[Senate Hearing 107-863]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 107-863
RED RIVER VALLEY WATER NEEDS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER
of the
COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
TO RECEIVE TESTIMONY ON RED RIVER VALLEY WATER NEEDS
__________
DECEMBER 9, 2002
FARGO, ND
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
85-416 WASHINGTON : 2003
___________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800
Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico, Chairman
DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota DON NICKLES, Oklahoma
BOB GRAHAM, Florida LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho
RON WYDEN, Oregon BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama
EVAN BAYH, Indiana CONRAD BURNS, Montana
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California JON KYL, Arizona
CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York CHUCK HAGEL, Nebraska
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington GORDON SMITH, Oregon
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware
Robert M. Simon, Staff Director
Sam E. Fowler, Chief Counsel
Brian P. Malnak, Republican Staff Director
James P. Beirne, Republican Chief Counsel
------
Subcommittee on Water and Power
BYRON H. DORGAN, North Dakota, Chairman
BOB GRAHAM, Florida GORDON SMITH, Oregon
RON WYDEN, Oregon JON KYL, Arizona
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware CHUCK HAGEL, Nebraska
Jeff Bingaman and Frank H. Murkowski are Ex Officio Members of the
Subcommittee
Patty Beneke, Democratic Senior Counsel
Colleen Deegan, Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS
Page
Bach, Maryanne, Great Plains Regional Director, U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation.................................................... 3
Brown, Michael R., Mayor, City of Grand Forks, ND................ 8
Dorgan, Hon. Byron L., U.S. Senator from North Dakota............ 1
Dwyer, Michael, Executive Vice President, North Dakota Water
Users Association.............................................. 30
Frink, Dale, State Engineer, North Dakota Water Commission....... 7
Furness, Bruce W., Mayor, Fargo, ND.............................. 10
Jamison, Warren L., Manager, Garrison Diversion Conservancy
District....................................................... 20
Thompson, Genevieve, Vice President and Executive Director,
Audubon's State Office for the Dakotas......................... 23
APPENDIX
Additional material submitted for the record..................... 39
RED RIVER VALLEY WATER NEEDS
----------
MONDAY, DECEMBER 9, 2002
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Water and Power,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Fargo, ND.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 7 p.m. at the
American Legion Hall, 505 Third Avenue North, Fargo, North
Dakota, Hon. Byron L. Dorgan presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BYRON L. DORGAN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NORTH DAKOTA
Senator Dorgan. I will introduce Patty Beneke, professional
staff member of the Senate Energy Committee, who has joined us
this evening in Fargo. Jonathan Black has also joined us.
Jonathan is right over here. And I'm going to mention to you
the witness list this evening as we proceed.
We are going to hear first from the Bureau of Reclamation,
Dr. Maryanne Bach. Then we are going to hear from the State
Water Engineer for North Dakota, Mr. Dale Frink. Then the
Honorable Mike Brown, mayor of the city of Grand Forks. The
Honorable Bruce Furness, the mayor of Fargo.
The second panel will be Mr. Warren Jamison, manager of the
Garrison Conservancy District. Then Genevieve Thompson, vice
president and executive director of the Audubon Society. And
then Mike Dwyer, executive director of the North Dakota Water
Users Association.
I would also ask anyone else who is present who wishes to
submit statements, but not appear as a witness tonight, if you
wish to submit statements, we will keep the record of this
hearing open and will accept statements as part of the
permanent hearing record for two weeks following this hearing.
Let me begin. I will give a very brief statement because I
want to get on with the discussion of what's happening on this
issue. There aren't many subjects more important to our State
than water. You can't have opportunity, development, economic
growth without water policy that assures a supply of water. We
have plenty of water issues in our State, and plenty of
problems. On the other side of our State, we have a problem
with the Missouri River and the master manual of how the
Missouri River is managed. The Corps of Engineers manages the
Missouri River in a way that, in my judgment, unduly benefits
downstream States and cheats the upstream States.
For 12 years the Corps of Engineers has been rewriting a
master manual. For 12 years. Now, you know, we can be patient,
but patience ought not have to extend to 12 years.
I met with the general just last week from the Corps of
Engineers on this subject once again. It's not clear to me when
they're going to release the preferred alternative on the
Missouri River master manual. But this State has every right to
be completely out of patience. They are supporting a minnow of
a barge industry down south. We've got a whale of recreation
and fishing and tourism industry up north. And the fact is we
are shortchanged in a way that's terribly unfair as they manage
this river. We are going to keep putting pressure on them,
dealing with that problem on the Missouri side of this State.
But the Missouri River side is important to the Red River as
well because in the Dakota Water Resources Act we included a
provision that calls for a $200 million authorization, and a
process by which water could be delivered to eastern North
Dakota if a study determines that's what is necessary in order
to assure water supply to eastern North Dakota. First and
foremost, there should be studies to determine how much water
is needed in eastern North Dakota, and, second, how you satisfy
that need. That's the two-step process.
This is not idle thinking about our water issues. Some in
this room, I suspect, have seen the Red River run dry. Anybody
here seen the Red River dry? Yes. And I've seen pictures. I
wasn't here then, but those of you who have seen it understand
that we can't be guaranteed there is always going to be water
in that Red River. And if we don't have water in that Red
River, economic growth and opportunity is gone. You cannot
support the kind of cities we are building along the Red River
without an assured supply of water.
There is a two-step process in this piece of legislation we
passed a couple years ago. One, identify the needs for water in
the Red River Valley, and then, two, identify how we satisfy
those needs.
Now the first step was to have been done by the Bureau of
Reclamation in December 2001. That was to have been a draft
environmental impact statement. December 2001. We are now told
by the Bureau of Reclamation that it will be done in December
2005. It's been delayed 4 years. It's not acceptable to me, nor
should it be acceptable to anybody in eastern North Dakota.
And what I want to do tonight is find out why. Why the
delays. What is happening is the people at the Federal level
say, well, sure, we have had some problems that have resulted
in some delays, but fact is, the State of North Dakota and the
Conservancy District, it's taken them some while to reach
agreement on various things. I don't know where all this
stands. All I know is this: This State shouldn't have to wait
year after year after year after year to get its water problems
solved. It's not fair. It's not fair when the Corp of Engineers
does it, it's not fair when the Bureau of Reclamation does it.
We need to find people to get together and make decisions and
move ahead. So that's the purpose of this hearing, and I very
much appreciate all of your interest. As I said when I started,
water is very important. You can't do the things we want to do
in this State today and for its future if you don't have
assured and adequate supply of water. That's what this hearing
is about.
Let me, with that statement, invite the first witness panel
to come forward. Dr. Maryanne Bach from the U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation. Dr. Dale--Mr. Dale Frink, excuse me, State
Engineer. Dale, I keep making you a doctor here.
Mr. Frink. That would be fine.
Senator Dorgan. Be an easy way to get one, if somebody
would say it, right?
Mr. Frink. That's right.
Senator Dorgan. The Honorable Michael Brown, mayor of the
city of Grand Forks. The Honorable Bruce Furness, mayor of the
city of Fargo.
I have also been told that State Agriculture Commissioner
Roger Johnson is with us, who works on the Industrial
Commission and has his hand deep in water policy in North
Dakota. Roger, thank you for being with us as well.
Maryanne Bach, thank you for joining us tonight. You are
presenting testimony on behalf of the Bureau of Reclamation.
Why don't you pull the microphone as close to you as is
possible and then why don't you proceed with what I have asked
everyone to summarize. And we will put the entire statement in
the record.
STATEMENT OF MARYANNE BACH, GREAT PLAINS
REGIONAL DIRECTOR, U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
Dr. Bach. Mr. Chairman, I ask that my complete testimony as
presented to the committee could be entered into the record
and, I will abbreviate from that.
I appreciate the opportunity to be here this evening to
testify on behalf of the implementation of the Dakotas' Water
Resources Act, and particularly our activities with regard to
the Red River Valley Water Needs study and CIS.
I would like to reflect back on the relationship and the
activity of the Bureau of Reclamation and the State of North
Dakota prior to the passage of the Dakotas Water Resources Act.
We did enter into a memorandum of agreement in good faith
without anticipation as to whether the statute would pass
Congress or not. And we did use the authority that we believe
existed under the 1986 Reformulation Act and began our
activities 6 months prior to the passage of the Dakota Water
Resources Act.
When the act did pass, Mr. Chairman, we continued our
activity under that original MOU. We were confronted,
particularly the Bureau was confronted with several allegations
of illegally interpreting the Dakotas Water Resources Act and
we took a pause. We discussed it with the State and looked at
the provision of the DWRA as it was passed and felt there was a
need in order to protect the process and integrity of the
process that we didn't have to renegotiate the MOU.
I appreciate the effort of Dale Frink on behalf of State
and the district in negotiating a new MOU, and I believe we all
went forward and did that on the behalf of the citizens of the
State of North Dakota.
In that same time frame, Mr. Chairman, the Bureau did
continue with a plan of studies. We did also write all of the
necessary contracts that would be necessary to get the study
underway.
The study that is instructive for the Secretary of the
Interior to produce under the DWRA will be 60 percent
contracted out. The 40 percent that will be handled by the
Bureau of Reclamation will be also handled by multiple offices
in order to reach the utmost efficiency.
The schedule that you raise, and your concern with the
schedule, frankly, we share a similar concern for the time it
takes to analyze these issues.
I am pleased to say that we did have a notice of intent for
the EIS which was issued in October, and there were public
meetings that were held throughout the State, six different
public meetings that were held at the end of October and early
November that did raise a number of additional issues. And
under the NEPA--National Environmental Protection Act--we are
required to consider those pieces of information that come out
in public scoping.
We are using all available information from prior studies.
You are familiar with Phase I and Phase II of prior studies
that were conducted under the 1986 act, and that all that
information that was given is essential and is quite relevant.
I know there are some other communities that are raising
the question as to why anything more would need to be studied,
and yet there are others in basin who do feel that they need
more information and a better level of details and the costs
that are associated with it.
So, what Reclamation is faced with is taking a set of
studies that are what is called at the appraisal level, and
taking it to what is called the feasibility study. Feasibility
level studies provide enough detail that any engineering firm
who is going to bid for that construction is able to do so, and
that we have sufficient levels at both the State--sufficient
information at both the State and Federal levels so that all
communities know the costs that are involved.
There were some additional needs that were identified in
DWRA that were not covered in the Phase I and II reports.
Specifically, we were instructed under DWRA to identify aquatic
needs, recreation needs and water conservation measures.
So, there was a need for a series of meetings for
supplemental information in regard. It has been raised, and I
appreciate the points that are brought forward by the mayor of
Fargo. Bruce and I have talked. I've been working with Mayor
Furness, for some time. We sit together on the International
Joint Commission, Red River Valley which--Red River Basin,
which I co-chair on behalf of the United States. You have
spoken with me, your staff has spoken to me on numerous
occasions about the schedule.
I would like to close my comments, Mr. Chairman, by saying
that this particular region, Great Plains Region, I operate in
nine different States, and the severity of water problems are
not in any way to be minimized. They are of the magnitude that
require the attention and diligence of every Federal employee
in our agency. Therefore, I'm committed to sit down with the
parties and to look at the schedule as we previously agreed to,
and any and all opportunities that we have to cut back on the
schedule, I am pleased to do so. I want to do that in an
informed environment so that those communities who are planning
for a certain amount of detail. If, in fact, they can operate
with a different level of detail, then we can make the
accommodations in the report.
I want to make sure whoever had expectations, whatever
communities did have expectations that we can properly meet
them, but find a way to balance it with the schedule involved.
I appreciate the opportunity to testify.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Bach follows:]
Prepared Statement of Maryanne Bach, Great Plains Regional Director,
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
I am Maryanne Bach, Bureau of Reclamation Regional Director for the
Great Plains Region headquartered in Billings, Montana. I appreciate
the opportunity to participate in this field hearing on Red River
Valley water needs.
The Dakota Water Resources Act of 2000 (DWRA) was signed into law
on December 21, 2000 as Public Law 106-554. DWRA amended the 1965
authorization of the Garrison Diversion Unit (Public Law 89-108), the
1986 Garrison Diversion Unit Reformulation Act (Public Law 99-294), and
the Reclamation Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992
(Public Law 102-575).
DWRA requires the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a
comprehensive study of the water quality and quantity needs of the Red
River Valley in North Dakota and possible options for meeting those
needs. DWRA further requires that not later than 1 year after the date
of enactment the Secretary and the State of North Dakota shall jointly
prepare a draft environmental impact statement concerning all feasible
options to meet the comprehensive water quality and quantity needs of
the Red River Valley and the options for meeting those needs, including
the delivery of Missouri River water to the Red River Valley. Should
the draft EIS not be completed within 1 year following enactment, DWRA
requires that the Secretary report to Congress on the status of the EIS
including an estimated date of completion.
Reclamation's involvement with a water supply for the Red River
Valley began with the passage of the Garrison Diversion Unit
Reformulation Act of 1986. The Reformulation Act authorized a Sheyenne
River water supply and release feature (including a water treatment
plant) capable of delivering 100 cubic feet per second of water for the
cities of Fargo and Grand Forks and surrounding communities.
In 1993, the North Dakota Water Management Collaborative Process
was initiated. This process was an effort by a number of stakeholders
to examine the contemporary water needs of North Dakota, including
needs in the Red River Valley. Reclamation was assigned the task of
doing an appraisal level study of both long-term needs in the valley
and options for meeting those needs. Although the collaborative process
was terminated in 1994, Reclamation completed the appraisal-level Red
River Valley studies in 2000.
As a follow-up to the appraisal studies, in June 2000, Reclamation,
the North Dakota State Water Commission, and the Garrison Diversion
Conservancy District signed a Memorandum of Understanding to organize
and complete more detailed feasibility level studies. While study tasks
were not undertaken, a management team and two stakeholder teams
(Technical Team and Study Review Team) were organized and study
planning was initiated.
Following passage of DWRA, significant concerns about the decision-
making process, public involvement, and the existing Memorandum of
Understanding signed in June of 2000 and based on the authority
provided by the 1986 Reformulation Act, were brought to our attention--
primarily by national environmental organizations. In response to these
concerns and the new direction provided by DWRA, the decision was made
to terminate the original MOU and replace it with an agreement which
would establish North Dakota as a joint lead for preparation of the
EIS, as required by DWRA.
The Bureau of Reclamation is diligently working to implement all
aspects of DWRA in as timely a manner as possible. We are making
progress on the Red River Valley studies and EIS, although admittedly
not within the 1-year of enactment time frame established by DWRA.
During the time that has passed since DWRA was enacted, much of the
work related to the Red River Valley studies and EIS has been focused
on defining and negotiating the roles and responsibilities of
Reclamation and the State of North Dakota in the joint preparation of
the EIS. This process was further complicated by the necessity of
having to resolve differences in interpretation of DWRA.
Since DWRA requires the draft EIS to be prepared jointly with the
State of North Dakota some deliberation was required on the part of the
State to determine which agency would act as the lead for the State.
The State subsequently decided that agency would be the Garrison
Diversion Conservancy District.
That decision process was followed by a significant effort to
negotiate a memorandum of understanding which defined the scope of the
partnership and the general roles and responsibilities of each party.
The negotiation centered on differing interpretations of portions of
the DWRA. The respective roles and responsibilities and overall scope
of the partnership have now been agreed to and are contained in a
revised Memorandum of Understanding which was signed on November 6,
2002, a copy of which is attached to this testimony for the record.*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The MOU has been retained in subcommittee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to the MOU, operating principles have been negotiated
and documented. These operating principles define the roles and
responsibilities of each party, as well as the organization and process
for completing the EIS. Two cooperative agreements are also being
negotiated with the State, one for general implementation of DWRA, and
one specifically for the Red River Valley studies and EIS. The
cooperative agreements will allow Reclamation to transfer funds to the
State for their participation. These agreements should be ready for
signature in the very near future.
Since the draft EIS was not completed within 1 year following
passage of DWRA, a status report was submitted to Congress by the
Commissioner of Reclamation on November 22, 2002. The report projects a
completion date of December 2005.
The time line for completion of the draft EIS is based in large
part on requirements in DWRA relating to the comprehensive study of
water quality and quantity needs of the Red River Valley and options
for meeting those needs including diverting water from the Missouri
River to the Red River Valley Basin. That study is to be documented in
a Needs and Options Report. Since the options developed in the study
will likely be the alternatives analyzed in the draft EIS, it is
necessary that the studies be done in advance of, or at least on a
parallel time frame, with the EIS. Reclamation has prepared detailed
plans of study and Needs and Options Report operating principles which
describe the study process, organization, and public involvement
required by DWRA, including 120-day review of the draft Needs and
Options report by potentially affected states and federal agencies.
The plans of study, which were developed with input from the State
and other stakeholders, are the basis for the timeline. The timeline is
based upon a number of critical activities that must be completed.
These are:
update water needs assessment due to unexpected population
increases in key municipalities such as Fargo and develop a
range of future industrial water needs scenarios;
refine surface water hydrology model to include tributaries
to the Red River;
evaluate all reasonable water supply options including
additional aquifers in North Dakota and in-basin water sources
in Minnesota that were not previously investigated at an
appraisal level;
design feasibility-level alternatives to be analyzed in the
EIS;
consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on the
Endangered Species Act;
analyze impacts from the potential transfer of biota,
including parasites and pathogens, between the Missouri River
Basin and the Hudson Bay Basin and assessment of risks;
study potential cumulative environmental impacts to the
Missouri River from past, present, and foreseeable future
withdrawals;
conduct the Needs and Options studies in an open and public
process that solicits input from gubernatorial designees from
states that may be affected and from federal agencies; and
prepare the draft EIS with the State of North Dakota in an
open, public process.
