[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 158 (Monday, November 10, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12461-S12471]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. DORGAN (for himself, Mr. Byrd, Mr. Campbell, Mr. Hollings, 
        Mr. Inouye, Mr. Wellstone, and Ms. Snowe):
  S. 1514. A bill to assess the impact of NAFTA, require the 
renegotiation of certain provisions of NAFTA, and provide for the 
withdrawal from NAFTA unless certain conditions are met; to the 
Committee on Finance.


                        nafta accountability act

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, if the North American Free-Trade Agreement 
is an example of trade agreements established under fast-track 
procedures, then it should be no surprise that the vast majority of 
American citizens oppose renewing fast-track authority to the 
President.
  An editorial published earlier this year in the Bismarck, ND Tribune 
stated that before Congress grants fast-track authority to the 
President, ``The American people deserve a much better accounting than 
we have received so far of the impact of the first three years of the 
NAFTA.''
  The question of accountability and the performance of our Nation's 
current trade policies is the underlying issue in the debate whether 
this Congress should provide renewed fast-track authority.
  In a few weeks we will mark the fourth anniversary of the passage of 
NAFTA by Congress. It is not surprising that the proponents of fast 
track do not want to associate fast track with NAFTA. The simple fact 
is that NAFTA has been an unmitigated failure.
  At a time when we have been hearing new promises being made to 
advance the cause of fast track, we need to remember the promises that 
were made to gain the passage of NAFTA.
  We were promised increased exports, a greater number of jobs, and 
that these jobs would be higher paying jobs. We were promised improved 
living standards, reduced trade distortions, and improved 
competitiveness for the United States in North America and global 
markets. At the same time, the American public was promised that the 
environment would be protected, that drugs would be interdicted, that 
public welfare would be safeguarded, and basic human rights would be 
enhanced.
  Yet, the facts show that NAFTA just doesn't measure up to its 
promises. The very first measure of failure is demonstrated in our 
trade balances with our NAFTA trading partners. The United States has 
gone from having a $2 billion trade surplus prior to NAFTA with Mexico 
to a $16 billion deficit this past year. At the same time, our trade 
deficit with Canada has more than doubled, escalating from $11 billion 
to $23 billion.
  In its editorial review of NAFTA, the Bismarck Tribune concluded, 
``There has been enough pain associated with NAFTA and other trade 
agreements for Americans to insist on a scorecard we can read and 
understand before we go further.''
  I agree that we need a scorecard. It is for this reason that I am 
introducing the NAFTA Accountability Act today, together with Senators 
Byrd, Campbell, Hollings, Inouye, Wellstone, and Snowe.
  We need accountability. Promises that are made should be fulfilled. 
If they aren't, we need to go back to the drawing board and make the 
changes that are necessary to achieve the goals and promises that were 
originally set forth in NAFTA's preamble and statement of objectives.
  This bill would establish benchmarks by which we could score NAFTA, 
including expanded markets, currency stability, jobs wages and living 
standards, U.S. manufacturing competitiveness, health and environment, 
illegal drugs, protection of rights, fair agricultural trade, and 
highway safety.
  If NAFTA does not meet these benchmarks as promised, then the United 
States would provide notice and withdraw from NAFTA. In addition, the 
bill authorizes and directs the President to renegotiate provisions of 
NAFTA to correct trade deficits and currency distortions, to correct 
job loss, to protect public health and the environment, to interdict 
drug traffic, to correct agricultural provisions, and to ensure 
compliance with U.S. transportation standards.

