[Senate Hearing 110-517]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 110-517
WATER ISSUES IN THE GREAT PLAINS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER
of the
COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
TO
RECEIVE TESTIMONY ON THE BUREAU OF RECLAMATION'S IMPLEMENTATION OF THE
RURAL WATER SUPPLY ACT OF 2006, AND THE STATUS OF IMPLEMENTATION OF
AUTHORIZED RURAL WATER PROJECTS IN THE GREAT PLAINS REGION
__________
SIOUX FALLS, SD, MAY 27, 2008
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
44-663 PDF WASHINGTON DC: 2008
---------------------------------------------------------------------
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402�090001
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 LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho
RON WYDEN, Oregon LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota RICHARD BURR, North Carolina
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana JIM DeMINT, South Carolina
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington BOB CORKER, Tennessee
KEN SALAZAR, Colorado JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont JIM BUNNING, Kentucky
JON TESTER, Montana MEL MARTINEZ, Florida
Robert M. Simon, Staff Director
Sam E. Fowler, Chief Counsel
Frank Macchiarola, Republican Staff Director
Judith K. Pensabene, Republican Chief Counsel
------
Subcommittee on Water and Power
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota, Chairman
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota BOB CORKER, Tennessee
RON WYDEN, Oregon LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington JIM DeMINT, South Carolina
KEN SALAZAR, Colorado JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon
JON TESTER, Montana JIM BUNNING, Kentucky
Jeff Bingaman and Pete V. Domenici are Ex Officio Members of the
Subcommittee
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS
Page
Bordeaux, Rodney, Rosebud Sioux Tribe, Rosebud, SD............... 28
Fitzgerald, Jake, Manager, West River/Lyman-Jones Rural Water
Systems, Murdo, SD............................................. 33
Jandreau, Michael, Chairman, Lower Brule Sioux Tribe, Lower
Brule, SD...................................................... 32
Johnson, Hon. Tim, U.S. Senator From South Dakota................ 1
Larson, Troy, Executive Director, Lewis & Clark Regional Water
System, Sioux Falls, SD........................................ 18
Munson, Dave, Mayor, Sioux Falls, SD............................. 15
Ryan, Michael, J., Great Plains Regional Director, Bureau of
Reclamation, Department of the Interior........................ 4
Steele, John, President, Oglala Sioux Tribe, Pine Ridge, SD...... 22
Tester, Hon. Jon, U.S. Senator From Montana...................... 2
WATER ISSUES IN THE GREAT PLAINS
----------
TUESDAY, MAY 27, 2008
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Water and Power,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Sioux Falls, SD.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2 p.m. at Best
Western Ramkota Hotel and Conference Center, 3200 W. Maple
Street, Hon. Tim Johnson, presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TIM JOHNSON, U.S. SENATOR FROM SOUTH
DAKOTA
Senator Johnson. I call to order this field hearing before
the Energy and Natural Resources Water and Power Subcommittee.
It is my pleasure to welcome everyone here today.
I appreciate John Tester, who is from Montana, traveling to
Sioux Falls to attend today's hearing. I know that Senator
Tester is interested in the topics to be covered today, and I
believe he will add a valuable perspective to water development
in the Great Plains.
I also want to thank all the witnesses for traveling to
Sioux Falls and being available to present testimony and answer
questions.
The purpose of today's hearing is to receive testimony on
the Bureau of Reclamation's implementation of the Rural Water
Supply Act of 2006 and to examine the implementation and status
of the water supply projects in the Great Plains.
The Great Plains face great water demands for adequate
drinking water supplies. Population growth and economic
development will further strain the gap between capital
improvements needed for public water systems and the capability
of governments to finance these new projects. Unfortunately
under investment is not the only problem.
Millions of Americans left without safe and reliable
drinking water. Many of these individuals are served by small
community systems. But regionally, our regionalized approach
that water delivery could be more effective to distribute
drinking water.
To better address the outstanding drinking water needs of
these communities the Congress passed the Rural Water Supply
Act of 2006. Now for the first time, the BOR has a water supply
plan to construct new water development projects. We need to
get this program up and running. I look forward to Regional
Director Ryan updating the committee on this implementation.
The second part of today's hearing is to receive testimony
on construction of ongoing water projects in the Great Plains
region. I am proud that South Dakota was the first State to
harness the resources of the BOR to construct these regional
water projects. Since the year 2003, I have helped secure about
$347 million of Federal funds for the construction and
operation and maintenance of South Dakota's BOR drinking water
projects. These projects are an example of how our partnership
between the Federal and State governments and local sponsors
can set the conditions for building our communities.
Currently South Dakota has three ongoing projects in
various stages of completion that serve diverse and private
communities: the Lewis and Clark Regional Water System, Mni
Wiconi Rural Water System, and the Perkins County Rural Water
System. Unfortunately the continued progress and construction
of these projects is threatened by the lack of support for
funding from the current Administration. The BOR's decision to
recommend no funds in next year's budget for Lewis and Clark, a
regional solution for water supplies in several Eastern South
Dakota communities including Minnesota and Iowa, is simply
unacceptable. I'm sure that today's witnesses will touch on the
impacts of these cuts.
We're also making progress. Some systems are now completed
and delivering water for municipal, agricultural and industrial
purposes with other projects such as the Mni Wiconi near
completion. We have several witnesses from these projects
testifying today that can further explain their importance of
seeing these projects completed.
We have a full panel of witnesses today. So with that, I
would like to recognize my colleague from Montana for his
opening statement. Senator Tester, please go right ahead with
your remarks.
STATEMENT OF HON. JON TESTER, U.S. SENATOR
FROM MONTANA
Senator Tester. I want to thank you, Senator Johnson. I am
truly happy to be here today in Sioux Falls. I appreciate your
leadership in holding this hearing because water is arguably
the most important issue that faces the Great Plains and the
West, especially here in South Dakota and also in Montana.
I know that you have worked very hard on water issues in
South Dakota for a long, long time. In a lot of ways in Montana
we want to follow in your footsteps trying to get some of our
rural water projects developed.
I also appreciate Michael Ryan coming in today. I
appreciate your sacrifice being here today, Mike. I look
forward to your testimony.
Unfortunately it seems like when it comes to these projects
that folks with the biggest water problems are often those that
are least able to finance them. We've got the greatest country
in the world. Nobody should have to worry about safe, clean,
affordable drinking water. Yet a lot of people do.
Like South Dakota, Montana also has three Bureau of Rec
projects that are in various stages of completion. All of them
involve tribal nations. All of them have been voted on and
approved by Congress. And Each one of them is badly needed. But
in the last several years, none of them have ended up in the
President's budget.
Congress passed the Rural Water Supply of 2006 to clarify
the role of the Bureau of Reclamation in developing rural water
supply projects. The bill is supposed to lay out a plan to
finish authorized projects and put down some guidelines for the
projects into the future. I anxiously look forward to the
report that is expected out later this year.
But in the short term one thing that I am sure about is
that these projects will never get completed if they aren't
funded at a level that is adequate. In Montana, the St. Mary's
Canal Project was built for irrigation purposes nearly 100
years ago. Twenty thousand people depend upon it for drinking
water.
The Canal is in such bad shape that failure is going to
happen. It's just when. If that canal goes, 20,000 people are
immediately cutoff from water, and the Blackfeet Reservation,
where the project is, has an environmental catastrophe on their
hands.
The Fort Peck-Dry Prairie System, another system, is in a
race against time with a brine plume from old gas and oil
production that is moving in the ground water toward the town
of Poplar. Without this Fort Peck-Dry Prairie Water System
getting up and running very, very soon that brine water is
going to poison those folks as well, those folks' water wells.
The water around the north central water system, Rocky
Boy's-North Central Water System is so bad that the EPA tells
tribal members not to drink it. But the Federal Government
hasn't been helping them finish their system that would bring
much needed relief.
Mr. Ryan, I don't envy the position you are put in. I know
there are incredible demands put upon you. I know you fully
realize the importance of these projects to the region. But
we're also relying on you to work with the Bureau of
Reclamation to make clear the importance of rural water
projects to Reclamation States and a plan for their completion.
I look forward to your testimony. Of course, we'll have
some questions about South Dakota and Montana and other
Reclamation States. How we finish up our ongoing projects and
get some new ones started so our constituents can be guaranteed
safe, clean, affordable drinking water.
Once again, I do want to thank Senator Johnson for his
leadership and for holding this field hearing. I look forward
to the testimony. I too will have some questions.
Senator Johnson. Thank you, Senator Tester. We will now
turn to the first witness for today's hearing. Representing the
Bureau of Reclamation is Michael Ryan, a Regional Director for
the Great Plains Region of the BOR. Welcome to Sioux Falls, Mr.
Ryan and I appreciate your making yourself available.
What I would like to do is from Mr. Ryan to deliver his
statement after which Senator Tester and I will ask Mr. Ryan
some questions. Once that is complete, we will go onto the next
group of witnesses.
That testimony as well as the written submission of all
today's witnesses will be made part of the official hearing
record.
Mr. Ryan, please go ahead with your statement. Following
that we'll have a question and answer period for you.
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL J. RYAN, GREAT PLAINS REGIONAL DIRECTOR,
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. Ryan. Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Senator
Tester and staff. My name is Mike Ryan. I am the Regional
Director for the Great Plains region for the Bureau of
Reclamation. I am pleased to provide the Department of the
Interior's views today on the status of rural water projects in
the Great Plains region and a report on Reclamation's
implementation of the Rural Water Supply Act of 2006.
This region has a total of six authorized rural water
projects with an estimated remaining Federal cost of
approximately $1.3 billion to complete them. Reclamation
allocates funding for its rural water projects based on
objective criteria which give priority to projects nearest to
completion and that serve tribal needs. The fiscal year 2009
budget request reflects Reclamation's attempt to balance the
many competing priorities for funding within the Federal
Government and within Reclamation.
Prior to the Rural Water Supply Act, Congress authorized
several rural water projects. Funding in the amount of $39
million is included in the fiscal year 2009 President's budget
request for some of these rural water projects, specifically
Mni Wiconi and the Garrison Diversion Unit. These rural water
projects are separate and distinct from any projects that may
be authorized in the future under the Act. Detailed information
about the funding history and remaining amounts needed for
completion of each of these six projects is included in my
written statement. I will be happy to answer questions about
any of these projects.
Now allow me to provide a status report on implementation
of the Rural Water Supply Act of 2006. Reclamation's intention
is to work cooperatively with rural communities across the West
in a consistent manner to identify rural water supply needs and
cost effective options for addressing those needs. Prior to
enactment of this legislation Reclamation had no authority to
get involved early in the process in the analysis and
development of solutions for meeting the potable water supply
needs of rural communities in the West.
We are working hard to implement this new program in a
timely manner. Our focus is to ensure a thorough analysis of
rural water needs and options to address those needs through
the completion of appraisal and feasibility studies. As studies
are completed Reclamation is required to submit a feasibility
report to Congress and to make a recommendation as to whether
the project is technically and economically feasible.
Further, the report must make a recommendation on whether
Congress should authorize Federal involvement and construction
of the project. The report must also make a recommendation on
the appropriate non-Federal share of construction costs which
must be at least 25 percent of the total construction costs.
While we expect great interest in this program, Reclamation
will not be able to get involved in every project that is
presented to us as any efforts to implement projects under this
program must compete with other Reclamation projects for finite
resources.
The Act envisioned the establishment of consistent and
objective criteria to help make those choices. Reclamation is
currently working to establish programmatic and eligibility
criteria for participation in the program and prioritization
criteria to articulate how Reclamation will select projects to
support. The Act requires that we promulgate and publish the
program's rules and criteria in the Federal Register. This is
being done through a rulemaking process in accordance with the
Administrative Procedure Act. Will provide opportunities for
public review, involvement and comment prior to being
finalized.
We anticipate publishing the rule in the Federal Register
this year. The President's fiscal year 2009 budget request
includes $1 million for Administrative work for the program.
That funding would allow us to begin to work with communities
on study proposals and then carry out and support studies that
are selected based on the criteria.
During our initial efforts to scope this program we have
held conversations with various stakeholder groups throughout
the West. Also, as part of the rulemaking process, we plan to
hold public and tribal meetings to gather comments and answer
questions. We will continue that outreach and dialog throughout
the process of implementing this new program.
We see this program as an opportunity to provide a clearly
defined process for Reclamation and rural communities
throughout the West to work together to identify options for
meeting potable water supply needs in a technically feasible,
environmentally responsible and cost effective manner. With all
of this work underway we look forward to working closely with
the large base of stakeholders on implementation.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear today. This
concludes my verbal remarks. I am pleased to answer any
questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ryan follows:]
Prepared Statement of Michael J. Ryan, Great Plains Regional Director,
Bureau of Reclamation, Department of the Interior
Good afternoon Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee. My
name is Mike Ryan and I am the Regional Director for the Great Plains
Region for the Bureau of Reclamation. I am pleased to provide the
Department of the Interior's views today on the status of major
authorized rural water projects in the Great Plains Region, and
separately, report on Reclamation's implementation of Title I of Public
Law 109-451.
Reclamation is proceeding with the design or construction of
several rural water projects in the Great Plains region. Below is a
summary on the status of the major projects under consideration by the
Subcommittee today. While my testimony today includes specific
reference to these major projects, I think it is important to note that
the Great Plains Region has a total of six authorized rural water
projects with an estimated remaining Federal cost of approximately $1.4
billion to complete these six projects. Finally, my statement concludes
with a status on the newly authorized rural water program under
development this year.
Before discussing the individual projects, it is important to note
that the Bureau of Reclamation allocates funding for its rural water
projects based on objective criteria, which gave priority to projects
1) nearest to completion; and 2) that serve tribal needs. These
projects also received funding based on amounts needed for ongoing
work. The FY 2009 budget request reflects Reclamation's attempt to
balance the many competing priorities for funding within the Federal
Government and within Reclamation.
Prior to the authorization of the ``Rural Water Supply Act,''
Congress authorized several individual rural water projects. Funding in
the amount of $39 million is included in the FY 2009 President's budget
request for some of these rural water projects, which are separate and
distinct from any projects that may be authorized under the Act.
LEWIS & CLARK
The Lewis & Clark Rural Water System was authorized in the 106th
Congress by P.L. 106-246. Construction activities began in 2004. The
project has expended over $75 million, and was approximately 23 percent
complete as of September 30, 2007. Funds have been used for
preconstruction activities, including National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) and National Historic Preservation Act compliance, Value
Engineering studies, field data collection, and preparation of plans
and specifications. Lewis & Clark has constructed 50 miles of the 61
mile main transmission pipeline in South Dakota, 8 miles of raw water
pipeline and 9 miles of treated water pipeline in Iowa. Six wells were
installed in the Mulberry Point Well Field with associated facilities
and bank stabilization commencing this year. The Federal cost ceiling
(FY 2008) is $362 million and the corresponding non-Federal cost-share
is $100 million for a total project cost of $462 million. As of January
1, 2008, Federal appropriations totaled $101 million with a remaining
Federal balance of approximately $261 million. When completed, Lewis &
Clark will address regional concerns regarding the low quality,
contamination vulnerability, and insufficient supply of existing
drinking water sources throughout the project area. Currently, 20
existing water utilities are members of Lewis & Clark, which will
eventually serve more than 300,000 people in South Dakota, Minnesota,
and Iowa.