As directed by DWRA, the options for providing a water supply to
the Red River Valley of North Dakota include many complex and
controversial analyses and consultations. The issues will involve
concerns about biota transfer between the Missouri River and Hudson Bay
basins requiring consultation with the Secretary of State and the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency; consideration of
cumulative impacts on the future water supplies in the Missouri River
Basin; and feasibility level studies for the alternatives considered
requiring field data collection in an environment with a limited field
season.
While the time consuming negotiation and documentation processes
that I have described may appear to be a lack of progress, we believe
the clear definition of the partnerships and roles and responsibilities
that has taken place will ultimately save time in the overall effort
and result in a better product.
That concludes my statement. I would be pleased to answer any
questions you may have.
Senator Dorgan. Thank you very much. I'm going to continue
to take the statements of the panel before I ask questions.
Dale Frink.
STATEMENT OF DALE FRINK, STATE ENGINEER,
NORTH DAKOTA WATER COMMISSION
Mr. Frink. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members. My name is
Dale Frink. I'm the North Dakota State Engineer, and I would
certainly like to thank you for the opportunity to testify on
this very important issue.
The Red River Valley study is one of the most important
aspects of the Dakota Water Resources Act and I think water to
eastern North Dakota--if eastern North Dakota is going to
continue to grow and prosper, adequate water supplies are a
must.
There is a clear long-term need for improved water supplies
in the Red River Valley. The Red River has been dry many times
in the past and experienced very low levels essentially every
decade this century. This has occurred while its cities have
grown in their needs, along with their needs for water.
It has become more and more difficult to find new and
supplemental water supplies in eastern North Dakota. In 1995,
the State Water Commission worked very hard to find a water
supply for the ProGold corn processing plant near Wahpeton. A
single source of water was not available and, therefore, a plan
was developed whereby the plant would draw its water from the
Red River until the flow dropped to a certain level, and at
that point, you switch to ground water with the hope that the
Red River returns before we run out of water. While we believe
this plan works for even the 1930's, what about the future
plants? And I might add, I do not know if there is--I don't
think there is adequate water for another ProGold-type plant in
the southern part of the Red River Valley. I hope we do not
have to restrict the development through a lack of water, but
this is a real possibility. This is especially disheartening
when considering North Dakota ranks last in population growth
among all States.
We are also basing most of our current studies on the
1930's. The period from 1931 to 1936 is unprecedented in the
last 150 years, where we actually have some written records.
However, there are many studies available for the Devils Lake
and other parts of the western United States that suggest
significantly more severe droughts have occurred. Even the
current drought that is occurring parts of South Dakota and
Nebraska is equal or worse than the 1930's.
Obviously, the Red River Valley study has not started as
fast as originally envisioned. It has been nearly 2 years since
DWRA was passed and we are still signing agreements. I
understand it takes a long time to work through the Federal
system, but I urge diligence in the future in having agreements
executed in a timely manner.
One reason the Red River Valley study is taking longer is
that it is being closely followed by many organizations and
entities. It is, therefore, very important the study be
conducted in an impartial manner and be based on sound,
scientific analysis. Governor Hoeven also supports this fair
and open process. The Governor and State Water Commission will
continue to be involved, and will have regular updates and
input on the study process.
In closing, in October, just 2 months ago, we had a series
of excellent meetings in eastern North Dakota. The need for
water was evident everywhere. In the end, I am confident that
this tremendous need will prevail and our dream for adequate
water supplies for the Red River Valley will become a reality.
Thank you.
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Frink, thank you very much.
Next we'll hear from Mayor Michael Brown, mayor of Grand
Forks, North Dakota.
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL R. BROWN, MAYOR,
CITY OF GRAND FORKS, ND
Mr. Brown. Thank you. Chairman Dorgan and members of the
subcommittee, I am Grand Forks Mayor Michael R. Brown and on
behalf of the city of Grand Forks, I want to thank you for the
opportunity to provide written testimony to the Subcommittee on
Water and Power regarding Red River Valley water needs. A
consistent, reliable and affordable water supply is critical to
the city of Grand Forks and other communities of the Red River
Valley. Without an adequate supply of water, communities such
as Grand Forks would not be able to provide required amounts of
water to its residents, businesses, mainstay institutions and
agricultural industries that support the livelihood of the
region.
I would now like to give a brief oral summation of my
written testimony. Two things are important to Grand Forks, our
future. One is the possibility of drought and the other is the
planning of our water treatment facility.
Although the memories of Grand Forks residents are marked
by a drastic flooding event in the midst of what many are
calling a wet cycle, the Red River Valley is equally
susceptible to drought conditions. As a result, the city of
Grand Forks becomes increasingly concerned each year because
the odds get greater and greater that we will experience an
extended period of drought without reliable backup or a new
primary water supply.
In planning, recognizing these significant water quality
and quantity challenges, the city of Grand Forks is closely
monitoring the progress of the study efforts of the Red River
Valley water supply projects in hopes that the Dakota Water
Resources Act of 2000 will be able to address our needs. The
city of Grand Forks stresses that a timely and accelerated
completion of the schedule of the study for the project would
greatly assist us in maintaining our time line for planning and
making important decisions about the future of water supply and
treatment systems. Therefore, this is critical in our planning
process.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Brown follows:]
Prepared Statement of Michael R. Brown, Mayor,
City of Grand Forks, ND
Chairman Dorgan and members of the subcommittee, I am Grand Forks
Mayor Michael R. Brown and on behalf of the City of Grand Forks, I want
to thank you for the opportunity to provide written testimony to the
Subcommittee on Water and Power regarding Red River Valley Water Needs.
A consistent, reliable and affordable water supply is critical to the
City of Grand Forks and other communities of the Red River Valley.
Without an adequate supply of water, communities such as Grand Forks
would not be able to provide the required amounts of water to its
residents, businesses, mainstay institutions, and agricultural
industries that support the livelihood of the region.
Although the memories of Grand Forks residents are marked by a
drastic flooding event in the midst of what many are calling a ``wet
cycle'', the Red River Valley is equally susceptible to drought
conditions. The relatively flat terrain of the Red River Valley
drainage basin prohibits the construction of large reservoirs that
could provide significant amounts of water storage to span even
moderate periods of drought. As a result, the City of Grand Forks
becomes increasingly concerned each year because the odds get greater
and greater that we will experience an extended period of drought
without a reliable backup or new primary water supply.
In addition to water quantity issues, we are also concerned about
water quality. Our existing water sources are difficult to treat due to
seasonal variations in water quality. Future water quality objectives
and the possibility of microbial contamination will likely require the
City of Grand Forks to consider the implementation of advanced water
treatment technologies. When coupled with the aging condition and
limited expansion potential of our existing facilities, these factors
have made it necessary for the City to plan for the construction of an
entirely new water treatment facility within the upcoming decade.
Recognizing these significant water quantity and quality
challenges, the City of Grand Forks is closely monitoring the progress
of the study efforts for the Red River Valley Water Supply (RRVWS)
project in hopes that the Dakota Water Resources Act of 2000 will be
able to address our needs. To date, the study efforts appear to be
behind schedule and progressing at a painstakingly slow rate. We
understand this is primarily due to the immense study scope and the
need to comply with public notification and environmental requirements.
However, the City of Grand Forks stresses that a timely (i.e.,
accelerated) completion schedule of the study for the RRVWS project
would greatly assist in maintaining our timeline for planning and
making important decisions about the future of our water supply and
treatment systems.
Additional comments regarding the ongoing study for the RRVWS
project include:
The study should incorporate a 50-year planning horizon from
the date of anticipated study completion to adequately address
the projected needs of the Red River Valley rather than a 50-
year period from the start of the study (2000-2050). Based on a
projected study completion date of 2005 coupled with necessary
design, bidding and construction activities, the time required
to proceed with the project could erode the 50-year planning
period by as much as 20 to 30 percent.
The study should comprehensively estimate peak day water
demand projections rather than average day demand projections
as the basis for the development of alternatives and estimation
of total project costs. Careful consideration should be given
to proposed water conservation methods as well, given the
relatively low rates of water consumption of Red River Valley
residents as compared to the national average. Otherwise, the
RRVWS project could potentially fail to adequately address the
City's actual demands, which typically peak during dry
conditions.
The study should account for projected water demands/
withdrawals for Minnesota communities (East Grand Forks,
Moorhead, and Breckenridge) that were addressed in the Phase
1A, Phase 1B, and Phase 2 studies. Without including existing
and future demands for our sister cities and other appropriate
surface water users, the study would ultimately derive an
inaccurate representation of actual demands and fall short of
meeting its intended objectives.
The quality of water provided to residents, businesses,
institutions, and industries is extremely important to the City
of Grand Forks. Therefore, an improvement in water quality from
that of its existing supply would factor into the City's
decision to commit to a significant financial investment in the
RRVWS project.
The City of Grand Forks understands the potential
environmental impacts of transferring water from one drainage
basin to another. In order to meet our water quantity and
quality desires, however, realistic risk assessments, combined
with the prudent selection of water supply and treatment
alternatives, should be able to satisfy reasonable concerns
expressed by individuals involved in the study process.
The study should include a thorough evaluation of
alternatives via the utilization of justifiable screening
criteria to ensure that the recommended alternative is feasible
and practical.
Thank you, again, for this opportunity and for the opportunity to
provide an oral summation of the written testimony included in this
letter at the December 9, 2002 field hearing. We greatly appreciate
your support and all your hard work in focusing on the water needs of
the Red River Valley.
Senator Dorgan. Mayor, thank you very much.
Next we will hear from mayor Bruce Furness, mayor of Fargo.
STATEMENT OF BRUCE W. FURNESS, MAYOR, FARGO, ND
Mr. Furness. Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity
to testify once again on water issues in the Valley.
My remarks are about the same as I used when we testified
before the Dakota Water Resources Act a couple years ago and
ask for them to be included in the reports.
I will summarize as best I can those remarks.
My favorite quote about water is from Benjamin Franklin,
``When the well is dry, we know the worth of water.'' Actually,
that's my second-favorite quote. My favorite quote is from Mark
Twain. He says, ``Whiskey's for drinking, water is for fighting
over.'' And what we need to do is do a little fighting over
water, I think. But getting back to Ben Franklin, ``When the
well is dry, we know the worth of water.'' Well, we don't want
to wait in North Dakota until the well is dry. We try to be
proactive in the North Dakota. We've worked with the North
Dakota Water Coalition, we've worked with the congressional
delegation, we've worked with the State to try to get water to
eastern North Dakota. Eastern North Dakota contains--the
counties along eastern North Dakota contain 40 percent of the
population of the entire State, so we view this as a high-
growth area, high-density area of population.
Our concern about water is best summarized by an
introductory paragraph of a report by Black & Veatch, who were
the consultants on our new water purification plants. They
said, ``The city of Fargo has rights to two water sources for
treatment and subsequent supply to its citizens for potable
use, the Red River to the North and the Sheyenne River.
Unfortunately, both sources are of poor quality and, even taken
together, they do not offer a reliable quantity of water to
meet Fargo's present and certainly future water needs. The
diversion of Missouri River water to Fargo by way of Garrison
Dam would provide a long-term lifeline for the community.'' So,
poor quality and little quantity, we need a solution. 96
percent of the surface water in North Dakota is in the Missouri
River, and if you were to look for a source of water, that
would seem a logical place.
I have in my remarks a quote from former Governor William
Guy. I will just take one sentence out of that. He was
describing a drought situation back in the 1930's, and his one
sentence that I'll use here is that, ``There was talk of
returning the Fargo Sewage Plant discharge to the river above
the city water intake.'' In other words, taking the sewage and
recycling it back and using it again. We are talking about that
now as we plan for contingency in the case of a drought in our
region.
The population growth in Fargo has been just under 2
percent per year for 20 years. It continues to grow at about
that rate. The population estimates used and all the studies I
looked at so far consistently underestimate the population
growth in Fargo. We think we need more quantity than has been
suggested.
We are concerned with the downstream States as you
indicated, Senator, that they have some concern. But the amount
of water that has been suggested for removal from the Missouri
River from--to transport over to eastern North Dakota, if you
would put this in a graphic representation and a pail of water
represented all the water of the Missouri passing through, say,
Bismarck, the amount of water we would take out of that pail is
one thimbleful.
I also mentioned the quality. If water from the Missouri
River were to come to eastern North Dakota, it would cost us
much less to process. The quality of Missouri River water is
better than either the Red River or the Sheyenne.
We have attempted to undertake certain conservation methods
and would continue that, and the time frame that I think that
we need to be concerned about is, as you have indicated,
Senator, is right now. But some have indicated that we have,
perhaps, a 10- to 15-year time window if we do not have a
drought. If we do have a drought, that time window could be as
little as three to five years.
In summary, I have been mayor now for 8\1/2\ years. My
knowledge about water when I started this job was you turn the
tap on and water comes out. I've learned a lot about water in
this time and I just would like to quote a man who's an expert
in my opinion, Jim McLaughlin, who told me at the beginning of
my career as mayor, we don't need any more studies about water.
We know how much water we need. We know what to do with water.
I guess I would just echo your phrase that we are tired of
waiting, we are out of patience.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Furness follows:]
Prepared Statement of Bruce W. Furness, Mayor, Fargo, ND
Mr. Chairman and Honorable Members of the Subcommittee on Water and
Power of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, I am
Bruce Furness, Mayor of the City of Fargo, North Dakota. Thank you for
this opportunity to testify before the Committee on Red River Valley
water needs.
introduction
Benjamin Franklin once said, ``When the well is dry, we know the
worth of water.'' North Dakotans want to be proactive in managing our
``well"; we can't wait until it is dry. We have become unified behind
this act through the North Dakota Water Coalition, a group of widely
diverse interests which has come together to advance water development
in our State. We have been unified in assuring passage of a State Water
Plan in the 1999 North Dakota Legislature, a historic achievement. We
are unified in developing a consensus piece of legislation through the
U. S. Congress that will assure future water supply for all our
citizens.
Fargo is located on the eastern edge of North Dakota, separated by
the Red River of the North from Moorhead, Minnesota. Together the
Fargo-Moorhead area is the largest US population center in the Red
River Valley with approximately 165,000 people. Fargo has enjoyed an
annual growth rate of about 2% for the last 20 years and is actually
accelerating in growth at this time. The requirement for more water is
a direct result of this growth. From a statewide perspective, nearly
40% of our population resides in the six border counties adjacent to
the Red River.
Our area does not have an overabundance of water supply resources.
Extended dry conditions and droughts have shown us that current
resources alone cannot meet the water supply needs of this growing
region. Development of a dependable water supply, along with careful
management of the resources currently utilized, will allow the region
to meet its changing and expanding water needs.
Our concern is best summarized by the introductory paragraph of a
report by Black & Veatch, the design consultant for our new water
purification plant:
The City of Fargo has rights to two water sources for
treatment and subsequent supply to its citizens for potable
use: the Red River of the North and the Sheyenne River.
Unfortunately, both sources are of poor quality and, even taken
together, they do not offer a reliable quantity of water to
meet Fargo's present and certainly future water needs. The
diversion of Missouri River water to Fargo by way of Garrison
Dam would provide a long-term lifeline for the community.
quantity
A good supply of water is key to our City's continued growth and
development. Although record-setting floods have recently occurred,
history shows that low water in this river has occurred more often and
caused more problems for our residents than has flooding. For example,
during the 1930's the Red River had stream flows at Fargo below 10
cubic feet per second (cfs) for seven straight years. This same
phenomenon occurred in the late 1970's and once in the 1980's. A flow
of ten cfs of water in the Red River represents less than one foot of
water in the streambed at any given point.
Listen to a recollection by former Governor William Guy of Fargo.
If you were to look at the Red River near the water plant in
the 1930's, you would wonder how they ever made the water fit
to drink. The searing hot drought hung heavily over the Upper
Midwest through the entire decade of the 1930's. The Geological
Survey records say that the murky Red River ceased to flow at
Fargo for a period in every year of that decade. The driest
year was 1936 when the Red River stopped flowing for 166
continuous days. Cars were not washed. Lawns went unsprinkled.
There was talk of returning the Fargo Sewage Plant discharge to
the river above the city water intake. Moorhead was drawing all
of its water from wells east of the city and their tap water
tasted good. With a population of around 25,000, Fargo's water
situation was desperate. . . . Today both Fargo and Moorhead
draw their water from the Red River while their combined
population has increased five fold from the dry 1930's.
Industries not even dreamed of 65 years ago now use copious
amounts of Red River water. It is easy to understand why the
Garrison Diversion Project to bring Missouri River water east
to the Red River Valley has been on the minds of thinking
people for more than 50 years.
Though difficult to project, future regional water requirements
will be determined by several factors:
Population growth and economic expansion in Fargo will
continue into the next century at the same 2% annual growth
rate. The entire region is expected to grow correspondingly.
Per capita usage is currently below national and regional
averages but could increase without stringent use of
conservation measures.
In 1995, a large corn processing plant went on-line in the
Red River Valley. It is projected that a minimum of three
additional plants will be constructed in the basin over the
next forty years. Water usage for each of these plants may well
equal what the City of Fargo uses in an average day. Thus, any
needs analysis must include future growth resulting from
increased value-added agricultural processing.
Another consideration relating to water quantity is that of minimum
stream flows. As indicated earlier, there have been times of extremely
low flows. One analysis suggests that 7 cfs as a minimum flow in the
Red River is sufficient. That is totally unacceptable.
An examination of historical seven-day-duration flows shows many
periods of inadequate flows for our current usage and increasingly more
severe problems as our usage grows to new plant capacities. 50 cfs is a
bare minimum to be considered, 75 cfs is desirable.
The use of Missouri River water is an obvious solution to this
availability problem. 96% of the usable surface water in North Dakota
is in the Missouri River. It represents the best source of highly
available water and has an extremely small impact on downtstream sites.
Analysis shows that the potential allocation of 100 cfs for Eastern
North Dakota is less than 1/2 of 1% of Missouri water flowing through
our state. A graphic description of this minimal impact is to think of
the entire flow as a gallon of water. The proposed allocation is then
represented by a thimbleful of water (1/2 fluid ounce).