[[Page S12462]]

  We have watched our trade deficits with our NAFTA partners grow by 
433 percent since this trade agreement took effect. The growth in these 
trade deficits mean that this Nation has suffered job losses. A recent 
analysis by the Economic Policy Institute concludes that there has been 
a net loss of 395,000 U.S. jobs as a result of NAFTA. In fact, the 
study demonstrates that every State has suffered net job losses as a 
result of the increased trade deficits under NAFTA.
  These job losses range from 633 job losses in my home State of North 
Dakota to 38,406 job losses in California. Now 633 jobs may not sound 
like much, but that is twice the size of my hometown of Regent. ND. If 
a new employer provided that many jobs in an economic development 
program, it would be considered a major accomplishment in my State.
  States which had significant production in automobiles, computers, 
electrical appliances, textiles, and apparel had jobs losses 
disproportionate to their share of overall U.S. job losses.
  It should be noted that 228,000 of these job losses were attributed 
to the trade deficits with Mexico, while 167,000 of these job losses 
resulted from deficits with Canada. If we remember the promises of 
NAFTA, the promises were that this trade agreement would result in at 
least 220,000 high-paying jobs.

  I am always intrigued by those that only look at one side of the 
trade ledger, and never account for the net trade balance. 
Unfortunately, we cannot get a good picture of this because the 
Commerce Department only makes estimates of exports on a State-by-State 
basis. There is no data compiled on a State-by-State basis of foreign 
imports. As a result, there is not even a statistical basis on which to 
look at the full ledger on trade balances on a State-by-State basis.
  However, we can make some general comparisons that can be helpful. 
For example, one widely distributed study indicates that North Dakota 
ranked third among the States in increased exports to Mexico. While 
that sounds pretty fantastic, it also needs to be put into context. The 
320-percent increase in annual exports from North Dakota to Mexico is 
from the base of $3.0 million which has now grown to $9.7 million in 
exports. While the increases are substantial as a percentage, they are 
not very significant in dollars terms in the State's overall economy. 
In fact, another economic analysis indicates that North Dakota had a 
trade deficit with Mexico in the neighborhood of $3.4 million.
  Similarly, the export study reports that North Dakota had an increase 
of 35 percent in exports to Canada from $298 million to $402 million. 
Before we conclude that North Dakota is doing well as a result of 
NAFTA, we need to look at other pieces of my State's economy.
  While North Dakota experienced an annual increase of $114 million in 
export sales to our NAFTA partners, at the same time North Dakota is 
losing $222 million annually in income from the unfair export of 
Canadian durum wheat and barley into the United States. In other words, 
the loss of annual agricultural income in a couple of farm commodities 
alone has cost North Dakota almost twice as it has gained in increased 
export sales.
  I want to note that one of the provisions of the NAFTA Accountability 
Act would require the President to renegotiate the terms of NAFTA to 
prevent Canadian grain exports from unfairly displacing United States 
production. This is just one of many provisions within this legislation 
that would require that the promises made to secure the passage of 
NAFTA be kept.
  Unfortunately, the American public did not get a warranty on the 
promises when NAFTA was passed. That is why they are rightfully 
skeptical of further fast-track trade procedures and the expansion of 
NAFTA. As indicated in the Bismarck Tribune editorial, Americans need a 
scorecard before we continue to go down on our current trade policy 
track. I would urge my colleagues to join me as sponsors of the NAFTA 
Accountability Act so that Americans would have that scorecard, as well 
as the means by which to make necessary corrections to NAFTA.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. CONRAD (for himself and Mr. Dorgan):
  S. 1515. A bill to amend Public Law 89-108 to increase authorization 
levels for State and Indian tribal, municipal, rural, and industrial 
water supplies, to meet current and future water quantity and quality 
needs of the Red River Valley, to deauthorize certain project features 
and irrigation service areas, to enhance natural resources and fish and 
wildlife habitat, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy 
and Natural Resources.


