River water, then it
must be fully treated with state-of-the-art purification and
screening to ensure treaty compliance.
Further, the bill de-authorizes the Lonetree features to
which Canada previously objected and on which it demanded
consultations. However, Canada will have a robust opportunity
to comment and consult on the project as the State Department
reviews possible Red River Valley projects and Environmental
Impact Statements are prepared. Since Canada supported the 1986
Garrison Reformulation Act, it boggles my mind to see how it
might oppose a bill that dramatically strengthens the
safeguards for our northern neighbor.
Fourth, the revised bill strengthens environmental
protection and does so by incorporating the specific
recommendations of North Dakota wildlife and conservation
groups. It lengthens the periods for completing the
Environmental Impact Statements. It also protects the Sheyenne
Lake National Wildlife Refuge. Moreover, it preserves the role
of the Secretary of the Interior on compliance matters and
drops the provision that called for a study of bank
stabilization on the Missouri River.
This bill is environmentally sound. It does not destroy
wetlands, it preserves them. It preserves grasslands and
riparian habitat, too. It was not dreamed up by a water
development group. It was drafted with the input of tribal and
community leaders, local and national environmental groups, the
bipartisan leadership of the state, and the Bureau of
Reclamation and Office of Management and Budget. It reflects a
balanced approach to water resource development that applies
the principles of conservation while offering the hope of
economic development.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the opportunity to testify
and I would be glad to answer any questions.
Mr. Doolittle. Thank you. Mr. Pomeroy, you are recognized
to close.
Mr. Pomeroy. Mr. Chairman, with your leave I will go at the
end of the next panel, with about 2 minutes of closing.
Mr. Doolittle. Is that what you would like to do?
Mr. Pomeroy. Yes, I would.
Mr. Doolittle. Okay. Do members have questions of our
distinguished witnesses?
We thank you for coming. Again, I have never seen a State
that has this high a level of political representation for a
project, so for the second time in about a year, you have
manifested that focus. It is impressive, and we thank you for
coming to share your views with us.
Senator Conrad. We want to thank the chairman and thank the
members of your Committee for your attention to this matter. We
very much appreciate it.
Mr. Doolittle. Thank you.
Mr. Vento. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to
sit in the hearing. I have an opening statement and I wanted to
make it part of the record.
Obviously, we have, as was stated, the Governor submitted
his statement. I appreciate him putting that in the record. I
would observe that we don't have a full complement of
witnesses, and I am pleased to hear that you are going to
accept and expect statements for the record from others that
are interested.
My major issue and questions that we have to be resolved,
and I don't know that I will be able to stay throughout the
course of the hearing, as I have a conference on the banking
bill at 3, but I will try to follow this and work with the
sponsors and with the Subcommittee as they move forward on
this, on the deliberation of this, because we are interested,
obviously, in Minnesota beyond just the statements from the
Governor, which, as I agree, they are dealing in some cases
with questions that have been answered in this legislation, but
it has been a moving target for some time.
So I will submit, with your permission, Mr. Chairman, this,
and thank you for accommodating my participation in today's
hearing.
Mr. Doolittle. Thank you. We are pleased to have you here.
Without objection, your statements will be made part of the
record.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Vento follows:]
Statement of Hon. Bruce Vento, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Minnesota
Thank you Chairman Doolittle and Ranking Member Dooley for
permitting me to sit with the Committee during part of this
hearing. The Garrison Diversion Project has been of great
concern to the state of Minnesota for many years. I appreciate
the opportunity to express some thoughts on this matter and
hope that Members of this Committee will take these concerns
into consideration. The Garrison Diversion Project has been in
development for over forty years. To say the least, this is a
complicated matter that stands to affect a great many people,
various states, and even our neighbors to the north, Canada. I
would also like to note that today's witness list does not
appear to represent a full cross section of all opinions
regarding this project. I have heard several concerns regarding
this project expressed to me by the Canadian Embassy and
national environmental and taxpayer groups. I hope that at a
later date, we may be able to hear their concerns, so we may
gain a better understanding of this project or at least, as the
chairman has stated, that they will submit statements for the
record.
I first became better aware of the Garrison Diversion
Project during its reauthorization in 1985. The net result of
1985 legislation yielded the Garrison Diversion Reformulation
Act of 1986. The project, which originally was agricultural in
nature and was designed to provide a statewide network of
irrigation ditches to North Dakota's farmers, metamorphosed
into a project designed to provide clean, safe and reliable
drinking water to the state's residents. The legislation which
comes before us today has gone a step further, and virtually
eliminates all irrigation plans. It now focuses almost entirely
on supplying potable water to the residents of North Dakota.
Because of North Dakota's lithology, its residents have
some of the poorest quality water in the nation. In many cases,
their water supply must flow through lignite coal veins. The
end result is poor quality water that is unacceptable for the
citizens of North Dakota to drink. The health and welfare of
our nation's citizens should always come first and I am glad to
see that North Dakota's delegation has been amenable to
changing the nature of their project to one that focuses solely
on safe drinking water.
It is my understanding that this project will have funds
distributed to the town of Fargo, to various communities within
the state, and to the State's four Indian Reservations for the
development and construction of safe drinking water supplies.
My reason for concem with regard to this project is the
ecological factor associated with connecting the town of Fargo
and other communities which lie in the Hudson River Basin to a
water supply system that pulls its water from the Missouri
Basin. In essence, this legislation will divert water from Lake
Sakakawea which is fed by the Missouri River, through a series
of pipelines and canals to the Sheyenne River. The Sheyenne
River in turn empties into the Red River which North Dakota and
Minnesota share as a border.
The interbasin transfer of water raises a serious question
as to the water quality of the Red River and to the biota that
may be transferred. The legislation currently requires North
Dakota to ``consult'' with the Secretaries of the Interior and
State and with the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency before any interbasin water transfer occurs.
I am concerned that the legislation requires North Dakota to
consult only with the appropriate executive agencies. I
understand that language may be offered to strengthen the
consultation requirement to one that requires their approval.
Although this certainly helps to address the environmental
issues associated with interbasin transfers of water, I believe
more needs to be done.
Specifically, I am concerned that inadequate consideration
has been given to the threat of introducing exotic species into
the Hudson Bay watershed and that the interbasin transfer of
water may adversely affect the water quality of the Red River.
In a recent issue of The Economist, I was surprised to learn
that managing invasive species in North America will
collectively cost $124 billion. This policy risks the chance of
increasing this dollar figure. I find it puzzling for Congress
to mandate treatment before identification of what is being
treated.
The Red River currently boasts one the nation's best
catfish fisheries. The use of protective screens and aeration,
for example, certainly will not provide foolproof safeguards
against water contamination by microbes. What happens if
transferring Missouri River water to the Red River introduces a
whirling disease-like microbe that could decimate the Red
River's catfish population?
The eight states and one province that surround the Great
Lakes have a compact that provides prior notice and
consultation for transfers of water out of the basin. The
governors of each state, recognizing the importance of a
healthy lake system, require unanimous approval of all parties
before any water may be removed. Although no water is being
taken out of the Great Lakes watershed, it is important that
North Dakota consult with those states, or at least, Minnesota
because this project will inevitably add foreign water to a
watershed that empties into the Great Lakes.
There is also the issue of water quality. Although the
Garrison Diversion rroject does not include the construction of
a Devil's Lake inlet or outlet, the State of Minnesota is still
concerned that water may eventually flow out of it and into the
Red River. The Devil's Lake is a cyclical body of water that
self regulates through periods of natural recharge and
evaporation. Because of its evaporative nature, the water is
saline. If this water enters the Red River, it could disrupt
the quality of the river's water.
The Garrison Diversion Project has long been a debated
activity and project. As the Committee proceeds in its
consideration of the Garrison project, I ask that it consider
all of the issues surrounding it. The climate in North Dakota
and in the western part of Minnesota can be harsh to both the
people that live there and its fauna and flora. It is important
for man to understand the confines in which he lives. In modern
times of sensitivity to man's effect on the environment, we
should not allow two watersheds that have been geologically
unconnected for millennia to become connected before we
identify all possible impacts that may occur. I hope that North
Dakota and Minnesota may work cooperatively in the future on
this matter. It is important that we provide a safe supply of
potable water to the people of North Dakota, but in doing so,
we must address the environmental concerns that will result
from the construction of this project.
Mr. Doolittle. I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Pomeroy be
permitted to join us here on our panel.
Without objection, so ordered. Please come up, if you would
like, or you can remain there.
Mr. Pomeroy. I think I will sit this second panel down
here, if you don't mind, because I will wrap up following this,
as we have gone through our witnesses.
Then, again, with your leave, and I appreciate it, I will
come on up and sit with you all.
Mr. Doolittle. Let me invite the members of this panel to
come forward. We have four, I believe.
If you gentlemen would remain standing and raise your right
hands.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Doolittle. Let the record show each answered in the
affirmative. We welcome you, gentlemen. We try to live within
the 5-minute rule here. There is a timer down there that gives
you an indication. We won't cut anybody off in mid-sentence,
but try to use it as a guide.
With that, we will welcome our Commissioner of Reclamation,
Eluid Martinez. Commissioner.
STATEMENT OF HON. ELUID MARTINEZ, COMMISSIONER, U.S. BUREAU OF
RECLAMATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. Martinez. Good afternoon. I was going to ask which one
is the Pepsi so I could take a drink out of it.
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased
to provide the Administration's testimony on the Dakota Water
Resources Act of 1999. My written statement has been submitted
for the hearing record, and if appropriate, I will summarize
that statement.
H.R. 2918 would alter the Garrison unit of the Pick-Sloan
Basin program as currently authorized to increase the funding
authorization levels for State and Indian tribal, municipal,
rural, and industrial water supplies.
If I may, I will deviate a little from my prepared
statement and try to set this in some context for the
Committee. In the figures I have, they do not necessarily track
with some of the testimony, but at least here is the
information I have.
The reformulation of this project in '86 by Congress set in
place the construction of a project that, if completed, would
require Federal expenditures in the amount of $2.4 billion. The
Bureau of Reclamation has requested in this budget between $27
and $30 million each year to move along the lines of
constructing this project as currently authorized.
The reformulation today that is being requested, based on
figures I have, would bring the cost down to $1.4 billion. So
we have almost $1 billion less that is being requested to
complete the project that is being contemplated versus
completing the project authorized in 1986.
Out of the $1.4 billion that is being requested to complete
the project, as is being presented to you today, $613 million
has already been spent to date. So what remains is an $800
million future commitment.
Now, what this bill really requests is an increase of $600
million to fund municipal, rural, and industrial water systems
in the State of North Dakota. Out of that $600 million, $200
million is to fund Indian projects, with no reimbursement to
the Federal Government; $200 million to be used to fund
municipal and rural and industrial water systems in the Red
River Valley, if the studies indicate that those projects are
both necessary and feasible.
If those $200 million are used, they will be repaid to the
Federal Government by the State of North Dakota 100 percent
with interest. The remaining $200 million is an increase to the
State of North Dakota in terms of a grant by the Federal
Government to match the 75 percent Federal share to 25 percent
State share for MR&I projects.