Allow me to incorporate by reference the ``Red River Valley Water
Needs Assessment Report'' documented by the Bureau of Reclamation,
dated April 1998. A second study is the ``Red River Basin Water Supply
Report'' prepared by the Red River Basin Board, dated April 2000.
quality
When water is not available in adequate amounts, the quality of
water also declines. This fact has a high impact on processing costs.
Relying on the Red River as its main source of water requires cities
from Fargo to Pembina to take extraordinary measures to treat raw
water. Both Fargo and Moorhead have recently built new water treatment
facilities which use ozone (an electrically charged liquid oxygen), the
latest available technology to disinfect the water. Ozone is a
treatment process which has become the favored disinfectant for raw
water having high organic characteristics.
Ozone can do in 3 seconds what it takes chlorine 3 minutes and
chloramine (chlorine and ammonia) 12 minutes to accomplish. However,
this highly efficient treatment comes with a price--the cost of
producing the ozone. To electrically charge liquid oxygen, the power
costs for Fargo's treatment plant will double to $600,000 per year.
Another advantage of treating better quality water can be shown by
comparing the cost of treating Missouri River water at Bismarck with
Red River water. Our staff analyzed the chemical costs to treat a
gallon of water and discovered that Fargo's cost is about 22 cents per
1,000 gallons while Bismarck's costs are 9 cents per thousand. As water
quantity and quality decrease, the cost of its treatment increases.
Each of these examples demonstrates the preference for treating
higher quality water such as that found in the Missouri. As with
quantity, water of better quality is a vital need for our community and
region.
conservation
Water conservation strategies employed by the City of Fargo include
the adoption of odd/even lawn watering restrictions beginning in 1989
and continuing through today. In 1997, a demonstration xeriscaping
program was implemented with over 100 homes participating. We intend
for this program to grow. A 15-year project to replace deteriorating
water mains has begun. The result will be a significant reduction in
water loss. Using all these tactics, water management will remain a
high priority item in our City.
time-frame
Although impossible to predict with any certainty, it is believed
the Red River Valley has adequate water supply for the next 10 to 15
years. Should drought conditions occur, however, that estimate may be
reduced to 3-5 years. Consequently, little time remains to resolve
these concerns. Activity must begin now to address the many issues
relating to water quantity and quality. I urge your positive
consideration of our needs.
I will be pleased to respond to any questions you may have. Thank
you once again for the opportunity to testify before your subcommittee.
Senator Dorgan. Mayor, thank you very much.
Let me ask a series of questions. First of all I want to
understand why we are at a point where the draft statement
would now be available 4 years late. And Ms. Bach, you talked
about some allegations of illegal interpretation of the Act,
number one. You had to negotiate the memorandum of
understanding, and as I read through some of the descriptions,
in fact your statement says the EIS, draft EIS is to be
prepared jointly with the State of North Dakota. Some
deliberation was required on the part of the State to determine
which agency would act as the lead for the State. The decision
process was followed by a significant effort to negotiate a
memorandum of understanding which defines the scope of the
partnership and general roles and responsibilities. As I read
through the lines, or between the lines, it seems to me like
there is some assertion that the Bureau, the State, the
Conservancy District spent a lot of time trying to work this
out to figure out who was supposed to do what, who's going to
coordinate, who's going to manage this. Is that part, are you
saying that's part of the reason this is delayed, and if so,
describe that process to me.
Dr. Bach. Mr. Chairman, I think that the Conservancy
District, the State of North Dakota and Reclamation worked
quite constructively to lay out those responsibilities. The
criticism that we were presented was that under Dakotas Water
Resources Act and some of the late discussions in the process
with DWRA's report, DWRA finally passed the floor of the
Senate. There were some negotiations with the lower basin
States, as you so well know, and there were specific
authorities assigned to the Secretary of the Interior to do
this study, and there resulted in language that was very
specific that the State and the Bureau would do--or, actually
would do the EIS together. We actually had those functions
commingled. We were sharing those in the original MOU. We were
not making a distinction between the study--the needs and
options study--and the EIS. And so, we did go to lengths to
make it very specific so that we were not subject to some of
the same criticisms that we were previously subject to.
The correspondence that we received did have a tone of
litigation threat to it, and we had very serious discussions
with attorneys inside of the State as well as with the Federal
Government as to how to assure we did get through this process
and not be subject to litigation at the end of it which would
terribly disturbing to all who need water supply in the future.
Senator Dorgan. Well, it seems to me there isn't any way
that you can move through this process without understanding
you're probably going to be subject to litigation. Litigation
is part of the process of--part and parcel of this process.
What I'm asking is was there just a lot of visiting going
on for a long time here? It seems to me that trying to figure
out who's going to assume what responsibilities ought to have
taken a meeting or two, and then you move on. But the way I
understand what has happened here is, you all have been meeting
and meeting and meeting, trying to sort out who's responsible,
the State, the Conservancy District, and the Bureau. How long
does that take? I know you have got the MOU done now, but does
that take 2 years?
Dr. Bach. That wasn't all what we were doing in that 2-year
time frame. We continued with the plan of study for the needs
and options. Reclamation was certainly at work with writing the
necessary contracts that--where we could get the work
contracted out to others to do. So the time was not consumed
totally in discussions, although there were serious discussions
about the interpretations of the Act. There are some that have
suggested that the Act is unclear and, frankly, we did not take
that position, but we did seek to make as clear as possible the
interpretation of the Act.
Senator Dorgan. But if it took 2 years to get a memorandum
of understanding, is it logical for me as legislator to assume
that that 2-year period was a period you were negotiating with
the State and the Conservancy District about whose role was
going to be--or who was going to assume what role in this
process, or could you have done the MOU earlier? And if not,
why not?
Dr. Bach. Well, we make--as I noted when I gave my
testimony, we signed an MOU in good faith, with our
understanding of our authorities before the DWRA so we were
very much at work and in progress trying to proceed with the
studies that had been done and advancing them. And our
discussions were with the State, and it did involve from time
to time discussions with parties that the State brought to the
table.
Senator Dorgan. I guess two questions. One, Mr. Frink, you
don't seem very exasperated about this. You didn't seem to
express great concern that it's taken 2 years for the MOU. If
it's going to take 2 years to do something the law said should
have been done in a year, why didn't somebody issue the report
to Congress and say we're all visiting over here and there is
no sense of urgency, but we're not going to submit the report?
I don't understand all this. Mr. Frink, you don't seem very
agitated about it. I'm agitated about it. Why aren't you?
Mr. Frink. Well, I guess, first of all, right after DWRA
was passed, I think we got off to a very good start. There were
technical teams formed. We had study review teams formed. We
had some meetings. Some of the environmental groups started to
write letters to the Bureau of Reclamation and it's very easy
to--these letters took a lot of time to answer and so forth.
But I think it was in October that the Bureau of Reclamation
came to us and said that these environmental groups are making
some good points here and recommended that the State of North
Dakota pick one single entity as the lead, and I think----
Senator Dorgan. When was that?
Mr. Frink. I believe that was in, like, October 2001.
Senator Dorgan. That was over a year ago.
Mr. Frink. Yes. And Governor Hoeven, within 1 or 2 months,
did select the C District, and----
Senator Dorgan. So that was a year ago. My question is why
did it take from then until now, another year, to get the MOU?
Mr. Frink. It has taken a long time to go through the
Federal system. It just took a lot longer. I certainly don't
like the delay. I mean, we have a lot of discussions on this.
But, I mean, we promised to do this study right. There's--quite
frankly, there is a lack of trust between environmental groups
yet. There are groups out there that believe this is just
another front for the old Garrison Diversion Project, including
irrigation, and we've said that many times that we need to do
this right and see if we can gain some trust back, because
it's--we do have a long way to go, but we are working very hard
to do it right, and if it takes a little bit longer, I guess
I'd rather do that rather than get caught up in 2 and 3 years
down the road and have to go back and retrace our steps.
Senator Dorgan. That's a fair point. I want it done right
as well, but I want it done within a century or so. And my
great concern is that year after year after year, in every
circumstance we see water projects delayed, delayed, delayed.
And this was a part of the Dakota Water Resources Act that was
a significant part that dealt with eastern North Dakota's
interests. We've already been through Phase I and Phase II
appraising the Red River Valley needs assessments. We have
already had this discussion about underestimating what the
population is going to be here in Fargo. We have already raised
the questions about will you have an adequate report if you
don't consider the needs of Moorhead, East Grand Forks,
Breckenridge. All of these things have been out there for a
long, long time. I just think it's unreasonable for all of us
to think about December 2005 as an end date for a process that
we intended to have done in December 2002, this very month.
Right now. It appears to me we've just finished the
introductions, the preliminaries, the MOU's. So, I don't want
you to misunderstand. I want this done right as well, but I
also want there to be an end date and one that's reasonable.
Let me ask Ms. Bach. You mentioned the drought. And many of
us are very concerned about that. A portion of our State was
hard hit, not the entire State. But is it conceivable that
spreading drought in this country could cause some very serious
challenges to eastern North Dakota and its long-term water
supply before we get to the solution that was authorized in the
Dakota Water Resources Act? And if that's possible, what would
you advise the mayors of the two largest cities on the river?
Dr. Bach. Mr. Chairman, before I took the position of
Regional Director of Great Plains Region, I was the drought
coordinator for the Bureau of Reclamation. One thing I learned
to do with much caution was any attempt to predict Mother
Nature, and there are several States, as I noted, within this
region that are experiencing drought, and there are a number of
indicators that people in the water management business watch
very carefully in terms of water supply.
Insofar as your question with regard to what to advise, or
how to interact with elected officials who are needing to
meet--who are there to meet the needs of the community, I
believe that our working relationship with the State Water
Commission is quite positive and that we offer our assistance.
There are a variety of technologies that we employ in times of
drought, and I do believe that the relationship between the
cities on the eastern side of the river and western side of the
river are important insofar as how they are considering the
water and how they manage it during the drought.
Senator Dorgan. Let's assume the worst for a moment. Let's
assume that you meet your time table. By worst, I mean several
years beyond when we expect it. But 2005, December 2005, the
draft EIS is completed. Mr. Frink, you were probably describing
a letter by our old friend Dan Beard that requires people to
put on the emergency brake and study, and get frozen in fear.
Let's assume that despite all of these things, a letter from
Dan Beard and all the other complications that arise and cause
people to stop what they're doing, and you get the draft EIS
done, December 2005, under what circumstances and when can the
Red River Valley expect a supply of water to come from that
activity?
Dr. Bach. Again, it depends on what kind of construction
needs to be done. In some cases, it can be small-scale. That
can happen in the construction season, or otherwise. In other
cases, it may be multiple-year construction.
Senator Dorgan. What if it is an interbasin transfer, and
the decision--the water needs tell you and tell us that we must
have a supply of water delivered to eastern North Dakota from
the Missouri River, how long would that take?
Dr. Bach. Under the statute as I know you so well know, Mr.
Chairman, if there is an out-of-basin solution, if there is a
transbasin solution, we, the parties have to come back to you,
the Congress, for the authorization, and I know you so well
know the international consultation complications.
Senator Dorgan. I understand. In fact, I have not talked
about the difficulties of that. There will be extraordinary
difficulties in Congress because we'll have a big fight with
other interests when and if that happens. But I'm talking now
about the construction cycle. Assume for a moment that you meet
a date of December 2005, and Congress further authorizes the
construction of said facilities to deliver Missouri water to
the Red River, what's the time line for something like that in
your judgment?
Dr. Bach. Well, I think what was asked us because we would
not--the authorization would not necessarily be in sync with
the budget aspects, but with some gymnastics, it could be at
the minimum a year or further before you could see any
construction. I think we're talking beyond one year after
Congress would authorize us to go forward.
Now, again, it's not that we couldn't all challenge
ourselves to move money around and see what we could do to let
contracts.
Senator Dorgan. You're talking about construction
beginning. We're talking about a delivery system from Missouri
to the Red River Valley. I'm asking what can the Red River
Valley residents expect in terms of the time that might take.
Are we talking 10 years, 5 years beyond 2005 optimum?
Dr. Bach. Depending on the complexity of the construction,
you're talking multiple years, and it gets back to your concern
of when we have the first product to react to.
Senator Dorgan. My concern is despite everybody's good
intentions, you could very easily see a circumstance where a
drought has devastating consequences for the Red River Valley
long before anybody can move water here because all of this
takes a much longer period of time than may well exist. I don't
know whether you have seen, for example, the potential numbers
about how much snow pack might exist in Montana, how much might
come off of the Montana Rockies into the reservoir system and
into the Missouri River system this coming spring, but the
effects of the drought--widespread--could have significant
consequences in the Red River Valley. My concern is that there
is kind of a business-as-usual, not just with the Corps, but
perhaps with almost everybody. Not just with the Bureau, I
should say, but perhaps with almost everybody. Well, let's just
have all these meetings and see if we can keep talking about
who has what responsibility.
And Mayor Furness, have you been involved in any of these
meetings regarding how you slice up the responsibility between
the State, the Conservancy District, the Bureau, who's going to
do what?
Mr. Furness. Only through telephone calls.
Senator Dorgan. Mayor Brown, have you?
Mr. Brown. No, sir.
Senator Dorgan. I received, Ms. Bach, about 4 days ago, a
letter from the Bureau of Reclamation, which I believe was
intended to meet its responsibility to send a report to
Congress when it missed the December 2001 date. I received it
one year late. And what that letter told me was that the Bureau
of Reclamation still intended to meet the December 2005 date.
What I indicated to the Bureau is that that's just not
acceptable to me. I don't think it's acceptable to the
Congress. The Congress passed the legislation after great angst
and substantial effort, and in the legislation, we provided a
1-year and 2-year process. Now, I'm willing to accept that
perhaps one year was optimistic. I'm willing to accept that.
But I'm not willing to accept that additional 4 or 5 years is
necessary to do that which the Congress intended the Bureau to
do in a time frame. And my question tonight is what can we
expect in eastern North Dakota to have the Bureau truncate
this, not with respect to shortchanging any part of this
process, but to tell us they can do this earlier than December
2005. Are there ways that can happen and is the Bureau willing
to commit to make it happen prior to December 2005?
Dr. Bach. I'm willing to commit to sit down with the
parties and lay out options that we've identified for where the
schedule can be curtailed. I want to be able to do that with
the parties so that they understand what information we would
not have, and what information we would have as some of the
reasoning for the parts of the schedule reflect that we
understood to be the convenience of the different communities.
I will make every effort to see any opportunity we can to
curtail the schedule for the final plans.
Senator Dorgan. One additional question. Is the process we
are now involved in a process that's going to consider the
water needs of Moorhead, East Grand and Breckenridge as well?
Dr. Bach. This statute does identify, the statute does
identified the needs and options to meet the needs of North
Dakota. In order to get that information, Mr. Chairman, we have
to identify what is being utilized and what the plans are to be
utilized in the future of water supply with the communities on
the other side of the river.
Senator Dorgan. The answer to that is yes?
Dr. Bach. The answer to that is information will be in the
documents. We will be strict to respond to the statutes, but we
will do it in a complete way so all the information is laid out
in a report.
Senator Dorgan. Are the population estimates being used to
the extent you're aware of them Mayor Furness, Mayor Brown,
population estimates you think are reasonable?
Mr. Furness. Mr. Chairman, I don't know what the population
estimates are being used in this study. I'm not sure that has
been addressed.
Senator Dorgan. Are the revised population estimates in the
two previous studies, Phase I and Phase II study, as I
understand, those population estimates have been revised, or
proposed to be revised, are they satisfactory to you?
Mr. Furness. We had our version and the Bureau has their
version. We were not in sync on those, no.
Mr. Brown. I agree with Mayor Furness.
Senator Dorgan. So, Mr. Frink, what do we do about all
this?
Mr. Frink. Well, first of all, I guess we need to complete
the EIS. It's an absolute necessity and if it's in the DWRA,
all I can say is that, you know, we would like to follow
something similar to what we did on the Southwest Pipeline
Project and the Northwest Water Supply Pipeline projects. And
that is as soon as these documents are signed and we are told
to go, we start. The Bureau of Reclamation on those projects
last year gave us the approval to start that project in
December, and as soon as the frost is out of the ground we had
pipe in the ground and, but you have to go through the process
and, you know, I think we have to do it right here. And to EIS
process is clearly taking longer than we hoped.
Senator Dorgan. Let me just make a point. It will not be
doing it right to delay this by years. Doing it right is, yes,
doing it correctly, but doing it in a truncated time line. It's
just not doing it right that we end up with a drought that
devastates the Red River Valley's growth potential, and we
don't have an opportunity to move the kind of water here that
they need to move here. In fact, that's what the decision is.
So in order to do this right means we have to move with some
dispatch.
Now, Ms. Bach, I'd like to ask you to go back to Mr. Keys
and work both at the Headquarters and also the Regional Office
and submit to the Energy Committee a revised schedule telling
me what kind of opportunity exists to truncate this time line
because I think it's safe to say that my colleagues on the
committee would not find it a favorable development to
understand that we've seen this delayed now 4 years, and so I
would like to have you submit to us a revised schedule based on
your evaluation of where you can begin to truncate this
process. Yes, do it right, but doing it right means doing it on
time as well.
Can we expect a response to that, Ms. Bach?
Dr. Bach. Absolutely.
Senator Dorgan. And when might we get a response? How long
will that take?
Dr. Bach. I will give you something to look at within 4
weeks, Mr. Chairman, if that's acceptable.
Senator Dorgan. All right. So within 4 weeks the Bureau
will send to the committee your estimate of what a revised
schedule would look like, and, Mr. Frink, you're going to get
agitated about this, and when we get the new date we are all
going to--assuming the new date truncates this some, we are all
going to build a big fire and hold everybody's feet to the
fire, is that a fair statement?
