[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 133 (Tuesday, September 24, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11142-S11144]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              WATER ISSUES

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I wish to address a different subject. It 
has to do with water issues, a subject that will cause some eyes to 
glaze over perhaps in some quarters, but an important subject to my 
State.
  You know that I come from a small State. I come from the State of 
North Dakota, which is large in expanse, 10 times the size of 
Massachusetts, but with 640,000 people. So it is a sparsely populated 
State.
  A lot of people do not know that we have a flood in North Dakota that 
came and stayed--a permanent flood the size of the State of Rhode 
Island. It was not an accidental flood. It was a flood that came and 
stayed in my State because 50 years ago there were some who felt that 
we should harness the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers and, as part of 
the flood control provisions called the Pick-Sloan Act, to harness the 
Missouri River so that it didn't flood the cities downstream. So that 
they could have reliable navigation downstream, they decided, ``Let us 
build some dams on the Missouri River.'' One of those dams was built in 
North Dakota. President Eisenhower came out to dedicate the dam. It is 
called the Garrison Dam.
  What the Federal Government said then to the State of North Dakota 
is, in order for us to control flooding downstream and to protect the 
larger cities downstream, would you please play host to a large flood 
that comes and stays forever? The people of North Dakota said, why 
would we want to play host to a large flood that comes to stay, a one-
half-million-acre flood forever? The Federal Government says, if you 
will do that, we will make certain promises to you. We will promise 
that that dam will be able to generate cheap hydroelectric power, and 
that will benefit the residents of the region. And, No. 2, more 
importantly, we will allow you to take the water from behind that dam 
and move it all around your State for economic and municipal and rural 
water systems. That will help you develop economically, and it will 
provide new jobs and new opportunities for your State.
  So the people of North Dakota 50 years ago said, ``Well, that sounds 
like a reasonable proposition.'' And the dam was built and dedicated, 
as I said, by President Eisenhower in the 1950's. The Garrison 
diversion project was authorized in 1965 by the Congress. Work began on 
it, and in the 1970's it became very controversial. In fact, some 
portions of this project, some features to move water around our State, 
became so controversial that some of the major environmental 
organizations in the country decided to try to kill the project 
altogether. Remember, this is part of a promise that was made to North 
Dakota that relates very much to its economic opportunity and its 
economic future.
  Recognizing that it was very troublesome to have the opposition of 
some of these major organizations, I worked to reformulate this 
project. In 1986 the Congress passed a reformulation act called the 
Garrison Diversion Reformulation Act. This year, 10 years later, we 
appropriated $23 million for this project. That brings it to nearly 
$350 million during the past 10 years since it was reformulated. Now it 
appears that we will once again be required in the next Congress to 
make a final revision in this project in order to see its completion 
for our State.
  A substantial amount has been done in North Dakota with this project; 
$200 million, in what is called an MR&I fund, has been available to 
North Dakota to move water around the State with a southwest pipeline 
in southwestern North Dakota. It has improved water quality in many 
communities in North Dakota.
  So we have derived substantial benefit from it. But we have not been 
able to move Missouri water to the eastern part of North Dakota into 
the Red River to help the cities of Fargo and Grand Forks, among 
others. That has not been completed, and all of us are anxious to get 
that done.
  I hope in the next Congress to propose, along with my colleagues, a 
final revision of the Garrison diversion project that will achieve two 
goals: First, with the realistic constraints that we have on financing 
here in the

[[Page S11143]]