MID-DAKOTA RURAL WATER SYSTEM
The Mid-Dakota Rural Water System, P.L. 102-575, Title XIX, dated
October 30, 1992, authorized the construction of the Mid-Dakota Rural
Water System. The Mid-Dakota Rural Water System utilizes water pumped
from an intake located on Oahe Reservoir. The project brings a
dependable supply of good quality drinking water to more than 29,000
people and more than 600,000 head of livestock. More than 3,000 rural
water users and 17 cities have paid good intention fees to be included
in the system. A wetland component is included in the project and is
being funded by a Federal grant. The Mid-Dakota project was completed
in FY 2006. Total Federal cost of the project was $148 million.
MNI WICONI
The Mni Wiconi Rural Water Supply Project was authorized under P.L.
100-516 and other authorizations to serve three Indian Reservations and
one non-Indian sponsor in South Dakota. The Indian sponsors are the
Oglala, Rosebud and Lower Brule Sioux Tribes and the non-Indian sponsor
is West River Lyman-Jones. The sunset date for the project has been
extended to the end of 2013. In addition to the annual construction
costs, as facilities are completed additional funds are required to
support Tribal operation and maintenance (O&M) activities, since P.L.
100-516 required that the operations and maintenance of the tribal
components be a Federal obligation. The FY 2009 budget for construction
is over $16 and $10 million for O&M. Mni Wiconi is one of two rural
water projects included in the FY 2009 President's Budget Request. The
Federal cost ceiling (FY 2008) is $452 million with a corresponding
non-Federal cost-share of $17 million. As of January 1, 2008, Federal
appropriations totaled $360 million with a remaining Federal balance of
approximately $92 million. The project was approximately 74 percent
complete as of September 30, 2007. The project will serve 40,000 on-
reservation, as well as 12,000 off-reservation residents.
The project was initially authorized for construction through 2003,
based on projected appropriations. In 2002, the Act was amended to
extend the sunset date to 2008 and to authorize an additional $58
million to cover costs not considered in the original authorization as
well as the added administrative costs for a five year extension. Since
the project was not completed by the amended date of 2008, Congress
extended the sunset date again, this time to 2013 through enactment of
P.L. 110-161.
NORTHWEST AREA WATER SUPPLY PROJECT (NAWS)
The NAWS project is a component of the larger Garrison Diversion
Unit. The rural water component in North Dakota was authorized by the
Garrison Diversion Unit Reformulation Act of 1986. The authorizing
legislation established two rural water components--the State
maintenance rehabilitation and improvement (MR&I) grant program and the
Tribal MR&I program--both of which have been under construction since
the late 1980s. The Tribes included in the authorization are the
Standing Rock Sioux, the Three Affiliated Tribes, the Spirit Lake
Sioux, and the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewas. The NAWS project is a
component of the State MR&I addition to the Garrison Unit and when
complete will deliver water from the Missouri River to communities and
rural water systems in North Dakota located in the Hudson Bay Basin.
Construction of NAWS began in April 2002, but was halted as a result of
litigation filed by the Province of Manitoba, alleging that the
environmental review under NEPA was insufficient.
In response to that complaint, in March 2006 Reclamation initiated
the preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS). The focus
of the EIS is to evaluate additional water treatment alternatives that
could further reduce the risks of transfer of non-native species from
the Missouri River Basin to the Hudson Bay Basin. Treatment would take
place within the Missouri River Basin and two of the four alternatives
would meet treatment goals recommended by the Province of Manitoba,
Canada. Increased costs of the newly considered alternatives range from
approximately $10 million to $90 million. The United States is
responsible for both construction and operation and maintenance of the
treatment plant. A Federally preferred alternative has not been
identified in the draft EIS.
The draft EIS was issued for a 60 day public review and comment in
December 2007, which was later extended to March 26, 2008. Three public
hearings were held to receive testimony from the public. All comments
received will be considered in preparing the final EIS. At this time
Reclamation anticipates completing the final EIS by the end of the
calendar year. Upon completion of the final EIS a record of decision
will be prepared.
The authorizing legislation requires that the Secretary make a
determination on adequate treatment to meet requirements of the
Boundary Waters Treaty in consultation with the Environmental
Protection Agency and the State Department. Reclamation will continue
working with these agencies on a recommendation for a Secretarial
determination that includes an appropriate treatment process.
The Federal cost ceiling for the State component (FY 2008) is $461
million with a corresponding non-Federal cost-share of approximately
$154 million. For this component of the project, as of January 1, 2008,
Federal appropriations totaled $230 million with a remaining Federal
balance of $231 million. The Federal cost ceiling for the Tribal
component (FY 2008) is approximately $311 million with no non-Federal
cost-share. From the same date, Federal appropriations for this
component totaled $80 million with a remaining Federal balance of $230
million. The project was approximately 61 percent complete as of
September 30, 2007.
PERKINS COUNTY
The Perkins County Rural Water System Act of 1999, P.L. 106-136,
dated December 7, 1999 authorized $15 million for the construction of
the Perkins County Rural Water System (PCRWS). The PCRWS is a buried,
pressurized pipeline distribution system that delivers treated drinking
water to communities, rural residences and pasture taps in Perkins
County, South Dakota. Perkins County is the second largest county
(2,866 square miles) in South Dakota and is located in the northwest
corner of the State. The area is characterized by widely separated
towns and ranches. Groundwater has been the predominant water source,
but many residents of the area haul water for domestic use because of
inadequate quantity and poor water quality. The PCRWS will purchase
treated water from the Southwest Pipeline Project (SWPP) in North
Dakota and distribute that water to its customers through a network
consisting of 515 miles of pipe, 5 booster stations, and 3 storage
reservoirs. The SWPP was constructed as a feature of the Garrison
Diversion Unit under the State MR&I program.
The Federal cost ceiling (FY 2008) is over $24 million with a
corresponding non-Federal cost-share of $8 million. As of January 1,
2008, Federal appropriations totaled approximately $14 million with a
remaining Federal balance of approximately $11 million. The system was
approximately 65 percent complete as of September 30, 2007.
FORT PECK/DRY PRAIRIE
The Fort Peck Reservation Rural Water System Act of 2000 (P. L.
106-382) authorized $287 million (FY 2008) for the construction of the
Fort Peck Reservation Rural Water System (FPRRWS). The Fort Peck Tribes
(Tribes) and the non-Indian Dry Prairie Water Authority (DPWA) are the
project sponsors. Public Law 106-382 authorizes the appropriation of
the funds over a period of 10 years. Reclamation has a cooperative
agreement with DPWA under the Federal Grants and Cooperative Agreements
Act for the construction of the off-reservation portion of the system.
Reclamation has a cooperative agreement with the Tribes under Title I
of P.L. 93-638 for the construction of the reservation portion of the
system and the water treatment plant and transfers funds each year
through an annual funding agreement under that cooperative agreement.
The Federal cost ceiling (FY 2008) is approximately $263 million with a
corresponding non-Federal cost-share of $24.512 million. As of January
1, 2008, Federal appropriations totaled $48 million with a remaining
Federal balance of approximately $215 million. The project was
approximately 16 percent complete as of September 30, 2007.
NORTH CENTRAL MONTANA/ROCKY BOYS REGIONAL WATER SYSTEM
The Rocky Boys/North Central Montana Regional Water System Act,
P.L. 107-331, dated December 13, 2002, authorized the construction of
the North Central Montana Regional Water System, in coordination with
the Chippewa Cree Tribe (Tribe) and the North Central Montana Regional
Water Authority (Authority). The Rocky Boy's/North Central Montana
Regional Water System will serve an estimated population of 43,000 at
full build-out. Operation, maintenance, and replacement for the core
and on-Reservation systems will be funded by a $20 million trust fund
through Bureau of Indian Affairs appropriations. The non-Tribal systems
will fund their operation, maintenance, and replacement separately
without Federal assistance. The Federal cost ceiling (FY 2008) is $273
million with a corresponding non-Federal cost share of $36 million. As
of January 1, 2008, Federal appropriations totaled approximately $15
million with a remaining Federal balance of approximately $258 million.
The project was approximately 5 percent complete as of September 30,
2007.
RURAL WATER PROGRAM
I would now like to provide a status report on Reclamation's
implementation of Title I of Public Law 109-451, the Rural Water Supply
Act of 2006.
In December 2006, the Rural Water Supply Act of 2006 (Act) was
enacted and signed into law. Title I of this Act authorizes the
Secretary of the Interior to create a rural water supply program
(Program) to address rural water needs in the 17 Western United States.
The intent of this Program is to enable Reclamation to work
cooperatively with rural communities across the West in a consistent
manner to identify rural water supply needs and cost effective options
for addressing those needs. Prior to enactment of this legislation,
Reclamation had no authority to get involved--early in the process--in
the analysis and development of solutions for meeting the potable water
supply needs of rural communities in the West. We are working hard to
implement this new Program in a timely manner.
Title I of the Act requires Reclamation to: (1) develop
programmatic criteria determining eligibility for non-Federal entities
to participate in the Program and for prioritizing requests for
assistance; (2) develop criteria for what must be included in both the
appraisal and the feasibility studies that are to be completed under
the Program, in terms of data, alternatives, and level of analysis; (3)
complete an assessment of the rural water programs that exist in other
Federal agencies to ensure that we are filling an unmet niche and to
ensure that we coordinate with other agencies and leverage resources;
and (4) complete an annual report of Reclamation's staff costs for
carrying out the Act. The assessment also will include a report on the
status of rural water projects that are already authorized for
involvement by the Bureau of Reclamation. As we have begun to work on
implementation of this Program, there was some confusion among some of
our customers and stakeholders about the Program's scope. I would like
to address that issue with the Committee.
Title I of P.L. 109-451 authorized Reclamation to complete
appraisal and feasibility studies for rural water projects in the 17
western states. It does not authorize the design and construction of
those projects.
The focus of the Program is to ensure that there is thorough
analysis of rural water needs and options to address those needs
through the completion of appraisal and feasibility studies that meet
program criteria. As studies are completed, Reclamation is required to
submit a feasibility report to Congress. In the report, the Secretary
(through Reclamation) will make a recommendation as to whether the
project is technically and economically feasible, and whether the
project is in the Federal interest. Further, the report must make a
recommendation on whether Congress should authorize Federal involvement
in construction of the project. The report must also make a
recommendation on the appropriate non-Federal share of construction
costs, which must be at least 25 percent of the total construction
costs. Reclamation is committed to working with its customers, states,
tribes, and other stakeholders to find ways to balance and provide for
the mix of water resource needs in the future to meet their
responsibilities.
While we expect great interest in this program, Reclamation will
not be able to get involved in every project that is presented to us,
as any efforts to implement projects under this program must compete
with other Reclamation projects for finite resources. The Act
envisioned the establishment of consistent and objective criteria to
help make those choices. As such, before the Rural Water Program can be
implemented, the Secretary (through Reclamation), must establish
programmatic and eligibility criteria for participation in the Program
and prioritization criteria to articulate how Reclamation will select
projects to support. The Act further requires that we promulgate and
publish the program's rules and criteria in the Federal Register. This
is being done through a rulemaking process in accordance with the
Administrative Procedure Act (APA). This APA process provides
opportunities for public review, involvement and comment and
Reclamation plans to closely adhere to these requirements.
We anticipate publishing the Rule in the Federal Register this
year, and the President's FY 2009 budget request includes $1 million
for administrative work for the program. That funding would allow us to
begin to work with communities on study proposals and then begin to
carry out and support studies that are selected based upon the
programmatic and prioritization criteria.
During our initial efforts to scope this Program, we have held
conversations with various stakeholder groups throughout the West.
Also, as part of the rulemaking process, we plan to hold public and
tribal meetings to gather comments and answer questions. We will
continue that outreach and dialogue throughout the process of
implementing this new Program.
We see this Program as an opportunity to provide a clearly defined
process for Reclamation and rural communities throughout the West to
work together to identify options for meeting potable water supply
needs in a technically feasible, environmentally responsible, and cost
effective manner. P.L. 109-451 gives Reclamation authority to review,
evaluate, and make recommendations to the Congress regarding the
feasibility of proposed rural water projects such as the ones discussed
here today.
With all of this work underway, we look forward to working closely
with the large base of stakeholders on implementation.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear today. This concludes my
statement. I am pleased to answer any questions from the Subcommittee.
Senator Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Ryan. As you know prior to
enactment the Rural Water Supply Act of 2006 authorization for
BOR Rural Water Projects was a hopscotch of separate
authorities tacked into Appropriation bills are missing on
these authorization bills. For example, Lewis and Clark
Regional Water System was added as an amendment to the Fiscal
Year 2001 military construction Appropriations bill.
There is apparently a need for a uniform set of criteria to
evaluate projects along for the Bureau to recommend to the
Congress future projects for authorization and construction.
That was what was intended in the Rural Water Act. Please turn
your attention to the funding chart showing the gap between the
proposed and enacted funding for the Great Plains Water
Projects. It is clear that recent BOR recommendations differ
widely.
Inconsistent budget recommendations seem to frustrate the
Bureau's goal of construction of the municipal, rural and the
districal water systems. Please explain how the BOR will
achieve its goal of constructing these systems when the
Administration's budget recommendations are so inconsistent
from 1 year to the next.
Mr. Ryan. Thank you, Senator. One of the things that I can
do as an engineer is to help the policymakers understand what
types of criteria I would bring to the selection process for
projects or for funding proposals for projects. You see now
that the Administration as we approach this, we have the two
criteria that we lean on very heavily. One is how far along the
project is to completion. The second is to what extent does
that project help serve Native American needs.
It's been our experience that the needs within those tribal
communities are sometimes the most severe, the most dire of
situations. So we use those as guidelines to get started on
which projects to direct our funding. One of the frustrating
things for all of us in the time that we live is that more
money would accomplish more good things.
In recent years Congress has enacted budgets, in addition
to what the President has proposed or requested, and that helps
the projects move along more quickly. I am thankful for that.
Senator Johnson. Mr. Ryan, I think the BOR suffers from a
perception in South Dakota that there is no rhyme or reason as
to how budgets are formulated. In 1 year Lewis and Clark
project is deemed a priority and is recommended to receive $15
billion then the next year, nothing, no funding at all. This
weakens confidence in the BOR.
How can the BOR improve the budget process so that projects
receive a more consistent recommended level of funding?
Mr. Ryan. Senator, I believe that consistency does help as
communities are planning long term, not only for what their
needs are and how they're going to meet those needs but how
they're going to find answers for those. That's why I do
advocate using the criteria that we've developed to date.