Mr. Frink. Mr. Chairman, let me say on behalf of the State
Water Commission, we are playing a very important role. If we
can get this EIS done sooner, we will throw the resources at it
to make it happen. It is an incredibly important study, but
we'll do whatever we can to shorten that date to the extent
possible.
Senator Dorgan. All right. Well, we will wait 4 weeks and
wait to receive, Ms. Bach, your revised estimate. I hope you
will scrub that with the headquarters very carefully, and we
will share that, of course, with the folks of the Red River
Valley and the folks at the Conservancy District, and the State
of North Dakota as well.
Let me reemphasize, I can't reemphasize enough the point
that I have seen everything slip forever on water policy and it
is so frustrating. I understand there are a hundred people out
there wanting to sue somebody. We're working right now on the
NAWS project, which is a heck of a good project. And the minute
we do the ground break, Canada throws us into court. They have
a right to go into court, certainly, but I hope it's thrown
out. The suit doesn't have merit, and I hope it's thrown out.
The point is at every step of the way on every conceivable
approach on water we end up with all kinds of problems. But,
you know, on the Missouri River master plan, nobody can get it
done. You can't get answers on this. When I see the time lines
slip, obviously it makes me angry. I want this done. I want us
to meet our time line.
Ms. Bach, I have worked with you on other issues with the
Jamestown Reservoir and other things. You're a dedicated public
servant. You understand the angst that people have about water.
The mayor used the quote, and there are plenty other quotes
about water that aptly describe the passion about water.
Because you can't--no economy, no region could exist without
water. It is the engine of economic growth. You shut the water
down running through this Red River, you will shut down the
economy of this part of North Dakota. So, that's why it's
important.
I appreciate your coming to Fargo this evening, Ms. Bach.
And Mr. Frink, for you coming over from Bismarck. And Mayor
Brown, Mayor Furness, thank you very much for being here as
well.
Let me excuse you and if you have additional comments you
wish to submit, the hearing record will remain open for 2
weeks.
We call Mr. Warren Jamison, the manager of the Garrison
Diversion Conservancy District; Ms. Genevieve Thompson, vice
president and executive director of the Audubon Society of
North Dakota; Michael Dwyer, the executive director of North
Dakota Water Users Association.
Let me, for the record, indicate that Chairman Tex Hall
from the Mandan, Hidatsa and Arikara Nation was invited to
testify. He was not able to be here, so he submitted testimony.
We have also have submitted testimony on behalf of the Fargo-
Moorhead Chamber of Commerce in the form of a letter from David
Martin.*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The testimony can be found in the appendix.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I want to thank all of you for being here as well. You were
able to hear the previous testimony.
Mr. Jamison, perhaps more than anyone in this room, you
have worked year after year after year on a wide range of these
problems and issues dealing with water, and we certainly
appreciate that effort and those results. My guess is you
probably share the same anxiety I do about time lines and all
those added issues. But we appreciate very much your being
willing to come to Fargo this evening and testify.
Why don't I begin with you and your entire statement will
be made a part of the record.
STATEMENT OF WARREN L. JAMISON, MANAGER,
GARRISON DIVERSION CONSERVANCY DISTRICT
Mr. Jamison. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
allowing me to testify today on this important subject. My
complete testimony will be in the record, as you indicated.
Last week, I was in Arizona at the National Water Resources
Association Annual Meeting, and there was a lot of talk about
drought down there. I spoke with Commissioner Keatings and
Maryanne Bach from the Bureau of Reclamation as well.
I want to emphasize the extent of the drought that is
creeping toward us. States like Montana are in their fifth year
of drought. Certainly they're heading towards drought of
Biblical proportions. It's deeper than the drought of the
1930's. Its duration is going probably beyond what we would
normally predict. Similar stories in Wyoming and Nebraska. I
spoke with the State engineer of Nebraska, and they are into 3
years of very serious drought. 30 percent worse than the
drought of the 1930's in Nebraska. The commissioner referred to
an inflow of the reservoir in the Rio Grande area inflows were
2 percent of normal.
Senator Dorgan. Where was that again?
Mr. Jamison. That was in the Rio Grande Valley. Two percent
of normal. These are horrendous numbers. But they are just
abstract thoughts unless you put economic dollars with them.
And when you do put economics to these numbers, the worst kinds
of natural disasters that occur in the country are not fires
and floods, but droughts. Always.
We see economic study after study indicating that the worst
impacts of natural disaster in this country are the result of
droughts. The 1987 to 1989 time frame, where we had a severe
drought in this part of the country, but it also was in other
parts of the region, the total from that alone was $39 billion.
Well, if we have a drought that's 30 percent deeper, or 20
percent deeper than the ones we have on record, and of a longer
duration, imagine, if you will, where these dollar impacts will
go.
Dakota Water Resources Act attempted to, and I think wisely
so, choose the high road in terms of trying to prevent these
things from occurring by wise planning and wise use of the
natural resources. If we can prevent drought from occurring, we
can prevent the impacts of these droughts from occurring. We
can't prevent droughts from occurring, but the impacts of them
by managing our resources wisely.
Certainly, Dakota Water Resources Act is clear, and it can
compel us, as it should, to look at all the alternatives, all
reasonable alternatives in a full and fair, objective way to
meet the water supply in the Red River Valley. We certainly
intend to do that, and we intend to meet a criteria for water
supply that I have used many times. Water supply isn't just
dump the water. For us, there are three characteristics of
water supply. First of all, it must be reliable. It's not good
enough if you can get it seven out of 10 years. Three years can
be the end of your economy.
It must be of high quality. What good is water if you can't
drink it, if you can't use it for industrial purposes.
And lastly--and the act anticipated this as well--it must
be affordable to the local citizens, consuming citizens.
So, with those three characteristics in mind, we are
dedicated to working as closely as we can with the Conservancy,
with the Bureau of Reclamation, with the State of North Dakota
to make sure that a water supply is delivered to the Valley.
And in my opinion, the 2 years that we have spent trying to
get organized is an undue delay, and there are causes that we
can talk about, and perhaps you will ask about those, but I
would like to indicate that I would rather focus on the future
on a closer relationship with the Bureau, with the Audubon
Society. I have had the pleasure of looking at Ms. Thompson's
testimony. She makes a number of very constructive suggestions
that the Conservancy District, for one, at least, will take
seriously. I think they're very helpful, and will take effort,
but that's an effort we need to put forward and we will do
that. I think there's lots of opportunities to do this
constructively and do it well.
The Bureau has a job to do and we want very much to be
helpful and working closely with them to make sure that we
avert the horrible impacts of a drought. I'm hopeful that the
outcome of these proceedings in the future will be a more
closely coordinated effort to move forward, and to move forward
with dispatch and a the full examination of all the
alternatives and eventually delivers water to the valley.
I will answer questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Jamison follows:]
Prepared Statement of Warren L. Jamison, Manager,
Garrison Diversion Conservancy District
Chairman Dorgan and Members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate the
opportunity to present the Garrison Diversion Conservancy District's
(District) views on the Red River Valley Water Needs.
We are sitting on a time bomb! Droughts of greater magnitude than
those of the 1930s are all around us. If they should spread to the Red
River Valley, we will be in dire straits, and the delays on the Red
River Valley Studies will be seen as deadly to the people and the
economics of the Valley.
Drought is a normal, recurrent feature of the climate of virtually
all portions of the United States. Because of the country's size and
the wide range of climatic regions present, it is rare for drought not
to exist somewhere in the country each year. As of October 2002, 47
states, including North Dakota, were experiencing a drought or drought
warnings. Rainfall was significantly below average in 27 states. In
parts of Nebraska, 2002 rainfall amounts through September were not
only 80% below normal, but also 30% less than what fell during the
worst of the 1930s drought years. Economic losses for the summer of
2002 could reach $20 billion.
Drought is a natural hazard that cumulatively has affected more
people in North America than any other natural hazard. The cost of
losses due to drought in the United States averages $6-8 billion every
year, but range as high as $39 billion for the three-year drought of
1987-1989, which was the most costly natural disaster documented in
U.S. history.
The severe multi-year drought that plagued the western United
States during the 1930s and 1950s is now a distant memory for most. A
recurrence of these multi-year droughts today would result in
substantially greater and more varied impacts because of the rapid
expansion and urbanization of the region's population and increase in
urban water demand during the past several decades. Also, there has
been an associated increased pressure on water and other natural
resources, even though there has been a significant increase in long-
term and emergency water storage facilities and the understanding of
the necessity for the application of water-conserving technologies.
The traditional mind set of some government entities has been to
react to drought by providing relief or emergency assistance to the
affected areas. By following this approach, drought only receives the
attention of decision-makers when it is at peak levels of intensity and
when water management options are quite limited. This approach is
ineffective and untimely. Thus, the Dakota Water Resources Act (DWRA)
is intended to take the wiser route by forestalling the impacts of
drought through wise planning and management of our available water
resources.
To fully appreciate what this scenario means to the Red River
Valley, one only needs to look at the potential impacts to Fargo.
Drought impacts would at the beginning, in progressive stage, go from
restrictions on lawn watering, require impacting Ashtabula Reservoir,
to cutting water supplies to industries, and, ultimately, to mandatory
water rationing of residential drinking water. This would virtually
shut down the economy of the Red River Valley and destroy their hopes
for the future. We hope that never happens.
Unfortunately, the noble goals of the DWRA, as they relate to the
needs and options for water supply in the Red River Valley, are not
being realized. It has been nearly two years since the passage of the
DWRA, and the studies required by the DWRA are still not fully underway
nor is the required Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
Following is a list of relevant dates that illustrate the slow and
cumbersome process that has occurred while trying to begin the required
studies. I will not take up your valuable time reading all of the dates
but submit them for the record (Appendix 1).* I have excerpted a few
dates which display the lengthy and poor track record on the MOU.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Appendix 1-15 have been retained in subcommittee files.
July 5, 2000--A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to study
the needs and options at the feasibility level with the
District and State Water Commission (SWC) is signed. (Appendix
2)
May 2001--The Bureau of Reclamation verbally indicates that
the existing MOU should be redone to include provisions of the
DWRA.
March 2002--The Bureau hands out, during a meeting, a draft
MOU and Cooperative Agreement to the SWC and the District.
August 20, 2002--MOU workshop held in Fargo.
November 6, 2002--The MOU is signed by the Bureau of
Reclamation.
From a perfectly valid MOU, to a decision to develop a new MOU and
then to get a new one signed took over two years. This is unacceptable,
even for a government agency.
At the time that this testimony was prepared, a Cooperative
Agreement necessary to authorize work on the RRV studies by the
District is yet to be signed.
These dates illustrate the unreasonable and unnecessary delays that
have taken place in regard to the Red River Valley studies. As you can
see, the Bureau of Reclamation's negotiation process is extremely
inefficient. The person designated to negotiate does not really have
the authority to negotiate. The Bureau representative provides language
to District for comment, the District responds in good faith, another
Bureau office changes their original language and then another round of
comments ensue.
This management style is particularly cumbersome, making
negotiation inefficient and progress on the actual studies and EIS,
which is required by the DWRA, minimal. We in North Dakota are
certainly lacking priority attention on the negotiation.
As we sit here today, the District has spent more than $600,000 on
the process trying to move things forward with little success. The
District's desire is to work with the Reclamation office to complete
the project as quickly as possible so the people of the Red River
Valley can be assured they will not suffer the devastating impacts when
an extended drought occurs.
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Jamison, thank you very much. I hope
you will not mind if on a personal level I say I know you have
been battling some health challenges, but you still--this
evening and in recent months, even as you have done that--have
been battling this water policy issue and we very much
appreciate your dedication to this issue and I appreciate you
being here this evening.
Next, let us hear from Genevieve Thompson representing
Audubon. Thank you very much for being here. I know you had
other commitments outside of the State, and made a change in
your plans in order to be here to testify. We appreciate that.
STATEMENT OF GENEVIEVE THOMPSON, VICE PRESIDENT AND EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR, AUDUBON'S STATE OFFICE FOR THE DAKOTAS
Ms. Thompson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before I begin I'd
also like to thank you and the subcommittee for holding this
important hearing. It's an example of the leadership you have
given us on natural resource management in the State. So on
behalf of all of the resource professionals in water, thanks
again.
With your permission, I'd like to submit my formal
testimony for the record and highlight the testimony with my
remarks this evening.
For the record, my name is Genevieve Thompson. I'm the vice
president and executive director of Audubon's State Office for
the Dakotas.
My testimony today is predicated on a strong personal and
professional commitment to the Red River Basin. My family and I
reside in Red River Basin.
Audubon has a long-standing commitment to proactively
solving problems in the Red River. At Audubon, we are currently
leading an effort to establish a 600-mile greenway along the
Red River. We serve on the executive committee on the Red River
Basin Institute for Research and Watershed Education. We are
working, as you know, to build a Audubon nature center for the
Fargo-Moorhead community, and we are working on both the
Technical and Study Review Teams for the Red River Valley Needs
Assessment.
As the subcommittee is aware, 45,000 square miles of Red
River Basin watershed has a host of competing demands: Water
quality, water supply, agriculture, recreation, mitigation of
flood damage, wildlife and habitat, natural resource
enhancement and the interaction between those and economic
strengthening of the region.
A large number of organizations are working to understand
these challenges. I want us to remember that the subject of our
hearing, the Red River Valley Water Supply Project isn't being
undertaken in a vacuum. It coincides with several watershed-
wide planning initiatives.
In my testimony, I provided a table of some of the
activities and initiatives ongoing. There is the Red River
Basin Commission, the Institute, the Greenway, the Red River
Basin Decision Information Network. Riparian Project, the
Corp's work, the Basinwide Flood/Waffle Initiative, the
International Red River Board. Obviously, there is a host of
efforts ongoing. And I think it's important that you hear
United States, Canada, interstate, tribal representation, and
you're doing so because the stakes are so important.
We have had a lot of damage in the past. This drought
represents potential great damage in the future. So, we need to
implement solutions and, I agree, as soon as possible. We hope
the Bureau places a similar priority in conducting these
studies. We also hope that the Bureau can take advantage of
some of the aforementioned initiatives so that we can come up
with a solution that works for everyone. The act has a clear
timetable and a clear mandate. We do believe that it should be
done with a fair and open process. If we can conduct it with an
unbiased and scientifically credible procedure, it's an
unbelievable opportunity to finally resolve some of the
controversy to avert lawsuits, and to get an actual sustainable
water supply established.
I hope, again, that the Bureau takes the study in an
inclusive manner, public involvement, if facilitated and
maximized, increases the likelihood of acceptance when
something is finally put forward. It is slow and cumbersome. I
have sat through many of these meetings and been privy to some
of the negotiations. But I do think the time we spend now will
hopefully limit the time in the longer term, when we come to an
implementation phase. It's painful, but hopefully it will
outcome, as you had mentioned, a faster implementation.
We certainly can't predict at this point what the preferred
options are, but there are just a few challenges that I'd like
to highlight as we move forward. We live in such an extreme
climate and in uncertainty of growth, so we hope and support
consideration of economic development that incorporates
research that reduces water use. Crystal Sugar is a good
example of a water user that has incorporated research to limit
their amount of water that they do use and still have a
profitable operation. Also, can we look at industries that are
less reliant on water. Marvin Windows, Microsoft Great Plains,
the Research and Technology Park at NDSU. Hopefully those will
move or forward in areas that we can supply water that are not
water-retentive.
Certainly, there is a long history of controversy about the
Missouri River. We encourage a thorough evaluation that
accomplishes an examination of those water demands.
I am mindful of the drought. I have monitored the drought.
There is a drought index. I'm concerned that we don't head into
a similar area as the Colorado River, the climate basin, that
we come up with a sustainable water supply so that would be
incorporated. That's why Minnesota has been leading the way in
identifying potential water sources that might be available in
the event of a drought. The Otter Tail River, some aquifers,
and I hope that we can continue to incorporated that as part of
the strategy, particularly in the short-term. It won't take
potentially 10 years or 5 years to identify and hopefully share
some of those resources.
Lastly, water conservation is certainly another area that
we would urge. Might I respectfully suggest that a delegation
from our work go to the American Water Works Association Water
Conservation Workshop. Coincidentally, it is in February and it
is in Florida. That might help recruitment.
Thank you again. We support an open and frank and credible
challenge. We support collaborations for watershed-based
planning and we wish that the health of our entire ecosystem be
maintained, human and otherwise. Thanks for the opportunity.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Thompson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Genevieve Thompson, Vice President and
Executive Director, Audubon's State Office for the Dakotas
Chairman Dorgan, Senators of the Subcommittee on Water and Power,
colleagues and participants, I would like to thank you for this
opportunity to provide requested testimony on the ``Red River Valley
Water Needs''. My name is Genevieve Thompson; I am the Vice President
and Executive Director of Audubon's state office for the Dakotas.
Before I begin my testimony, I would like to thank you, Senator
Dorgan, for your support of our collaborative efforts to solve the
challenges in the Red River Basin in a sustainable basis for the long
term. We appreciate your leadership and interest. My testimony today is
predicated on a strong personal and professional commitment to the Red
River Basin. My family and I reside in the Red River Basin, and we
therefore have a stake in our collective ability to provide for a
sustainable water supply over the long term. Audubon/Dakota has a
longstanding and demonstrated commitment to the Red River Basin. As a
direct outcome of our participation in the FEMA funded International
Flood Mitigation Initiative, Audubon/Dakota is leading the effort to
establish an interstate and international 600-river-mile Greenway on
the Red \1\ along the Red River of the North. Audubon/Dakota also
serves on the Executive Committee of the Red River Institute for
Research and Watershed Education.\2\ We are working concurrently to
establish an Audubon Nature Center for the Fargo-Moorhead community, to
promote an understanding of our natural world, and what it means to
live responsibly within the Red River ecosystem. Finally, Audubon/
Dakota serves on both the Technical Team and the Study Review Team for
the Red River Valley Needs and Options Report being prepared by the
Bureau of Reclamation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The mission of the Greenway on the Red is to promote the
development of a greenway system on the Red River and its tributaries
that mitigates floods and protects people through education and
partnerships that enhance the economy, environment and communities of
the Red River Basin.