Congress and the environmental restraints that exist on new 
environmental standards, I think we can reduce the authorized cost of 
this project for the American taxpayers and we can substitute a 
substantial State water development fund for the irrigation projects 
that are currently authorized. That would give the State much more 
flexibility in meeting its water needs, which might include irrigation 
but would include many other things as well.
  Second, in a project revision we can make appropriate changes to the 
features of the project in order to finally move the Missouri River 
water from the western part of our State to the eastern part of our 
State for municipal, rural, and industrial purposes.
  I expect that the proposal to revise a water program in North Dakota 
would be referred to the Senate Energy Committee, on which I sit, and 
it is my hope that the Congress will agree to make some practical 
revisions in this project; first, to save money, but, second and more 
importantly, to finally complete this comprehensive project for North 
Dakota.
  I expect that we will probably hold some hearings in North Dakota 
late in this year in order to take testimony from North Dakotans, 
myself, and my colleagues from North Dakota, to talk about the 
revisions that are necessary in order to develop a statewide consensus. 
That would include working with the Governor, the State legislature, 
Indian tribes, local communities, the Garrison Conservancy District, 
North Dakota Water Coalition, environmental groups, water users, and 
virtually all interested North Dakotans in order to reach some kind of 
consensus on this project.
  This is not a project in which the State of North Dakota went to the 
Federal Government and said, ``By the way, would you give us something? 
Could we implore you to provide for us a water project?'' It didn't 
happen that way at all. The Federal Government came to our State and 
said, ``We would like you to play host to a permanent flood, and, if 
you do, we will provide you this benefit.'' This benefit called the 
Garrison conservancy project--or the Garrison diversion project, 
rather--included, first, an authorized 1 million acres of irrigation. 
Then it was downsized to 250,000 acres; then downsized again to 130,000 
acres. It had a series of canals and features by which water could be 
pumped and moved from the western part of North Dakota to the eastern 
part of North Dakota.
  The feature that was included in the 1986 Reformulation Act that now 
appears not to be able to be built with respect engineering standards 
and other standards that would be practical is something called the 
Sykeston Canal. That is a key feature that involves the moving of water 
through the features in this project from the western part of the State 
to the eastern part of the State.
  The Garrison Conservancy District is now proposing that it be 
replaced with a pipeline proposal. There are other ideas as well. The 
pipeline proposal I think has some merit, and I think it is an approach 
that might well be workable. But it seems to me in reinvestigating this 
project we will have to find a feature that replaces the Sykeston 
Canal.
  The Sykeston Canal was put in in the first place in 1986 because the 
Lonetree Reservoir, the original feature which was so enormously 
controversial nationally, in 1996 when the Sykeston Canal was proposed, 
it was judged at that point that it may or may not be practical, and if 
it was not, we would have to revisit the issue. It seems to me that we 
will have to revisit that issue next year.
  Some would say that North Dakota has not gotten what it should get 
from this project. Some are very impatient. I recognize that. But about 
$350 million has been made available in expenditures in pursuit of 
completing this water project, including the $200 million for the MR&I 
fund. We have made substantial progress in a wide range of areas. But 
now we want to finish this project and do it in a reasonable time. We 
think that this is an achievable goal. It is not easy to find consensus 
on all of these issues, but this project is much more important than 
some would realize.

  North Dakota is a semiarid State with 15 to 17 inches of rainfall a 
year. The ability to use the water in this reservoir for agricultural 
and rural municipal purposes is critical to the future of our State. 
Our State struggles to keep people. We have 640,000. We used to have 
680,000 not too many years ago. And to keep people in North Dakota--a 
wonderful State with a low crime rate, with a wonderful education 
system and a lot of other advantages--we must provide jobs and must 
provide opportunity. That is what this project is about.
  Some needs remain unchanged. There is a continuing requirement to 
permanently solve the water problems of the Devil's Lake basin in my 
State where there is substantial flooding at the moment. That lake, the 
Devil's Lake area, suffers from intermittent cycles of ruinous draught 
and chronic flooding, and that warrants the construction of inlets and 
outlets as a part of a comprehensive water plan. We hope that will be 
excluded in the Garrison Diversion Project.
  Finally, a final revision would have to meet the needs of native 
Americans who suffered the most in the inundation of their lands in 
North Dakota for this project.
  In the final analysis, this issue is about opportunity and jobs in 
our State. It is about good faith on the part of the Federal Government 
to fulfill its obligations to North Dakota. All of us are impatient 
that we get this completed. But the reality is projects of this size 
are never completed quickly or without problems. We have met the 
challenges in the past, will in the future, and hope to provide 
proposed revisions that will allow us to finally complete this project.
  North Dakotans' elected leaders--Republicans and Democrats --every 
major elected leader in our State for three decades has spoken with one 
bipartisan voice on this issue. For a State the size of North Dakota, 
that is crucial. We must plan together, work together, and pull 
together if we are to finish this project for the future of North 
Dakota. I hope that will be the case. I hope we will make some final 
revisions and take meaningful strides to completion of a dream in our 
State in the next Congress.
  I would like to reiterate that for some 50 years, North Dakota has 
sought to realize the benefits of federally assisted water development 
since Congress proposed the Garrison diversion project as the backbone 
of State water development. Federal law provided that this 
comprehensive water plan was to accompany the construction by the Corps 
of Engineers of the Garrison Dam, which provided substantial flood 
control and navigation benefits for downstream States.