The reason I go into this is I know your concern as to how
these projects get funded. There is $200 million grant at 75
percent, $200 million to be repaid back with interest, and $200
million to go to the tribes under our trust responsibility,
nonrepayment.
What else would this bill do? It requires that a study be
done of water needs in the Red River Valley to determine, first
of all, if there is a need, and if these projects are
justifiable. It also deauthorizes the project features
associated with almost 75,000 acres of non-Indian irrigation
that will be deauthorized by this project, and it increases by
$25 million the amount of money to be put into a trust fund to
address natural resources and fish and wildlife issues.
As I understand, the '86 Act set up a wetland trust fund to
address wetlands, and required 10 percent of the money in that
trust fund to be matched by the State. This bill increases it
by $25 million, and expands the scope of issues that can be
addressed by the fund. In other words, the old fund was only
for wetlands. This is for wildlife restoration and so forth.
So in a summary, this is what this legislation does. This
will contain concerns with respect to certain issues.
The Administration has been working with the project
sponsors and the State of North Dakota over the last couple of
years to come to closure to the point where we now are of the
opinion that the administration supports this legislation, even
though we continue to make minor adjustments and continue to
have a dialogue with the project sponsors.
The remaining areas of concern are addressed in that
portion of my written testimony which addresses outstanding
concerns.
Mr. Chairman, that just generally summarizes my testimony.
I will be glad to answer any questions you might have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Martinez follows:]
Statement of Eluid Martinez
My name is Eluid Martinez. I am Commissioner of the U.S.
Bureau of Reclamation. I am pleased to provide the
Administration's testimony on H.R. 2918, the Dakota Water
Resources Act of 1999.
Mr. Chairman, H.R. 2918 would alter the Garrison Diversion
Unit of the Pick Sloan Missouri Basin Program as currently
authorized to increase the funding authorization levels for
State and Indian tribal, municipal, rural, and industrial water
supplies, to meet current and future water quantity and quality
needs of the Red River Valley, to deauthorize certain project
features and irrigation service areas, to enhance natural
resources and fish and wildlife habitat, and for other
purposes.
First, I would like to express my appreciation to the North
Dakota delegation for their continued willingness to work with
the Bureau of Reclamation and the Administration on these
important matters. In the past several years, a great deal of
progress has been made on a number of longstanding and
extremely difficult issues. The delegation, as well as the
North Dakota Governor's office, State legislative leaders, the
State Engineer, the Conservancy District and others have worked
hard along with the Administration, Reclamation and other
stakeholders to find solutions.
Since the bill was introduced, the Administration has had
many hours of discussions with the North Dakota delegation
working to address the significant issues that are associated
with this legislation. We believe we have reached agreement on
nearly all of these issues and we appreciate 4the willingness
of Mr. Pomeroy and the delegation to include them in this
legislation. The Administration looks forward to supporting
this legislation assuming we can resolve the very few remaining
issues currently under discussion.
Background
Mr. Chairman, the Garrison Diversion Unit (GDU) has had a
long history. I will not go into great detail, but there are
several things that are important to note in order to provide
context for consideration of this legislation and for the
issues associated with it.
The Garrison Diversion Unit in North Dakota is part of the
Pick Sloan Missouri Basin Program (PSMBP), which was originally
authorized as part of the Flood Control Act of 1944. Originally
known as the Missouri-Souris project, the authorization
envisioned irrigation development of 1,275,000 acres in the
state of North Dakota.
In 1957, the Bureau of Reclamation completed the
feasibility report on the Garrison Unit of the PSMBP. In that
report, submitted to Congress, Reclamation recommended the
development of 1,007,000 acres of irrigation and in 1965,
Public Law 98-108 authorized construction of 250,000 acres as
the initial stage of the project.
Over the ensuing years, it became increasingly evident that
the level of development envisioned in the 1965 Act raised
environmental and economic concerns. Concerns were also raised
that the Act might result in violations of the International
Boundary Water Treaty of 1909 with Canada. Consequently, in
1984, Public Law. 98-360 directed the Secretary of the Interior
to appoint a commission to examine the water supply needs in
North Dakota and to make recommendations on how to reformulate
the project.
In December 1984, the Commission issued its final report,
which included the following major recommendations: (1) Reduce
irrigation development to 130,940 acres, of which none would be
located in the Hudsons Bay Drainage and 17,580 of which would
be developed on two Indian Reservations that were most impacted
by the initial development; (2) Develop Municipal, Rural and
Industrial (MR&I) water service for as many as 130 towns and
rural areas, and three Reservations in the State; (3) Develop a
water treatment facility to provide MR&I water to Fargo and
Grand Forks; (4) Mitigate impacts to fish and wildlife, and (5)
Develop recreational sites.
In 1986, Congress passed the Garrison Diversion Unit
Reformulation Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-294), which generally
authorized the recommendations of the GDU Commission's final
report.
In 1990, The Department of the Interior's Office of the
Inspector General completed a review (OIG Report 90-49) of the
financial issues associated with the project. The report stated
that the ``operating costs assigned to irrigators will exceed
their ability to pay because the project as reformulated does
not appear to be financially feasible.'' In other words, it
concluded that the farmers would be unable to pay their
estimated operations and maintenance (O&M) costs as is required
under Reclamation law. This fact led to the Inspector General's
conclusion that the irrigation component of the Garrison
Diversion Unit was economically infeasible.
In response to the OIG Report, Secretary Lujan appointed a
GDU Task Group to evaluate and make recommendations on how to
proceed with this project, given the findings of the OIG
report. In October 1990, the GDU Task Group Report recommended
termination of Federal funding for the development and
construction of non-Indian irrigation facilities and for the
principal supply works, but recommended continuation of the
MR&I program. Since that time, the recommendations of this Task
Group have been the basis for the policies of both the Bush and
Clinton Administrations with respect to this Project, and has
guided subsequent budget requests.
In 1993, in an attempt to develop a consensus solution to
meeting the contemporary water needs of the State, the North
Dakota Water Management Collaborative Process was initiated
whereby all interested stakeholders were convened.
In 1995, after the initiation of several studies, and a
great deal of hard work by the parties, the Collaborative
Process was terminated without reaching a consensus on how GDU
should be completed to best meet the contemporary water
resource needs of the State. However, Reclamation continued to
work towards completion of the studies it had agreed to
undertake.
In 1998, the delegation introduced a revised and
reformulated Dakota Water Resources Act that altered the
Garrison Diversion Unit of the Pick Sloan Missouri Basin
Program as authorized in 1986 to increase the funding
authorization levels for State and Indian tribal, municipal,
rural, and industrial water supplies, to meet current and
future water quantity and quality needs of the Red River
Valley, to deauthorize certain project features and irrigation
service areas, to enhance natural resources and fish and
wildlife habitat, and for other purposes.
In summary, Mr. Chairman, the Pick Sloan Missouri Basin
Program, of which the Garrison Diversion Unit is an integral
part, when conceived foresaw a comprehensive system of flood
control, navigation improvement, irrigation, municipal and
industrial (M&I) water supplies, and hydroelectric power
generation for ten states. That plan envisioned 213 multi-
purpose projects providing over 1.1 million kilowatts of power
and irrigation of more than 5 million acres.
Since that time, changes in both the national economy and
priorities, combined with the development of refined analytical
tools and criteria have resulted in a significantly different
project than was originally planned. Six dams have been
constructed on the mainstem of the Missouri River, and numerous
multi-purpose projects on the tributaries have been completed.
Flood control and navigation benefits are greater than
anticipated with navigation benefits estimated to be about
$17.7 million per year. Power development has exceeded
expectations with an installed plant capacity of 220 percent of
original estimates and hydropower sales averaging $200 million
annually. Benefits from recreational development have also
exceeded the original plan. Irrigation development, on the
other hand, has fallen well short of original goals with less
than 600,000 (11 percent) of the planned 5.3 million acres
having been developed.
Issues Where We Have Reached Agreement
Since H.R. 1137 was introduced in March 1999, the
Administration and the delegation have met many times and have
made significant progress in resolving the Administration's
serious concerns about the proposal. The following describes
the modification that were made in H.R. 2918 to resolve
outstanding issues mentioned in past Administration testimony
on the Dakota Water Resources Act:
MR&I Facilily Funding: The Administration recognizes
that additional need exists for good quality water for domestic
and other purposes in a large portion of the State. The
Administration supports the bill's proposed $200 million
authorization of MR&I funding for Indian communities, and the
proposed $200 million loan at the project's original
authorization interest rate for construction of facilities in
the Red River Valley. In addition, the Administration supports
extending the current grant authorization to address other
State-wide MR&I needs by an additional $200 million, a
reduction of $100,000,000 from the previous proposal, with a 25
percent local cost-sharing.
This combination of authorizations would provide a
total of $600 million in new Federal funding authority to
address priority needs within the State for quality water in a
way that addresses continuing Federal budget constraints. We
also believe it is important that this package of programs
includes repayment of funding provided for Red River Valley
facilities. This repayment reflects the Administration's long-
standing policy that in the case of non-Indian rural water
supply system development, non-Federal interests should repay
100 percent of allocated project construction costs with
interest.
Operation and Maintenance: Consistent with long-
standing cost-allocation procedures, the State would pay: (1) a
pro-rata share of OM&R on existing principal supply works,
including associated mitigation, based on a percentage of
capacity used; (2) 100 percent of OM&R on all new facilities
with the exception of facilities required to meet treaty
obligations or to comply with Reclamation law; and (3) all
energy costs with the same exceptions.
Irrigation Development: The development of 28,000
acres of undesignated irrigation ``not located in the Hudson's
Bay, Devils Lake or James River drainage basins'' would be
required to meet an economic feasibility test with respect to
national economic development benefitsz--thereby holding this
project to the same standard as other Federal projects.
International Treaty Compliance: Before any
construction is undertaken on any part of the system capable of
moving water into the Hudson Bay basin, the Secretary of the
Interior, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, must
determine that adequate steps have been taken to meet
requirements of the U.S.-Canada Boundary Waters Treaty. This
will ensure that the United States' obligation under the
Boundary Waters Treaty is carried out. However, the
Administration would like the adopted technical changes that we
have submitted to make the bill more consistent with treaty
obligations.
Four Bears Bridge: Reconstruction of Four Bears Bridge
would not be accomplished through the Bureau of Reclamation.
Red River Valley Water Needs Assessment Studies:
Completion of a report by the Secretary of the Interior and the
State of North Dakota on the comprehensive water quality and
quantity needs of the Red River Valley and options for meeting
those needs, including delivery of Missouri River water to the
Red River Valley, would include consultations with the
Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Department of State,
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and other interested and
affected entities, including the states of South Dakota, Iowa,
Missouri, Minnesota, and the appropriate Federally recognized
Indian tribes.
Status of MR&I Grant Funds: All MR&I grant funds,
including accrued interest, would be managed as ``Federal'' for
the purposes of compliance with Federal laws such as NEPA and
the National Historic Preservation Act.