\2\ The Red River Institute for Research and Watershed Education is
an international partnership of government agencies, basin
organizations, private sector professionals, and universities that
works to identify, prioritize and conduct flood damage reduction and
natural resource research within the Red River Basin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As the Subcommittee may be aware, the interstate and international
watershed of the Red River covers 45,000 square miles. Because the
basin is the remnant of glacial Lake Agassiz, the north-flowing Red
River mainstem and valley proper are very flat, with the outer edges of
the old lakeshore at 400 feet higher than the river's edge. The Red
River Basin is faced with competing demands for water quality; water
supply; mitigation of flood damage; agriculture; recreation and
wildlife habitat; and natural resource enhancement.
Although water resource protection/management in the Red River
Basin is complex and challenging, the Red River Valley Water Supply
Project (RRVWSP) coincides with several unprecedented basinwide water
planning initiatives. Many of these efforts were encouraged by the
International Joint Commission's report \3\ to the U.S. and Canadian
federal governments, which recommends that governments ``should develop
and implement comprehensive, multi-faceted plans.for concurrently
reducing flood damage, protecting and enhancing the natural
environment; and provide opportunities for multi jurisdictional problem
solving and the exchange of best practices information. '' In the same
year, Section 8 of the Dakota Water Resources Act called for ``an open
and public comprehensive study of the water quality and quantity needs
of the Red River Valley in North Dakota and possible options for
meeting those needs'', which is the genesis for the RRVWSP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Living with the Red, 2000
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 1 below summarizes many of the multi jurisdictional water
resource initiatives and projects that are currently ongoing in the Red
River Basin. These are in addition to the Red River Basin Commission,
which has taken leadership in setting a basinwide vision and
decisionmaking framework. These efforts can potentially contribute to
and/or benefit from the RRVWSP. They provide a means to ascertain how
water resources should be utilized and safeguarded over the long term
with multiple stakeholders in the Red River Basin.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ongoing initiative Description/stakeholders
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Red River Basin Institute for Research The Research ``Center'' of the
& Watershed Education. Institute is comprised of an
international partnership of
government agencies, private
and public basin
organizations, and university
professionals to identify
research needs in the Red
River Basin, and to ensure
research objectivity through
sound science and peer review.
The Watershed Education
``Center'' is working to
provide seamless watershed
education programs at K-12,
post-secondary and community
levels, with an emphasis on
developing leadership
throughout the basin. The
Institute's Research arm
serves as the technical
committee for the Greenway on
the Red.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greenway on the Red. Audubon/Dakota is working to
promote the development of a
600-river mile Greenway system
on the Red River of the North
and its tributaries from Lake
Traverse in South Dakota to
Lake Winnipeg in Manitoba,
with partners in North and
South Dakota, Minnesota and
Manitoba. Anticipated benefits
of this Greenway include flood
damage reduction, enhanced
water quality, improved
riparian habitat for birds and
other wildlife, riparian and
wetland restoration, increased
recreation and tourism, and
economic benefits to
agriculture and communities
adjacent to the Red River.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Red River Basin Decision Information Creates an internet-based data
Network (RRBDIN). dissemination system for the
Red River Basin, for
monitoring and decision-
making. Current and potential
data includes base map;
spatial data (i.e., imagery,
topography), water quality,
etc.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Red River Riparian Project. Works with landowners, project
sponsors and contributing
agencies to protect water
resources and improve water
quality through land
management planning and
restoration in the riparian
areas of the Red River Basin.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Red River Feasibility & Reconnaissance The basin-wide/main stem
Study. feasibility study being
implemented through the USACE
will provide a comprehensive
perspective of the basin's
water-related problems,
issues, needs, and
opportunities and a blueprint
and analytical tools for
future feasibility studies of
tributary sub-basins and
generate implementation
strategies for projects to
meet the subbasins' water
resource needs and
opportunities.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Basinwide Flood Control/Waffle Project. The Energy and Environmental
Research Center (EERC-UND) is
working to determine the
feasibility of developing a
basinwide system for temporary
storage of floodwaters
utilizing low-relief
(agricultural) fields bounded
by roads as temporary micro-
storage pools during major
flood events.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Red River Board Aquatic The International Red River
Ecosystem Health Committee. Board (IRRB) was formed to
consider water related issues
in the bi-national watershed
and to monitor the health of
the Red River transboundary
aquatic ecosystem; this
committee is working to
develop an integrated
biological and water quality
monitoring network.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minnesota Flood Damage Reduction Also referenced as the
(Workgroup) Initiative. ``Minnesota Mediation'' model,
this effort focuses on water
storage strategies and
projects that reduce flood
damage and also have natural
resource benefits. Some of
these projects involve flood
plain and wetlands
restoration. To date, the
state of Minnesota has
expended approximately $10
million on this initiative.
These land-based water storage
strategies theoretically
increase river base flows
during droughts, in tributary
streams and in the mainstem.
These water storage activities
also have the potential to
augment groundwater recharge.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Investigation of potential sources of The state of Minnesota (MN-DNR;
additional water in Minnesota for MPCA) is seeking solutions
North Dakota cities. within the Red River Basin to
address periodic and rare
droughts through the
identification of: 1)
potential water supply
alternatives during droughts;
2) water conservation
strategies; and 3) economic
development that is less
dependent on water
consumption.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Red River Basin Watershed Initiative This watershed-based strategy
[pending--USEPA]. addresses water resource
issues across state, federal
and international
jurisdictional boundaries. It
has been submitted to USEPA
for funding by the Red River
Basin Commission & the Red
River Basin Institute. The
goal of this Watershed
Initiative is to protect the
ecological integrity of the
Red River. Components to be
addressed by this goal include
flooding, adequate and clean
water, wildlife habitat, and
recreational and natural
aesthetic values.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conservation Reserve Enhancement The Proposal under development
Program (CREP) [pending--NRCS/FSA]. is for a multi-state CREP in
the Red River Basin. In
cooperation with multiple
agencies and landowners, the
CREP targets 200,000 acres for
restoration and management to
reduce flood damage, improve
water quality, and enhance
wildlife and fisheries
habitat.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Chairman, as you can see from the table, there are a host of
Federal, State and local entities both in the United States and in
Canada who are devoting considerable attention to solving the problems
of the Red River Basin. They are doing so because the stakes are great.
We cannot afford to duplicate past damage we have sustained in the
Basin from flooding and poor water resource protection. We need to
implement solutions. The table demonstrates a diversity of participants
who are dedicated to sustainable, justifiable, and affordable solutions
to problems. In addition, these participants feel this is a high
priority issue worthy of their participation.
Audubon/Dakota hopes that the Bureau of Reclamation places the same
high priority on their approach to conducting the Red River Valley
Water Supply Project. The Dakota Water Resources Act established a
clear mandate and timetables. Audubon agrees that this study is
critical and should be undertaken. In addition, we believe it should be
undertaken using a fair and open process, and conducted with unbiased
and scientifically sound procedures. This effort provides an
unprecedented opportunity to resolve the longstanding issue of Red
River Basin water supply. It is essential for the Bureau to undertake
an impartial, peer reviewed study. The study design should be
comprehensive and integrate the needs and alternatives with all of the
other Red River Basin efforts being undertaken. The Bureau can obtain
essential objectivity by utilizing existing research capability within
the Valley such as the Red River Basin Institute, or through an
external science review panel.
It is unclear whether the Bureau has undertaken this study in a
consistently fair and inclusive manner. The Specific Plans of Study as
proposed by the Bureau of Reclamation for the Needs and Options Report
and EIS requires the assessment of multiple variables of water need
(i.e., existing and future MR&I; rural, aquatic environmental;
recreation; etc.), as well as the identification of options to meet
those needs. It is imperative that these studies, subsequent
recommendations, and the analysis of the positive and negative impacts
of those recommendations are conducted in an open and ``transparent''
process that is fair, open, and maintains scientific credibility.
Public involvement should be facilitated and maximized, to increase the
likelihood of subsequent acceptance and implementation. Initially, this
is likely to be a cumbersome and slow process. However, adherence to
sound science and stakeholder participation will save time in the long
term, because it will help to ensure that the option(s) selected to
meet the credible water needs of the Red River Basin are economically
feasible, ecologically sound, and can be implemented.
While it is premature to dictate what the preferred option(s) will
be prior to the implementation of the Plans of Study and analysis of
alternatives, both individually and in a range of combinations, several
challenges exist at the outset to the effective implementation of the
Bureau's Red River Valley Water Supply Project Needs and Options study.
These include:
The region experiences temporal and spatial extremes in
precipitation patterns that range from severe flooding as a
result of spring runoff and/or heavy summer rainfall events, to
prolonged droughts as seen in the period between 1988-1992.
This exacerbates the difficulty of accurately projecting water
needs from both a population demand standpoint and from an
industrial needs perspective. The suggestion by stakeholders
within the Basin that some of the uncertainty associated with
projecting industrial needs might be ameliorated by encouraging
economic development that is less reliant upon water
consumption is worthy of consideration. Examples include
Microsoft Great Plains, Marvin Windows and the NDSU Research &
Technology Park. Audubon/Dakota also encourages and supports
research that helps industries find ways to reduce water use
such as American Crystal Sugar.
There is a long history of controversy and opposition
surrounding the alternative of transferring water from the
Missouri to the Red River Basin. An unbiased evaluation of all
available alternatives as assessed in the Plans of Studies will
help to evaluate and ameliorate this controversy. With regard
to alternatives that involve the delivery of Missouri River
water to the Red River Valley, the evaluation process should
address:
--the impact of water removed for the Red River
Valley singularly, and in combination with all of the
other current and projected demands and withdrawals
from the Missouri River;
--the likelihood that if drought conditions create
water shortages in the Red River Basin, is the Missouri
River Basin similarly stressed and in a low-water
condition;
--if the Red River Basin is dependent upon a water
supply that is outside the hydrologic basin and that
supply becomes impeded, do demands within the Missouri
River Basin (i.e., Montana, South Dakota, etc.) take
precedence;
--the assessment of interbasin transfer of water from
the Missouri River to the Red River Basin should
include an analysis of the potential risks that may
result from invasive species and/or foreign biota
transfers, and from potential habitat or wetland loss.
Minnesota has provided leadership through the Technical
Team/Study Review Team in the identification of potential
solutions within the Red River Basin to address both periodic
and extreme drought conditions. They are working on a more in-
depth assessment of water sources that include groundwater and
base flow in rivers such as the Otter Tail, which could be a
potential source of water to the Red River Basin during drought
conditions.
The evaluation of sustainable strategies to meet Red River
Basin water needs should address options that may require
accompanying changes in current water policy. For example, the
Red River Valley MR&I Water Needs Assessment documented regions
within the Basin where 82-97% of the current permitted use was
in irrigation, for aquifers where rural water systems use
groundwater sources. In the future it may be judicious to have
a strategy in place that enables the transfer of these
``allocations'' from irrigation to rural water systems when it
is necessary to meet rural water system shortages.
This process represents an excellent opportunity to identify
and implement basinwide water conservation and reuse strategies
that could contribute significantly to reducing water supply
demands in the Red River Basin. There are proven models both
nationally and internationally, that include incentive programs
for water-efficient appliances; leak and system loss detection;
use of ``gray water'' where appropriate; xerioscape landscaping
practices; and education/outreach programs. A good first step
may be for a delegation of city and state representatives
working on Red River Valley water needs to attend the American
Water Works Association's upcoming, ``Water Conservation
Workshop'', February 20-22, 2003 in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.
Basinwide hydrologic modeling is not yet complete, yet the
information is essential to realistically estimate Red River
flows during drought cycles (i.e., when tributaries on the
southeast and east in Minnesota are believed to contribute most
of the water). It is hoped that the Bureau will take advantage
of ongoing hydrologic modeling efforts in the Basin, such as
the Digital Elevation Modeling and Floodplain Mapping Summit
being coordinated by the Red River Basin Institute.
There are a very large number of essential stakeholders
involved, across state and national borders. Stakeholder
coordination is time consuming and challenging, but it is
crucial if the outputs of the RRVWSP are to obtain both
scientific credibility and widespread public acceptance. The
current composition of the Technical Team and the Study Review
Team for the Red River Studies represents a broad cross-section
of stakeholders. The diversity of stakeholder representation
and professional expertise across state and national boundaries
should be maintained.
The process before us, as lined out in the Draft Master Plan of
Study for the Red River Valley Water Supply Project and the EIS, is
daunting. There are a number of complex and interrelated variables and
unknowns, compounded by an overarching mandate to consider the
comprehensive water quality and quantity needs of the Red River Basin,
in the context of MR&I, aquatic environment, recreation, and water
conservation. In addition to the needs, there are multiple potential
and interactive alternatives to meet those needs, with a diversity of
users and stakeholders. Water is a precious resource, and the
strategies that evolve from the Red River Valley Water Supply Project
to meet the needs of the Red River Basin must also be sustainable, and
environmentally sound. Audubon/Dakota supports an open and
scientifically credible process to ascertain needs and strategies. We
believe that the Bureau needs to exert strong leadership to move this
important issue forward in an open, proactive, and scientifically
credible process. We strongly support collaboration with ongoing
efforts at watershed-based planning to ensure that the health of the
Red River Basin ecosystem is maintained over the long-term.
Senator Dorgan. Ms. Thompson, thank you very much. I must
say, when you asked that there be a comprehensive evaluation of
the Missouri River, you certainly are getting your wish. Twelve
years is about as comprehensive as this country can possibly
provide.
Ms. Thompson. We appreciate that, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Dorgan. Let me call next on Michael Dwyer, North
Dakota Water Users.
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL DWYER, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, NORTH
DAKOTA WATER USERS ASSOCIATION
Mr. Dwyer. Mr. Chairman, Senator Dorgan, I also thank you
for the opportunity to testify, and thank you for the
subcommittee holding this hearing. Much of what can be said has
been said already here tonight, but I'd just like to add a few
things.
First of all, I'd like the committee to know that there is
Statewide support--strong Statewide support for this issue of a
water supply for the Red River Valley. If you look at the
testimony that--the written testimony that I have, you will see
that the North Dakota Water Users Association is part of the
North Dakota Water Coalition which consists of over 30
organizations that have come together in a united manner to
support the Dakota Water Resources Act, and are now supporting
this effort to address and solve the problems of a lack of
adequate water for the Red River Valley. You'll see that all
the cities are involved, that the rural electrics are involved,
the business community, the agriculture community, the
education community, the Indian community and, of course, the
water community all participate in the Water Coalition, and we
strongly support and are deeply concerned about this current
effort to provide a water supply to the Red River Valley.
Now, Warren has adequately addressed the issue of drought
and the fact in many areas of the country, the drought that is
being experienced is greater than the droughts that were
experienced in the 1930's. We know that the Red River went dry
for a continuous period in each year of the 1930's and so, if
we experienced a drought that exceeded that benchmark, we would
indeed have a catastrophe on our hands.
I'd also like to mention that the Bureau does need to be
complimented for the work that it did in the NAWS project. It
provided meticulous attention to detail and was very thorough,
and its work should help us withstand the litigation that is
being filed there. But at the same time, I think the Bureau
sometimes pays too much attention to the naysayers--the people
that would have us do nothing in the valley--that would have us
not provide adequate water supply. I think we need to look at
the NAWS project as an example of, if you think that you're
going to avert litigation by doing everything possible, look at
the NAWS project. The Bureau, the State had done everything
possible. I don't think there could be an organism that
possibly could be moved in that project, yet we are being
subject to litigation assault. Sometimes we need to move
forward, as Genevieve said, we need to be careful. We need to
be inclusive. But at the same time, we can't not move forward
because there are naysayers that say there might be a problem
or two.
I think we also to need to look at the Corps of Engineers
on the Missouri River as an example of long-term delay. We
cannot afford to have another government example of that kind
of delay.
In conclusion, I would say that the Red River Valley needs
a dependable water supply for the cities of Fargo, Grand Forks,
smaller communities, rural water systems, industries, ag
processing, manufacturing and other purposes to protect and
enhance the economic stability and the quantity of life for the
exploding population in the Red River Basin. The failure to
address the water supply needs of the Red River Basin would
jeopardize our economic stability, including industry, ag
processing, manufacturing, and municipal growth, and will
adversely affect the lives of people who are suffering from
both poor quality or inadequate quantities of water and that
also will also have a negative impact on the entire State of
North Dakota.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Dwyer follows:]
Prepared Statement of Michael Dwyer, Executive Vice President,
North Dakota Water Users Association
i. introduction
Senator Dorgan, thank you for the opportunity to talk to you today
about the critical water needs of the Red River Valley. My name is
Michael Dwyer and I am the Executive Vice President of the North Dakota
Water Users Association. I am speaking today on behalf of grassroots
water users and members across North Dakota. We currently have more
than 1,000 members representing individuals, businesses, water
districts, irrigators and companies across our great state of North
Dakota.
The North Dakota Water Users has joined together with other
statewide and regional organizations to form the North Dakota Water
Coalition, which is a coalition of regional and statewide organizations
in North Dakota that have come together for the purpose of completing
North Dakota's water infrastructure for economic growth and quality of
life. We are especially concerned about the water supply needs of the
Red River Valley.
The North Dakota Water Coalition considers the water supply needs
of the Red River Valley to be a critical priority for all of North
Dakota. The Water Coalition includes the following groups:
Associated General Contractors of North Dakota
BOMMM Joint Water Resource Board
Cass County Joint Water Resource Board
City of Bismarck
City of Devils Lake
City of Dickinson
City of Fargo
City of Grand Forks
City of Minot
City of Williston/Upper Lake Sakakawea Planning Co.