                 the dakota water resources act of 1997

  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, along with 
Senator Dorgan, the Dakota Water Resources Act of 1997. This is 
landmark legislation for our home State of North Dakota. The 
legislation that we are introducing amends the 1986 Garrison Diversion 
Reformulation Act and fundamentally shifts the focus of the project 
from large-scale irrigation to delivery of drinking water to 
communities in our State and to our four Indian reservations.
  The Dakota water Resources project is necessary to assure the 
citizens of North Dakota an adequate supply of quality water for 
municipal, rural and industrial [MR&I] uses. In fact, without these 
amendments to the 1986 Garrison Act, many communities in North Dakota 
will be forced to be without clean and reliable water supplies. The 
importance of a clean, safe water supply cannot be overstated. The 
improvement of our water quality and the adequacy of future water 
supplies is critical to the economic future of North Dakota.
  I direct the attention of my colleagues to this chart, which shows 
the difference between water supplies that is not atypical for rural 
North Dakota. This is a jar that has the water in many rural parts of 
our State, because the ground water is just not of high quality. This 
shows the water delivered to rural North Dakotans via pipeline. I think 
this tells the story. North Dakota needs safe, clean, reliable water. 
The bill we are introducing today is designed to deliver it.
  Water development is essential for economic development, agriculture, 
recreation and improving the environment. This legislation will provide 
an adequate and dependable water supply throughout North Dakota, 
including communities in the Red River Valley. Water is an essential 
resource to sustain the population and economic growth of that region. 
A portion of the funding will also fund irrigation projects in North 
Dakota and on the Indian Reservations, as well as the development of 
fish and wildlife projects.
  The U.S. Senate is well aware of the history of failed promises on 
water development projects on the Missouri River. People of our State 
and on reservations have sacrificed 550,000 acres of land, including 
homes, farms, and in many cases their livelihoods, for flood protection 
downstream. The Federal Government has failed to live up to its side of 
the bargain.
  I ask the Senate today, please look at this legislation; let us have 
a debate and a discussion, but do not fail to honor the promises the 
Federal Government made to North Dakota. To compensate North Dakota for 
the loss of 550,000 acres of valuable Missouri River bottom land due to 
the construction of the Garrison and Oahe Dams, the Garrison diversion 
project was authorized in 1965. It was to provide affordable access to 
Missouri River water as a basic element of the State's long-range plans 
for water management and development. That promise has not been kept.
  The next chart I have here shows the areas of our State that would be 
benefited by the legislation we are introducing today. This chart shows 
the northwest area water supply project, the Southwest pipeline 
project, and the other areas of the State, including the Red River 
Valley, that would have safe, clean, dependable sources of water as a 
result of this legislation.
  Mr. President, North Dakotans are fully committed to a scaled back, 
modernized project. Within the State of North Dakota we have worked 
long and hard to produce a new project. The MR&I focus of the Dakota 
water resources project is the best way to move forward. It represents 
the best potential to meet North Dakota's water needs. We realized 6 
years ago that the Garrison project of 1986 would never attain its 
original goals. Since that time the relevant interests in North Dakota 
have engaged in a bipartisan effort to reformulate Federal law to 
address the

[[Page S12463]]