Completion of the Principal Supply Works: Completing
and maintaining the principal supply works identified in the
1984 Garrison Diversion Unit Commission Final Report would not
be a requirement of law, but would be one of the alternatives
to be reviewed to meet the comprehensive water quality and
quantity needs of the Red River Valley and the options for
meeting those needs.
Natural Resources Trust: There would be no linkage
between contributions to the Trust and the Red River Valley
Water Supply Project.
Outstanding Concerns:
With respect to the Natural Resources Trust, however, the
Administration remains concerned about the proposed elimination of the
state and local contribution to the Trust that was established by the
1986 Act. This would give the State no financial stake in the Trust
Fund and would reduce our efforts to make this into a partnership.
Furthermore, in addition to the technical changes for international
treaty compliance, there are technical amendments requested by the
Treasury Department relating to calculation of the interest rates for
capital costs and relating to oversight of the Natural Resources Trust
which we request be included in H.R. 2918.
We also note that H.R. 2918, as currently drafted, may affect
revenues and therefore, may effect the Pay-As-You Go provisions of the
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1980.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to reiterate my appreciation to the
North Dakota delegation and others for working with the Administration
to address the significant issues that are associated with this
legislation. A great deal of hard work has taken place and significant
progress has been made. I would like to continue that effort to work
with the project sponsors and supporters as well as the opponents to
try to find a solution to what has become a long standing and difficult
issue.
That concludes my statement, I would be happy to answer any
questions.
Mr. Doolittle. Thank you.
Our next witness is Mr. Tex Hall. Mr. Hall is Chairman of
Three Affiliated Tribes, the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation.
Mr. Hall.
STATEMENT OF TEX HALL
Mr. Hall. Thank you, Chairman Doolittle and members of the
Subcommittee, and Congressman Pomeroy from our State of North
Dakota. I really appreciate being given the opportunity to
present testimony on behalf of the Dakota Water Resources Act,
H.R. 2918.
Just briefly, Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee,
my tribe is home of the Mandan, Hidatsa, and Arikara tribes. We
are known for the homeland of Sakakawea. Our tribe wintered
Lewis and Clark in 1804 when they came up the river. She served
as a young Indian guide to the expedition, and without her
assistance, it would not have been successful for the route to
the Pacific Northwest.
The reason I say those things is that the two most probably
devastating acts to my people were the smallpox epidemic
shortly after that, with the steamboats coming in after
Sakakawea helped lead the way to the trade routes in 1837,
which almost decimated the thousands of Mandans to only 400.
Then the second most devastating act was the flooding of
our homelands. As our Governor and members of our congressional
delegation had mentioned, it was over 500,000 acres that was
lost. We lost 156,000 acres. Our tribal business council at
that time went on resolution to not support the flooding of our
homeland because it was our capital of Elba Woods.
When the government did eventually say, you have no choice,
we are going to flood you to make way for this dam, they made
many promises to us. One was a new hospital, a new school, and
a rural water system. We don't have any of those things yet
today, and it has been since 1944, members of the Subcommittee.
We do have some efforts that are being made with our
economic development packages, but I can speak for my tribe,
and I cannot speak for all of the other tribes of North Dakota,
but I was with the other tribes yesterday, and they have all
endorsed the Dakota Water Resources Act unanimously for the
$200 million for the Indian tribes for the four reservations in
North Dakota. They have unanimously supported that.
First, I want to say clearly, on behalf of the Three
Affiliated Tribes, we strongly support H.R. 2918 and urge its
immediate passage. We also are understanding of some of the
concerns, Mr. Chairman, that you had raised earlier. But we
feel that those concerns I think can be worked out. Our tribe
and the other tribes of North Dakota should not be held up.
They mentioned one of those bottles of water earlier. As a
matter of fact, as the chairman of my tribe and probably one of
the more fortunate members of my tribe economically, I took a
shower in one of those colored bottles of water this morning,
so I, too, have to haul my water, as well as many of the
elderly people and many of the patients that are on dialysis.
We literally, in every community, and we have six
communities on Fort Berthold, and we literally have to have
pickup trucks and small ton trucks, so we put cistern tanks in
a lot of those homes because the water was simply like that.
Some of our well water, we have high sodium, which leads to
hypertension and heart attacks. We also have--which is double
the standard, the regular standards on Fort Berthold. We are
also 12 times higher than the national average for diabetes.
We feel that these things did not occur before the flood,
so we are still living with this devastating piece of
legislation that flooded our capital and our homelands.
Mr. Chairman, we see opportunity here today, and we
testified on the Senate side earlier this year. We are very
pleased that it is in this Committee, in this Subcommittee here
today. Again, I know there are particular problems that have
been mentioned, but I feel it has been a bipartisan effort
within our State of North Dakota, and as well as there is
unanimous support of our tribe. I just came from home this
morning and all the people and the membership of the Fort
Berthold are all urging the passage of this Act.
Finally, the new millenium is coming upon us. I just feel
that members of my Nation should not have to drink and bathe
daily in water such as this. I think it is the Federal
Government's commitment, that when they flooded us, they said,
we promise we will rebuild and replace what we took from you.
My tribe made the ultimate sacrifice for the 156,000 acres
to be flooded. We hope and urge the support of the Subcommittee
for the immediate passage of the Dakota Water Resources Act. We
thank you for the testimony today. I stand to answer any
questions that you may have.
[The perpared statement of Mr. Hall follows:]
Statement of Tex Hall, Chairman, Three Affiliated Tribes
Chairman Doolittle, Members of the Subcommittee:
Thank you for the opportunity to present testimony today
concerning H.R. 2918, the ``Dakota Water Resources Act of
1999.'' The Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold
Reservation are the Mandan, Hidatsa and Arikara Nations. We
also testified last year in support of a similar bill presented
to the 105th Congress, and our testimony today is not very
different from the information we provided earlier. However,
our needs for the water systems to be authorized by H.R. 2918
only become greater as our population continues to increase.
We strongly support H.R. 2918 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 again want to thank our Congressional
delegation, Governor, Ed Schafer, and the many others who have
worked on this legislation 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, along with
a remarkable young Indian woman, Sakakawea, 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 botton-lands along the
river. Few of our members were ever on welfare. Our
reservation, which straddles the Missouri River, has been
approximately 1,500 square miles in size since the late 1880's,
although since 1910 almost one-half of the reservation has been
owned by non-Indians and more than 15 percent of the area is
now covered by the water of the Lake Sakakawea reservoir behind
Garrison Dam.
Despite our protests, our Council resolutions, our
delegations to Washington and our tears, our way of life and
the lives of our Tribal members 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 Lake Sakakawea behind the dam, and the land
taken from us represented 69 percent of the land needed for the
reservoir. By October 1, 1952, most of our Tribal members were
forced from their homes because of the ``great flood,'' as many
of our elders call the formation of the reservoir. 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 descriptions of what we
would lose if the dam was built. Among other things, we were
promised 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.
Fifty years later that rural water system is still only
partly constructed. In just the past four 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, or ``UTAC''),
which issued its final report on May 23, 1986. A copy of this
Committee Report, which we commonly refer to as the ``JTAC''
report has been provided to our Congressional delegation in the
past and to this Committee when we have testified previously,
and I request 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. 2918 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 Affifiated 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, funds which have ``owed some of our MRI water system
needs to be satisfied. A summary of our current water needs is
included in this written testimony.
Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Navigation
Principal Benefits of H.R. 2918 for the Three Affiliated Tribes
and northwest North Dakota
Now, in 1999, 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
and continued authorization for approximately 15,000 acres of
irrigation projects which were meant to replace lost
agricultural lands. These are discussed in more detail below.
1. Municipal, rural and industrial water needs (MRI)
H.R. 2918 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 governments, 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 10 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 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 fines,''
which applies 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. We would ask that a copy of the article be made a
part of the official record of this hearing.
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 Enterprises, the Northrup Grumman plant
in New Town and other Tribal enterprises we are still
developing. 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 participation rates within a
specified timetable over several years. This means that
economic development must be of the highest 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 has just been
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. While both facilities have been recently
upgraded, the water distribution system needs to be expanded
for economic expansion to take place. 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 and a recently completed
water treatment plant, but the distribution system needs
expansion.
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 which is 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 we are no longer receiving MR&I funds from the previous
authorization in the 1986 Garrison Reformulation Act. 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, thus benefiting everyone in the area. These are just
a few of the principal elements of the MRI projects we were promised
more than 45 years ago.
2. Irrigation:
In addition, I want to urge this Committee to retain the
authorization for irrigation on the Fort Berthold reservation contained
in H.R. 2918. 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 continue to 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. 2918: ``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.
We also want to note that this bill is now substantially different
than it was when originally introduced in the last Congress. Money for
the replacement of Four Bears Bridge across the Missouri River, and
within the Fort Berthold Reservation, has been deleted, $43 million,
and other methods of financing the Four Bears Bridge, which is badly in
need of replacement and which is the only bridge for a distance of 200
miles along the river, are being considered outside of this piece of
legislation. The Four Bears Bridge, inadequate when constructed is just
another example of infrastructure needs of the Three Affiliated Tribes
that have not yet been provided to replace what we had before the
Garrison Dam was constructed.
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. 2918 cannot come
soon enough. We cannot accept any alternative.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify before this Committee.
Mr. Doolittle. Thank you.
Our next witness is Mr. James Chandler, Counsel of the U.S. Section
of the International Joint Commission.
Mr. Chandler.
STATEMENT OF JAMES CHANDLER, COUNSEL, U.S. SECTION OF THE
INTERNATIONAL JOINT COMMISSION
Mr. Chandler. Mr. Chairman, thank you for inviting the
International Joint Commission to participate in this hearing.
I am pleased to be here.
First, I should say that the International Joint Commission
is an international organization and it does not get involved
in the merits of specific proposed legislation. Therefore, I am
not here either in support of or in opposition to the bill
before you.
However, since North Dakota is a border State and many of
the water-related projects in North Dakota have either real or
perceived impacts in Canada, we thought it would be useful to
provide the Committee with some information regarding the
Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909 and the International Joint
Commission.
The treaty provides much of the context for U.S. and
Canadian relations on environmental issues, and the IJC was
established as one mechanism to help the governments achieve
their goals under the treaty.
The purpose of the treaty is to provide a framework for
resolving and avoiding problems along the U.S.-Canadian border.
It contains a few basic principles. These include freedom of
navigation in boundary waters, a requirement that projects in
boundary waters or in some cases a river flowing across the
boundary that affect waters on the other side have
international approval, and also the requirement that waters
flowing across the boundary not be polluted to the injury of
health or property in the other country.
The treaty also established the IJC and gave us a number of
responsibilities. The Commission is composed of six members,
three from the U.S. and three from Canada. The three U.S.
Commissioners are appointed by the President and confirmed by
the Senate. Even though the Commission is organized in two
sections, one in Washington and one in Ottawa, the
Commissioners are not under instructions from their
governments, as is the case in most international
organizations. They act as a unitary body, and in fact, as
required by the treaty, they take an oath to carry out the
purposes of the treaty at the first meeting after their
appointment.