  Last week the Congress approved $23 million to continue work on the 
Garrison diversion project in North Dakota. Nearly $350 million has 
been appropriated for Garrison diversion since the Congress enacted my 
legislation in 1986 making revisions in the project.
  The Garrison project is not completed but it has generated hundreds 
of jobs and has brought quality drinking water and irrigation systems 
to three Indian reservations and rural and municipal water systems to 
dozens of communities all across North Dakota.
  It now appears that further revisions will have to be made in the 
authorization of this project in order to see it to completion.
  During the next Congress, I hope to propose, along with my 
colleagues, a final revision of the Garrison project that will achieve 
two goals. In tune with current fiscal constraints and environmental 
standards, we can reduce the authorized cost of the project and we can 
substitute a State water development fund for the irrigation projects 
to give the State more flexibility in meeting its water needs. Second, 
in a project revision we can make appropriate changes to the features 
in order to finally move Missouri River water throughout the State for 
municipal, rural, and industrial purposes.
  I would expect that legislation to revise the project would be 
referred to the Senate Energy Committee, on which I sit. It would be my 
hope that the Congress would agree to make some practical revisions in 
the project to save money and to finally complete a comprehensive 
project for North Dakota.
  I expect the North Dakota congressional delegation will hold some 
hearings in North Dakota toward the end of

[[Page S11144]]

this year to take testimony from North Dakotans about the revisions 
necessary in order to meet the State's current water needs and to 
finally finish work on the project. We will work with the governor, the 
State legislature, Indian tribes, local communities, the Garrison 
Conservancy District, the North Dakota Water Coalition, environmental 
groups, water users and all interested North Dakotans in order to reach 
a statewide consensus on this issue.
  Mr. President, I'd like to offer my colleagues some history on how 
the Garrison diversion project got started and why a final revision is 
necessary in order to complete the project.
  In the 1940's the Federal Government wanted to harness the Missouri 
River to prevent massive downstream flooding in States along the Lower 
Missouri and Mississippi Rivers. Annual flood damage to downstream 
cities on the Missouri River was very costly. Also, the lack of stable 
water levels prevented reliable commercial navigation on the Missouri 
River.