Additional criterias envisioned under the Rural Water Supply
Act because I think that helps brings back some predictability
to the situation.
Another thing that we can do to help, I believe, is that as
we understand the technical requirements on the jobs and many
of them are site specific or project specific, working with the
project sponsors we can help reach a meeting of the minds at
least on the technical level of what the cash-flow requirements
are to complete projects, do the calculations to try to get
things done as economic and efficiently as we possibly can. In
recent years we've been thrown a bit of a curve ball with the
price of some of our components for constructing the systems.
But we have to take that into account. We have to move forward.
But my experience has been the more predictable or the more
consistent that we can be as a partner, the better that is for
our remaining partners as they make their plans on how to
proceed.
Senator Johnson. I'd like now to turn to one project in
particular, the Mni Wiconi System. Recently you met the Oglala
Sioux Tribe on how to improve coordination between tribal
sponsors and the BOR. What is the quality of that relationship
between the BOR and the tribe? How can it be improved?
Mr. Ryan. I would characterize our relationship as very
strong and improving. This last week when I visited with some
representatives from the tribal membership one of the things
that we were talking about was improving the communications by
having more frequent, regularly scheduled sessions. Making sure
that we're approaching things, not just in a technical aspect,
but in a true government to government aspect.
So we have our technical folks working together, managers
working together and then tribal leaders and myself as the
Administration's representative working together. It's, as I
characterized it to someone that I work with, it's like a
ladder. You have the rungs and you have the styles and they
need to be working at all different levels and across, from
side to side, in order to be effective.
So that's something, I think, would help us, especially now
as we're nearly finished and we have this sunset date of 2013
to complete. So we need to make sure that we finish this race.
We need to be strong to the finish.
Senator Johnson. For now I would like to wrap up my
questions for Mr. Ryan and ask Senator Tester to proceed with
any questions he might have.
Senator Tester. Yes, thank you, Senator Johnson. Once
again, thanks for being here, Mike.
Mr. Ryan. Yes, sir.
Senator Tester. I appreciate your testimony. As per the
Rural Water Supply Act of 2006 and that assessment, in your
testimony you said it would be finished this year. Can you be
more specific than that?
Mr. Ryan. We expect, Senator, to formulate interim rules
and regulations. Have those by the fall of this year. We still
have to go through the more formulized, final rules and
regulations process. But we can begin acting under the interim
rules and regs.
We expect to be in that situation this fall. So that as we
get our funding for fiscal year 2009, this fall, we can hit the
ground with our feet running.
Senator Tester. When will it be ready for public
consumption?
Mr. Ryan. We've had some informal conversations with some
of our stakeholders to date to help us as we've prepared what's
in these interim drafts. I expect that in the late summer,
early fall, we'll have a public draft available for review and
comment. But I think that when people, when the larger public
sees it, they will be impressed with the amount of effort that
we've put into it. We're trying very hard to do a good job.
Senator Tester. Ok. As Regional Director, you talked about
a criteria being, percentage of completion.
Mr. Ryan. Yes, sir.
Senator Tester. What the impacts are on the Native
population.
Mr. Ryan. Yes, sir.
Senator Tester. Are there any others? First of all, did the
Regional Directors, play a role in general when these projects
came down the line as far as funding levels, as far as
recommendations?
Mr. Ryan. Yes, sir. In the Bureau of Reclamation our budget
requests are built from the ground up. So that people in our
field offices, in this instance with rural water, the people in
the field offices will visit with the project sponsors and
develop budget requests.
My job is then to make a recommendation to our
Commissioner. The Commissioner will then contemplate the
different recommendations that come to him. He makes the
recommendation to the Secretary of the Interior. From that it
goes to the Office of Management and Budget for preparation in
the President's request.
Senator Tester. Not to put you on the spot, but it would
seem to me that they're built from the ground up. There's a lot
of these projects that were zeroed out when they went by your
desk.
Mr. Ryan. As I'm sure you can appreciate, not everything I
recommend is agreed to. But it's also, I think too fair to say
for the process that the needs are so great that as we
formulate the budget and I take a look at all of my needs for
funding requests, requirements within the region, taking care
of existing infrastructure as well as developing new water
supply infrastructure, it calls for some very difficult
decisions.
Senator Tester. Yes and as I look at the chart it would
actually--the purple is the amount that was asked for in the
President's budget?
Mr. Ryan. Yes, sir.
Senator Tester. We see a decrease in that area. So it
appears some decisions were made, I think, at a different level
that has it at a different priority. You don't have to answer
that. That's just my opinion.
Mr. Ryan. Thank you.
Senator Tester. Do you feel that the input you have is
sufficient to ensure that these projects will be done in a
timely manner?
Mr. Ryan. I believe, beginning with our Commissioner and
going up through the Department and into OMB, that the
information that we're able to provide and their visits with
the project sponsors helps them to make as informed decisions
as possible. We try very hard to interpret sometimes complex
technical issues into, you know, real world language so that
they can make as an informed decision as they can.
Senator Tester. Let's go back to this Rural Water Supply
Act 2006. Once it gets done and we're able to utilize it in
next year's budget, do you think it will have significant
impacts on funding levels for projects?
Mr. Ryan. I think that it has the potential, Senator.
Because I believe that it will bring to the public eye
something that several folks believe they see right now in that
the need is great for systems like this and in places in
addition to the projects that have been authorized to date. I
believe that will take some people aback when they see what the
needs are.
Senator Tester. Ok. I mean one of the reasons I asked that
question, and I think it's been alluded to here several times
this afternoon, is that some of these funding levels aren't
even keeping up with inflation.
Mr. Ryan. That's right.
Senator Tester. So if there isn't more of a priority put on
them within the budget they'll never get completed.
Mr. Ryan. Right.
Senator Tester. So that's really the issue. I mean, we've
invested some real dollars in some real projects in both North
and South Dakota and in Montana and quite frankly if these
funding levels continue the way they are, at least in this
region we're losing ground, not gaining.
Mr. Ryan. With the cost of indexing, you know, the rising
cost of the materials needed to construct the systems. It's
very difficult to make head way.
Senator Tester. Yes. That's probably not going to change
much, with the price of fuel at four bucks. New projects. Are
you going to be recommending new projects?
Mr. Ryan. Right. What we'll do is work through the process
that the legislation envisions in doing either appraisal or
feasibility studies and then make the report to Congress. I
would envision that some of the reports to Congress will be
favorable and some will be not. But I think it would be pre-
decisional right now for me to try and select which ones would
be.
We know we need to do our work and go through them and
scrub thenumbers and be able to make our recommendation to the
Congress.
Senator Tester. Yes, ok. I just wondered with the way the
dollars are going, unless there's more of an emphasis on these
projects. Trust me, we've got projects in Montana that have not
been approved yet that are critically important. But how do you
get to a point where you can fund the old ones and take care of
the new ones?
Mr. Ryan. Yes, sir. It's a challenge.
Senator Tester. Just a second here, real quick. You've got
a loan guarantee program. What's the status of that?
Mr. Ryan. In the second title within the Rural Water Supply
Act had to do with the Loan Guarantee Program. The Bureau of
Reclamation prepared the rules and regulations, drafted the
rules and regulations for implementing the loan program. They
were submitted to the Office of Management and Budget in May
2007, so about a year ago.
The Office of Management and Budget had some differences
with Reclamation and the Department of the Interior about how
many dollars in Appropriations would need to be made in order
to effectuate the program. So Reclamation, Interior and OMB
right now are sitting down trying to come to a common
understanding of what those rules and regs should be so we can
get them out and get going.
Senator Tester. Those rules and regs, I mean, those are the
criteria for the loan?
Mr. Ryan. Yes, sir.
Senator Tester. When do you anticipate that criteria or
those regs will be done?
Mr. Ryan. I've visited with my Commissioner about this
subject and he's expressed an interest in having rules and regs
out by the time we get into the fall or early winter. I know
he's working hard to make that a reality. I'm hopeful that he's
successful because I know several communities that are
anxiously awaiting them.
Senator Tester. Yes. If you can find out a time for that,
that would be good because I think this is an important funding
mechanism.
Mr. Ryan. Yes, sir.
Senator Tester. Back in the day Commissioner Keys testified
on the Rural Water Supply Act of 2005. He stated that the
Office of Management and Budget had done a review of
Reclamation's rural water activities and determined that the
program was not demonstrating results. Specifically the review
noted that Congress had authorized projects that may not be in
the best Federal interest.
As a result of the OMB review the Bush Administration
recommended eliminating most of the funding for rural water
projects. Based on what you know about the projects here in
South Dakota and the importance they offer the communities and
Native Americans in this state, do you believe that these
projects are not in the best Federal interest?
Mr. Ryan. Senator, I've been to, not all, but many of these
projects. I've seen the source water that these families have
now. I've seen what projects like this can do in providing safe
and certain potable water for children and for communities. I
can't help but think that's in the interest of my government to
do that.
Senator Tester. Well, I appreciate that response. Just in
closing, I want to thank you again, Senator Johnson for getting
Mr. Ryan here. I do appreciate you sacrificing to be here at
the committee here today.
Mr. Ryan. Thank you, sir. It's an important topic.
Senator Tester. What's that?
Mr. Ryan. It's an important topic. I'm pleased to be here.
Senator Tester. It is an important topic. I just want to
close on one question. I know that Senator Johnson and myself
and others in this region fight hard for dollars for water
projects. But when the President's budget zeros them out it
really puts us behind the eight ball.
Mr. Ryan. Yes, sir.
Senator Tester. Do you see anything that you can do to put
a little common sense in this equation?
Mr. Ryan. One thing that I can specifically help do,
Senator, is make sure that the folks that I work with within
the Administration are as fully informed as possible. That
means not only providing written information but whenever
schedules and their own budgets allow getting them to the
locations to see the work and to visit with the people who are
benefiting from these projects. That helps me because it
improves understanding. So I think that's helpful.
I think another thing that's helpful is when we work with
the project sponsors on the engineering aspects trying to make
sure we squeeze as much good out of every dollar as we can. But
then also have a common understanding of what additional
capabilities we may have should funding become available that
we could put to good work. You know that's the reason why I
became a public servant years ago when I graduated and got my
engineering degree. It's some of the most rewarding work that I
do.
Senator Tester. Good. I appreciate, you know, getting the
most bang for the buck and then making sure the engineering
meets the needs and is lean and mean in that process. I would
tell you that I would offer our help in getting anything that
we can do to help facilitate these folks out here because I
agree with you.
We can get people within the bureaucracy to come out and
see first hand what's going on. Come and see first hand, as you
have. As you've said, you have had to see first hand what's
going on as far as inadequacies in rural America in this
region. I think it helps us all.
Mr. Ryan. Yes, sir.
Senator Tester. Makes our job a bit easier.
Mr. Ryan. Yes, sir.
Senator Tester. So thank you very much, Mike.
Mr. Ryan. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Johnson. Mr. Ryan, in conclusion I don't understand
the priorities of this Administration. For instance $1 billion
would make a huge difference in the water funding for America.
It costs $200 billion a year in Iraq.
I don't understand that as a set of priorities at all. But
I don't expect you to answer that. Thank you for coming.
Mr. Ryan. Thank you, sir.
Senator Johnson. Thank you, Senator Tester. Now I'd like to
move onto to the second group of witnesses. We have a good list
of witnesses from South Dakota who can provide their views on
the importance of BOR's meeting the water supply needs of the
State.
We're joined today by Mayor David Munson of Sioux Falls,
South Dakota. Troy Larson, Executive Director of the Lewis and
Clark Regional Water System. President John Steele of the
Oglala Sioux Tribe. President Rodney Bordeaux of the Rosebud
Sioux Tribe. Chairman Mike Jandreau of the Lower Brule Sioux
Tribe and Jake Fitzgerald, manager of the West River/Lyman-
Jones Water System.
Welcome to each of you. Mayor Munson, please go ahead with
your statement. We'll then proceed with the other witnesses.
After all of you have completed your statements we'll proceed
with questions.
Mayor Munson, go right ahead.
STATEMENT OF DAVE MUNSON, MAYOR, SIOUX FALLS, SD
Mr. Munson. Mr. Chairman and Senator Tester, my name is
Dave Munson, Mayor, city of Sioux Falls, South Dakota. It is my
pleasure to welcome you to our city. I thank you for bringing
this field hearing to Sioux Falls. For the opportunity to
testify before your committee regarding the need our city has
for Lewis and Clark Regional Water System.
Sioux Falls is the largest city in South Dakota. Last year
our population exceeded 150,000 people. By the year 2035 we
estimate Sioux Falls will have 271 citizens. If you combine the
city with our four county area our population will
approximately 400,000.
Our city is striving for many reasons. We believe we found
an excellent balance between cost of living and quality of
life. For three straight years a major national publication has
ranked Sioux Falls the best small city in America for
businesses and careers.
In 2007 the value of our building construction exceeded a
half billion dollars, a number you usually find in cities the
size of Omaha or Des Moines. Our housing market is stable. In
2007 alone we constructed over 1,700 dwelling units which was
much higher than in the last several years.
Our unemployment rate is extremely low. Our major
industries are diversified with an excellent medical community,
a very strong financial sector and continued ties to our
agricultural roots. But we know that for Sioux Falls to
continue to grow and fulfill its potential we need to secure a
future water supply.
For 20 years the city has been committed to working as a
regional partner to develop the Lewis and Clark Water System.
In 2007 our city Council approved the largest bond issuance in
the city's history. We committed $70 million to pre-pay the
city's share of the Lewis and Clark project.
Our debt will be repaid over 30 years through increases to
our resident's water rates. We believe it is critical to show
our Federal partners that the citizens of Sioux Falls are
sharing in the cost of this critical need for our community.
When Lewis and Clark is completed Sioux Falls will be able
to access 27 million gallons of water a day. This will provide
enough supply to meet the needs of not just our residents, but
the many businesses that draw thousands of regional employees
and customers. They help make Sioux Falls an economic engine
for the entire State of South Dakota and the surrounding
region.
Since 2000 the Sioux Falls Metro Area has added more than
12,000 jobs. This accounts for more than half of all the new
jobs added to the entire State of South Dakota in that time.
Taxable sales in Sioux Falls also account for more than 25
percent of all sales in the State.
It makes sense that a growing city has many needs from road
improvement to features like parks and libraries that improve
our quality of life. But as we prioritize these needs in Sioux
Falls, water consistently rates as our top priority. Without
it, we simply cannot sustain our positive growth.
Sioux Falls has a geographic room to expand. We continue to
invest in our critical infrastructure, including streets,
sanitary sewer systems and storm drainage facilities. Without
an adequate water supply, however, this well planned growth
simply cannot continue.
When new businesses and industry visit Sioux Falls a major
factor determining their move is the availability of water. The
expanded Lewis and Clark pipeline will provide water resources
for Sioux Falls to meet its growth for the next 40 to 50 years
if properly managed. While we are clearly very focused on
growing our available water supply we are also committed to
conserving this precious resource.