The Commissioners are supported by small staffs in the two
capitals, but more importantly, by many international boards
across the border which are appointed by the Commission but
drawn largely from Federal, State, and provincial agencies.
The Commission helps the governments meet the goals of the
treaty in two major ways. First, we have approved approximately
20 projects along the border that affect water levels on the
other side, and we have ongoing regulatory responsibilities for
many of these through boards of control drawn from both
countries.
Second and perhaps more relevant for North Dakota issues,
we examine questions or issues that are referred to us by the
two governments. In these cases, which come to us under article
9 of the treaty, we provide a mechanism that can help the two
countries jointly examine issues and develop common or agreed
solutions to issues along the border.
The IJC is usually asked by the governments to examine the
facts of a situation and provide its conclusions and
recommendations to the governments for their consideration.
None of the IJC's findings or conclusions is binding on the
governments, but the input of IJC studies is often the basis
for agreements or further negotiations between governments.
Sometimes the questions from governments involve issues
that are of equal or similar concern to both countries.
Examples of this are Great Lakes water quality, and how to
avoid damages from events such as the 1997 flooding in the Red
River Valley, North Dakota.
At other times, the questions have involved proposed
actions in one country that might have adverse affects in the
other. Examples include a thermal power plant in Saskatchewan
on the Poplar River that had potential impacts in Montana,
proposed coal mining in British Columbia with impacts in
Montana, and the Garrison Diversion in North Dakota.
There are times when the IJC is asked to monitor conditions
once a study is completed. On occasion, we are asked to take
another look at issues in light of new information or changed
conditions. Over the years we have carried out about 55 studies
such as this.
In all of these cases, it has been the Commission's
practice to establish an international study board or task
force to carry out the actual investigation. These
international groups, which are half Canadian and half
American, are drawn largely from Federal, State, and provincial
agencies, although increasingly we are including members from
universities and other nongovernmental institutions. Subgroups
and committees are drawn from the same sources, and the idea
here is to borrow people from agencies and other institutions
that need to be a part of a successful outcome, bring them
together as a study team, and let them grapple with key facts
and issues in an interdisciplinary, binational way.
All members are appointed in their personal and
professional capacities, and not as representatives of their
agencies. The agencies are not considered to be bound in any
way by the views of their employees. We also involve the public
to the extent we can in our work.
Our experience is that through this process a binational
consensus will emerge, usually from the bottom up, at least
regarding the facts, and often regarding issues, as well. Such
a binational consensus makes it easier for the two governments
to reach agreements and thereby resolve or avoid disputes.
Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Chandler follows:]
Statement of James G. Chandler, Legal Adviser, U.S. Section,
International Joint Commission
Thank you for inviting the International Joint Commission,
United States and Canada, to participate in this hearing. I am
James Chandler, Legal Adviser to the United States Section of
the Commission, and I am pleased to be with you today.
Because North Dakota is a border State and many water
related projects in the State have real or perceived effects in
Canada, we thought it would be useful to the Subcommittee to
have some background information about the Boundary Waters
Treaty of 1909 and the International Joint Commission or IJC.
The Treaty provides much of the context for U.S.-Canadian
relations on environmental issues. and the IJC was established
by the Treaty to help the governments achieve their goals.
The purpose of the Boundary Waters Treaty is to provide a
framework for resolving and avoiding problems along the U.S.-
Canadian border.
It contains a few basic principles. These include:
Freedom of navigation in boundary waters,
The requirement for international approval for
projects in shared boundary waters and, in some cases, rivers
flowing across the boundary which affect water levels in the
other country, and
The requirement that water flowing across the boundary
not be polluted to the injury of health or property on the
other side of the boundary.
The Treaty also established the LIC and gave it several
responsibilities.
The IJC is composed of six members, three from the United
States and three from Canada. The three U.S. Commissioners are
appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Even
though the IJC is organized into a U.S. Section and a Canadian
Section, Commissioners are not under instructions from their
governments as is the case in most international organizations.
They take an oath to the Boundary Waters Treaty and are
committed to working together to make decisions that are in the
common interest of both Countries. Commissioners are supported
by small staffs in Washington and Ottawa and, more importantly,
by numerous international boards appointed by the IJC and drawn
largely from Federal, state and provincial agencies.
The IJC helps the Governments meet the goals of the Treaty
in two major ways.
First, we have approved some 20 or so projects in rivers
that flow along and across the border. In many of these cases
we have ongoing regulatory responsibilities which we carry out
through international boards of control.
Second, and perhaps more relevant to issues in North
Dakota, we examine questions or issues that are referred to us
by the two governments. In these cases, which come to us under
Article IX of the Treaty, we provide a mechanism that can help
the two countries jointly examine issues and develop common or
agreed solutions to issues along the border.
The IJC is usually asked by the governments to examine the
facts of a situation and provide its conclusions and
recommendations to the governments for their consideration.
None of the IJC's findings or conclusions is binding on the
governments, but the output of IJC studies is often the basis
for agreement or further negotiations between the governments.
Sometimes the questions from governments involve how to
address issues that are of equal or similar concern to the two
Countries. Examples include how to improve Great Lakes water
quality or how to reduce the amount of damage from events such
as the 1997 flood in the Red River Basin.
At other times, the questions have involved proposed
actions in one country that might have adverse effects in the
other or raise the concern that they might have adverse
effects. Examples include a thermal power plant in Saskatchewan
on the Poplar River. A proposed coal mine in British Columbia
on the Flathead River, and the Garrison Diversion Unit in North
Dakota.
There are times when the IJC is asked to monitor conditions
once a study is completed. On occasion we are asked to take
another look issues in light of new information or changed
conditions. Over the years. the IJC has carried out over 55
studies at the request of the governments.
In all of these cases. it has been the IJC's practice to
establish an international study board or task force to carry
out the actual investigation. These international groups, which
are half American and half Canadian, are drawn largely from
Federal, state and provincial agencies. although increasingly
we are including members from universities and other non-
governmental sources. Subgroups and committees are drawn from
many of the same agencies and institutions. The idea is to
borrow people from agencies and other institutions that need to
be a part of a successful outcome, bring them together as a
study team, and let them grapple with the key facts and issues
in an interdisciplinary, binational way.
All members are appointed in their personal and
professional capacities and not as representatives of their
agencies. The agencies are not considered to be bound in any
way by the views of their employees. The IJC also uses a
variety of public consultation initiatives to assure that
affected interests are given an opportunity to be a part of our
work.
Our experience is that through this process, a binational
consensus will emerge, at least regarding the facts of a
particular case and often regarding the issues as well. Such a
binational consensus makes it easier for the two Federal
Governments to reach agreements and thereby resolve or avoid
disputes.
Mr. Doolittle. Thank you. Our final witness will be Mr.
Dave Koland, Executive Director of the North Dakota Rural Water
Systems Association. Mr. Koland.
STATEMENT OF DAVE KOLAND, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NORTH DAKOTA
RURAL WATER SYSTEMS ASSOCIATION
Mr. Koland. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In the interests of
curtailing the length of the hearing, I am going to summarize
my summary of my written testimony that you have in front of
you. But there are some points that I do need to make. One of
them that has been made again and again, this good drinking
water is still just a dream for many people in North Dakota.
There are too many people that turn their tap on every morning
and this is the water they get out of it. There are no other
alternatives than what we are proposing to you.
What is happening in North Dakota is happening all across
rural America, but more so in North Dakota. Fifty-four percent
of our communities now have less than 200 people living in
them. In the 1930s, that percentage was about 30 percent.
People are migrating from our small towns into our urban
centers. It's selective migration. It is the young adults who
are leaving our communities looking for jobs. So one of the
keys that we have to talk about is preserving the rural life-
style that we have.
We have a work ethic in North Dakota that is second to
none. North Dakota workers are more inventive, more resourceful
and more profitable than workers anywhere else in the world.
It's my contention that comes from the environment that they
are raised in, the small communities, the way of life that you
can find only in rural America. Our Nation is well served when
we invest in the infrastructure that will promote and sustain
the growth of those communities. Rural water systems provide
water to 210 communities in North Dakota right now, but there
are still community after community that are waiting for a
clean safe supply of drinking water. The key to providing that
water in rural North Dakota has been the MR&I program and the
Grant/Loan Program for Rural Development. Without those two
programs, the exodus from rural North Dakota would have indeed
been a stampede.
North Dakota people are willing to pay for water. The
average cost by the rural water system that a consumer pays for
6,000 gallons of water a month is about $50 a month. EPA's
guidelines says that the affordable limit or threshold for
water is about $40 a month. Our water systems that are being
built now are asking people to pay $60 a month. They will pay
that to get rid of this water. Without the grant programs that
we are talking about in this legislation, the water rates that
we would have to ask people to pay are $130 to $150 a month.
It's just not going to happen. The exodus from our rural
communities will continue. We will be left with communities
that are made up of senior citizens, period. The young people
will leave and will be gone. We know that in communities where
we have rural water now and in farms where we have rural water
now they come back. Homes are salable when there is a decent
supply of rural water. The homes that do not have rural water
stand empty. No one wants to bring their family into a home
where they turn the tap on and this is the kind of water they
get out of it.
So what we are asking you is to make an investment that
will provide one of the basic necessities of life, clean safe
water. We are asking you to make an investment that will turn
empty houses into homes. We can make an investment today that
will change the future of rural North Dakota.
Mr. Chairman, it is my belief that an investment in the
Dakota Water Resources Act will help North Dakota continue to
provide America with the best workers in the world.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Koland follows:]
Statement of David J. Koland, Executive Director, North Dakota Rural
Water Systems Association
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, my name is Dave
Koland. I serve as the Executive Director of the North Dakota
Rural Water Systems Association. Our association has 31 rural
water systems and 225 municipal water systems as members.
I also serve as the Executive Director of the Eastern
Dakota Water Users, an organization of 13 cities and 12 rural
water systems in the Red River Valley.
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.
Good drinking water is still just a dream in many rural
North Dakota communities. Turning on the tap each morning
brings brown smelly water instead of the clear fresh water the
majority of people in North Dakota enjoy.
Small communities have few alternatives to provide their
citizens with a dependable supply of clean, safe water. Many
await the construction of regional water systems such as the
Southwest Water Authority and the Northwest Area Water Supply
project, or for funding to expand the existing rural water
system that serves their area.
Rural North Dakota is migrating to our four largest cities.
According to the Census Data Center, 54 percent of our towns
now have populations of less than 200 compared to only 30
percent in the 1930's. During that same period, the number of
farms in North Dakota has shrunk from 86,000 to less than
30,000 today. The exodus of our population to the larger cities
has not been evenly spread across the age groups but instead
has been concentrated in the childbearing age groups, young
adults seeking employment opportunities in the urban centers.
North Dakota workers are a highly prized resource of our
state. National and international companies have discovered
that North Dakota workers are more productive, more inventive,
more resourceful, and more profitable than workers are anywhere
else in the world. They know, because for the last 20 years, we
have been steadily exporting our young people to every corner
of our nation. They are highly sought after employees of many
major corporations.