Devils Lake Basin Joint Board
Eastern Dakota Water Users
Economic Development Association of ND
Garrison Diversion Conservancy District
Greater North Dakota Association
ND County Commissioners Association
North Dakota Association of Rural Electric Coop.
North Dakota Atmospheric Resource Board
North Dakota Education Association
North Dakota Farm Bureau
North Dakota Farmers Union
North Dakota Irrigation Caucus
North Dakota League of Cities
North Dakota Municipal Bond Bank
North Dakota Rural Water Systems Association
North Dakota State Water Commission
North Dakota Water Resource Districts Association
North Dakota Water Users Association
North Dakota Weather Modification Association
Red River Joint Water Board
Souris River Joint Water Resource Board
Southwest Water Authority
Three Affiliated Tribes
West River Joint Water Board
Government does a better job of responding to disasters than it
does in preparing for those situations in advance. Those of us involved
in water in North Dakota can easily see that we are facing potential
critical water shortages in the Red River Valley in the future. We also
can see those areas in the Red River Valley where the water quality is
not fit to drink. It is for these reasons that there is such strong and
broad-based support in North Dakota for the Dakota Water Resources Act,
and the Red River Valley water supply component of that Act.
ii. drought readiness
Unless you have chosen to put your head in the sand, one cannot
help recognize that many areas of our country have suffered drought
conditions over the past few years far greater than the drought
conditions of the 1930's. During the 1930's, the Red River itself,
which is the source of water for many of the water supply needs of the
Red River Valley, was completely dry for several extended periods of
time. Not a single drop of water was flowing.
Listen to a recollection of former North Dakota Governor William
Guy: If you were to look at the Red River near the water plant in the
1930's, you would wonder how they ever made the water fit to drink. The
searing hot drought hung heavily over the Upper Midwest through the
entire decade of the 1930's. The Geological Survey records say that the
murky Red River ceased to flow at Fargo for a period in every year of
that decade. The driest year was 1936 when the Red River stopped
flowing for 166 continuous days. Cars were not washed. Lawns were
unsprinkled. There was talk of returning the Fargo Sewage Plant
discharge to the river above the city water intake. Moorhead was
drawing all of its water from wells east of the city and their tap
water tasted good. With a population of around 25,000, Fargo's water
situation was desperate. . . . Today both Fargo and Moorhead draw their
water from the Red River while their combined population has increased
five fold from the dry 1930's. Industries not even dreamed of 65 years
ago now use copious amounts of Red River water. It is easy to
understand why the Garrison Diversion Project to bring Missouri River
water east to the Red River Valley has been on the minds of thinking
people for more than 50 years.
When you consider that some areas are experiencing drought
conditions worse than the 1930's, and you look at the drought
conditions in the Red River Valley in the 1930's, it is not a question
of whether we are going to face those conditions in the future, but it
is only a matter of when. To not be prepared to address such conditions
when we know they will occur is extremely poor government. Rather than
responding to a disaster, we should prepare for a certain future, and
leave the legacy for our children, grandchildren, and great-
grandchildren, that we looked into that past, and learning from the
past, satisfied the water supply needs of the future. That is why we
have so strongly supported the Dakota Water Resources Act, and the
provisions of that Act that address the water supply needs of the Red
River Valley.
iii. red river valley studies and environmental impact statement
It has been two years since the passage of the Dakota Water
Resources Act, and little of the work called for under that Act to
address the water supply needs of the Red River Valley has been
completed. We applaud the Bureau of Reclamation's thoroughness and
meticulous attention to details in its work related to the Northwest
Area Water Supply Project (NAWS), particularly as it relates to the
environmental assessment and the Finding Of No Significant Impact
(FONSI) on that project. That project will likely be able to withstand
the legal challenges that it is facing because of the careful approach
utilized by the Bureau of Reclamation. We understand that thoroughness
and carefulness must also be applied by the Bureau of Reclamation to
the Dakota Water Resources Act, and the studies for the water supply
needs of the Red River Valley called for under that Act. Yet, we must
also not shirk our duty due to the threats of nay sayers that would
prefer us to do nothing. We must move forward in a vigorous and
aggressive matter, recognizing that the water supply needs of the Red
River Valley are North Dakota's most critical long-term water supply
need.
If you review the demographics of our state, it is easy to see that
the Red River Valley will continue to grow in population. It is
estimated that the city of Fargo itself will be a city of over 20,000
within the next 20 years. Whatever the exact population turns out to
be, we do know that the population of the valley, and particularly the
city of Fargo, is expanding by leaps and bounds.
We cannot afford to have another government example of long-term
delay and inaction. The Corps of Engineers is entering its fourteenth
(14th) year of studying the Missouri River mainstem dam operations
master manual. The Bureau of Reclamation must not impose a similar
travesty on the people of North Dakota or the Congress, which
authorized the Dakota Water Resources Act. A management system must be
developed which allows these important studies to move forward and be
completed, so that the Congress and the state of North Dakota can take
the next step of implementing measures to address the long-term water
supply needs of the Red River Valley.
iv. conclusion
Benjamin Franklin once said ``When the well is dry, we know the
worth of water''. North Dakotans cannot afford to wait until the well
is dry before we address the water supply needs of the Red River
Valley. As I said at the beginning of my testimony, government does a
better job of responding to disasters than preparing for the future,
but we know the worth of water, and we must prepare for the future.
On behalf of the North Dakota Water Coalition, and all of the
members and organizations participating in that Water Coalition, we do
not want to put undue focus on the delays of the last two years.
However, we would like to focus on the critical nature of this issue,
and urge the committee in partnership with the Bureau of Reclamation
and the state of North Dakota, to assist in making sure that the next
two years are fruitful in terms of effort in completing the studies
that are necessary before long-term measures to address the water
supply needs of the Red River Valley can be implemented.
The Red River Valley needs a dependable water supply for the cities
of Fargo, Grand Forks, smaller communities, rural water systems,
industry, ag processing, manufacturing, and other purposes, to protect
and enhance the economic stability and quality of life for the
exploding population in the Red River Basin. Failure to address the
water supply needs of the Red River Basin will jeopardize our economic
stability, including industry, ag processing, manufacturing, and
municipal growth, and will adversely affect the lives of people who are
suffering from both poor quality or inadequate quantities of water, as
well as the entire state of North Dakota.
Thank you very much.
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Dwyer, thank you very much.
I should say that while I have great angst about the time
line here, I indicated Ms. Bach is a dedicated public servant.
The Bureau was very helpful on NAWS, no question about that,
and I think the suit that's been filed by Canada has no merit.
So if anybody is within listening distance that can dismiss
that, feel free to do it, but I think it has no merit because
the Bureau did what it should have done at the front end of
this process. I perhaps should have said that at the start.
But coming back to this issue of the Red River Valley, my
great concern is this potential spreading of the drought could
be, as--you used the word catastrophe, Mr. Dwyer--I think it
could be catastrophic for the Red River Valley. This is the one
area of the State that is growing, growing very rapidly. I will
just give you a couple statistics. The demographer for the
State says that in 1980, we had 652,000 citizens. He says in
the year 2020, we're going to have 651,000 citizens. In other
words, what he's saying in 40 years, we'll have about the same
number of people, except Fargo will have 60,000 more people,
and Bismarck will have 20,000 more people. Grand Forks and
Minot will have about the same population. So, the State will
have about the State population. The four largest cities, two
of them will be unchanged, two of them will be up a combined
80,000, which means the remaining 300,000 people which live in
the 95 percent of the State, there will be a 25 to 30 percent
reduction in population in the next 30 to 40 years. Pretty
ominous. So facing all these challenges, and understanding that
the one portion of the State that has really grown is
particularly Cass County, particularly in the Red River Valley,
but that growth is dependent on assured long-term supply of
water and the potential of a drought spreading over a period of
years causing catastrophic economic consequences here in the
Red River Valley. I think is appropriate for us to say wait a
second, we better get moving, we better get something done.
This ought not be business as usual. And that's the point I'm
making this evening.
Mr. Jamison, you've heard the discussion about missed
deadlines. I ask the question, was there kind of a fan dance
here between the State, the Bureau and the Conservancy District
trying to figure out who was supposed to do what and does that
take too long, or was this just being extra careful?
Mr. Jamison. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the question. It
took too long, obviously. Who's to blame? That would be an easy
game to get into.
Let me discuss the process a little bit that has frustrated
me. In negotiating contracts, somebody usually starts the
process by putting a piece of paper on the table. Normally, we
would assume that that piece of paper has been cleared, and is
ready to negotiate on it. In too many cases, we have responded
to the piece of paper, or an initial draft of an agreement,
commented on it, or comments have been accepted or largely
accepted only to find out that the basic piece of paper that we
started negotiating on has been changed again, or--changed by
some other office. And I think, and maybe I'm a part of the
problem because I had so many years of Federal service. As you
know, I was a Federal official, and I was sued by environmental
organizations, many lawsuits, so I'm very familiar with this
process. Maybe too familiar. But one of things that tends to
happen, not just from the Bureau of Reclamation and lot of
Federal agencies, I have worked for several, is you're
negotiating with a back bench that you can't see. It's not the
person you're sitting across the table with, but the person--
we've sat across the table. People we sat across from table
from are honorable and worked very well with us. What happens
to them is that somebody on the back bench someplace in another
office then pulls the paper back, changes it and leaves the
untoward situation of the person your negotiating with have to
come back and start the process all over again.
I'm a firm believer that to make an efficient organization
people to have to be personally accountable. Personally
impassioned about something, and government is another big
organization, but it's not limited to government. It can happen
to any of us. But until you designate somebody, that person
feels it's personally his or her responsibility to make it
happen in a reasonable time frame, the system will take over,
and you will just get eaten up slowly but surely by review
after review after review. And what I think is needed is a
passionate person to be dedicated to this job, and to have the
authority and the chutzpa, if you will, to go back to the back
bench and say look, we're already through that.
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Jamison, you have been at this a long
time. Tell me what you think the time estimate is going to be--
what is the real time estimate of when folks here in the Red
River Valley might expect a needs assessment to be completed,
and then expect action to take to respond to the needs
assessment?
Mr. Jamison. In my judgment, 2 years would be the time
frame for a study. Now, there are considerable challenges. Ms.
Thompson has indicated a number of interesting things that we
should look at and we should, but I still think that the
engineering work can be done in 2 years. Now it will require
close cooperation. It will require multitasking. We'll have to
do several things at once. We can't stop because somebody
writes us a nasty letter, and we go focus on that for a while.
We have to keep on going on a lot of different fronts at one
time. But from an engineering prospective we should be able to
get the needs and options study and an analysis of alternative
studies in 2 years. Certainly the environmental impact
statement that accompanies that should follow closely behind
that.
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Dwyer, I want to ask you and Ms.
Thompson both about the subject of conservation because in Ms.
Thompson's testimony, she talked about conservation a fair
amount and it is the case, is it not, that there are several
ways to develop new supplies of water. One is to find a new
supply of water and, second is to conserve water that would
otherwise have been used, provided that you don't conserve it
at the expense of your economy. Tell me about conservation and
your view of conservation as part of this process.
Mr. Dwyer. Senator Dorgan, I do disagree with Ms.
Thompson's statement that we have to look for industry that is
less dependent on water. I think we ought to look for all
industry, and there are some industries that are less dependent
on water, and there is some industry is water-intensive and we
ought not to say well, we are not going to try to develop and
solicit those industries that use a lot of water because that's
only taking half of the whole. I think we need to develop every
possible opportunity that we can in our economy because we need
that. Now, certainly we shouldn't encourage any wasteful use of
water. Certainly we ought to encourage conservation that
involves not wasting water, but it does not, it does not
include limiting our opportunities.
Senator Dorgan. Ms. Thompson, would you agree that getting
it right--we have heard that phrase several times--getting
right has several different meanings? One is doing it the right
way, crossing all the t's, dotting all the i's, making sure you
covered it all. But, second, getting it right would also mean
getting these things done in time that Fargo and Grand Forks
and the Red River Valley not be hung out to dry with the
encroaching drought that could very well be catastrophic to
their economies, having the opportunity to put in place some
kind of mechanism to assure a water supply before that would
happen. Is that also part of getting it right in your
assessment?
Ms. Thompson. I think they're both certainly elements of
getting it right. I think on the former, the idea is if the
plans of study and the overlap between them are undertaken so
they're peer-reviewable, then no one can come back later and
say in a letter or a dart or what have you that was done under
cloak of darkness, that was a relationship that was
inappropriate. If those studies are peer-reviewable, i.e., you
know, through an institute, or we have a great university
system in the Basin--if the studies themselves stand alone,
then that part of the crossing of the t's and the i's obviates
subsequent lawsuits because they've already taken all of those
variables.
The other part of getting it right, I think, does tie into
at least my interest in looking at conservation as one avenue.
North Carolina was faced until quite recently with a very
significant drought, and they experienced a 20 percent
reduction in demand just based on, you know, conservation
measures that the communities could implement. So, as we look
at some of the options, you know, can we do different lawn
kinds of care, a whole host of different things.
My interest, I think, is in getting those conservation
strategies that can address the short-term. Even, no matter
what option is taken, we're looking at the implementation time
frame that you were asking about. So can we have a first tier?
It's my understanding when you look at ground water based
irrigation in the Basin. Maybe, I think there is precedence for
farmers to have a drought insurance program in areas of severe
drought that ensure irrigation allotment can go to
municipalities in payment of a drought insurance payment. It's
my wish that through this process we can identify not just one
avenue, but a whole host of complementary avenues that are
either greater or lesser. That might be one.
Again, the interest, my understanding that east of the Red,
rather than west of the Red, that's where a lot of the water
stays when we start to dry out on the North Dakota side, so I
think it's identifying, and maybe prioritizing in a temporal
way the things that can be implemented sooner, the things that
can be, or should be implemented on a longer scale.
Senator Dorgan. Let me describe why I wanted to hold this
hearing now. I think the Bureau has some very dedicated
employees. I have seen a lot of the good work they've done. I
think the Conservancy District has good leadership. I have
worked with Mr. Jamison for a long time. I have admiration for
Mr. Frink and the folks at the State Water Commission. So we
have a number of different entities involved in this process,
and I have respect for all of them. But it seems to me that you
have to have some markers here in this process, and what I want
to do is set the marks here to figure out where we are going
and how we are going to get there and when we are going to get
there. And I held a hearing on trade about 10 months ago on
international trade issues and had Ambassador Johnson in front
of me. He told me what he was going to do. I said I tell you
what, I'm going to hold another hearing 6 to 8 months from now,
and you're going to come up here and sit at this table and we
are going to find out what you've done. Well, I called him 2
weeks ago and said you don't have to do that hearing because
you did exactly what you told me you were going to do. But that
happened, I'm convinced, not because he was spending a lot of
time trying to figure out how he should do it, but because he
knew he was going to have to be called to a hearing and answer
to it. And so he got it done.
I want the same thing to happen with this project. The
Congress with great angst passed an authorization bill. It's
not perfect, and there are people who wish it had never passed.
But in that authorization bill, a significant piece, $200
million, and a process which involved the partnerships
determined how we were going to assess the needs of the Red
River Valley and then go about meeting those needs. That
process is not an open-ended process. It's not out in Never-
Never Land. And the encroaching drought, I think, ought to
persuade all us there is some urgency here.
So, what I'm going to do with this hearing is set some
markers. I know there are many people here from water
commissions and boards throughout the region. I'm going to ask
any of you who wish, you want to have a statement from your
particular water board or commission as a part of this
permanent record, feel free to submit that statement to my
office or the Senate Energy Committee within 2 weeks. We'll
make that part of this hearing, and my hope is that this
hearing can establish a record that we can measure against next
year, the year after and the year after that as we move down
this road because this problem is one that begs or a solution,
and it, too, has been going on for some long, long while. We
have a Phase I study, a Phase II study, and now we are going to
duplicate part of that. I understand why all this is going on.
But, still and all, in the end we need to address the
proposition that some day in some way this vibrant part of the
State's economy could find itself short of water or out of
water. If that happens, it will be ruinous to the economy in
this part of North Dakota, and we should not let that happen.
So I want to thank the folks who have presented testimony this
evening, and we will use the results of this hearing and all
that you submit between now and the final two weeks from
various parts of our State as the marker by which we will try
to measure next year and the year after that what is happening
here to satisfy the needs--the water needs of the Red River
Valley that's contemplated in the authorization bill that
Congress passed two years ago.
Thank you all for attending. This hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 8:35 p.m. the hearing was adjourned.]
APPENDIX
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
----------
Chamber of Commerce of Fargo Moorhead,
Fargo, ND, December 7, 2002.
Senator Byron Dorgan,
U.S. Senate, Hart Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Dorgan: As you know, the Chamber of Commerce of Fargo
Moorhead is a bi-state, regional chamber of commerce with more than
1,600 member firms that collectively employ more than 66,000 people in
our region. Our mission is unifying and advancing business and
community interests in our region.
This letter is written to thank you for conducting a field hearing
on Monday, December 9th in Fargo to examine the Red River Valley's
water needs and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation's lack of progress on a
series of water projects authorized by the Dakota Water Resources Act,
which you sponsored and which our Chamber has strongly encouraged and
supported in the past.
As you know, adequate, available and carefully managed water
resources are important to citizens, commerce and communities
throughout our region and in fact across our entire nation. Periods of
both drought and deluge have negatively impacted our community and
region in the past, adversely affecting our economy, community
infrastructure and daily life. They have also had a negative impact on
federal, state and local government operations and budgets.
We appreciate your using your position as Chairman of the U.S.
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on Water and Power to
conduct this field hearing and receive testimony from a variety of
entities that are concerned about water resources and water resource
issues in the Red River Basin. We also appreciate your efforts to work
with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation to encourage the Bureau to improve
the Red River Valley's water supply in the future.