I am proud to say that Sioux Falls is leading the way in
our State and Region when it comes to responsible water use.
For several years we have restricted water use between noon and
five when demand was highest on the system. We also have
transitioned residents into watering on odd/even days of the
week and recently made that change year round instead of only
in the summer months.
We offer water conservation kits to residents with items
like low flow shower heads, hose nozzle and lawn watering
gauge. We also provide rebates for purchasing efficient washing
machines, rain sensors and irrigation timers. To date we have
rebated back nearly $1.4 million to our residents and have
lowered our per capita use of water by nearly 10 gallons of
water per person per day.
Sioux Falls is not simply waiting for a supplemental supply
of water. We are working hard to become a more sustainable
community now and well into the future. In Sioux Falls we truly
recognize the value of our natural resources.
We are grateful that our Federal partners continue to
support our infrastructure needs through the Lewis and Clark
Regional Water System. I assure you that you're investing in an
excellent city. That future generations will benefit from your
support for decades to come.
I want to thank you again for the opportunity to present at
this important hearing.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Munson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dave Munson, Mayor, Sioux Falls, SD
My name is Dave Munson, Mayor of Sioux Falls, South Dakota.
It is my pleasure to welcome you to our city. And I thank you for
bringing this field hearing to Sioux Falls and for the opportunity to
testify before your Committee regarding the need our city has for the
Lewis and Clark Regional Water System.
Sioux Falls is the largest city in South Dakota. Last year, our
population exceeded 150,000 people. By the year 2035, we estimate Sioux
Falls will have 271,000 residents.
If you combine the city with our four-county area, our population
will be approximately 400,000.
Our city is thriving for many reasons. We believe we've found an
excellent balance between cost of living and quality of life.
For three straight years, a major national publication has ranked
Sioux Falls the best small city in America for businesses and careers.
In 2007, the value of our building construction exceeded half a
billion dollars, a number you usually find in a city the size of Omaha
or Des Moines. Our housing market is stable. In 2007 alone, we
constructed over 1,700 dwelling units, which was much higher than the
last several years.
Our unemployment rate is extremely low. Our major industries are
diversified, with an excellent medical community, a very strong
financial sector and continued ties to our agricultural roots.
But we know that for Sioux Falls to continue to grow and fulfill
its potential, we need to secure our future water supply.
For 20 years, the city has been committed to working as a regional
partner to develop the Lewis and Clark water system.
In 2007, our City Council approved the largest bond issuance in the
City's history. We committed 70 million dollars to prepay the City's
share of the Lewis and Clark project. Our debt will be repaid over 30
years through increases to our residents' water rates. We believe it is
critical to show our federal partners that the citizens of Sioux Falls
are sharing in the cost of this critical need for our community.
When Lewis and Clark is completed, Sioux Falls will be able to
access 27 million gallons of water a day.
This will provide enough supply to meet the needs of not just our
residents, but the many businesses that draw thousands of regional
employees and customers. They help make Sioux Falls an economic engine
for the entire state of South Dakota and the surrounding region.
Since 2000, the Sioux Falls metro area has added more than 12,000
jobs. This accounts for more than half of all the new jobs added to the
entire state of South Dakota in that time.
Taxable sales in Sioux Falls also account for more than 25 percent
of all sales in the state.
It makes sense that a growing city has many needs, from road
improvements to features like parks and libraries that improve our
quality of life. But as we prioritize these needs in Sioux Falls, water
consistently rates as our top priority.
Without it, we simply cannot sustain our responsible, positive
growth.
Sioux Falls has the geographical room to expand. We continue to
invest in our critical infrastructure including streets, sanitary sewer
systems, and storm drainage facilities. Without an adequate water
supply however, this well-planned growth simply cannot continue. When
new businesses and industries visit Sioux Falls, a major factor in
determining their move is the availability of water.
The expanded Lewis & Clark pipeline will provide water resources
for Sioux Falls to meet its growth needs for the next 40 to 50 years if
properly managed. While we are clearly very focused on growing our
available water supply, we're also committed to conserving this
precious resource.
I am proud to say that Sioux Falls is leading the way in our state
and region when it comes to responsible water use.
For several years, we have restricted water use between noon and
five, when demand was highest on the system. We have also transitioned
residents into watering on odd and even days of the week, and recently
made that change year-round instead of only in the summer months.
We offer free water conservation kits to residents with items like
a low flow showerhead, hose nozzle and lawn watering gauge. And we also
provide rebates for purchasing efficient washing machines, rain sensors
and irrigation timers. To date, we have rebated back nearly $1.4
million dollars to our residents and have lowered our per capita use of
water by nearly 10 gallons of water, per person, per day. Sioux Falls
is not simply waiting for a supplemental supply of water; we are
working hard to become a more sustainable community, now and well into
the future.
In Sioux Falls, we truly recognize the value of our natural
resources. We are grateful that our federal partners continue to
support our infrastructure needs through the Lewis and Clark Regional
Water System.
I assure you that you're investing in an excellent city, and that
future generations will benefit from your support for decades to come.
Thank you again for the opportunity to present at this important
hearing.
Senator Johnson. Thank you, Mayor.
Mr. Larson.
STATEMENT OF TROY LARSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, LEWIS & CLARK
REGIONAL WATER SYSTEM, SIOUX FALLS, SD
Mr. Larson. I'm Troy Larson. I'm the Executive Director of
the Lewis and Clark Regional Water System. I'm honored to have
the opportunity, Mr. Chairman, Senator Tester, to be before
you. As Executive Director of Lewis and Clark I hope to convey
to you the importance of the Federal Government's commitment in
helping to address the critical water needs of the tri-state
region through the development of this vitally important water
project.
Lewis and Clark is a unique cooperative effort among 20
member cities and rural water systems. The States of South
Dakota, Iowa and Minnesota as well as the Federal Government.
Also unique is the project's regional approach to address
common water problems in the tri-state region in a more
effective and cost efficient way than each member could even
attempt to do alone.
Regional water problems include shallow wells and aquifers
prone to contamination, compliance with ever tightening Federal
drinking water standards, population and economic growth
stifled due to inadequate water supplies and insufficient
resources to replace aging facilities. When completed the
project will be a wholesale provider of water to its 20 cities
and rural water systems. Lewis and Clark will not connect
individual homes and businesses.
Through its members Lewis and Clark will provide a
desperately needed source of quality, reliable drinking water
from a series of wells adjacent to the Missouri River to over
300,000 people in South Dakota, Iowa and Minnesota. The
following chart to my left shows the service area of Lewis and
Clark which represents the size of Connecticut. We haven't
informed Connecticut of this yet, but they're an official unit
of measurement now for Lewis and Clark. But it gives you a
perspective of its scope.
Lewis and Clark was incorporated in 1990. In 2000 the
project was authorized by Congress and signed into law. The
project is owned and governed by the 20 local members with
construction oversight provided by the Bureau of Reclamation.
Construction got underway in 2004. So we are in our fifth
season of construction. Currently the project has 90 miles of
primarily 54-inch diameter pipe either completed or under
construction along with seven wells.
In the picture to my right puts in perspective the 54-inch
diameter pipe. For those in the audience I believe there's some
copies of my testimony that you'll be able to see some of these
pictures and graphs.* For you, Senator Tester, for your benefit
I should note that a $30.7 million pipeline project was just
awarded last week to a firm headquartered out of Bozeman,
Montana. So they'll be doing some work for us.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Pictures and graphs have been retained in subcommittee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Tester. Thank you.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Larson. A couple other pictures of our construction. On
my right here is a typical cross section of our pipeline
construction. There is six foot of fill that goes on top of the
pipeline. The picture on my left shows a 50-foot long section
of the 54-inch diameter pipe being lowered into the trench. I
just share these pictures to give you a little bit of
perspective on the size of the pipeline.
The following chart summarizes the progress being made. The
red lines represent construction that has been completed. The
green lines are construction that is underway. In addition the
first phase of the water treatment plant will be bid this
summer. The maximum capacity of the plant will be 45 million
gallons a day.
Today's field hearing comes at an exciting time for Lewis
and Clark. On May 1, Lewis and Clark celebrated a momentous
occasion as we put into operation the first segment of
pipeline. The nine miles of pipe between Sioux Center and Hull
shown over here were built several years earlier than planned
to serve as an emergency connection for Hull which is facing
water shortages.
On a temporary basis until Lewis and Clark water arrives,
Lewis and Clark will purchase water from Sioux Center. Resell
it to Hull as a band aid approach to buy time for that
community. As our Chairman, Red Art noted, who's with us today,
``It took 18 years, but we're finally selling water, nine miles
down, only 328 miles to go.''
A similar emergency connection is being built sooner than
planned for the rapidly growing communities of Tea and
Harrisburg, South of Sioux Falls. That's this segment of pipe
right here. That is being built earlier than anticipated as
well.
In the short term water will be purchased from Sioux Falls
on a temporary basis and resold to Tea and Harrisburg. We hope
to have this second emergency connection in operation this
summer. These emergency connections demonstrate the critical
water needs in the region and the extent Lewis and Clark is
going to try to buy time for these communities until Lewis and
Clark water arrives.
Another demonstration of the critical water needs is the
pre-payment being made by the local members and 3 States.
Generally speaking the cost break down for this project is 80
percent Federal funding, 10 percent from the 3 states and 10
percent from the local members. The exception is Sioux Falls
which has a higher cost share.
To help keep construction on track and reduce the impact of
inflation, 17 of Lewis and Clark's 20 members have pre-paid
their entire share of the project. As you will see on this
chart, to date the members have paid a total of $106.5 million
which represents close to 99 percent of the member's
commitment. It's important to note and I can't stress this
enough that many of the members are pre-paying millions of
dollars, decades or more, before they will see a single drop of
water. That's putting your money where your mouth is.
As has been noted by some in Congress, this took a lot of
guts and demonstrates not only the strong local support, but
how important it is for the project to be completed in a timely
manner. In addition on the chart you will see the States of
Iowa and Minnesota have paid 100 percent of their commitment
which totals $12.4 million. The South Dakota legislature
approved $6.4 million for Lewis and Clark this year which is
one-third of Governor Round's plan to pre-pay the State's
remaining share by 2010.
By contrast, the Federal Government has paid $102 million
to date which represents just over 28 percent of the Federal
Government's commitment. Now it's important to note that we are
very grateful for the funding that has been appropriated thus
far. We are especially grateful to our elected officials who
have fought so hard for every penny that has been allocated for
Lewis and Clark.
In particular last year's record $26.5 million for the
project would have never happened without the leadership of
Senators Tim Johnson, John Thune and Representative Stephanie
Herseth Sandlin. Given the tight budget constraints Congress
was facing last year, securing a $5.5 million increase over
last year was nothing short of a Herculean effort by our tri-
state congressional delegation. Unfortunately that great news
was short lived, lasting only 5 weeks until we learned that
Lewis and Clark has received a recommendation of $0 dollars in
the Bureau of Reclamation's budget for fiscal year 2009.
Thirty-five million dollars is what Lewis and Clark needs
to keep construction on schedule which is already close to 4
years behind schedule. At $35 million, the earliest the project
would be completed is 2020 which is shown by the blue line on
this chart to my right which highlights the impacts of
inflation. At $35 million a year the total project cost would
be just over $525 million.
However, if hypothetically the project only receives $15
million each year, which is what the Administration proposed
last year, it's estimated the project would not be completed
until 2045 as shown by the green line and would have an overall
price tag of just over $700 million. This assumes, I want to
stress, a very conservative 4 percent rate of inflation. We
haven't seen 4 percent rate of inflation for some time. So
these numbers will likely be higher.
In summary, rural water projects, like Lewis and Clark are
vitally important to improving the quality of life and
expanding economic development opportunities for the people
they serve. Projects like Lewis and Clark simply cannot be
completed without the cooperation and assistance from the
Federal Government. However the longer it takes to receive the
necessary Federal funding for these projects, the more
expensive they become as a result of inflation. The longer
critical water needs go unmet.
It's very important that rural water projects under
construction be completed in a timely manner. Thank you very
much for you time and consideration.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Larson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Troy Larson, Executive Director, Lewis & Clark
Regional Water system, Sioux Falls, SD
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I am honored to have the
opportunity to appear before you to discuss the Lewis & Clark Regional
Water System (L&C). As Executive Director of L&C, I hope to convey to
you the importance of the federal government's commitment in helping to
address the critical water needs of the tri-state region through the
development of this vitally important water project.
L&C is a unique cooperative effort among 20 member cities and rural
water systems, the States of South Dakota, Iowa, Minnesota, and the
Federal Government. Also unique is the project's regional approach to
address common water problems in the tri-state region in a more
effective and cost-efficient way than each member could even attempt to
do alone. Regional water problems include shallow wells and aquifers
prone to contamination, compliance with ever tightening federal
drinking water standards, population and economic growth stifled due to
inadequate water supplies, and insufficient resources to replace aging
facilities. When completed, the project will be a wholesale supplier of
water to its 20 cities and rural water systems. L&C will not connect
individual homes and businesses. Through its members, L&C will provide
a desperately needed source of quality, reliable drinking water from a
series of wells adjacent to the Missouri River to over 300,000 people
in South Dakota, Iowa and Minnesota. The following chart shows the
service area of L&C, which represents the size of Connecticut.
L&C was incorporated in 1990 and in 2000 the project was authorized
by Congress and signed into law. The project is owned and governed by
the 20 local members, with construction oversight provided by the
Bureau of Reclamation. Construction got underway in 2004, so we are in
our fifth construction season. Currently, the project has 90 miles of
primarily 54'' pipe either completed or under construction, along with
seven wells. For Senator Tester's benefit, I should note that a $30.7M
pipeline contract was awarded last week to a firm headquartered in
Bozeman, MT.
Here are a few pictures that show the 54'' pipe being constructed.
The following chart summarizes the progress being made. The red
lines represent construction that has been completed and the green
lines are construction that is underway.
The first phase of the water treatment plant will be bid this
summer. The maximum capacity of the plant will be 45 million gallons a
day.
Today's field hearing comes at an exciting time for us. On May 1st,
L&C celebrated a momentous occasion as we put into operation the first
segment of pipeline. The nine miles of pipe between Sioux Center and
Hull, Iowa, were built several years earlier than planned to serve as
an emergency connection for Hull, which is facing water shortages. On a
temporary basis until L&C water arrives, L&C will purchase water from
Sioux Center and re-sell it to Hull as a band-aid approach to buy time
for that community. As our Chairman, Red Arndt, noted, ``It took
eighteen years, but we're finally selling water. Nine miles down, only
328 miles to go.''
A similar emergency connection is being built sooner than planned
for the rapidly growing communities of Tea and Harrisburg, with water
to be purchased from Sioux Falls on a temporary basis. We hope to have
this second emergency connection in operation this summer. These
emergency connections demonstrate the critical water needs in the
region and the extent L&C is going to try to buy time for these
communities until L&C water arrives.