  So the Federal Government proposed a series of six dams, one of which 
was to be located in North Dakota. The Garrison Dam would wall up water 
in a reservoir that would be one-half million acres in size. In short, 
the Federal Government asked North Dakota to play host to a permanent 
flood as big as the entire State of Rhode Island.
  The Federal Government said if you North Dakotans will do that, we 
will provide you with some significant benefits. The dam itself will 
generate low cost hydro-electric power and you will have access to some 
of this inexpensive electricity for rural development. And more 
importantly, the Federal Government will provide a Garrison diversion 
project which will allow you to move reservoir water around your State 
for massive irrigation--over 1 million acres--and for municipal, rural, 
and industrial uses.
  The Army Corps of Engineers completed work on the dam in the mid-
1950's. The permanent flood arrived in North Dakota and the downstream 
States received the bulk of the immediate benefits. The Missouri River 
no longer raged with uncontrolled flooding in the spring. Downstream 
navigation and barge traffic was reliable once again.
  For North Dakota, the Congress authorized in 1965 a Garrison 
diversion project with water systems and an irrigation plan--downsized 
to 250,000 acres--as a payment for our permanent flood. The features of 
that project included a series of canals and pumping stations that 
would move water from the Missouri River in the western part of North 
Dakota to the eastern part of our State, all the way to the Red River 
and would allow for substantial amounts of irrigation with the diverted 
water along the way.
  Some features of the Garrison diversion project became very 
controversial in the 1970's and national environmental organizations 
attempted to kill the project. The result was that progress on the 
project was slowed.
  In 1986 the Congress enacted my legislation reformulating the 
Garrison diversion project and resolving the controversies. The 
irrigation features were reduced in scope to 130,000 acres and a 
municipal and industrial water fund of $200 million was created and 
given priority in appropriations.
  A new feature called the Sykeston Canal was created to be a 
replacement for the Lonetree Reservoir, which had become a lightening 
rod for opposition to the project. At the time, the engineering and 
cost evaluation of the Sykeston Canal was suspect and we agreed then 
that if the Sykeston Canal proved to be unworkable we would have to 
revisit that issue.
  The Garrison Diversion Unit Reformulation Act also provided for a 
water treatment facility to treat Missouri River water that would reach 
the Hudson Bay drainage after it flowed through for use by cities such 
as Fargo and Grand Forks along the Red River. The act also established 
requirements for wildlife mitigation, and for recreation development in 
North Dakota.
  In the intervening years since the 1986 Reformulation Act, Congress 
has provided nearly $350 million in expenditures, most of which was 
used for the $200 million MR&I Fund. North Dakota has made enormous 
progress in building a southwest water pipeline and many other 
expenditures that have improved water delivery for cities and towns 
with undrinkable or inadequate water in our State.
  However, we are impatient in wanting to finally finish the features 
of the project and move Missouri water to eastern North Dakota so that 
our eastern cities have an assured supply of municipal and industrial 
water.
  It is now clear that the Sykeston Canal is not a workable feature, 
from both an engineering and a cost standpoint so we must develop a new 
connecting link can be completed in a way that achieves our goal.
  Therefore, it is necessary to make one last revision to this project. 
This final revision should include a substitute for the Sykeston Canal, 
as well as converting the bulk of the authorized irrigation acreage to 
a more flexible state water development fund that can be used for a 
wide range of North Dakota needs.
  The Garrison Conservancy District has proposed a pipeline approach as 
a replacement for the Sykeston Canal. I believe that has substantial 
promise. Most of the work has been completed on the key features of 
this project and we are close to being able to realize the dream of a 
water diversion project that will help all of our State.
  Naturally, some needs remain unchanged. There is a continuing 
requirement to permanently solve the water problems of the Devils Lake 
Basin. The lake suffers from an intermittent cycle of ruinous drought 
and chronic flooding, which warrants the construction of an inlet/
outlet system as part of a comprehensive water management plan for the 
basin. Presently, Devils Lake is threatened by a 120-year flood, which 
may require the construction of an emergency outlet for which plans 
have already been developed.
  Likewise, a final Garrison plan must meet the water development needs 
of native Americans and citizens of the Red River Valley. Native 
Americans suffered the most from the inundation of lands in North 
Dakota and their requirements for MR&I and irrigation must be addressed 
by the Congress. The cities of Fargo and Grand Forks and communities up 
and down the Red River Valley likewise look to Garrison diversion as 
the only realistic resource for problems of water quality and quantity.
  The final form of Garrison diversion will also continue the State's 
commitment to protect and enhance wildlife and habitat. It has 
established a precedent-setting wildlife trust fund. Recreational 
development provided under Garrison diversion will also contribute to 
fish and wildlife management.
  In the final analysis, this issue is about a future of jobs and 
opportunity in North Dakota's future. And it is about good faith--on 
the part of the Federal Government to fulfill its pledge to the people 
of North Dakota for water development.
  All of us are impatient to get this project completed. But the 
reality is projects of this size are not completed quickly just because 
they are so massive in scope. Controversies must be resolved.
  Since the project was authorized in the mid-1960's, North Dakota's 
elected leaders have spoken with one bipartisan voice in support of 
this project and I hope that will continue to be the case. It takes all 
of the collective energy that we can muster in a State of our size to 
get this project completed. We must plan together, work together and 
pull together to finish the work on this project.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, are we functioning as in morning 
business, each Senator allotted time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia is correct. We are 
operating in morning business. Each Senator is allotted up to 5 
minutes.

                          ____________________