Warm regards always,
David K. Martin,
Public Affairs Director.
______
Moorhead Public Service,
Moorhead, MN, December 20, 2002.
Hon. Byron Dorgan,
U.S. Senate, Hart Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Dorgan: Thank you for conducting the field hearing on
Monday, December 9, 2002, in Fargo, to examine the Red River Valley's
water needs and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation's lack of progress on a
series of water projects authorized by the Dakota Water Resources Act.
The City of Moorhead believes that addressing the water resource needs
of the Red River Valley is extremely important for the future economy
of this region.
You mentioned at the December 9 hearing that you were accepting
statements for the record for the Red River Valley water needs.
Attached is the presentation from Mayor Mark Voxland of the City of
Moorhead, along with a resolution from the Moorhead City Council which
address the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation's Red River Valley Supply
Project. Moorhead supports having Minnesota communities in the Red
River Valley included in future studies and projects for water resource
needs addressed in the Dakota Water Resources Act.
Moorhead is working very hard to ensure a sufficient supply of
water for its economy well into the future. Please enter Mayor Mark
Voxland's presentation and the Moorhead City Council's resolution into
the record. We appreciate your work as chairman of the U.S. Senate
Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on Water and Power. We also
appreciate that you conducted the field hearing and received
testimonies on the issue of water resources in the Red River Valley.
Thank you for all you do for this region.
Sincerely,
Bill Schwandt, PE MBA,
General Manager.
Presentation for the Red River Valley Water Supply Project Environment
Impact Statement Scoping Meeting
October 28, 2002
To participants of the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation's Red River
Valley Water Supply Project. My name is Mayor Mark Voxland. I am the
Mayor of Moorhead, Minnesota. I would like to thank you for the
opportunity to speak to you this evening on an issue that is very
important to the city of Moorhead. We would like to have the comments
and the resolution that I will provide submitted for your consideration
as you work on this Environmental Impact Statement of the Red River
Valley Water Supply Project.
I read on the front cover of the Red River Valley Water Needs
Assessment, Phase II, the mission of the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation.
That mission is to, ``manage, develop, and protect water and related
resources in an environmentally and economically sound manner in the
interest of the American public.'' It disturbs me when I read through
the Volume 1, Issue 1, Red River Valley Water Supply Project
Environmental Impact Statement Newsletter, November 2002, and find that
any reference to the previously included communities in Minnesota are
absent.
It is my understanding that Minnesota communities of Moorhead,
Breckenridge, and East Grand Forks were included in the U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation, Red River Valley Water Needs Assessment, Phase II,
Appraisal of Alternatives to Meet Project Shortages report. On Page 2-
10, in Table 2.6, ``Shortages for Cities, Industries and Rural Systems
in the Red River Valley,'' included Moorhead with the reference to a
1934 shortage and a cumulative 54-year shortage during the study period
of 24,870 acre-feet.
Moorhead is working very hard to supply water for its economy well
into the future. In 1995, Moorhead completed a new water treatment
facility that strategically shifted its resources away from taking
water from our Buffalo Aquifer in order to reserve that water for
periods of long-term drought. Therefore, Moorhead takes approximately
80 percent of its water from the Red River of the North. Moorhead has
worked extremely hard to develop measures to protect he sensitive
Buffalo Aquifer. Moorhead, like the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, is
looking 10 years into the future when Moorhead has grown and there is
more demand for its water apply resources.
The Phase II report shows significant shortages under either the
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation's or Moorhead's and other participants' year
2050 projections. This is the concern of Moorhead.
The significant concern of Moorhead, at this time, is the fact that
Moorhead and other Minnesota communities could be eliminated from
further studies of the Garrison Diversion Project. Moorhead believes
that it would be very unfortunate when the Missouri River project is
finally completed and Moorhead may not be able to receive water from
that project for future economic growth of all Red River Valley
communities on both sides of the Red River.
As I mentioned previously, at the present time Moorhead has enough
water for normal growth, even in a drought situation because of the
strategic efforts that will continue into the future. Moorhead,
however, does believe that future economic development efforts to
attract business and industry into our community will require water
supplies that are greater than what we currently have. The Missouri
River water is a water supply necessity for Moorhead.
Finally, Moorhead shares the Red River of the North as a water
supply resource with other Minnesota and North Dakota communities. The
city of Moorhead is very concerned about water resources for the
existing and future municipal and industrial water uses. We have plans
in place to use water in the most efficient manner. Moorhead is part of
the Red River Valley. Moorhead believes that it, and other Minnesota
Red River Valley communities, should be included in the Red River
Valley Water Supply Project and other studies subsequent to studies
that are being proposed.
Therefore, as the Mayor of Moorhead and along with the Moorhead
City Council, we request that the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, once
again, include the Minnesota communities in the Red River Valley Water
Supply Project. I have a resolution from the Moorhead City Council and
me, which I would like to submit to you.
Once again, thank you for the opportunity to speak to you about
this issue. We ask that you will take our comments very seriously. If
there are any questions or concerns, I encourage you to please contact
me.
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the development of a reliable water supply for the Red
River Valley has been a subject of great interest to Red River Valley
residents of both eastern North Dakota and western Minnesota,
government agencies, and entities concerned with water management and
development; and
WHEREAS, although rivers in the Red River Valley are prone to
flooding and excessive runoff, there are also periods of low flow and
drought conditions; and
WHEREAS, Moorhead and other Minnesota communities in the Red River
Valley are vital to the success of the region and provide resources for
the regional economy; and
WHEREAS, in 1994, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation began a planning
study called the Red River Valley Water Needs Assessment to investigate
and evaluate existing and future municipal, rural, and industrial water
use in the Red River Valley communities; and
WHEREAS, from 1994 to 2000, Moorhead, East Grand Forks, and
Breckenridge were included in the study; and
WHEREAS, Phase II of the Red River Valley Water Needs Assessment
included water needs and several alternatives to meet the needs of both
eastern North Dakota and western Minnesota communities in the Red River
Valley; and
WHEREAS, the Dakota Water Resources Act of 2000 (DWRA) was signed
into law on December 21, 2000, which authorizes the Red River Valley
Water Supply Project; and
WHEREAS, Section 8 (b)(1) of Public Law 106 554 states ``The
Secretary of the Interior shall conduct a comprehensive study of the
water quality and quantity needs of the Red River Valley in North
Dakota (emphasis added) and possible options for meeting those needs'';
and
WHEREAS, a 2002 Memorandum of Understanding was developed between
the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and the State of North Dakota for
implementation of the DWRA; and
WHEREAS, Minnesota cities in the Red River Valley were removed from
the Red River Valley Water Supply Project in both the DWRA and in the
2002 Memorandum of Understanding; and
WHEREAS, Moorhead and other communities have been asked to provide
comments at the Public Scoping meeting in Fargo, North Dakota, on
October 28, 2002, to discuss the Red River Valley Water Supply Project
Environmental Impact Statement; and
WHEREAS, Moorhead shares the Red River as a water supply resource
with other Minnesota and North Dakota communities; and
WHEREAS, the City of Moorhead is very concerned about water
resources for the existing and future municipal and industrial water
use in the city; and
WHEREAS, the City of Moorhead believes it and other Minnesota Red
River Valley communities should be included in the Red River Valley
Water Supply Project, and
WHEREAS, the Eastern Dakota Water Users Group has similar concerns
regarding Minnesota being removed from the Red River Valley Water
Supply Project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mayor and City Council of
the City of Moorhead request the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation to, once
again, include the Minnesota communities in the Red River Valley Water
Supply Project.
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Moorhead this 21st day of
October, 2002.
APPROVED BY:
/s/ Mark Voxland
----------------------------
----
MARK VOXLAND, Mayor
ATTEST:
/s/ Kaye E. Buchholz
----------------------------------
KAYE E. BUCHHOLZ, City Clerk
(SEAL)
______
Statement of Gary L. Pearson, D.V.M., Jamestown, ND
According to the December 4, 2002, news release regarding the
Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on Water
and Power's December 9, 2002, hearing on ``Red River Valley Water
Needs,'' the stated purpose of the hearing was:
``To examine the Red River Valley's water needs and the U.S.
Bureau of Reclamation's lack of progress on a series of water
projects authorized by the Dakota Water Resources Act.''
Subcommittee Chairman Senator Byron Dorgan of North Dakota was
quoted in the release as stating that:
``The Bureau of Reclamation is failing to meet its obligation
to improve the Red River Valley's water supply. Today, the
Bureau is a full four years behind schedule on the Red River
Valley studies it is required to complete.
The delays by the Bureau will not go unchallenged. In this
hearing, I want to hold the Bureau's feet to the fire and get
action on these Red River Valley water studies.''
It may be appropriate, therefore, to review the history of the Red
River Valley water studies to which Subcommittee Chairman Dorgan refers
in order to understand better some of the factors contributing to their
delay.
misinformation regarding red river valley water needs
One of the principal factors contributing to delays in the
identification of Red River Valley water needs and alternatives for
meeting those needs has been the frequent dissemination of
misinformation regarding those needs and alternatives by proponents of
the Garrison Diversion Unit and other North Dakota water development
interests.
The Promise of Water for the Red River Valley
After the Dakota Water Resources Act of 2000 was passed in the
closing minutes of the 106th Congress as a rider on the $450 billion
Fiscal Year 2001 Labor and Health and Human Services Appropriations
bill, North Dakota Senator Kent Conrad declared that:
``The DWRA was the first Garrison plan written by North
Dakotans for North Dakotans and is a realistic plan to complete
this project.'' (Conrad, 2001)
Six months later, a story in The Jamestown Sun reported:
``Fargo and the rest of the Red River Valley have been
waiting 50 years for Garrison Diversion to bring Missouri River
water east.'' (Cole, 2001)
It should be noted, however, that the Garrison Diversion Unit
authorized in 1965 included, in addition to 250,000 acres of federal
irrigation development, municipal water supplies for 14 towns in
eastern North Dakota, but the only one in the Red River Basin was
Pekin, with a 1970 population of 120, located near the Sheyenne River
in northeastern North Dakota. The original Garrison Diversion Unit did
not include water supplies for Fargo or any other cities in the Red
River Valley. In fact, it was only after a lawsuit by the National
Audubon Society forced a reevaluation of the project in 1977 that Fargo
(but not Grand Forks) was eventually identified as a ``potential
municipal water user'' from the project.
The Garrison Diversion Unit Reformulation Act of 1986 authorized a
``Sheyenne River water supply and release facility . . . capable of
delivering 100 cubic feet per second of water for the cities of Fargo
and Grand Forks and surrounding communities,'' but the authorization
was not based on a comprehensive study of municipal water needs and
options for meeting those needs, or the feasibility of such a facility.
It was not until 1993 when, at the request and with the agreement
of the Governor of North Dakota and the North Dakota Congressional
Delegation (Schafer et al., 1993), the Commissioner of the Bureau of
Reclamation established a North Dakota Water Management Collaborative
Process involving all stakeholders to identify the contemporary water
needs of the State that a comprehensive study of the future water needs
of the Red River Valley was initiated. However, when it became evident
that the Collaborative Process would not endorse the completion of the
Garrison Diversion project to deliver Missouri River water to the Red
River Valley, the North Dakota Congressional Delegation withdrew from
the process, stating that:
``We need to agree on proposed changes to the current
authorized Garrison Diversion Project in North Dakota . . .
. . . we intend to make a fresh start to collaborate in a way
that produces concurrence among all of the interests in North
Dakota. We intend to produce consensus legislation that we will
introduce in Congress to modify the Garrison Diversion Unit
Reformulation Act.'' (Dorgan et al., 1994)
Although the North Dakota Water Management Collaborative Process
collapsed when the North Dakota Congressional Delegation withdrew in
1994, the Bureau of Reclamation, with the active participation of a
representative of the National Wildlife Federation representing other
stakeholders on the study's Technical Steering Team, continued the
appraisal level Red River Valley Water Needs Assessment study that had
been initiated under the Collaborative Process.
The Debt Owed to North Dakota
North Dakota's political leaders frequently dismiss the absence of
a demonstrated need for additional water supplies for cities in the Red
River Valley by claiming that, in equity, the State is owed a Red River
Valley water supply project in payment for lands flooded by the Oahe
and Garrison dams on the Missouri River, e.g.:
``When the Garrison Dam and Reservoir were built to provide
downstream protection and to safeguard navigation, the state
lost 500,000 acres of prime farm land, a major part of its
economic base.'' (Dorgan, 1998)
However, of the 462,000 acres of land in North Dakota actually
inundated by the Oahe and Garrison reservoirs, only 108,300 acres were
cropland (Fish and Wildlife Service, 1952; Bureau of Sport Fisheries
and Wildlife, 1960). The impact on North Dakota's economic base can be
appreciated by considering that the entire 551,706 acres acquired for
the reservoirs is only 1.2 percent of the total land base of the State.
Moreover, North Dakota already receives $130,200,000 annually in flood
control ($1,400,000), hydropower ($80,300,000), water supply
($28,500,000) and recreation ($20,000,000) benefits from the Pick-Sloan
Missouri Basin Program under which the Garrison and Oahe dams and the
Garrison Diversion Unit were authorized (Bureau of Reclamation, 1996).
This is equivalent to an average of over $1,200 per acre per year for
the 108,300 acres of cropland inundated in North Dakota by the Garrison
and Oahe reservoirs. These annual benefits are 30 percent more than the
1997 market value of the State's best agricultural land in the Red
River Valley (MacDonald, 1998).
The Imminent Threat of Drought
The Subcommittee has been told that a drought even more severe than
the 1930s ``Dust Bowl'' is imminent and that any delay in completing
studies of Red River Valley water needs will be seen as deadly to the
people and would shut down the economy of the Valley and destroy their
hopes for the future. Such dire predictions certainly warrant careful
examination.
First, it should be noted that the Governor of North Dakota, the
North Dakota Congressional Delegation, the State Water Commission, the
Garrison Diversion Conservancy District, the North Dakota Water Users
Association and other water development interests who are calling for
acceleration of the Red River Valley Water Supply Study and Red River
Valley Water Supply Project Environmental Impact Statement because of
the urgency of protecting cities in the Valley from the impacts of
drought are the same ones who are promoting the construction of an
outlet from Devils Lake to the Sheyenne River, a tributary of the Red
River, on the assumption that the record levels of precipitation that
occurred from 1993 to 1999 will continue until at least 2014 (U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, 2002; Schmidt, 2002). Obviously, it is not credible
to promote a Red River Valley Water Supply Project on the urgency of
impending drought while at the same time promoting a Devils Lake outlet
on the urgency of on-going flooding.
Second, Fargo has an allocation of 56.1 percent, and Grand Forks
has an allocation of 31.3 percent, of the water in Lake Ashtabula,
which was constructed on the Sheyenne River in 1951 (Bureau of
Reclamation, 1998). The reservoir has a total storage capacity of
68,000 acre-feet at a pool elevation of 1266.0 feet above mean sea
level, with 38,000 acre-feet of storage between a minimum pool
elevation of 1257 feet and 1266 feet (Bureau of Reclamation, 1998).
Therefore, Fargo has an allocation of at least 21,000 acre-feet and up
to 38,000 acre-feet of water from Lake Ashtabula. This would meet
Fargo's current water demands for 1.5-2.5 years if there were no
additional flows in either the Red or Sheyenne rivers--something that
did not occur even in the 1930s. However, in the 50 years since the
reservoir was constructed, Fargo has tapped its Lake Ashtabula supply
only a few times to meet brief minor shortages, such as occurred
occasionally during the 1988-1992 drought, and Grand Forks has never
used its allocation.
Third, information from the Bureau of Reclamation's appraisal level
Red River Valley Water Needs Assessment shows that, even if Fargo's
population should double to 192,000 (which is not expected to occur
until 2050) and four new hypothetical high water use agricultural
processing industries were to locate in the Red River Valley,
significant municipal water shortages would not develop unless another
1930s style drought were to occur (Bureau of Reclamation, 2000).
Moreover, implementation of drought contingency measures could reduce
the projected 115,000 acre-feet year 2050 Red River Valley total
municipal and industrial water demand by at least 30 percent, or 38,000
acre-feet, which would be more than sufficient to eliminate the 32,650
acre-feet greatest annual municipal shortages even in another 1930s
style drought (Bureau of Reclamation, 2000).
Fourth, if a severe drought is, in fact, imminent, even if
construction of a Red River Valley Water Supply Project were begun
immediately, it would not be completed in time to avoid the need to
implement water conservation and drought contingency measures. And, as
information from the Bureau's Red River Valley Water Needs Assessment
shows, implementation of those measures would eliminate the need for a
Red River Valley Water Supply Project.
Consequently, not only is there no credible evidence that a severe
drought is imminent in the Red River Valley, but the available evidence
shows that the implementation of water conservation and drought
contingency measures would be sufficient to eliminate any significant
impacts on the people or the economy of the Red River Valley.
undue influence of garrison diversion unit proponents
The second major factor that has contributed to delays in the Red
River Valley Water Supply Study and Environmental Impact Statement has
been the repeated and continuing attempts by proponents of the Garrison
Diversion Unit and diversion of Missouri River water to the Red River
Valley to exert undue influence over the studies.
The Red River Valley Water Needs Assessment that was initiated
under the 1993 North Dakota Water Management Collaborative Process
included participation by various stakeholder groups. However, before
the study had been completed in August 2000, the Bureau of
Reclamation's Area Manager, the North Dakota State Engineer and the
Manager of the Garrison Diversion Conservancy District had, without
informing other stakeholders, negotiated and signed a Memorandum of
Understanding that established a three-member Study Management Team
composed of representatives of those agencies to direct and supervise a
feasibility level study of alternatives to meet future municipal, rural
and industrial water needs in eastern North Dakota.