Another demonstration of the critical water needs is the pre-
payment being made by the local members and three states. Generally
speaking, the cost breakdown for this project is 80% Federal funding,
10% from the three states and 10% from the local members. The exception
is Sioux Falls, which has a higher cost share. To help keep
construction on track and reduce the impacts of inflation, 17 of L&C's
20 members have pre-paid their entire share of the project. As you will
see on this chart, to date, the members have paid a total of $106.5M,
which represents close to 99% of the members' commitment. It's
important to note that many of the members have pre-paid millions of
dollars a decade or more before they will see a single drop of water.
That's putting your money where your mouth is. As has been noted by
some in Congress, this took a lot of guts and demonstrates not only the
strong local support, but how important it is for the project to be
completed in a timely manner.
In addition, the States of Iowa and Minnesota have paid 100% of
their commitment, which totals $12.4M. The South Dakota Legislature
approved $6.4M for L&C this year, which is one-third of Governor
Rounds' plan to pre-pay the State's remaining share by 2010.
By contrast, the Federal government has paid $102M to date, which
represents just over 28% of its commitment. It is important to note
that we are very grateful for the funding that has been appropriated
thus far--and we are especially grateful to our elected officials who
have fought so hard for every penny that has been allocated to L&C. In
particular, last year's record $26.5M for the project would have never
happened without the leadership of Senators Tim Johnson, John Thune and
Representative Stephanie Herseth Sandlin. Given the tight budget
constraints Congress was facing last year, securing a $5.5M increase
over last year was nothing short of a Herculean effort by our tri-state
delegation. Unfortunately, that great news was short-lived, lasting
only five weeks until we learned that L&C had received a recommendation
of zero dollars in the Bureau of Reclamation's budget for FY09.
$35M is what L&C needs to keep construction on schedule, which is
already close to four years behind schedule. At $35M, the earliest the
project would be completed is 2020, which is shown by the blue line on
this chart that highlights the impacts of inflation. The estimated cost
of the project would be just over $525M. However, if hypothetically the
project only receives $15M each year, which is what the Administration
proposed last year, it is estimated the project would not be completed
until 2045, as shown by the green line, and would have an overall price
tag of just over $700M. This assumes a very conservative 4% rate of
inflation, so the numbers will likely be higher.
In summary, rural water projects like L&C are vitally important to
improving the quality of life and expanding economic development
opportunities for the people they serve. Projects like L&C simply
cannot be completed without the cooperation and assistance from the
Federal government. However, the longer it takes to receive the
necessary Federal funding for these projects, the more expensive they
become as a result of inflation and the longer critical water needs go
unmet. It is very important that rural water projects under
construction be completed in a timely manner. Thank you very much for
your time.
Senator Johnson. Mr. Steele.
STATEMENT OF JOHN STEELE, PRESIDENT, OGLALA SIOUX TRIBE, PINE
RIDGE, SD
Mr. Steele. We don't all have to go to Washington to--I
don't like that place over there.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Steele. But Senator, I'd like to say that yourself,
you've been involved in just about every one of these projects
since their inception. I think you've done the most while you
were in the House of Representatives and the Senate to see
these projects to where they are now. Senator Tester, I thank
you for coming to South Dakota and welcome.
Senators, we not only thank you for holding this hearing
here. We, from the Oglala Sioux Tribe, and the Mni Wiconi
Project would endorse and support each and every project on
that board up there. The Lewis and Clark, the Mni Wiconi,
Perkins County, Garrison Diversion, the Fort Peck and Rocky
Boy's because we realize the need for water, not only to today
for the health needs and the economic development for the
future development.
Our area here is very--some of it, especially my area, like
Mr. Larson said here, the quality of the water, the water table
going down, the concentration of minerals. It's costing the
Federal Government more, Senator Johnson, the longer we wait
for the completion of these projects. Our project was to be
completed in 2003 and because of the inadequate funding over
the years, we're now at a sunset year of 2013.
Also unlike some of the projects out there I would like to
say that the treaty that we have with the U.S. Government, the
Treaty of Peace, the Federal Government then promised us
adequate health care. This, today, is needed on Pine Ridge. We
can show it, Senator, in some of the statistics now. But we
would like to say, Senator, that we have a very good team. The
Lyman-Jones/West River, Lower Brule and Rosebud along with the
Oglalas are getting the project done.
I would like, Mr. Ryan and I liked his testimony. But I
think that BOR needs to step up to the plate a little more. I
would like to meet with Mr. Ryan to tell him he's looking at
cost efficiency and the cost effective manner in which to get
the projects done.
But I don't know if Mr. Ryan knows the history, the
Appropriations of 1871 saying that no more treaties would be
made with Indian tribes. Hereafter they would be dealt with,
with acts of Congress. But nothing in these acts would or could
change anything in the existing treaties. That the U.S. Supreme
Court in several cases ruled that the treaties are to be
interpreted as the Indians interpret them.
The Act of 1877, they call it, I don't know what the right
name of that is. But a lot of people refer to it back at home.
When the Federal Government realized that they'd killed off all
of the buffalo and the Act of 1877 is sort of a social services
act that established the rations. In general it says to sustain
that individual Indian.
Senators the rations came out of that surplus commodity
program. We'd like to interpret that to mean in keeping of the
Federal Governments treaty language and the healthcare to show
them how the existing infrastructure of the pipeline, right
now, has affected these statistics and these numbers. It's
affected the cost to the Federal Government and how, yet today,
the chemicals, especially arsenic.
EPA is temporarily letting us use some wells, Senator, with
the understanding that this river water is going to reach Pine
Ridge. This arsenic is causing cancer. There's a high cost to
that, Senator. It can be affected with the completion of our
project in Mni Wiconi.
We need to talk to someone to show them this documentation
so that the government will--and we also have some posters,
Senator. The first one is the pipe trenching between Kadoka and
the Reservation. I would like to introduce the individual
standing there, Senator and say that Mr. Frank ``Popo'' Means,
when I was Vice President.
I believe, Pope, that was between 1984 and 1986. He was on
the Tribal Council. He went up to Karoake and met with Senator
Abner had a meeting up there. That was the first time that the
non-Indian and the Indian got together on our water needs.
We had been thinking of the same thing back in the 1950's,
we understand, on usage of that Missouri River water. So that's
when we actually got together, testimony was developed. Now,
Mr. Means is the Executive Director of our whole program, the
Mni Wiconi Project, the construction from the river to the
Reservation and inside the Reservation, the distribution
system. But the pipe trenching is the connecting between
Karoake and Pine Ridge which we will realize this fall.
The other picture is, we call it one of the most modern
treatment plants in the whole United States, very computerized.
Oglala Sioux Tribal members are in charge. They're operating
the intake and the water treatment plant. Everything is going
good in the communities we're supplying right now. We do have a
reservoir there. We have reservoirs, pumping stations that the
Oglala Sioux Tribe operates and maintains.
The last picture on the end over there is what is labeled
water hauling. This is an ongoing thing on Pine Ridge that we
have homes that have to haul water for domestic use, for
drinking, for washing dishes, for cooking. We get into it with
the Bureau because they don't like the project of hauling water
to people's homes.
We have to argue with them over a budget for that so that
we can at least the household by delivering water to their
homes until the pipeline and distribution system does get to
them. But that's water hauling. We've got quite a number of
them yet on Pine Ridge that we haul water to their homes.
I'm taking too much time up, Senator. Will be able to
answer questions. But I did provide you with some written
testimony, Senator and would like to have that included in the
record, please.
Senator Johnson. It will be received.
Mr. Steele. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Steele follows:]
Prepared Statement of John Steele, President, Oglala Sioux Tribe, Sioux
Falls, SD
Mr. Chairman, my name is John Steele, and I am president of the
Oglala Sioux Tribe. I am pleased that you extended an invitation to
present testimony on the status of rural water projects. I am
representing the Oglala Sioux Rural Water Supply System, which was
created pursuant to the Mni Wiconi Project Act of 1988, Pub.L.100-516.
The Oglala Sioux Rural Water Supply System serves as the backbone
of the Mni Wiconi Project. It diverts raw water from the Missouri River
near Fort Pierre, South Dakota, treats the water in a state-of-the-art
processing facility manned by members of the Oglala Sioux Tribe and
delivers water through 4,200 miles of pipeline, when completed, to the
Lower Brule, Rosebud and Pine Ridge Indian Reservations and parts of
nine counties in southwestern South Dakota served by the West River/
Lyman-Jones Rural Water System (See Exhibit 1).* It is the largest
rural water project in the world. Each of these interconnecting systems
will present testimony separately.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Exhibits have been retained in subcommittee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
HISTORY OF THE GEOGRAPHICAL AREA SERVED
The Oglala Sioux Tribe and other Sioux tribes fought a war called
the Potter River War (Red Cloud's War) from 1866-1868, which culminated
in the signing of the 1868 Fort Laramie Treaty, 15 Stat. 635. Article
II of the Fort Laramie Treaty of 1868 established the area west of the
``east bank'' of the Missouri River as the Great Sioux Reservation, a
permanent reservation for the signatory tribes. This was the homeland
of the Lakota people. Our leadership recognized the importance of the
Missouri River and embraced both banks and the full course of the
stream within our Treaty area. Our water treatment plant, 200 miles
east of the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation, relies on this source of
water that was so important to our forefathers.
In 1876, Congress attempted to purchase the Black Hills portion of
the Reservation but could not obtain the requisite number of signatures
needed from the Indian people to constitute a cession by agreement.
Congress resolved its perceived impasse by enacting the agreement into
law as the 1877 Act, 19 Stat. 254. Under Article 5 of the 1877 Act,
Congress promised all aid to civilization to the signatory tribes as
part of the quid pro quo for the confiscated territory. We view the Mni
Wiconi Project as a part of this promise. It will, when fully
implemented, provide a safe supply of water to the Oglala and other
Sioux project sponsors.
In 1889, Congress admitted South Dakota as a new member of the
United States. Congress also created smaller reservations out of the
Great Sioux Reservation, including the Pine Ridge, Lower Brule and
Rosebud Reservations. 25 Stat. 888. Settlement by non-Indians was
permitted west of the Missouri River.
When the Mni Wiconi Project Act was signed into law in 1988, five
generations of the Lakota and white settlers had coexisted in the
project area, but great prejudices existed between the two peoples. Our
people had existed in deep poverty, and bad feelings predominated with
the farmers and ranchers outside the Reservation. Our people initially
refused to accept the Project, suspicious of the intentions of the
United States and skeptical that the benefits of the project as
proposed would ever reach the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation. Many felt
that the Tribe was being used to deliver water to people off the
Reservation, and water would never reach us.
The poverty has not abated. The Pine Ridge Indian Reservation
remains the lowest per capita income region in the Nation, but the Mni
Wiconi Project has brought an element of hope and faith in the future.
Through the Mni Wiconi Project we have had to meet our neighbors,
settle age-old differences with them and pull together for a common
purpose of building a magnificent project that will improve the quality
of life for everyone in Western South Dakota, non-Indian and Indian
alike.
From the standpoint of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB),
the project must conform to all federal regulations and be built as
efficiently and cost-effectively as possible within a constrained
budget and without consideration of the social benefits. But from our
standpoint, great divides have been crossed, and a reconciliation of
social differences between peoples with vastly different backgrounds
has been achieved. This is not to say that differences do not exist,
but the Mni Wiconi Project has brought a mutual level of respect
between the Indian and non-Indian water users. The Oglala Sioux Tribe
has demonstrated that it can operate the common facilities beginning at
the Missouri River and deliver the water of life to non-Indian
neighbors within the West River/Lyman-Jones service area and to our
relations on the Lower Brule and Rosebud Indian Reservations.Oglala
Lakota tribal members have developed and demonstrated the skills,
qualifications and competence to operate a highly sophisticated
engineering project for the mutual benefit of everyone. This is a great
honor to the people of the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation.
Extended Schedule of Construction
While there is pride in the project and hope for the future, we
have been afflicted by an inadequate level of funding appropriated by
Congress. This problem begins with a chronically low allocation from
OMB for the rural water program of the Bureau of Reclamation in the
President's annual budget proposals. Congress has consistently worked
to increase the level of funding for our project, but the funds have
been inadequate to advance at the rate of construction contemplated in
the authorizing legislation and within the sponsors' capability. Our
original statutory completion date was 2003. In 2000, Congress extended
the completion date through 2008, and last year Congress extended the
completion date through 2013. These amendments have been necessary
because Congress has not been able to provide funds that would permit
us to complete the project on schedule. Congress needs an adequate
budget request from which to work. It has consistently worked hard to
enact funding as much as possible over the requests, but with a higher
floor from the President, it could be able to achieve enacted levels
much closer to the level of annual need. Rather than completion in one
decade, the project has been extended through two full decades, and the
benefits have been delayed.
The Pine Ridge Indian Reservation is the furthest location from our
water treatment plant on the Missouri River. The Oglala Sioux Tribe
will not receive Missouri River water until late in fiscal year 2008,
15 years after the start of construction. All of our effort prior to FY
2008 has been to build the intake, water treatment plant and pipelines
used for the common benefit of the Lower Brule, Rosebud, Pine Ridge and
West River/Lyman-Jones service areas. As those common pipelines have
been constructed westward, the Bureau of Reclamation has authorized the
building of the distribution systems that could receive Missouri River
water. It did not, however, authorize the building of the distribution
systems on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in advance that would
receive Missouri River water. We have been able to deliver all water
requirements to the Lower Brule Sioux Indian Reservation. Likewise, the
Rosebud Sioux Indian Reservation has been able to connect to our
pipelines and receive Missouri River water. The West River/Lyman-Jones
service area now receives Missouri River water in most areas except its
far western portion. (See Exhibits II and III for examples of
constructed facilities).
Most of the remaining construction will and must focus on the
distribution system on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation. The remaining
40% of the population to be served by the Missouri River water
treatment plant resides on the Reservation. Missouri River water will
finally be delivered to the northeast corner of the Pine Ridge Indian
Reservation and the community of Wanblee in late 2008. While we are
pleased that it is coming, much work remains before we can provide
water to our people throughout our Reservation. We continue to haul
water by truck to hundreds of households on the Reservation (See
Exhibit III, for example).
Delay in delivering Missouri River water to the Pine Ridge Indian
Reservation has created great anxiety among the Oglala Lakota
membership. Old suspicions have been renewed that water will never
reach us, that Congress will withdraw its support for the project when
the non-Indian service area has been largely completed. These concerns
were elevated this winter by the drastic cut in the President 's Budget
which reduced the Bureau-wide Rural Water Program from $55 million in
FY 2008 to $28 million in FY 2009. The cut for the Mni Wiconi Project
was severe. If not restored by Congress, the project cannot be
completed by 2013. The delivery of water to the Oglala Lakota will be
delayed, anxiety levels will rise and confidence in the project and the
United States will diminish.
HEALTH BENEFITS OF MNI WICONI PROJECT
The project area was formerly occupied by an ancient, inland sea.