That outstanding work ethic is enhanced and nurtured in the
young people of our state by the lifestyle and experience of
living in a rural community. The values and priorities of our
young citizens are molded and shaped by that special
environment that is found most often in the small towns across
our country. Our nation is well served when we invest in the
infrastructure that will promote and sustain the growth of
these communities.
Rural water systems now provide clean safe water to 210
communities in North Dakota. But many still wait for the water
they so desperately need. Communities like Mohall (931 people),
Munich (310 people), and Glenfield (118 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 U.S. EPA Economic Guidance
for Water Quality Standards Workbook states that rates greater
than 1.5 percent of the median household income (NMI) are not
only unaffordable but also ``may be unreasonable.''
In North Dakota, that translates into a monthly cost of
$319.34 (ND 1996 MHI=$31,470). The average monthly cost on a
rural water system for 6000 gallons of water is currently
$48.97. Only two systems in the state have a monthly cost below
the ``maximum affordable cost'' set out in the EPA guidance.
Twelve systems must charge their consumers $50 or more with one
system charging 170 percent of the ``affordable rate'' or
$66.00/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 5.12 percent of
the Median Household Income. They could have ranged as high as
$190.80/month or a prohibitive 7.3 percent of MHI.
Across North Dakota, we have seen the impact of providing
good water to rural areas and witnessed the dramatic change in
small communities. Homes once occupied by aging widows are soon
rented or sold to young adults. While houses and farmsteads
without rural water stand empty.
Schools that once faced declining enrollments now have to
deal with an influx of new students. Employers confronted with
a tight labor market in the urban centers are seeking new ways
to tap the underutilized work force in the rural areas. The
people waiting for water in our rural communities are willing
to pay more than what the experts consider an affordable price
for clean safe water.
The key ingredient we are missing is WATER. We have the
roads, the communications, the energy, the schools, the most
productive workforce in the world, everything except WATER!
We can make an investment today that will provide one of
our basic needs--clean safe water. We can make an investment
today that will turn empty houses into homes. We can make an
investment today that will change the future of rural North
Dakota
Mr. Chairman, it is my belief that an investment in the
Dakota Water Resources Act will help North Dakota continue to
provide America with the best workers in the World.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4145.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4145.032
STATEMENT OF HON. EARL POMEROY, REPRESENTATIVE AT LARGE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA
Mr. Pomeroy. Mr. Chairman, in closing, first let me thank
you and each committee member. You have now invested a
considerable amount of time on the issue that is extremely
important to my
district. On a personal level, I appreciate it. I offer up my
time to attend to an issue in your district that you might want
me to attend to. I owe it to you. Thank you.
Three issues of controversy will surface in the course of
this hearing as you study this matter. I would just like to
briefly speak to them in closing. Environment, Canada, cost.
First the environment.
The environmental concerns raised by the initial 1964
project were extraordinarily different in the Dakota Water
Resources Act in front of you. This Act actually deauthorizes
the Federal subsidized irrigation which has proven in the past
to be such a significant point of contention. Those of you who
worked with this plan for a while will remember the Lone Tree
Reservoir as the single point of controversy, an area of 33,000
acres acquired by the Federal Government to be a reservoir and
a staging area of how we were going to send the water around,
deauthorized as a reservoir because it is federally owned by
now, permanently turned into a wildlife area. It already serves
as a wonderful resource for wetlands, wildlife habitat and is
used by hunters and sportsmen and environmentalists alike. That
is consistent with much of what has been done with the plan. In
fact, because the initial mitigation was acquired and
envisioning a much larger project, this project under the
Dakota Water Resources Act would be 140 percent mitigated, 40
percent net gained in terms of federally owned wildlife water
wetlands areas.
Another feature, that leads into my second point, Canada.
The Canadian point. Transferring water between basins. I don't
know a better way to address that than put the water in a pipe,
treat it to drinking water standards to make certain that there
is no inappropriate interbasin transfer. What more can you do
than make it tap quality, drinkable quality as we move the
water between the basin? Prior to that ever occurring, there is
a triple fail-safe further safeguarding Canada.
First, this study has got to show that there is a need and
that is the alternative that best meets the need. You will
recall the track of the dry puddle that was the Red River now
serving a community of 160,000 people. We have--it varies. If
that were to occur today, we would be in a state of crisis. I
don't know what we would do. So that is the first part of the
triple fail-safe. It has to be determined that that's the most
logical alternative.
Second stage of the fail-safe, the Secretary of the
Interior has to make the decision that that's how it should
proceed. Third stage of the fail-safe, no construction can
start until it's deemed to be fully compliant with the Boundary
Waters Treaty Act. We have heard about the IJC and their role
in making that type of technological evaluation of that
determination. We are not proposing to abrogate any treaty. We
will completely comply with the treaty, and drinking water
standards after treatment assures that we can do that.
Many parts of Minnesota, especially the Moorhead community
and the other side of the Red River Valley, they think this is
very interesting proposition because they face some of the same
water shortage problems that we do.
Third issue, cost. I thought it was very well outlined by
Commissioner Martinez. Six hundred and forty million dollars
authorization we are talking about here. Recognize that we are
basically reformulating existing reauthorization and shrinking
it, shrinking the liability of the Federal Government. Two
hundred million dollars of it fully consistent with the Federal
trust responsibilities. Not reimbursable but fully consistent
with the Federal trust responsibilities established in the
treaties with these tribes now more than 100 years ago. We put
them on bad ground and then we flooded it. It's about time we
at least give them drinking water and reasonable quality water
through this infrastructure mechanism.
Second part, $200 million, water west to east. Again that's
subject to the determination of the needs, subject to the
clearance with Canada. If it is constructed, fully reimbursable
for the facilities used. The third, $200 million, MR&I, 75-25
cost share. We are taking the promise and the dream of
irrigation, deauthorizing it for what is our forward looking
water needs, municipal, rural and industrial. We believe that
this project makes sense.
Mr. Chairman, you have advanced some interesting ideas on
how we ultimately structure funding. We are happy to work with
you on that. We will get back to you with whatever feedback as
you may want.
I would note that this is one of the projects of the Pick-
Sloan project. There were lots of them in several different
states. I think it is a bit of a heavy burden for us if we are
suddenly going to impose a brand new funding type of
requirement on this one different from all of the others of the
Pick-Sloan project. But you are the chairman and we are
interested in talking. In fact--but I am done talking now.
Thank you very much for your attention in this matter.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pomeroy follows:]
Statement of Hon. Earl Pomeroy, a Represemtative at Large, North Dakota
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I want to
thank you for holding this hearing on the Dakota Water
Resources Act of 1999. I appreciate the opportunity to express
my strong support for this legislation--H.R. 2918 in the House,
and its companion, S. 623 in the Senate.
With the construction of the main stems dams along the
Missouri in the 1950s that flooded over 500,000 acres of land
and disrupted life for two tribal nations in North Dakota, the
state was promised a significant water project. Unfortunately,
over 40 years later, the commitment has yet to be realized. The
bill before us today will settle the longstanding obligation of
the Federal Government to the state in a manner that will
address the most urgent needs in the state--water quality and
supply for our communities. This bill represents the
culmination of broad bipartisan support among the state elected
leaders, the tribes, environmental organizations and the
state's congressional delegation. The Act is a fair and
reasonable closure to the commitment by the Federal Government
to the state of North Dakota.
It has been a little over a year since I last appeared
before the Subcommittee on the, Dakota Water Resources Act.
Since then, we have made several key changes to the bill. In
addition to technical clarifications, the vast majority of
these changes represent the culmination of an agreement reached
between the state of North Dakota and the Administration which
led to the Administration's support of the bill. I want to
highlight the key items of agreement incorporated into this
revised version.
MODIFICATIONS/IMPROVEMENTS
First, this improved Dakota Water Resources Act provides
$200 million in funding for statewide municipal, rural and
industrial (MR&I) program, a $100 million reduction from the
previous legislation. Further, the bill clarifies that if an
MR&I revolving loan fund is established, the funds will be
treated as Federal funds, therefore requiring compliance with
Federal laws such as the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA). Additionally, the bill removes the $40 million in
authorized funding for the replacement of the Four Bears Bridge
across an arm of Lake Sakakawea on the Ft. Berthold Indian
Reservation.
The bill also includes modified language to strengthen
provisions to ensure the interest of Canada are met. Prior to
the construction of any water delivery system to deliver
Missouri River water into the Hudson Bay Basin, the Secretary
of Interior, in consultation with the Secretary of State and
the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, must
determine that adequate treatment of the water can be provided.
Further, the state of North Dakota will be required to pay
a pro-rata share of the operation, maintenance and replacement
(OM&R) costs on existing principle supply works, including
associated mitigation, based on a percentage of capacity use.
Secondly, the state would pay 100 percent of OM&R on all new
facilities with the exception of facilities required to meet
treaty obligations or those for compliance with reclamation
law. Further, the state would be required to pay for all energy
costs to authorized facilities.
Finally, the bill removes the provision which linked the
full funding of the Natural Resources Trust to the completion
of the Red River Valley project.
Mr Chairman, the Dakota Water Resources Act today
represents a broad consensus among various interests across the
state of North Dakota and the Administration. I believe that
the changes made further improve the bill and will ensure that
we are able to meet North Dakota's future water needs.
While changes have been made to the bill, one thing has not
changed and that is the need for this legislation. The
legislation is needed to help the state and Indian tribes meet
their current and future water quality and supply needs.
ADDRESSING THE CONCERNS
I want to touch briefly on some of the arguments put
forward by opponents of the legislation.
Environmental
First, let me address the environmental concerns. Some have
claimed that the Dakota Water Resources Act will result in the
destruction of wetlands. I want to assure the Subcommittee that
this is not true.
The environmental plan implemented under the Garrison
Diversion project is one of the most comprehensive in the
nation. The state of North Dakota has been, and continues to
be, very sensitive to this need and instrumental in helping
implement it. Our accomplishments to date have been well
recognized by the conservation community, sportsmen and outdoor
enthusiasts alike. Garrison Diversion's fish and wildlife
mitigation and enhancement plan has created or enhanced over
70,000 acres of habitat throughout North Dakota's prairie
pothole region, specifically for fish and wildlife purposes.
The mitigation plan has not only offset habitat losses but it
has exceeded the requirements by creating new wildlife habitat.
To date the project has been mitigated to 140 percent,
resulting in a net gain for the environment.
One of the best examples is the 33,000 acre Lonetree
Wildlife Management Area. Lonetree was initially envisioned as
the site for a dam and reservoir, however, due to environmental
concerns, we are deauthorizing that project feature. With
passage of this bill, Lonetree will be solidified as a
permanent wildlife management area. Today, outdoor enthusiasts
from all over the nation come to hunt, hike and fish on this
beautiful grassland. Additionally, the Kraft Slough wildlife
area is nearing completion and over 90 percent of the area is
in public ownership.