The Dakota Water Resources Act of 2000, which was not passed until
six months later, specifies, however, that:
``The Secretary of the Interior shall conduct a comprehensive
study of the water quality and quantity needs of the Red River
Valley in North Dakota and possible options for meeting those
needs.'' (Emphasis added) (DWRA Section 8[b][1]).
and that:
``In conducting the study, the Secretary, through an open and
public process shall solicit input from gubernatorial designees
from the states that may be affected by possible options to
meet such needs as well as designees from other federal
agencies with relevant expertise.'' (DWRA Section 8[b][3])
The Act also specifies that:
``. . . the Secretary and the State of North Dakota shall
jointly prepare and complete a draft environmental impact
statement concerning all feasible options to meet the
comprehensive water quality and quantity needs of the Red River
Valley and options for meeting those needs, including the
delivery of Missouri River water to the Red River Valley.''
(DWRA Section 8[c][2])
Despite the fact that Senator Dorgan, in congressional debate on
the Dakota Water Resources Act, had noted that the bill lays out a
process for meeting the water needs of the Red River Valley and pointed
out specifically that:
``First, the Secretary of the Interior will identify these
needs and evaluate options for meeting them.'' (Congressional
Record, Senate S10534, October 13, 2000)
The Red River Valley Water Supply Study and Environmental Impact
Statement were initiated immediately after the Dakota Water Resources
Act was passed under the direction and control of the same Study
Management Team consisting of the Bureau's Area Manager, the State
Engineer and the Manager of the Garrison Diversion Conservancy District
that had been established by the July 2000 Memorandum of Understanding.
Both the Garrison Diversion Conservancy District (North Dakota Century
Code Sec. 61-24-01) and the North Dakota State Water Commission (North
Dakota Century Code Sec. 61-01-26.1) are mandated by statute to promote
the completion of the Garrison Diversion Unit and the delivery of
Missouri River water to the Red River Valley.
On April 20, 2001, Daniel P. Beard, Chief Operating Officer of the
National Audubon Society, sent a letter to the Great Plains Regional
Director of the Bureau (Attachment No. 1) pointing out that:
``To the best of our knowledge, the MOU, which predates DWRA
by more than 5 months, involved neither disclosure nor public
participation prior to or during its development. As far as we
know, this document never saw the `light of day' until after
the DWRA was enacted . . .
The MOU presumes to create a Study Management Team (SMT)
comprised of one official each appointed from the GDCD, SWC,
and BOR. The SMT is then referred to as a `partnership'
implying that the traditional project proponents have two out
of three votes on matters deliberated by SMT. The Framework
[February 15, 2001, Framework for Red River Valley Water Supply
Study] is replete with unwarranted and excessive assignments of
the responsibilities of the Secretary to the SMT. Among other
things, the Framework states that the `MOU created a
partnership among the three parties to direct completion of
necessary studies and to oversee the preparation of reports to
Congress' (emphasis added). Even worse, the signors have
assigned themselves decision-making responsibilities. For
example, `The Study Management Team will be responsible for
overall guidance, scheduling, report concurrence (sic),
financial issues, and major decision-making activities on
difficult issues' (Framework, page 4).''. . .
We urge that you carefully review all the documents that have
been entered into with respect to this work and make an
independent determination that they comply with all applicable
laws and policies, and that they will help promote impartiality
for all the studies to be undertaken . . .
If there is to be an SMT, it should be clarified that the
responsibility for decision-making remains with the Secretary
not with outside parties. If there is to be an SMT, it should
be advisory only . . .''
Although Mr. Beard addressed his letter to the Regional Director,
the initial response came, not from the Bureau of Reclamation, but from
the Manager of the Garrison Diversion Conservancy District (Attachment
No. 2), thus further confirming the preponderant role assumed by
Conservancy District in the Red River Valley water supply studies
authorized by the Dakota Water Resources Act of 2000. However, Mr.
Jamison's response did not address the fundamental issue raised by Mr.
Beard regarding the assignment of responsibilities reserved to the
Secretary to a Study Management Team dominated by those having a
statutory mandate to promote completion of the Garrison Diversion Unit
and the diversion of water from the Missouri River to the Red River
Valley.
In her July 23, 2001, response to Mr. Beard (Attachment No. 3), the
Regional Director said:
``Some of the issues you raised are legitimate, especially
because the MOU was developed under the authority of the 1986
Garrison Diversion Unit Reformulation Act. However, as the DWRA
is very specific in certain provisions, the MOU may not
accurately reflect the intent of the Congress. Therefore, I am
revisiting the MOU and Framework with respect to the DWRA.
Ultimately, I assure you that we are committed to a full and
open process which invites the meaningful participation of all
stakeholders. I further assure you that the decision making
authority will remain solely with the Secretary of the Interior
as provided in the DWRA or other relevant statutes such as the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). This includes both
process decisions, such as the appropriate application of NEPA,
as well as final decisions such as selecting a preferred
alternative for the FEIS.''
In her August 15, 2002, letter to Mr. Beard (Attachment No. 4), the
Regional Director reported that the Study Management Team for the Red
River Valley Water Supply Study and Environmental Impact Statement had
been abolished and the July 2000 Memorandum of Understanding was being
replaced. She indicated that the Red River Valley Water Supply Study
would instead be conducted by the Bureau, and that the Environmental
Impact Statement would be prepared jointly by the Secretary and the
State of North Dakota, as specified by the Dakota Water Resources Act.
The revised Memorandum of Understanding (Attachment No. 5) deals
only with the joint preparation by the Secretary and the State of North
Dakota of the Environmental Impact Statement for the Red River Valley
Water Supply Project. The revised Memorandum of Understanding states in
Section VI. Primary Contacts that:
``The Governor of the State of North Dakota has authorized
the GDCD [Garrison Diversion Conservancy District] to be the
State's primary contact to serve as co-lead for North Dakota on
the EIS.''
However, as is pointed out in the attached October 7, 2002, letter
to the Bureau of Reclamation (Attachment No. 6), the Constitution of
the State of North Dakota specifies that:
``The governor shall transact and supervise all necessary
business of the state with the United States, the other states,
and the officers and officials of the state.''
As the letter notes, there is no statutory provision for the
Garrison Diversion Conservancy District to represent the State of North
Dakota, or for the Governor to ``transact and supervise'' business with
the United States through the Conservancy District. The letter goes on
to point out that State Water Commission has statutory authority to
represent the interests of the State in dealing with the Federal
Government, but North Dakota Century Code Sec. 23-01-01-02 explicitly
provides that:
``The state department of health is the primary state
environmental agency.''
On October 18, 2002, the Regional Director forwarded the letter to
the Office of the Governor of North Dakota for a response, but the
revised Memorandum of Understanding was signed on November 6, 2002,
without a response having been received from the Governor addressing
the ineligibility of the Garrison Diversion Conservancy District to
represent the State in jointly preparing the Environmental Impact
Statement for the Red River Valley Water Supply Project. Six weeks
later, a response still has not been received.
Not only does the designation of the Garrison Diversion Conservancy
District to represent the State of North Dakota in jointly preparing
the Environmental Impact Statement for the Red River Valley Water
Supply Project reflect continued undue influence by proponents of the
Garrison Diversion Unit, but the designation of an ineligible agency to
represent the State leaves the process open to question and the
Environmental Impact Statement it produces open to challenge, thus
potentially resulting in further delays in completing the Red River
Valley water studies.
conclusion
The dissemination of misleading information regarding Red River
Valley water needs by proponents of the diversion of Missouri River
water to the Red River Valley and their persistent attempts to exert
undue influence over studies of Red River Valley water needs not only
undermine their credibility and raise significant questions about their
motive, but these activities also create serious impediments to the
completion of an objective, scientifically sound evaluation of Red
River Valley water needs and options for meeting those needs. It is
important, therefore, for the Subcommittee on Water and Power to
exercise its oversight authority to assure that the Bureau of
Reclamation conducts its studies of Red River Valley water needs in an
open and professional manner that will assure the thorough and unbiased
products that the Congress expects and the citizens of the Red River
Valley deserve.
REFERENCES
Bureau of Reclamation. 1996. Overview of Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin
Program (P-SMBP) Benefits. Summary of Information contained in
the Corps of Engineers' Missouri River Draft Environmental
Impact Statement, July, 1994.
Bureau of Reclamation. 1998. Red River Valley Water Needs Assessment,
Phase I Part A: MR&I Appraisal Report. U.S. Department of the
Interior.
Bureau of Reclamation. 2000. Red River Valley Water Needs Assessment,
Phase II. Appraisal of Alternatives to Meet Projected
Shortages. U.S. Department of the Interior.
Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife. 1960. A Plan for Fish and
Wildlife Resources of the Oahe Reservoir, North Dakota and
South Dakota. Report Prepared by the Bureau of Sport Fisheries
and Wildlife, Missouri Basin Studies, Billings, Montana, in
Cooperation With the North Dakota Game and Fish Department and
the South Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks. U.S.
Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service,
Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Cole, Janell. 2001. Garrison water to Fargo: ``Closer than we've ever
been.'' The Jamestown Sun, July 30, p. 5.
Conrad, Kent. 2001. Victory! North Dakota Water, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 5-
7.
Dorgan, Byron L. 1998. Testimony of U.S. Senator Byron L. Dorgan, House
Resources Committee. September 29. 5 pp.
Dorgan, Byron L., Kent Conrad and Earl Pomeroy. 1994. Letter to Michael
Whittington, Area Manager, Bureau of Reclamation, Bismarck,
North Dakota. 2 pp.
Fish and Wildlife Service. 1952. A Report on Development of Wildlife
and Fishery Resources for Garrison Reservoir, North Dakota.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Billings, Montana.
MacDonald, John. 1998. Land values rise in '97 despite dismal crop
year. The Jamestown Sun (Jamestown, North Dakota). May 6.
Schafer, Edward T., Kent Conrad, Byron Dorgan and Earl Pomeroy. 1993.
Letter to Bruce Babbitt, Secretary, U.S. Department of the
Interior. November 12. 12 pp.
Schmidt, Helmut. 2002. Delegation reports breakthrough in getting
outlet for Devils Lake. The Forum (Fargo, North Dakota). July
30.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2002. Draft Devils Lake North Dakota
Integrated Planning Report and Environmental Impact Statement.
St. Paul District, St. Paul Minnesota.
______
Statement of Tex G. Hall, Chairman, Mandan, Hidatsa and Arikara Nation
(Three Affiliated Tribes)
Dosha! (Hello). Thank you for the opportunity to present testimony
today concerning ``Red River Water Needs''. As you know, I am the
Chairman of the Three Affiliated Tribes, located in northwest North
Dakota. I apologize to the Committee and to everyone present that I am
unable to be here today due to prior commitments.
introduction
One may ask what interest the Mandan, Hidatsa and Arikara Nation
has in the water needs of the Red River Valley. However, anyone
familiar with the history of North Dakota, and in particular, the
history of the Pick-Sloan project and later, the Garrison Diversion
project. and its relationship to the Indian tribes along the Missouri
River, may understand our interest in this matter. Nevertheless, a bit
of background would be helpful.
The original goals of the Pick-Sloan project, conceived in the
1930's, were to control flooding along the Missouri, provide for
electricity generation, provide for irrigation and later, provide for
additional recreational opportunities for North Dakotans. Our Tribe
understands those goals. There are seven principal reservoirs behind
the seven dams that make up the principal features of this project.
Each of those reservoirs greatly affected the Indian tribes whose
reservations and ancient homelands were along the Missouri River. As
one of our former Chairman has put it, Carl Whitman, the dams seemed
placed so that the maximum impact of the permanent flooding caused by
the dams would be on the Indian reservations.
At no other place was a Tribe more greatly affected than behind the
Garrison Dam, which created a reservoir ironically known as Lake
Sakakawea, in honor of the famous Lewis and Clark guide who originated
from our Tribe. That Tribe was the Mandan, Hidatsa and Ankara Nation,
the homeland of my people.
Prior to the Garrison Dam being built, we still had a small part of
what had been our homelands, along the Missouri River, our ``holy
grandfather'' as it was known to us. The rich bottom lands along the
river provided us wood for fuel, let us tend our animals and raise our
crops. We were generally self sufficient.
But that all changed forever with the Garrison Dam, which submerged
156,000 acres of our most important asset, our land, under water. Our
once close-knit communities, separated only by a river, which was then
connected near Elbowwoods by a bridge, were now split apart and
separated by as much as 120 miles. Our rich farmland and self-
sufficient lifestyle were gone forever.
Despite how we have been affected by, and despite how much we have
suffered from the Garrison Dam, we also understand that a secondary
goal of the Pick-Sloan project, and one that has been fundamentally
important to North Dakota, has been the diversion of water from the
Missouri, the water that makes up Lake Sakakawea, to the eastern part
of North Dakota to satisfy long-standing water shortages there. We are
well aware of the history of the ``Garrison Diversion Project''. as it
generally is known'' and will not repeat it here. Despite a recent
opinion issued by the North Dakota Attorney General declaring that Lake
Sakakawea is not within our reservation boundaries, an opinion which
makes no sense given the history of our reservation, because we also
depend on water from Lake Sakakawea in many ways, as will be discussed
a bit more below, we remain vitally interested in this diversion
effort.
It should be emphasized that in the past, we have supported the
Garrison Diversion Project reformulation acts as they have been enacted
by Congress; going back at least to the 1986 Act. This has been, in
part, because within those statutes, the rural water needs of the Three
Affiliated Tribes, as well as other Tribes in North Dakota, have been
provided through the authorizations for appropriations provided in
those Acts'' most recently the Dakota Water Resources Act of 2000.
the interests of the three affiliated tribes in water from the missouri
Our interests in the Garrison Diversion project are several:
1. We want to ensure that in any diversion of water to the
eastern part of North Dakota, our ``Winters doctrine'' water
rights are recognized;
2. We want to ensure that any diversion of water to the
eastern part of North Dakota does not unduly affect water
levels of Lake Sakakawea, because we depend on for our water
source, and because we, too, have interests in recreational
sites along the lake which depend, in part, on sufficient water
levels for their success.
3. We are also sensitive to the needs of our Indian relatives
to the north, in Manitoba, who have made it clear to myself and
other Tribal leaders from North Dakota that they are concerned
about the possible effects untreated water could have on their
fishing, on which they rely in part for their subsistence.
With these concerns in mind, we have not changed our support of the
overall goals of the Garrison Diversion project, to provide water
during times of drought to the Red River Valley. I would like to
discuss our concerns a bit more.
1. ``Winters Doctrine'' Water Rights
The ``Winters Doctrine'', based on a famous case decided early in
the past century, basically states that when a water course, or river,
goes through or alongside a reservation that has historically used
water from that river, that Indian Tribe has paramount, or first rights
to the water in the river. Through various additional decisions and
Congressional statutes, Tribes may quantify those water rights, and
must show how they will use the water to which they claim ``paramount
rights''.
The Three Affiliated Tribes have not sought judicial action to
quantify their rights to the Missouri River's waters that flow through
their reservation. But, simply because we have not quantified our
Winters doctrine rights to the waters of the Missouri does not imply
that those rights are not paramount when it comes to manipulation of
the lake levels behind the dams that have so seriously impacted the
Missouri River tribes. We have repeatedly asked that Congress recognize
those rights as plans for the Garrison Diversion project go forward.
One argument seems to be that because the rivers flow is so large,
our Mandan, Hidatsa and Ankara Nation cannot possibly claim enough of
the water of the river to have an impact on water levels, or to have an
impact on the amount of water that is proposed to be used in the Red
River Valley. That is a tremendously uncertain assumption to make. The
entire river flow has once been used by the tribes to sustain their way
of life. There exists no reason now to suggest that the entire river
flow is still not necessary for the tribes to regain some semblance of
an economy which supports their needs.
2. Affect on Water Levels
A practical example of this is the recreational needs of the
Mandan, Hidatsa and Arikara Nation. Maintaining the level of Lake
Sakakawea at certain elevations is critical to improving recreational
opportunities for the Tribe along the extensive part of the shoreline
in which it has an interest. Keeping lake levels high enough for
recreational interests to thrive is, for all intents and purposes, the
exercise of a fundamental Winters doctrine right and becomes critically
important during years of drought that we are now experiencing and,
during the upcoming years of the Lewis and Clark Bicentennial
Celebration during the years 2003-2006. Without adequate lake levels,
the business ventures of the Tribe and its members will simply not
realize their potential.
Recommendation
We recognize that we cannot control drought situations, which is
certainly one the things that the Garrison Diversion project is
intended to remedy for the Red River Valley. But we also do not want
our interests in this matter to be forgotten. Therefore, we urge that
in all future planning efforts for the Garrison Diversion project that
a representative of our Nation be included. Generally, we have had some
representation as the legislation has gone forward through Congress.
But now that legislation has in fact passed Congress, we believe we
must continue to be a part of the planning effort for the completion of
the long-awaited project, on a government-to-government basis.
3. Affect on Water Quality in Manitoba
As I mentioned, I visited several years ago with Tribes in Manitoba
about their concerns regarding water quality and the affect that the
introduction of biota that are unknown to the Red River of the North.
The Red River empties in part into a very large wetlands and lake
system in Manitoba, and many tribes depend on the fish and other
wildlife of that system. While these issues are not generally within
the control of the Three Affiliated Tribes, we simply express our
interest in making sure that the concerns that have been raised are
satisfied to the maximum extent practicable.
summary
We believe that all of the above concerns we have raised can be
resolved satisfactorily for all parties. But to the extent that Red
River Valley water needs will be met by diversion of water from the
Missouri River basin, we request that we continue to be involved so
that our interests in the protection the water in Lake Sakakawea can be
met. We request that we be included in these continuing discussions, by
both the State of North Dakota and the Federal government, on a
government-to-government basis, and that we be notified when important
meetings are held regarding how water will be diverted from Lake
Sakakawea to the Red River Valley.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to testify. If you
have questions, I would pleased to submit written answers to questions
you may submit to me in writing after this hearing to be included in
the record.