Dinosaurs surrounded its shores. Over many eons, salts accumulated in
the sediments that were deposited. To the west in the Yellowstone Park
area, volcanism contributed arsenic and uranium to the sediments
carried by the streams reaching the ancient sea. When this ancient sea
receded, the sediments were eroded and are now visible in the Badlands
area of the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation. As wells were developed
during the last century, the first problem was obtaining an adequate
supply of water. The second problem was the poor quality of the meager
supply. The high concentration of chemicals makes the water unfit for
drinking in all but the southeastern portion of the Reservation.
The high chemical content of the water and its general lack of
suitability have made sanitation and ingestion a health issue for our
tribal members. Before the Mni Wiconi Project enabled us to develop and
distribute higher-quality groundwater from the southeastern portion of
our Reservation,\1\ the Indian Health Service attributed high incidence
of shigellosis, gastroenteritis, hepatitis C and other diseases to poor
water quality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Ancient winds deposited sand over the seabed sediments in this
area, and the Tribe inherited more suitable water quality in the
southeastern regions of the Reservation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Mni Wiconi Project was designed to develop 50% of our future
supply from high quality groundwater sources. The remaining 50% will be
derived from the Missouri River. The diseases listed above are rare
since the replacement of individual wells and development and
redistribution of our higher-quality groundwater sources. The remaining
water supply from the Missouri River will vastly improve water quality
and reliability, and these former diseases will be eliminated.
There are other more indirect health benefits associated with the
project. The Oglala Sioux Tribe has previously requested OMB and the
White House to form a task force to gather and analyze mortality data
in South Dakota among the Indian and non-Indian populations and the
associated costs of healthcare to be borne by the Treasury in the
future. Poverty on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation has an additional
health-care cost, relative to the population not in poverty, estimated
at $1.2 billion for each 24,000 members of our population over the next
50 years. Mortality rates among the Indian people are shockingly high
compared with the rest of the population.
Death rates in the Indian population due to diabetes are 10 times
the number of deaths in non-Indian regions for ages over 35 years.
Similarly, deaths due to heart disease in the Indian population are
1.67 times the number in the non-Indian population for those under 35
years of age. Indian deaths attributed to heart disease were 2.10 times
the number in the non-Indian population for persons between 35 and 59
years of age. Cancer deaths of Indians greatly exceed those of the non-
Indian population for persons aged 60 and over.
Extra annual health-care costs for the Indian population were
estimated using the national costs of health care as set out in the
table below. Extra health-care costs are for mortality levels above
that experienced in the non-Indian population of our region. For
example, 1.25% of the Indian population over 60 died from diabetes
between 1989 and 1997 as compared with 0.1% of the regional non-Indian
population.
NATIONAL HEALTH COST INFORMATION
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
National National
National Indirect Direct in National Cost Per
Disease Deaths Costs Costs Total Costs Death
(billion $) (billion $) (billion $)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Diabetes 72,112 $45.2 $46.4 $ 91.6 $ 1,270,246
Heart 959,227 -- -- 286.5 298,678
Cancer 539,533 $37.0 70.0 107.0 198,320
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mortality is inversely correlated with income levels or directly
correlated with poverty. As income levels decline, mortality increases.
Other factors, such as genetics, clearly have an influence; but income
level was shown to explain much of the difference in mortality rates
between Indian and non-Indian people living in the same area.
The Mni Wiconi Project is a part of the solution to these
significant healthcare issues. The project is a foundation. It is
intended to not only bring safe drinking water to our people, but
commercial and industrial development and much needed employment. This
will assist in raising income levels on the Reservation, a step toward
bringing our people out of poverty. This will, in turn, bring a
significant improvement in the health of the Oglala Lakota people,
thereby reducing future health-care costs and, most of all, the agony
of the families affected.
Completing the project will have the effect of lowering mortality
and health-care costs on our Reservation. To the degree that income
levels have been raised, mortality and associated healthcare costs can
be expected to decline. We need the appropriations necessary to
complete the project in 2013 so that the Tribe, its members and can
realize these benefits and the federal government can realize a savings
in health care costs.
The extra health-care cost estimates are of so great a magnitude
that there is a pressing need to (1) fully evaluate and quantify
differences in mortality between Indians and non-Indians; (2) correlate
mortality with income levels; and (3) determine the impact of the Mni
Wiconi Project on improving the economy of the Pine Ridge Indian
Reservation and its role thereby in lowering health-care costs. These
tremendous health-care costs in such a relatively small population of
our Nation stand as an ongoing human tragedy which demands compassion
to rectify. Moreover, these costs foretell a considerable drain on the
federal Treasury that cries out for remedy.
CONSTRUCTION COSTS
Costs of inflation and delays in funding have greatly increased the
appropriations required to complete the project. Costs have risen from
$257 million in 1993 dollars to $452 million in 2007 dollars. Much of
the remaining project costs are for polyvinylchloride (PVC) pipe, which
is manufactured from oil products that have risen from $35 to $130 per
barrel over the past year. This has a dramatic impact on the price of
pipe. The full level of inflation has not yet been realized.
As shown in the table below, the project will be 81% complete at
the end of FY 2008. Construction funds remaining to be spent after FY
2008 will total $87.691 million within the current authorization (in
October 2007 dollars). PL 110-161 extended the project authorization
from FY 2008 through FY 2013. Additional administrative and overhead
costs of extending the project, additional construction costs, and
accelerated inflation over the next 5 years are expected to increase
remaining project costs to $137.167 million.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Federal Construction Funding (Oct 2007 $) $ 451,707,000
Estimated Federal Spent Through FY 2008 $ 364,016,000
% Spent Through FY 2008 80.59%
Amount Remaining after 2008
Total Authorized (Oct 2007 $) $ 87,691,000
Overhead Adjustment for Extension to FY 2013 $ 109,851,000
and Other
Adjusted for Annual Inflation $ 137,167,000
Completion Fiscal Year (Statutory FY 2013; PL 110- 2,013
161)
Years to Complete 5
Average Annual Required for Finish $ 27,433,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost indexing over the last five years has averaged 7.89% for
pipelines. Pipelines are the principal components yet to be completed
(see chart below)*. Assuming an average 7.89% inflation in construction
costs in the remaining five years to complete the project, average
annual funding of $27.433 million for construction is required to
complete by 2013, the new completion date established just last year.
The President's budget of $16.24 million is grossly inadequate, departs
significantly from recent budgets and threatens an undetermined delay
in completing the project by 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Chart has been retained in subcommittee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 2(a)(5) of the Mni Wiconi Project Act specifically finds
that the United States has a trust responsibility to ensure that
adequate and safe water supplies are available to meet the economic,
environmental, water supply and public health needs of the Pine Ridge,
Lower Brule and Rosebud Indian Reservations. We respectfully request
that the United States remain mindful of this responsibility and ensure
the project receives the funds necessary to finish by 2013.
RURAL WATER SUPPLY ACT OF 2006
Our understanding of the intent of Rural Water Supply Act of 2006
was that the Secretary would prepare a plan on completion of projects,
including the Mni Wiconi Project, that were authorized but not
completed prior to 2006 (see extract below). The Oglala Sioux Tribe is
anxious to work with the Bureau of Reclamation on that plan. We are not
aware of any progress to date. Before the authorization of new
projects, including the Red River Valley Project in North Dakota, we
are hopeful that existing projects can be prioritized and completed.
conclusion
Thank you for the opportunity to present testimony.
Senator Johnson. President Bordeaux.
STATEMENT OF RODNEY BORDEAUX, ROSEBUD SIOUX TRIBE, ROSEBUD, SD
Mr. Bordeaux. Thank you, Senator. Senator Tester, Senator
Johnson, thank you for this opportunity to be able to present
testimony today. I am President of the Rosebud Sioux Tribe. The
Reservation of the Rosebud Sioux Tribe encompasses up to a
million acres and we serve over 20,000 tribal members.
Having a safe, reliable supply of high quality water is
taken for granted by most Americans. On the Rosebud Indian
Reservation water is respected as a necessity for life and the
health and welfare of our people. In the 1980s we developed a
small rural water system that took water from the well field
near the Rosebud community where high quality ground water is
available and we provided this to the community of Parmelee
which is located in Todd County.
Our tribal leaders had to work with a variety of agencies
including the Farmer's Home Administration, now referred to as
Rural Development and the Indian Health Service to expand the
system to the other parts of the Reservation where good quality
water was not available. However the funding was a major
impediment. In 1988 the Mni Wiconi Project was authorized and
the Rosebud Sioux Tribe was not a part of that project
initially.
Representatives of the BOR met with tribal representatives
and explained the project. They emphasized that the
participation in the Mni Wiconi Project would not impact the
reserved water rights. The Secretary of the Interior was
responsible for paying the planning, design, construction,
operation and maintenance of the system.
In the early 1990s our tribal leaders decided it was in our
best interest to participate in the project because No. 1,
water lines planned for West River crossed our lands. Number 2,
it did not affect our reserved water rates. Number 3, it helped
the United States meet the treaty obligations, 1868 Treaty.
Number 4, no other source of funding was available to meet our
water needs.
I would like to stress the last point which there were
pressing needs for quality water to improve the health and
welfare of our Reservation. No program was available to meet
those needs. So it was in the best interest of the tribe to
become part of the Mni Wiconi Project.
We completed a needs assessment in 1993 that identified a
preferred alternative, excuse me, that would use a combination
of 62 percent surface water from the Missouri River and 38
percent ground water from the Oglala aquifer. Rosebud Sioux
Tribe worked with the Oglala Sioux Tribe, West River/Lyman-
Jones County and the BOR on the final engineering report for
the project. Public Law 103-434 was passed on October 1994 and
that amended the Mni Wiconi Project Act to meet the full needs
of the Oglala Sioux Tribe, West River/Lyman-Jones and added the
Rosebud Sioux Tribe as well as Lower Brule Sioux Tribe.
The inclusion of Rosebud Sioux Tribe would not have been
possible without diligence and perseverance of the BOR, our
congressional delegates and Senator Johnson, especially, and
the other sponsors. We gratefully acknowledge that and show our
appreciation. The Mni Wiconi Rural Water Project comprises
service areas for both Indians and non-Indians alike and I
believe this has improved relationships with the non-Indians
over the past 15 years on our reservation. The BOR has provided
an even handedness in their oversight of the project that is
unique and their technical competence is praiseworthy.
Mni Wiconi has been a blessing. The project is fulfilling
the vital need for quality water on our reservation. By the end
of this year we will have close to 75 percent completion. I can
say that the project has been a success. We have brought high
quality water to distant corners of Todd and Mellette counties
and worked with Tripp County Rural Water to serve members of
the Rosebud Sioux Tribe in Tripp and Gregory Counties which is
primarily our secondary service area.
We have brought maps showing the status of our project on
the Primary as well as the Secondary Service Area. However, we
must not forget the remaining work to be completed. The 25
percent remaining is critical and includes the hooking up of
individual homes, businesses, additional reservoirs and pump
stations and upgrading obsolete water lines in some communities
such as Rosebud. We also have Mr. Syed Huq, our water resources
director. He manages Mni Wiconi and the Rural Water System.
The project has met critical economic development and
health needs on the reservation. According to the 2000 census
the Rosebud Reservation in Todd County is one of the poorest
counties in the country. Forty-six percent of the population is
below the poverty level as compared to only 14 percent in South
Dakota.
Mni Wiconi water has been used for two economic development
projects and this year we'll be extending water to serve a
tribal commercial business center which is in progress. These
projects provide employment opportunities where none existed
before. We have also developed direct employment opportunities
in the form of construction administration and inspection,
water conservation and tribal construction crews.
Prior to Mni Wiconi Rosebud Rural Water System, members of
many communities in the northern part of our Primary Service
Area had to haul water and water borne diseases were rampant.
Cases of Gastroenteritis averaged 375 per year between 1981 and
1986. The occurrence rate for Shigellosis, another water borne
disease, has been reduced from 22 cases in 1992 to 1 case in
2000.
High quality water supplied by Mni Wiconi meets all the
requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act. As shown above has
had a direct impact on the health and welfare of our
population. Safe drinking water is a source for good health
resulting in lowering of health care costs for our tribal
members by Indian Health Service.
We have developed an excellent working relationship with
BOR since our early involvement in the project. They have
supported our efforts to improve the quality of life on the
reservation. Shown a high level of common sense and flexibility
in how the Project has been implemented. We have also developed
an excellent working relationship with not only the Oglala
Sioux Tribe and Lower Brule, but also with West River/ Lyman-
Jones County Project.
We have some concerns about the Reclamation's Rural Water
Program as authorized by the Rural Water Supply Act of 2006. In
meetings with the Commissioner and his staff, they have
stressed that they are committed to the timely completion of
our project. Our concern is that in subsequent Administration's
water projects authorized through Reclamation's Rural Water
Program could be favored as the Administration prepares their
annual budget request for Congress. We hope this does not
occur. The completion date of our project was extended to 2008
and now it's up to 2013. Any further extension will prolong the
waiting list for remaining health care benefits of high quality
water and we need about 30 million to complete our project at
Rosebud.
Tribal members on the reservation perceive Mni Wiconi as
fulfilling an important trust responsibility of the Federal
Government to the Indian Tribes. The history of broken treaties
that have deprived them of land and resources have left the
tribes angry, poor and distrustful toward the Federal
Government. Mni Wiconi not only is an economic and public
health benefits engine to the tribes, it is also building
social and cultural infrastructure.
The most important highlights of the Mni Wiconi Project is
the trust that is being fostered toward the Federal Government
by the Indian tribes and a precedent for Indians being
primarily responsible for construction, operation and
maintenance of one of our largest rural water systems in the
country. It is also reconciliation at its finest for the
Indians and non-Indians working together respectfully and
cooperatively under the umbrella of the U.S. Government, BOR
and the United States Congress.
I want to thank you for this opportunity, Senators. I
appreciate it.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bordeaux follows:]
Prepared Statement of Rodney Bordeaux, Rosebud Sioux Tribe, Rosebud, SD
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to testify before you today regarding the status of the
Sicangu Mni Wiconi or Rosebud Sioux Rural Water System and the Rural
Water Supply Act of 2006.
My name is Rodney Bordeaux. I am the President of Rosebud Sioux
Tribe of South Dakota. The Rosebud Reservation comprises over one
million acres of land with a population of over 20,000.
Having a safe reliable supply of high quality water is taken for
granted by most Americans. On the Rosebud Indian Reservation water is
respected as a necessity for life and the health and welfare for our
people. In the 1980s we developed a small rural water system that took
water from a wellfield near the community of Rosebud, where high
quality groundwater is available, to the community of Parmelee where it
is not. Our tribal leaders tried to work with a variety of agencies
including Farmers Home Administration, now generally referred to as
Rural Development, and the Indian Health Service to expand the system
to other areas of the reservation where good ground water is not
available. We struggled without success.