Another important environmental aspect of the project is
the continuation and expansion of the resources trust fund, a
fund that has been accepted by environmental organizations and
landowners alike. Many wetland projects have been implemented
through cooperative efforts with farmers, ranchers, various
state and Federal agencies and private organizations using a
combination of cost share and grants. The Dakota Water
Resources Act provides additional funding and authorities for
the trust fund allowing more cooperative projects which will
benefit both landowners and our prairie wetlands.
Further, the Act will provide many additional benefits to
fish and wildlife. Most significantly, the bill deauthorizes
all federally subsidized irrigation, eliminating the potential
impact to wetlands caused by underground drainage systems.
Further, the Act eliminates any direct transfers of water
between basins which could have caused a transfer of biota to
our Canadian neighbors.
Our past accomplishments and the potential future
environmental benefits have helped gain the strong support of
environmental groups in North Dakota. The North Dakota Wildlife
Federation, representing many sportsmen and women from
throughout the state, and the North Dakota Chapter of the
Wildlife Society, representing hundreds of professional
biologists, support the Dakota Water Resources Act. In fact,
wildlife enhancement is added as a project feature under the
bill.
International Concerns
Concern has been raised by Canada that the Dakota Water
Resources Act weakens the protections to the country that were
included in the 1986 Reformulation Act. First, it is important
to note that the 1986 Reformulation Act, which Canada
supported, specifically authorized the transfer of water
through open canals to the Hudson Bay drainage. Further the
1986 Act provided that water would not be delivered until a
determination has been made that such delivery would be in
compliance with the Boundary Waters Treaty Act.
Cost
Finally I want to address the cost issues related to the
project. The reformulated, refocused project which shifts focus
from irrigation to municipal, rural and industrial water
supplies reduces the estimated cost of the project by over $600
million.
A total of $200 million is provided for statewide MR&I to
meet the highest priority needs identified across the state.
The bill continues the 75/25 cost share established under the
1986 Act and allows the state to convert some of the grants to
loans in areas where communities have the ability to repay.
Under this scenario we will be able to stretch the limited
Federal dollars further in order to reach more people who need
a quality, affordable water supply.
Another major component of the 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. At the time, it was
understood this number was not representative of their needs,
but rather a starting point. Today, we recognize this was
wholly inadequate level of funding as the unique and pressing
needs of the reservations are much greater. The Dakota Water
Resources Act will provide $200 million for fulfilling the
clear Federal trust responsibility to provide for their
critical water needs.
Finally, I want to address $200 million authorization for
meeting the water supply needs of the Red River Valley. In
keeping with long-standing Bureau of Reclamation policy and
law, municipal and industrial water delivered to beneficiaries
through the project facilities will be repaid, with interest.
Significant investment has been made to date in this
project, however, we have yet to get the full return on that
investment. The bill before us today will ensure that we are
able to take full advantage of that investment to meet the
future water needs of the state. The Dakota Water Resources Act
is fiscally responsible, treaty-compliant and environmentally
sound. Mr. Chairman, while we believe a commitment was made to
North Dakota which has gone unfulfilled, it is the sheer weight
of the needs of the people of North Dakota for clean, safe,
affordable water which drives this legislation. The resource is
available, the need is significant and this legislation is the
answer. This is a fair and reasonable fulfillment of the
commitment by the Federal Government to the state of North
Dakota.
In closing, I would like to submit for the record a copy of
the testimony of the Chairman of the Garrison Conservancy
District, Norm Haak.
Mr. Doolittle. Thank you. I hope we will talk. It is our
desire to be helpful and, frankly, we think some more talking
is in order. So we will proceed on that basis. Let me just ask
the commissioner. Commissioner, I am from California. We are
always grateful to have reservoirs. It is only in North Dakota
where I have ever heard it referred to as a permanent flood,
like it was something that was a gross disadvantage.
Mr. Martinez. I guess it makes a difference what kinds of
lands you flood. If what you are flooding is prime lands that
are available, that's where the difference lies. I guess the
position that North Dakota has been taking, especially with
Indian lands, is it just turned out that the Federal Government
made a conscious decision to flood out the best lands in the
country, in that part of the world. So it just sometimes they
are welcome and sometimes not in terms of reservoirs.
Mr. Doolittle. They had been substantial flood control
benefits, even for North Dakota, have there not?
Mr. Martinez. I would not argue with that. There has been
for North Dakota and other states downstream.
Mr. Doolittle. There is $164 million provided for in the
legislation. That's authorized for non-Indian irrigation.
Commissioner, how high is it anticipated or contemplated in
that legislation that beneficiaries would pay for that
irrigation, and what are the standards used?
Mr. Martinez. Mr. Chairman, that goes beyond my expertise
own this project. I will get you an answer for the record on
that, if I may.
Mr. Doolittle. That's fine. Generally speaking for
irrigation, for irrigators, it's based on the ability to pay.
Isn't that the standard that normally applies, rate payments
based on the ability to pay for the irrigators?
Mr. Martinez. For the irrigators, if their ability to pay
is insufficient, then costs are shifted to the power users.
Mr. Doolittle. What is the interest rate for the
irrigators?
Mr. Martinez. Well, my understanding is they would pay
without interest.
Mr. Doolittle. On the irrigation there is no interest,
right. That's why they call it the irrigation subsidy, I guess.
If it's not fully reimbursable by irrigation interests, then
you indicated, I think, that it was the power users that made
up the difference. Is that correct?
Mr. Martinez. Ultimately, that's my understanding.
Mr. Doolittle. That's my understanding, too, normally. But
if the power revenues indeed pay for the remaining costs, then
I would draw your attention to section 6, subparagraph C of
page 14, lines 5 through 15. That refers to no increase in
power rates or repayment methodology. It just seems to me this
is one of those very confusing things about this legislation
because you were testifying and I believe that you believe
this, that it would be made up for by the power users, but then
there is a provision in the bill that prohibits that.
Mr. Martinez. Maybe my project sponsors--I will get you an
answer for the record.
Mr. Doolittle. Sure. Does anyone wish to respond to that?
It's page 14, lines 5 through 15.
Mr. Martinez. I will be glad to provide an answer to that.
Mr. Doolittle. Okay. All right. Let me just ask the next
question. Now, is Indian irrigation reimbursable?
Mr. Martinez. The intent is not to have any reimbursement
on the parts of the Indians.
Mr. Doolittle. I understood that to be true with reference
to the MR&I, but does that also intend to be true with
reference to the irrigation part of it?
Mr. Martinez. That's been my understanding, that's correct.
Mr. Doolittle. Is it your understanding that the $200
million commissioned for the Red River Valley water supply
project would be reimbursable?
Mr. Martinez. It's my understanding that if a project is
found feasible, that it would be reimbursed 100 percent with
interest.
Mr. Doolittle. There are in section 2, page 5, lines 23, 24
and 25, it states, quote, ``All costs of construction,
operation and maintenance in the replacement of water treatment
facilities authorized by this Act and attributable to meeting
the requirements of the treaty, Boundary Water Treaty in 1909,
shall be nonreimbursable.''
Mr. Martinez. My understanding is that part of the project
that is required to meet treaty obligations or the operation
and maintenance that is required to meet treaty obligation is
treated in the Act as a cost of the Federal Government and
therefore nonreimbursable.
Mr. Doolittle. That would make it nonreimbursable.
Mr. Martinez. That portion of the cost attributed to the
United States having to meet treaty obligations.
Mr. Doolittle. Do we have any idea what portion of the cost
the nonreimbursable portions represent?
Mr. Martinez. We don't have those figures because as it
turns out the needs assessment and the has yet to be completed.
It might turn out that the project is not feasible and
therefore none of that $200 million would be expended.
Mr. Doolittle. Don't we have to know, though? If we are
going to authorize all of this, wouldn't we have to have a
knowledge of what those costs are going to be in the event that
you determine that it's feasible? Because that would affect,
wouldn't it, the total cost of the project?
Mr. Martinez. My second voice tells me that's an
appropriation issue. But I think that you raise a valid
question that the Committee has to consider.
Mr. Doolittle. I just bring that up because there are
representations being made how much money we are saving or the
costs of this are being reduced from what it used to be. We
find it very difficult, our Committee staff and I, as we look
at this, it seems very confusing--it's very, very difficult to
read through this legislation and really figure out what is
going on because there seems to be claims that are made and
then contradicted by the actual language of the bill.
Mr. Martinez. Mr. Chairman, I grasp the point of your
question. On the one hand, you have an argument that it is
going to reduce total cost and then you have the position that
it might have potential expenses and costs because of the
treaty. I want to be responsive to your question and I will
provide a response on the record.
Mr. Doolittle. Thank you. I will recognize Mr. Miller for
his questions.
Mr. Pomeroy. Mr. Chairman, I didn't want to interject
myself in the discussion with your own questions, but I would
just assert that it's also possible that the line of
investigation preliminary to the construction of the moving of
water west to east would determine there was no interbasin
transfer and for purposes of incurring additional costs may
very well not be additional costs, but the legislation does
contemplate a rather straightforward fashion. If it's a Federal
Government to a Federal Government issue, dimension presented,
that is a Federal cost.
Mr. Doolittle. Well----
Mr. Martinez. Mr. Chairman, if I may, this is not unusual.
This hapens on interstate rivers. We have this issue on the
Colorado River and some other rivers.
Mr. Doolittle. I think the issue is whether this is or
isn't reimbursable and what that amounts to.
Mr. Miller, do you want to go ahead?
Mr. Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think that your
questions are important in terms of the consideration of this
Committee. Just a couple of remarks here. One, obviously I
think this delegation has struggled with this project for some
time trying to meet what anyone who is familiar with this
realizes is a very, very legitimate need. None of us would want
our constituents to be put in the same situation as we have
here with respect to their potable water supply and recognizing
the need to bring that about. I think this legislation is a
substantial improvement over what we have seen in the past. I
think that the questions that the chairman raised are important
and we do look forward to your responses to that.
I also--am I correct in making the assumption that I assume
that the Indian/non-Indian projects would go along--I recognize
this is all a matter of appropriations, but they would go along
in a contemporary fashion with one another; is that correct?
Mr. Pomeroy. That's the plan, absolutely. We have not in
our collaborative discussions leading to the draft of the
legislation finalized discussions on ranking of the MR&I needs
that we have identified. But you can see the fact that where
the water needs of the entire state, which are very
significant, we have also recognized that an equal standing of
our commitment of the four Indian reservations.
Mr. Miller. You would suggest that----
Mr. Pomeroy. My contemplation, Congressman, is that they
would be absolutely funded concurrently and equitably. Not one,
for example, state MR&I placed at a higher priority than the
Indian MR&I given the available dollars.
Mr. Miller. I am probably showing my age, but when we did
the reformulation in '86 that was the clear understanding that
that's how it would happen in the sense that for many years the
tribes had been used as a rationale to try to get money from
the Congress except they weren't getting the benefits. One of
the theories of the reformulation, and certainly in our
discussions in the final agreements, were that they would--
these things would move alongside of one another in the future,
not one waiting for the other to be finished. I just hope
that's envisioned in this project.