In 1988, the Mni Wiconi Project was authorized and Rosebud was not
a part of the project. Representatives of the Bureau of Reclamation met
with tribal representatives and explained the project. They emphasized
that participation in the project would not impact our reserved water
rights and that the Secretary was responsible for paying for the
planning, design, construction, operation and maintenance of the
system. In the early 1990s our leaders decided it was in our best
interests to participate in the project because: 1) water lines planned
for West River crossed our lands; 2) it did not affect our reserved
rights; 3) it helped the United States meet treaty obligations to our
Tribe; and 4) no other source of funding was available to meet our
pressing water needs.
I would like to stress the last point. There were pressing needs
for quality water to improve the health and welfare of our reservation
and no ``program'' available to meet those needs. It was in the best
interest of the Tribe to become a part of Mni Wiconi Project. We
completed a Needs Assessment in 1993 that identified a preferred
alternative for that would use a combination of 62% surface water from
Missouri River and 38% groundwater from the Ogallala Aquifer. Rosebud
worked with the Oglala Sioux Tribe, West River/Lyman--Jones and the
Bureau of Reclamation on the Final Engineering Report for the project.
PL 103-434 was passed in October of 1994 that amended the Mni
Wiconi Project Act to meet the full needs of Oglala Sioux Tribe and
West River/Lyman Jones and add Rosebud Sioux Tribe and Lower Brule
Sioux Tribe.
The inclusion of Rosebud Sioux Tribe would not be possible without
diligence and perseverance of the Bureau of Reclamation, our
congressional delegation and the other sponsors and we gratefully
acknowledge that and show our appreciation. The Mni Wiconi Rural Water
Project comprises service areas for both Indians and non-Indians and I
believe has improved relations them over the past 15 years. The Bureau
of Reclamation has provided an even handedness in their oversight of
the project that is unique and their technical competence is
praiseworthy.
Mni Wiconi has been a blessing. The project is fulfilling the vital
need for quality water on our reservation. By the end of this year we
will be close to 75% complete and I can say that the project has been a
success. We have brought high quality water to distant corners of Todd
and Mellette counties and worked with Tripp County Rural Water to serve
members in Tripp and Gregory Counties in our Secondary Service Area. We
have brought a map showing the status of our project and the Primary
and Secondary Service Areas. However, we must not forget the remaining
work to be completed. The 25% remaining is critical and includes
hooking up individual homes and businesses, additional reservoirs and
pump stations and upgrading obsolete water lines in some communities
such as Rosebud.
The project has met critical economic development and health needs
on the reservation. According to the 2000 census, the Rosebud
Reservation in Todd County is one of the poorest counties in the
country. Forty-six percent of the population is below the poverty level
as compared to only 14.0 percent in South Dakota. Mni Wiconi water has
been used for two economic development projects and this year we will
be extending a water line to serve a tribal commercial center. These
projects provide employment opportunities where none existed before. We
have also developed direct employment opportunities in the form of
construction administration and inspection, water conservation, and
tribal construction crews.
Prior to Mni Wiconi Rosebud Rural Water System, members of many
communities in the northern portion of our Primary Service Area had to
haul water and water borne diseases were rampant. Cases of
Gastroenteritis averaged 375 per year between 1981 and 1986 on Rosebud
Reservation. The occurrence rate for Shigellosis, another water borne
disease, has been reduced from 22 cases in 1992 to 1 case in 2000.
The high quality water supplied by Mni Wiconi meets all the
requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act and as shown above has a
direct impact on the health and welfare of our population. Safe
drinking water is a source for good health resulting in lowering of
health care costs for our tribal members by Indian Health Service.
We have developed an excellent working relationship with the Bureau
of Reclamation since our early involvement in the project. They have
supported our efforts to improve the quality of life on the reservation
and shown a high level of common sense and flexibility in how the
Project has been implemented. We have also developed an excellent
working relationship with West River/Lyman--Jones in Mellette County.
We have some concerns about Reclamation's Rural Water Program
authorized by Rural Water Supply Act of 2006. In meetings with the
Commissioner and his staff, they have stressed that they are committed
to the timely completion of our project. Our concern is that in
subsequent administrations water projects authorized through
Reclamations Rural Water Program could be favored as the administration
prepares their annual budget request for submission to Congress. We
hope this does not occur. The completion date of our project was
extended to 2008 and now to 2013; any further extension will prolong
the wait for those remaining to benefit from the high quality water
provided by the Sicangu Mni Wiconi.
The tribal members on Rosebud Reservation perceive Mni Wiconi as
fulfilling an important trust responsibility of the federal government
to the Indian Tribes. The history of broken treaties that have deprived
them of land and resources has left the tribes angry, poor and
distrustful toward the federal government. Mni Wiconi not only is an
economic and public health benefits engine to the tribes, it also is
building social and cultural infrastructure. The most important high
lights of the Mni Wiconi Project is the trust that is being fostered
towards the federal government by the Indian tribes and a precedent for
Indians being primarily responsible for construction, operation and
maintenance of one of the largest rural water system in the country. It
is also reconciliation at its finest for the Indians and the non-
Indians working together respectfully and cooperatively under the
umbrella of the U.S. Government-Bureau of Reclamation and U.S.
Congress.
Once again thank you for the opportunity to share these thoughts
and more importantly, your support for this life sustaining project. I
would be happy to answer any questions you may have.
Senator Johnson. Yes, thank you, Mr. Bordeaux.
Chairman Jandreau.
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL JANDREAU, CHAIRMAN, LOWER BRULE SIOUX
TRIBE, LOWER BRULE, SD
Mr. Jandreau. Chairman Johnson, Senator Tester, thank you
very much for scheduling this hearing in South Dakota. I'm
Michael Jandreau, Chairman of Lower Brule Sioux Tribe. Thank
you very much for the opportunity to appear before the
subcommittee.
Senator Johnson, we greatly appreciate your leadership on
water issues. The subject of water is of vital importance to
South Dakota and across the Western United States. Our tribe
borders the Missouri River. The Big Bend Dam is within our
reservation and connects us to the Crow Creek Sioux Tribe.
The Pick-Sloan project took our best bottomlands to build
the dams on the Missouri River. The dams have greatly benefited
the United States, but have hurt our Tribe. Senate bill 160,
which is pending for the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, is
critical to our Tribe. We will not be able to fulfill our
potential as a people without the fair compensation for the
Pick-Sloan project.
I mention this because it provides a context for how we
view Mni Wiconi. Mni Wiconi is of great importance to life in
South Dakota. We support full funding for Mni Wiconi so that
the potential of the project can be extended to the Oglala
Sioux Tribe, the Rosebud Sioux Tribe and all the counties
within the intended scope of services including Lyman and Jones
counties.
In March of this year, the Lower Brule Rural Water System's
Manager, Jim McCauley, joined in testimony to the
Appropriations Committee that requested $38.4 million for the
fiscal year 2009. The money would be divided with $28.2 million
going for construction and $10.2 million for operations and
maintenance.
We also request funding for the wastewater treatment. We
need funding for the treatment and containment of wastewater.
The proper analysis has yet to be completed and the entire goal
of the wastewater treatment remains unfunded.
Mr. Chairman, the longer it takes to fund the project, the
more it will cost. At Lower Brule, we were able to save $2 to
$3 million by expedited completion. That was by the cooperation
of Oglala, Rosebud and West River/Lyman Jones. We're very
grateful for that.
We are hoping with your leadership that Mni Wiconi can be
completed as soon as possible. Thank you very much. I would be
pleased to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Jandreau follows:]
Prepared Statement of Michael Jandreau, Chairman, Lower Brule Sioux
Tribe, Lower Brule, SD
Chairman Johnson, Members of the Water and Power Subcommittee,
thank you very much for scheduling this hearing in South Dakota. I am
Michael Jandreau, the Chairman of the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe; I have
served in that capacity for 29 years. Thank you very much for the
opportunity to appear before the Subcommittee.
Senator Johnson, we greatly appreciate your leadership on water
issues. The subject of water is of vital importance in South Dakota and
across the entire Western United States. Our Tribe borders the Missouri
River. The Big Bend Dam is within our reservation and connects us to
the Crow Creek Sioux Tribe.
The Pick-Sloan project took our best bottomlands to build the dams
on the Missouri River. The dams have greatly benefited the United
States, but they have hurt our Tribe. S. 160, which is pending before
the Indian Affairs Committee, is critical to our Tribe. We will not be
able to fulfill our potential as a people without fair compensation for
the Pick Sloan project.
I mention this because it provides a context for how we also view
Mni Wiconi. Mini Wiconi is of great importance to life in South Dakota.
We support full funding for Mni Wiconi so that the potential of the
project can be extended to the Oglala Sioux Tribe, Rosebud, and all
counties within the intended scope of service including Lyman and Jones
counties.
In March of this year, the Lower Brule Rural Water System's
Manager, Jim McCauley, joined in testimony to the Appropriations
Committee that requested $38.4 million for Fiscal Year 2009. The money
would be divided with $28.2 going for construction and $10.2 for
operation and maintenance.
We also request funding for wastewater treatment. We need funding
for the treatment and containment of wastewater. The proper analysis
has yet to be completed and the entire goal of wastewater treatment
remains unfunded.
Mr. Chairman, the longer it takes to fund the project, the more it
will cost. At Lower Brule we were able to save $2 million-$3 million by
an expedited completion of the project on our Reservation. We are
hoping, with your leadership, that Mni Wiconi can be completed as soon
as possible.
Thank you very much. I would be pleased to answer any questions.
Senator Johnson. Mr. Jandreau, thank you.
Mr. Fitzgerald.
STATEMENT OF JAKE FITZGERALD, MANAGER, WEST RIVER/LYMAN-JONES
RURAL WATER SYSTEMS, MURDO, SD
Mr. Fitzgerald. Thank you, Chairman Johnson and Senator
Tester. My name is Jake Fitzgerald and I'm the Manager of West
River/Lyman-Jones. West River/Lyman-Jones is a component of the
Mni Wiconi Project which was authorized in 1988.
Again, thank you for inviting me to testify before your
committee and reporting on the progress and success of WR/LJ in
the Mni Wiconi Project. We are a regional water supply project
serving over 12,000 square miles in semi-arid Western South
Dakota. We were authorized almost 20 years ago and we're
currently in our 15th year of construction.
Water is essential to the economic viability of Western
South Dakota. Residents and livestock in the WR/LJ service area
suffered with limited water supplies and unacceptable water
quality since the early 1900s. They were required to haul
drinking water from community sources that did not meet current
Safe Drinking Water Act standards. Ranchers would sell their
livestock at reduced prices during each drought cycle. Then
work to restore their herds once the stock ponds were filled
again.
This began to change for the West River/Lyman-Jones area in
1993 with pipeline construction and a limited supply of the
famous ``Wall Drug'' water. As stated we are in our 15th year
of construction. Appropriations have always been less than we
had hoped, but every new connection brings us closer to the
completion. Since the ``Turn Dirt'' ceremony in Wall in 1993,
West River/Lyman-Jones has installed over 3,100 miles of
pipeline and is delivering quality water to 13 communities, 25
individual rural residents and the Badlands National Park. This
project truly has been a Godsend during this multiyear drought.
The Mni Wiconi project would not have been possible without
the combined Federal, State and membership funding partnership
and the tribal and non-tribal cooperative efforts. WR/LJ
Directors and Mni Wiconi Tribal leadership understood the
hardship and economic instability brought by unreliable
supplies of poor drinking water. They took their problem to the
State Government and congressional leaders and asked for
assistance. They took water samples and this piece of pipe to
demonstrate the severity of their problem. This piece of pipe
is filled with Gypsum found naturally in one of our local
wells.
Congress responded with project authorization in 1988 and
Federal funding based on our ability to pay and the requirement
of a non-Federal cost share. The State of South Dakota
responded with a loan on terms that we could afford. The Tribal
and non-Tribal sponsors, under the oversight of the Bureau of
Reclamation, are working together to build this project.
Congress and Federal agencies have set standards for
drinking water quality to safeguard the people of this country.
Public water supplies are required to meet those standards. In
many locations it is not economically feasible to treat local
water supplies to Safe Drinking Water Act standards.
A regional water supply project is the solution to
providing safe and dependable water supplies in many parts of
the West. A reliable supply of quality drinking water is
essential to the health of local residents, the traveling
public and to the livestock industry. The Mni Wiconi Project is
meeting those needs in Southwestern South Dakota.
On behalf of the West River/Lyman-Jones membership and your
constituents in the Mni Wiconi project area I thank you and
your congressional colleagues for your continued support of
this project. I urge you to continue congressional support for
Bureau of Reclamation Rural Water Projects.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Fitzgerald follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jake Fitzgerald, Manager, West River/Lyman-Jones
Rural Water Systems, Murdo, SD
Mr. Chairman and Senator Johnson:
The West River/Lyman-Jones (WR/LJ) Rural Water system is a
component of the Mni Wiconi Water Supply System authorized by Congress
in 1988. My name is Jake Fitzgerald and I am the WR/LJ Manager.
I thank you for the honor of testifying before your Committee and
reporting on the progress and success of WR/LJ and the Mni Wiconi
project. We are a regional water supply project serving over 12,000
square miles in semi-arid Western South Dakota. We are currently under
construction. However, in spite of being authorized almost 20 years ago
and under construction for 15 years we are truly a success story.
Water is essential to the economic viability of western South
Dakota. However, residents and livestock in the WR/LJ service area
suffered with limited water supplies and unacceptable water quality
since their lands were homesteaded in the early 1900's. The people were
required to haul drinking water from community sources that did not
meet current Safe Drinking Water Act standards. Ranchers would sell off
their livestock at reduced prices with each drought cycle and then work
to restore their herds when the stock ponds were filled again.
This began to change for the WR/LJ area in 1993 with pipeline
construction and a limited supply of the famous ``Wall Drug'' water. We
are now in our 15th year of construction. The appropriations have
always been less than what we hoped for but every new connection served
increases the regional project benefits and brings us closer to
completion. Since the ``Turn Dirt'' ceremony in Wall in 1993 the WR/LJ
system has installed over 3,100 miles of pipeline and is now delivering
adequate supplies of quality water to 13 communities, 2,500 individual
rural connections and the Badlands National Park. This project has been
a Godsend during what is now the 8th year of sustained drought.
The Mni Wiconi project would not have been possible without the
combined Federal, State and water user funding partnership and the
Tribal and non-Tribal cooperative efforts. WR/LJ Directors and the Mni
Wiconi Tribal leadership understood the hardship and economic
instability brought on by unreliable supplies of poor quality water.
They took their problem to State Government and Congressional leaders
and asked for assistance. They took water samples and this piece of
pipe to demonstrate the severity of their problem. This piece of pipe
is plugged with Gypsum found naturally in a local well.
Congress responded with project authorization in 1988 and Federal
funding based on Congressional assessment of our ability to pay and the
requirement for a non-Federal cost share. The State of South Dakota
responded with a loan on terms that we could afford. The Tribal and
non-Tribal sponsors, under the oversight responsibility of the Bureau
of Reclamation, worked together to build the project.