Mr. Pomeroy. It most certainly is, Congressman. We consider
the verdict was an absolute champion for native Americans. The
problem was we plugged in a woefully inadequate figure relative
to Indian MR&I. Twenty million dollars. All been spent. We hit
that cap quickly.
Mr. Miller. Some of the concerns that have been raised with
respect to the inner basin, the Canadian ambassador visited me
yesterday. For the moment, I think some of those concerns seem
to be addressed. Mr. Koland, is it your responses here? I just
want to say that I consider those to be serious issues. In the
San Francisco Bay Area, we are struggling with invasive species
and all of the problems. It's not a minor problem once it is
set upon you in terms of dealing with it.
Again, you both suggested that, one, that you think you
have solved that, and, two, that the project doesn't go forward
unless people are satisfied to that extent. I would hope that
that clearly is the intent and the situation here because the
cost of that happening is just unbelievable as we see various
communities and basins, watersheds now struggling with invasive
species that we ought not to set anything in motion that would
suggest that that might happen.
Mr. Pomeroy. We make an important change over existing
authorization which said that construction can proceed while a
determination relative to the Boundary Water Treaty Act can be
made. Under the Dakota Water Resources Act we say no
construction--this is after determination of need--yet if the
Secretary of Interior says I would rather be done, no
construction begins until the treaty compliance is determined.
I think that you make an important point in that regard.
Mr. Miller. Thank you for your presentation. Again, I would
hope that the Bureau would be able to supply us some responses
to the chairman's questions. Thank you.
Mr. Doolittle. Thank you. Mr. Pombo is recognized.
Mr. Pombo. Thank you. I know that the chairman had
additional questions and I will yield my time to the chairman.
Mr. Doolittle. Thank you. Commissioner, in your testimony
you suggest that $200 million for the MR&I system would be a
loan, that the projects original authorization interest rates
for the constructed facilities, and the second $200 million
would extend the current grant authorization to address other
statewide MR&I needs. I wonder if you could explain why this
section authorizing these provisions authorizes the Secretary
also to convey to the State of North Dakota on a
nonreimbursable basis the funds authorized, which are $400
million?
Mr. Martinez. Mr. Chairman, if I may, I would defer to my
staff member here who has worked on it on a day to day basis,
to respond to your question, if I may.
Mr. Doolittle. Just step up for a minute. For the record,
state your name, please.
Mr. Richardson. Steven Richardson. The measure calls for
$200 million to refund the grant portion in the 1986 agreement
for the MR&I. That's the matter that is under the cost share
formula of 75-25. The other $200 million for the non-Indian
MR&I has to do with the Red River North study, which is fully
reimbursable.
Mr. Doolittle. I'm sorry, has to do with what?
Mr. Richardson. This section has to do with possible
construction of facilities for water going to the Red River of
the North frm the Missouri River basin. Those facilities have
not been constructed that have to be--meet before--I believe
all of the preconditions have been stated to when they would be
constructed. If--when and if those facilities would be
constructed, that $200 million would be reimbursable.
Mr. Doolittle. But the legislation it speaks to the funds
authorized. So it seems to me----
Mr. Richardson. Give me a moment, Mr. Chairman, and I will
go to the--Mr. Faber, the counsel, I am going to let him give
you the cite.
Mr. Faber. Do you have copy of the underlying '86----
Mr. Richardson. Yes, sir, I do. I will go to it.
Mr. Faber. If you look to section 7.
Mr. Richardson. Can you give me a page?
Mr. Faber. In the page designations I have, section 7
starts on page 15. And the language in question is on page 16
in subsection 3. That subsection----
Mr. Richardson. Yes, this is where it is very confusing.
Mr. Faber. That's the problem. This is a section that is
proposed to be amended here yet it has language in there that
would suggest that this may be nonreimbursable.
Mr. Richardson. I believe that the key citation, if you
read in the third line, section 10(B)(1), is the matter that is
not. But it is very difficult and we--if--the way that this
happened and this very draft that we referred to was developed
because of questions just like that, how does this all fit
together with existing law. This is an attempt, but the cross
citation still lacks some work. We will be glad to provide
whatever clarity that we can.
Mr. Doolittle. Even the experts admit this is confusing.
Mr. Richardson. We would certify that, sir.
Mr. Doolittle. I think this legislation needs some work.
Mr. Pomeroy. Mr. Chairman, having been involved in the
drafting, I don't claim this was a perfect work. This is not a
Mount Sinai product. The fact of the matter is we have got a
'65 Act amended in '86, and now we amend it in this Act. The
problem is we never completed the earlier version nor could we
start brand new. So it has been a dickens of a drafting
challenge. All I can do is absolutely assure you there is no
intention through this inherently confusing nature of the
undertaking to do any trickery relative to reimbursable,
nonreimbursable, any of the rest of it. We would be only too
happy to accept editing, drafting ways to make it clear.
Mr. Doolittle. Does somebody want to state what the intent
really is? Is it to have all $400 million be nonreimbursable or
what is the----
Mr. Richardson. Mr. Chairman, if you refer on the same
draft that Mr. Faber is looking at, on page 23, section
10(B)(1)--and there are 5 or 6 other Bs that appear on that
page. But the reg statement begins on line 18. The attempt I
believe was to make nonreimbursable that portion described as
municipal and industrial water supply and the $200 million.
Mr. Doolittle. So it's that and not the second $200
million?
Mr. Richardson. That is correct. That is our understanding.
Mr. Doolittle. Mr. Pomeroy, is that your understanding?
Mr. Pomeroy. Yes, sir.
Mr. Doolittle. I only have, Commissioner, one other
question at this point. That is under the '86 Reformulation
Act, there is a figure used, $80.535 million, authorized to
carry out the resources trust and other provisions. This number
seems quite specific even though the legislation doesn't
indicate how it should be spent. I guess my questions would be
has it all been spent and what has it been spent on?
Mr. Martinez. I will provide you a detailed answer for the
record on that.
Mr. Doolittle. Let me just proceed. The environmental
community, I understand, in North Dakota seems to accept this
project. Is it correct that we are setting up an organization
that the environmental community will jointly administer with
$25 million of Federal dollars; is that your understanding?
Mr. Martinez. Excuse me, I was listening----
Mr. Doolittle. Sure. I was just saying it does, in fact,
that this bill set up something where the environmental
community will jointly administer $25 million of Federal money?
Mr. Martinez. It's my understanding it will be administered
by the Federal Government.
Mr. Doolittle. I thought in the bill it appears that there
is a joint responsibility with the environmental community. We
can perhaps give you----
Mr. Pomeroy. Mr. Chairman, maybe I could assist in that.
The wetlands trusts is an existing entity administering funds.
This provides an additional appropriation for that existing
entity. And changes the name to----
Mr. Doolittle. There is a joint administration in that
trust, is there not, made up of--I think it refers to the quote
unquote, environmental community. And then the governor has
appointees and the Federal Government; is that right?
Mr. Pomeroy. It's my understanding. I actually have Dave
Sprynczynatyk, the state engineer from North Dakota seated
immediately behind me who could give you very technology
specific answers to the questions if you like. He has not been
sworn in yet, but he would be very happy to respond.
Mr. Doolittle. I think that you have roughly confirmed our
understanding. I don't know that we need to get into the
precise specifics of it at this point. I just wanted to observe
that it appears we have already spent more than $80 million for
Lone Tree for environmental purposes.
Mr. Pomeroy. Initially, Mr. Chairman. Of course, it wasn't
our notion that that would be serving the role it now serves.
Mr. Doolittle. Yes, I understand that. That was not your
desire, I recognize that. And this legislation though
perpetuates this by having the Federal Government pay the O&M
costs in perpetuity, right? Is that right, Commissioner, as you
understand it, where the Federal Government picks up those
costs forever?
Mr. Martinez. That's my understanding.
Mr. Doolittle. Mr. Pomeroy, I know that you are not
thrilled about this, but it appears that more than one-sixth of
the Garrison project costs is for environmental issues. Is that
your understanding?
Mr. Pomeroy. Again, some of that is a result of mitigation
that was commenced envisioning a much larger irrigation
dimension. So now that the irrigation has fallen off, we have a
project that is perhaps the single most generously mitigated
project in the country at 140 percent.
Mr. Doolittle. Yes, and I am sure the environmental
community would like that to be the standard for the rest of
the United States.
Mr. Pomeroy. Some of them are still raising some questions
about this one.
Mr. Doolittle. Yes, whether it has gone far enough.
Mr. Pomeroy. But the North Dakota ones, including the
Wildlife Society, which has professional biologists and a
variety of different professions, these are the local folks
that really know this and know how it all fits together in
North Dakota and it has their enthusiastic support. I think
that is an indication that we have achieved some acceptable
measure of balance with significant components of the
environmental community.
Mr. Doolittle. I would just like to throw this out, Mr.
Pomeroy. We have a lot of money being spent in California, the
CAL-FED process. And then the Committee asked for months ago,
over a year ago, which we finally just got, an environmental
cross-cut budget that takes all moneys being spent to improve
the environment, whether they are coming from the State or
Federal Government or local government or different--Corps of
Engineers versus the EPA, all of these different entities. It
really is revealing to show just what is being spent from which
source. I would just encourage you to seek that out because I
think it would give us a much better handle as to what is going
on here. There is no question about what this has been
overmitigated. I think it would be useful to the Committee as
it seeks to assist you in drafting legislation.
Mr. Pomeroy. I would be very interested in that
information.
Mr. Doolittle. At this particular time the chair recognizes
Mrs. Napolitano for her questions.
Mrs. Napolitano. I really didn't have any questions other
than that I have met with the delegation yesterday and I have
been able to ask most of my questions. However, my take of this
legislation is really consolidation of something that you need
done. You started it, you have had piecemeal funding. Now, you
want to kind of get it done, am I correct?
Mr. Pomeroy. That's absolutely correct.
Mrs. Napolitano. You are willing to mitigate the concerns
of both the committing site and also of the Governor of
Minnesota and move forward with it and--not move forward,
rather, until they are----
Mr. Pomeroy. We have certainly addressed them very
thoroughly. Minnesota concerns tend to be identical to Canada
because they are concerned about this water. So we treated the
tap water drinking quality, and we think that that addresses
that concern and, in fact, gives the significant bonus to the
Minnesota border cities that their water supply needs are being
met as ours would be if this alternative would be the one
executed under this legislation.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you. I think the suggestion by the
chair to do a consolidation fee where there is funding
mechanisms would be a great idea. But I don't think any persons
should be subjected to that kind of water. When I looked at
that, I thought it was Pepsi.
Mr. Pomeroy. Here is the water, here is the Pepsi, here is
the coffee. It's just not right.
Mrs. Napolitano. It is something that is unconscionable and
I am very glad you brought it to us. Thank you. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Doolittle. Mr. Simpson, just to confirm, you have no
questions? Or if you do, I will recognize you.
Mr. Simpson. No, Mr. Chairman, I don't have any questions,
just to thank the delegation and Mr. Pomeroy for bringing this
before us and meeting with me yesterday and talking to me about
it. I agree that it is deplorable and is something that we need
to address. Apparently, if we can address some of the drafting
questions so that the legislation actually reflects what your
intention is and makes it clear, then I think that will go a
long way toward addressing some of the concerns here. Thank
you.
Mr. Doolittle. Thank you. Dr. Christensen, you are
recognized.
Mrs. Christian-Christensen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I
don't have any questions either. I apologize for being late. I
want to welcome the delegation also. I had the opportunity to
meet and ask some questions earlier. The need is clearly
demonstrated. There has been a lot of effort to try to work out
some of the objections that have been raised. I trust they will
be worked out through the satisfaction of all parties concerned
and then we will have something that we can fully support.
Mr. Pomeroy. We all found our visit with you very
interesting, and sharing one thing, if anyone thought North
Dakota and the Virgin Islands not having much in common, but
you have abundant water immediately available yet you have
serious drinking water issues on your island. We have these
huge reservoirs right adjacent to terrible water quality
issues. This Garrison diversion, now the Dakota Water Resources
drive of the state will continue until we get the result. We
simply can't quit. We have got the need and we have got the
water. With your good help we will get the two of them
resolved.
Mr. Doolittle. Were you concluded, Dr. Christensen?
Mrs. Christian-Christensen. Yes. I was going to just add
that the only time I ever heard cisterns referred to outside of
the Virgin Islands was in that visit.
Mr. Doolittle. Thank you. Commissioner.
Mr. Martinez. I want to apologize to you and the Committee
for not being as responsive as I should be, but we will get
into the record the information to help you make some logic out
of this on what might be considered some confusing statements.
Let me share with you this concern about Canada, and not as
Commissioner of Reclamation but as a former state water
engineer who represented a state on Senate compact commissions.
The issue here goes, in my opinion, beyond the question of--two
states had entered into an agreement, two countries had entered
into an agreement as to the quality of water or under what
conditions the quality of water should be at the boundary of a
state or international boundary. Then it becomes the duty of
the state or the water official state to be able to best
utilize their water resources within their state to meet the
needs of a developing area, moving one area up to another. As
long as you meet those conditions of those treaties or the
compacts at the state line, you are really getting into a point
of trying to regulate how the states should be or should not be
able to use this water. If it meets those conditions, it's gone
one step too far.
Do you see what I am trying to get at? The issue here is if
the treaty conditions are met, does Congress want to get into
dictating to a state how it should or should not use its water
resources? I just raise that issue because these are--they are
two issues but they are intertwined. I guess what the State of
North Dakota is saying is there is a treaty in place. We will
comply with that treaty and we are putting in some fail-safe
provisions to make sure that we do.
Mr. Doolittle. Your point would be that we shouldn't
necessarily worry about that since that will be handled,
however those things get handled between Canada and the United
States.
Mr. Martinez. That would be my advice.
Mr. Doolittle. You run the commission--what did we call the
commission between Mexico and the United States?
Mr. Martinez. I served on the Colorado River Compact
Commission representing the interests of the State of Mexico as
a state engineer.
Mr. Doolittle. We don't have something similar to this
international joint commission in the southern border, do we?
Mr. Martinez. The way that it's handled there is you have
an international boundary and water commission which has a U.S.
Representative that represents the interests of the United
States.
Mr. Doolittle. Does that go clear across the border between
Mexico and the United States?
Mr. Martinez. From California down into the Gulf.
Mr. Doolittle. Well, I wouldn't want your water either.
Obviously, the need is there. I do think there is some real
issues about how this can be paid for. I know, Mr. Pomeroy, you
are thinking water. You have been unfairly singled out since
other fixed lawn units got a better deal in the past. I just
think that dealing with the realities of today, I mean, there
are a lot of the presuppositions that existed back then have
changed. There is much more emphasis now on restraining the
growth of Federal spending in order to keep the budget in
balance and pay down the debt. There are a different set of
priorities. Obviously, having decent water is a fundamental.
This Committee will work with you, if you wish us to work
with you, to try to figure this out. But I do renew my
observation that most of the nitty-gritty work has not been
done with this Subcommittee to meet our concerns. It has been
with the administration, which is obviously a key component in
anything that happens. But you must work with the Subcommittee
in order for this process to move forward as it was intended
to. Not you personally----
Mr. Pomeroy. I understand, Mr. Chairman, perfectly clear. I
would just say it is kind of a sequential thing. We wanted them
here today saying they were in support. We really did and we
worked hard to get that. But now, this is in the Subcommittee's
court. And so in sequence we will be working mightily to try to
address all of your issues. The only thing on this alternative
funding sources and being singled out at Pick-Sloan that I
would just throw out. We will really wrestle with whatever you
want us to wrestle with. But let's say some might suggest
looking at power revenues from the marketing agencies or WAPA
in specific to address this. What we would find at that point
is having addressed all of these Canadian issues, environmental
issues, these other issues, is suddenly we have a new range of
issues with western states saying you want to raise our power
rates for your water project?
We are going to have to chase all of those issues down. If
we are a little less than enthused about that proposal, I
suppose that I would just throw it out there. We are going to
be working and talking and doing everything that we can, Mr.
Chairman, to get down your point of consensus on this project
as the next stage of this legislation.
Mr. Doolittle. Thank you. I appreciate all of you making
the effort to come here today. I know that you have worked
very, very hard for a long time on this and hopefully it will
come to a good conclusion.
We will keep the record open for responses from you to such
additional questions that we may propound and would hope that
you would answer expeditiously.
With that, this hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:47 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[[Additional material submitted for the record follows]
Statement of Governor Jesse Ventura
Chairman Doolittle, Ranking Member Dooley, and members of
the Subcommittee on Water and Power, thank you for the
opportunity to submit written testimony on behalf of the State
of Minnesota to voice opposition to H.R. 2918, the Dakota Water
Resources Act of 1999.
The State of Minnesota has opposed the Garrison Diversion
project in North Dakota for decades and remains opposed to this
bill. Although the bill has been modified over the years, it is
still an interbasin diversion of water with potentially
devastating environmental impacts on the waterways in the Red
River basin. Until the many unanswered questions are resolved
about these potential impacts, the State of Minnesota does not
believe that this project should move forward.
This project is in direct conflict with the State of
Minnesota's water policy and with the diversion policies of the
Great Lakes States. The experts in Minnesota tell me that there
are several potential environmental costs to Minnesota
resulting from an interbasin water diversion of this magnitude.
For example, there is a potential for the transfer of pathogens
and exotic species. The costs of treating such nuisances are
enormous. I also understand that there are several unanswered
questions about the impacts of biota transfers. To both
Minnesota and Canada, it is important that a clear and detailed
plan about the type and scope of biota treatment be provided
before this project proceeds.
As a Federal taxpayer, I am amazed and concerned about the
cost of this project. At a time when Congress is trying to make
spending decisions within tight spending caps, the prospect of
spending more than $600 million on one water project in North
Dakota seems almost absurd. Any minimal benefit that may be
provided to Minnesota communities on the border who are in need
of drinking water for economic development purposes are clearly
outweighed by the tremendous potential environmental costs
associated with this project. To the Minnesota Federal
taxpayers, this project is a big loser.
Finally, I object to the way that this project has moved
forward without the input of several stakeholders who have
consistently opposed this project. On June 30, 1999, I sent a
letter to the White House requesting that Minnesota be included
in the negotiations between the Administration and the North
Dakota Delegation. Unfortunately, the State was not able to
weigh in during these negotiations. Likewise, I understand that
our northern neighbors in Canada feels that their concerns have
not been fully heard. Missouri River states that are affected
by this diversion also need to have a voice in this project.
In order to provide fairness to these states downstream in
the Missouri River Basin, I urge that this bill apply the water
diversion process employed in the Great Lakes Basin to the
Missouri River Basin. The Water Resources Development Act of
1986 prohibits diversions of water from the Great Lakes Basin
for use outside the Great Lakes Basin unless such diversions
are approved by the Governor of each of the Great Lakes States.
In order to give states downstream a fair say in what happens
to their waterways, this same standard should be used.
Clearly, a project as controversial as the Garrison
Diversion should not continue to move forward behind closed
doors. I understand that there will be a temptation to allow
this bill to skirt the legislative process. For the State of
Minnesota, too many unanswered questions remain about the
Garrison Diversion. This issue needs to be fully debated out in
the open. I urge you, Mr. Chairman, to help ensure that this
bill does not move forward without the input and analysis of
your entire Committee, and of the Congress as a whole.
I appreciate the Subcommittee's attention to Minnesota's
serious concerns about this bill. Thank you for the opportunity
to share my State's views on this issue.
------
Statement of Hon. Barbara Cubin, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Wyoming
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for convening this important
legislative hearing on H.R. 2541, to adjust the boundaries of
the Gulf Islands National Seashore to include Cat Island,
Mississippi; H.R. 1866, a bill to provide a process for the
public to appeal certain decisions made by the National Park
Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; and H.R. 1864,
to standardize the process for conducting public hearings for
Federal agencies within the Department of the Interior.
My remarks today will focus exclusively on H.R. 1866 and
H.R. 1864. I would like to commend Chairman Hansen for his hard
work in putting these two pieces of legislation together.
In my state of Wyoming all of the land management agencies
that fall under the Department of the Interior hold public
hearings on a number of different issues that affect the
constituents in the state.
Wyoming has two major units of the national park:
Yellowstone National Park and Grand Teton National Park.
Decisions that are made effecting these parks have a great
affect on neighboring communities, or gateway communities as
they are called.
It is essential that Wyoming constituents have the ability
to engage land managers on questions they have and deserve
straight forward answers to those questions.
H.R. 1864 would simply standardize the procedures used by
Federal agencies for public hearings. This mainly helps the
public know what they can expect when they attend these
meetings.
Currently, the formats for these meetings are as varied as
the number of land managers that conduct them.
The public deserve some consistency in this regard and I
believe H.R. 1864 is a common sense approach to making that
happen.
H.R. 1866 provides a process for the public to appeal
certain decisions made by the National Park Service and the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
I wholeheartedly support this legislation. It is a very
sensible way to ensure the public that their disagreements with
decisions made by the National Park Service and the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service can be resolved in a timely and
responsible manner.
Currently, the only recourse a person has who legitimately
disagrees with a land management decision is to take that
agency to court. Obviously that method is both timely and
costly to the average citizen.
The BLM and the U.S. Forest Service have adequate
administrative processes whereas a person can go through
certain procedures, pursuant to NEPA, to appeal a land
management decision.
There are, of course, problems with this process also, but
for the most part it works.
Mr. Chairman, I once again would like to commend your work
on putting H.R. 1866 and H.R. 1864 before us today. I support
both of these responsible pieces of legislation.
I yield back the balance of my time.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4145.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4145.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4145.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4145.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4145.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4145.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4145.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4145.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4145.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4145.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4145.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4145.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4145.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4145.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4145.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4145.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4145.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4145.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4145.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4145.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4145.053