Congress and the Federal Agencies have set standards for drinking
water quality to safeguard the people of this country. Public water
supplies are required to meet those standards. Individual water
supplies; rural residents, farmers and ranchers, are not covered by the
standards. In many locations it is not economically feasible to treat
the local public water supply to SDWA standards.
A regional water supply project is the solution to providing safe
and dependable water supplies in many parts of the semi-arid West. A
reliable supply of quality drinking water is essential to the health of
local residents and the traveling public. A reliable supply of quality
drinking water is essential to the livestock industry. The Mni Wiconi
Water Supply Project is meeting those regional water supply
requirements in Southwestern South Dakota.
On behalf of the WR/LJ membership and your constituents in the Mni
Wiconi project area I thank you and your Congressional colleagues for
your continuing support of the Mni Wiconi project. I urge you to
continue Congressional support of the Bureau of Reclamation's
implementation of the Rural Water Supply Act of 2006.
Senator Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Fitzgerald. Mr. Munson,
Mayor Munson, what are the consequences for meeting Sioux Falls
predicted water demand if the Lewis and Clark Project is unable
to provide water to the City by 2012? What do you do then?
Mr. Munson. That's been our problem, Senator. When we look
at the--it has a potential to really impact our economy as we
talk about, you know, our medical, retail, industrial, housing,
have all been really booming. If we can't make this project a
reality by 2012 it has a potential to affect all those
industries and really where we have been continually growing
each and every year to slow that growth down significantly.
So it would really, probably, expedite even beyond where
we're at with conservation measures that we have in place that
would have to be really stepped up quite a bit. So it has a lot
of consequences for the economic future of our area.
Senator Johnson. Is building permits and commercial permits
under jeopardy in that case?
Mr. Munson. You know they really would be, when we talk
about last year, half billion dollars that we had was a record
year. So if we can't when the businesses looking to relocate to
Sioux Falls or expanding in Sioux Falls or even houses we would
probably have to look very carefully at how much growth we
could experience. So those record years that we're having would
really, I think, come to a really, I think, come to a real--
they'd start to slow down.
Senator Johnson. Mr. Larson, as you are well aware BOR's
recommendation for funding was cut to zero dollars in the
coming year. Mr. Larson, as the Executive Director of the
project what sort of reaction was felt among your members and
has it impacted any planning that you may be doing for the
longer term?
Mr. Larson. Mr. Chairman, it was a great deal of
frustration expressed from our 20 members when zero funding was
proposed, especially coming off last year with the pre-payment
by the members. So here was a step of faith that the members
took, Sioux Falls and 16 other members to pre-pay their share
of the project. Then to have the Administration propose zero
right on the heels of that was very disheartening to say the
least.
In terms of planning what's--this is over a $500 million
project. What is so frustrating is not knowing year to year,
even remotely, how much we're going to get. We have record
level of $26.5 million. Five weeks later, zero was proposed.
So what we have done is spent a lot more time and money on
engineering various contingency plans. What if we only get
this? What if we only get that? That's money that could be
spent putting pipeline into ground. We're running a lot of what
if scenarios.
Senator Johnson. President Steele, how long--the tribe has
waited the longest to receive water from the project even
though the project is nearly 80 percent complete. President
Steele, when will Missouri River water reach Pine Ridge Indian
Reservation? What will that achievement mean to your members?
Mr. Steele. Ah, yes, Senator, this fall we expect that the
Core line will reach the Northwestern part of our Reservation.
We figure in August or September. Senator, we are going to
holding a doings then.
I don't know, you're going to be busy in Washington. I
would like to coordinate this to have your presence there. But
the water will just reach there.
Now this, Senator, you understand all of these years and
I've been going testifying, there are five identified projects
in the United States that use the Indians to get pipelines
built, but they never reach the Indians. We now have a pipeline
coming to Pine Ridge and this has been my biggest gripe. You,
Senator, have been our greatest friend with Senator Thune and
Congressman Herseth to get this water to Pine Ridge.
We always expected it to stop and get de-funded. We would
never get the water. But this fall, Senator. We expect by the
spring of 2009 to reach the middle of the reservation with this
water. So this is a means to the people there.
When we first talked with the people Kadoka and we decided
to get this pipeline, to see if we could get it built. The
people in Pine Ridge reared up and they had a referendum vote
and voted it down. They said that the water would never reach
Pine Ridge.
But you, Senator, have gotten it there. It's going to reach
there this fall. It means a lot to the people of Pine Ridge.
Senator Johnson. I thank you for your participation and Mr.
Means participation in turning that thing around.
President Bordeaux, why is it that the tribe is using a
combination of ground water and surface water? Is there a
problem with the ground water contamination? If so, how would
the Mni Wiconi address this problem?
Mr. Bordeaux. Well the primary source, prior to Mni Wiconi
coming along was Oglala aquifer. But we're on the Northern most
tip of the Oglala aquifer and it comes into half of our county,
Todd County. Good quality water.
But looking into the future the Oglala aquifer is drying up
in places such as Kansas, parts of Colorado, Oklahoma because
of over pumping irrigation systems. So as far as the future
looking into several, seven generations at least, so we're
planning for their needs.
Some of the contaminants in our water is arsenic in the
Grossmont area along the White River. There's problems there
with the wells down there. Nitrate from farming. Pumping the
aquifer.
We are monitoring wells. We're finding some of the, I
guess, the chemicals that are being pumped into the system,
gets down into the Oglala aquifer. It's contaminating that.
Then in the city of Mission there's some old gas stations
there that are leaking fuel storage. So we're working on
cleaning them. So those are getting into the water system. So
that's some of the big problems that we have.
Senator Johnson. Chairman Jandreau, can you please describe
how the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe carries out its ONM
responsibilities. As an operating system what are the
maintenance and operations issues you expect to encounter in
the next 5 to 10 years.
Mr. Jandreau. I guess the primary problems that we
anticipate with the ONM portion of the project that we are now
pretty much fully into, is the educating of people to
adequately use the systems that we have placed out there, that
the rural water systems need a lot of maintenance, a lot of
care and concern by the individual users to assure that there's
no wastage, to assure that the quality for contamination or
guarding against contamination is carefully monitored. We have
a pretty well trained crew that are out there and active all
the time. So it's not only been a very beneficial from the
employment standpoint, but in educating people about the
necessity of guarding that very precious resource is being
implemented.
Senator Johnson. Mr. Fitzgerald, one of the things that is
unique about Mni Wiconi, I smile at this, is the cowboys don't
get any water unless the Indians get water. The Indians don't
get any water unless the cowboys get water.
[Laughter.]
Senator Johnson. How is West River/Lyman-Jones been able to
work with other project sponsors, the tribes and the BOR to
complete elements of common water transmission facilities?
Mr. Fitzgerald. I think Mr. Jandreau mentioned briefly,
where the sponsors work together to manage funds. Advance funds
to another sponsor when one of the other sponsors show the
need. I think another good example of that is a cooperative
agreement with West River/Lyman-Jones and the Oglala Sioux
Tribe on the North Core system.
Our fiscal year 2006 and 2007 funds went toward the North
Core line. That was built with WR/LJ authorized ceiling. We're
grateful we could work together and do that. It allowed us to
construct areas around the Core line that were being served
from that Core line. It also freed up $$17.6 million for the
Oglala Sioux Tribe in order for them to build facilities on the
reservation to supply their members.
Senator Johnson. Senator Tester.
Senator Tester. Thank you, Senator Johnson. Thank you all
for being here. I appreciate your testimony. It was all pretty
complete actually. I do have a few questions.
First of all, Mayor Munson, you need to be congratulated.
It sounds like you got a ripping city here. That's a good
thing.
I guess this goes to a question that Senator Johnson asked
Troy Larson that concerns contingencies. How you guys had to
spend dollars on water contingencies in fear that this project
won't come to fruition in time to meet your economic demands?
Mr. Munson. Well, you know, we've been working closely with
Troy and Lewis and Clark. You know, we have set aside and as I
said earlier, we pre-paid our $70 million. So that we would,
you know, to get the water by 2012 becomes crucial for us.
So we're trying to do the conservation. We're trying to do
the pre-payment authorization to get the money out there ahead
of time because of, again, as we talk about--it's imperative
that we get water. It's just that simple.
So we're trying to set contingencies through conservation
is what we're really working at now to make sure as we talk
about going every day to 12 to 5 o'clock watering. So that
we're conserving as much as we can with the anticipation that
Lewis and Clark will be here in 2012. But, you know, so, we are
working in that direction.
Senator Tester. You also need to be congratulated on the
water conservation methods. Maybe we can utilize you in energy
conservation from a national standpoint.
Mr. Munson. I think that's something that all of us
throughout all of the organizations talking here today, we
always have to be cognizant. We're having to continue on with
conservation because it is, water is such a precious commodity
for all of us. As we move forward, I think that's it's going to
continue to build upon where it's at today. So all of us need
to be aware of what we can do to protect that resource as much
as we can.
Senator Tester. That's a good point. Troy, your charts. I
think you did a great job in illustrating the different funding
levels and the total project cost and anticipated completion
dates.
I just wanted to give you an opportunity to potentially
describe how a few dollars now will save money down the line.
What you see on a percentage basis or a dollar basis, how the
Federal Government, if they were to fund these projects at this
point, not only saves you money from a contingency standpoint,
but could save the Federal Government money in the long term.
Mr. Larson. Sure, that's a very good question, Senator. The
old saying, ``a stitch in time saves nine,'' certainly applies
here. What we are seeing is the inflation indexing, especially
with steel imports by China is just out of control.
We've seen inflation as high as 9 percent on this project.
Last year was close to 5 percent. We expect that to go up again
this next year.
Every dollar that gets delayed, that's not a savings by the
Federal Government. It's a disservice to the taxpayers. Because
in the long run instead of paying that $1 dollar, that could
become $3 or $4 down the road depending on the rate of
inflation.
That's one of the reasons the members of Lewis and Clark,
as well as the States have stepped up to the plate and pre-paid
their share of the project. Not just to keep the project on
schedule, as best they can, but also to reduce the impacts to
their taxpayers. We would certainly hope that the Federal
Government would apply that same common sense as our members
and our States have.
But it is a challenge with the runaway inflation. We just
haven't seen inflation for commodities, not to commodities, but
copper and stainless steel, everything is just going through
the roof.
Senator Tester. Ok. I have a question for Mr. Steele,
Bordeaux, Jandreau and Fitzgerald. Mr. Steele talked about the
EPA and allowing you to drink water out of a well that has
arsenic in it. Has the EPA come in and said, in each of your
particular cases, that your water doesn't meet standards?
Mr. Steele. Yes.
Senator Tester. At this point in time? They have in yours?
Mr. Steele. Yes. They're temporarily allowing us to use
those wells realizing that the river water is going to be
coming in.
Senator Tester. How long are they allowing you? Just until
the water comes in?
Mr. Steele. We understand that the water will, like I said,
reach the Northwestern part of the Reservation this fall, the
middle of the Reservation by next year.
Senator Tester. Ok, good. Mr. Bordeaux, same thing in your
situation? Has EPA said that your current water system is not
up to snuff as far as quality?
Mr. Bordeaux. Especially with the arsenic in the Grossmont
community.
Senator Tester. Same thing?
Mr. Bordeaux. Yes, same thing?
Senator Tester. Have they given you an extension to use
your water too?
Mr. Bordeaux. Not necessarily. We just went ahead with our
Rural Water System from the aquifer.
Senator Tester. Ok. Mr. Jandreau.
Mr. Jandreau. Yes. We don't have that problem because we're
all along the Rural Water System right now.
Senator Tester. Gotcha. It meets EPA specs?
Mr. Jandreau. It meets and exceeds.
Senator Tester. Good. Mr. Fitzgerald.
Mr. Fitzgerald. Yes, the communities in our area were high
in radium. They've got the same notice from South Dakota DENR
stating that they knew the project was on its way. They gave
those communities as much time as they needed to get by.
Senator Tester. Ok
Mr. Steele. The alpha content in uranium, the radiation in
the water is way up there.
Senator Tester. For the three gentlemen from Indian
country, has the Indian Health Service talked about health
impacts of the water?
Mr. Steele. Not really. They are concerned about it. They
understand the arsenic is there. In some homes they have put in
filters, in the individual houses. But they never get around to
change any filters or anything.
Senator Tester. Right.
Mr. Steele. Now what IHS can identify is in the Oglala area
as President Bordeaux said, we had also high nitrites. We had a
lot of stillborn babies, infant mortalities and those numbers
have changed. The stillborns is almost nothing. The infants are
surviving. We took the nitrates out of there with getting some
other waters in there with the pipeline.
Senator Tester. Mr. Bordeaux.
Mr. Bordeaux. They provide some good data in terms of some
of the problems associated with it. As you know Indian Health
Services is severely under funded and they're barely keeping
their head above water. But, you know, they keep close contact
with us, working with Mr. Hug back here in monitoring a lot of
that.
Senator Tester. Ok. Mr. Jandreau.
Mr. Jandreau. The response is basically the same. The
reality is as Mr. Bordeaux has pointed out is that Indian
Health Services capacity to really do anything about it is
restricted by the funding base.
Senator Tester. Yes. Last question. This is the toughest
question you're going to have all day. Mr. Fitzgerald, how long
did it take for that pipe to build up that much gypsum?
Mr. Fitzgerald. You know, I can't answer that question.
Senator Tester. I'm just curious.
Mr. Fitzgerald. I don't know.
Senator Tester. That's pretty amazing.
Mr. Fitzgerald. Yes, I know this piece of pipe went to
Washington, DC, quite a few times is what I've been told. But
we kind of use it as a centerpiece in our office.
Senator Tester. Yes, well it converted that. What is it,
two, two and a half inch pipe down to about a three inch?
Mr. Fitzgerald. I believe there was a long stretch of pipe
with this build up.
Senator Tester. Just like that. Yes. Three years?
Mr. Fitzgerald. Three years.
Senator Tester. That's a lot of gypsum. In any rate, I want
to thank everybody on this panel. I appreciate your coming in,
appreciate your bringing in a ground level perspective. So
thank you.
Mr. Fitzgerald. Thank you.
Mr. Steele. Thank you.
Senator Tester. Senator Johnson.
Senator Johnson. Yes. It is clear from today's testimony
that there are sound justifications for a strong national
commitment to rural water supplies in the Great Plains. Add
part productivity, add part economic growth as well as serving
the basic drinking water needs of thousands of people are tied
to the success of these projects. Without Congress increasing
the budgets for these projects their benefits would be
curtailed and the mission of the Bureau's Rural Water Program
would be in serious jeopardy.
I want to thank all of the witnesses for agreeing to appear
before the subcommittee today and for Senator Tester lending
his voice to these important water issues. I also want to thank
the preparational staff from the Senate Energy and Natural
Resources Committee for helping organize this hearing.
Senator Tester, if you have no further comments, I conclude
this hearing and remind Senators and staff that questions for
the hearing record are due by close of business tomorrow.
Senator Johnson. With that this hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:42 p.m. the hearing was adjourned.]