contemporary and future water needs of our State.
  I believe this legislation will provide water to communities in need 
in North Dakota in an environmentally sensitive manner. It is important 
to note that we have involved representatives of the conservation 
community from both the national and State level to develop the 
legislation we introduce today. We are especially pleased to have the 
support of the North Dakota Chapter of the Wildlife Society for this 
legislation.
  I also want to assure our neighbors to the north, in Canada, that we 
will abide by international obligations. The Dakota Water Resources Act 
contains provisions to ensure compliance with the Boundary Water Treaty 
of 1909 between the United States and Canada.
  Mr. President, I would like to take a few moments to highlight some 
of the provisions in the Dakota Water Resources Act.
  The Dakota Water Resources Act authorizes $300 million for MR&I 
projects across North Dakota and an additional $200 million for MR&I 
projects on the four Indian reservations within the State. These MR&I 
projects are essential to ensure a safe and clean water supply 
throughout North Dakota.
  This legislation also includes $200 million to meet the comprehensive 
water quality and quantity needs of the Red River Valley. Also, the 
bill stipulates that the State of North Dakota will select one or more 
project features from options identified to meet those needs, including 
the delivery of Missouri River water to the Red River Valley.
  This legislation includes debt forgiveness for the State of North 
Dakota for costs of previously constructed facilities that will not be 
utilized or will be only partially utilized.
  This legislation includes $40 million for the construction of the 
Four Bears Bridge across Lake Sakakawea within the Fort Berthold Indian 
Reservation. Lake Sakakawea is the body of water which was created by 
the construction of Garrison Dam. The resulting lake not only flooded 
valuable farmland on the reservation, but divided the reservation. The 
current bridge, which is the only route to cross Lake Sakakawea, is 
functionally inadequate and cannot handle current traffic flows. The 
structure poses a significant safety hazard and hampers access to 
emergency and medical services.
  The Dakota Water Resources Act contains numerous provisions to ensure 
that this project is constructed in an environmentally-sensitive 
manner. The legislation permits the State to establish a water 
conservation program, utilizing funds provided for MR&I. Also, this 
bill includes $25 million for a Natural Resources Trust, currently the 
Wetlands Trust, and an authorization of $1.5 million to fund a wetlands 
interpretive center. The purpose of the trust is to preserve, enhance, 
restore and manage wetlands and associated wildlife habitat, grassland 
conservation and riparian areas in the State of North Dakota.
  This legislation contains other important provisions, including: 
authorization of $5,000,000 for recreation projects in North Dakota; 
authorization for a study of bank stabilization along the Missouri 
River below Garrison Dam; designation of the current Lonetree Reservoir 
as a wildlife conservation area; a requirement for the Federal 
Government to pay for operation and maintenance on mitigation lands; 
deauthorization of certain irrigation areas; additional flexibility for 
the Indian tribes in determining irrigation sites within the 
reservations; ensures no increase for rural electric cooperatives using 
power generated by the dams on the Missouri River; and a provision that 
``upon transfer of the Oakes Test Area to the State of North Dakota, 
but not later than one year after enactment of this act Federal funds 
authorized by this act may not be used to subsidize the irrigation of 
any crop at the Oakes Test Area.''
  The Dakota Water Resources Act represents a significant bipartisan 
effort within North Dakota to meet the contemporary and future water 
quantity and quality needs of our State and provide for the long-term 
economic development of North Dakota.
  I look forward to working with the members and staff of the Senate 
Energy and Natural Resources Committee on this legislation, 
specifically Senator Murkowski and Senator Bumpers, the chairman and 
ranking member respectively. I also look forward to discussing the need 
for the Dakota Water Resources Act with my Senate colleagues and would 
invite their support for this legislation that is essential for the 
future of North Dakota.
  Mr. President, this legislation has the unanimous support of the 
congressional delegation, the Governor, state legislative leaders, 
tribal leaders, North Dakota water interests, and the North Dakota 
Rural Electric Cooperatives. It also has the support of a major state 
conservation group and mayors of the major affected cities. The Dakota 
Water Resources Act is the consensus product of an extensive 
negotiating process.
  I want to express my personal appreciation to each of the State 
elected leaders who served as the State negotiating team. I am deeply 
grateful for their efforts. They were undertaken in good faith, in a 
bipartisan spirit because we recognize the critical importance of the 
completion of this project for the future economic health and strength 
of our State.
  Our State leaders have come together in an unprecedented way. I am 
submitting for the Record, and I will ask unanimous consent to have 
printed in the Record after my statement and after the bill, the 
letters of support, including a letter signed by Senator Dorgan, 
Congressman Pomeroy, Governor Schafer, North Dakota Senate majority 
leader Gary Nelson, North Dakota Senate minority leader Tim Mathern, 
North Dakota House majority leader John Dorso, and North Dakota House 
minority leader Merle Boucher as well as myself. The eight of us served 
as the State negotiating team.
  In addition to that, I am proud to say we have letters of support of 
the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, the Spirit Lake Tribe, the Turtle 
Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians, and three affiliated tribes.
  We will also submit for the Record separate letters from the North 
Dakota Chapter of the Wildlife Society, the Garrison Diversion 
Conservancy District, the North Dakota Water Users Association, the 
Cities of Grand Forks, Fargo, Minot, Dickinson, and Williston, the 
Southwest Water Authority, the North Dakota Water Resource Districts 
Association, the Souris River Joint Water Resource Board, the West 
River Joint Water Resource Board, the Devils Lake Basin Joint Water 
Resource Board, the North Dakota Association of Rural Electric 
Cooperatives, the Greater North Dakota Association, which is the North 
Dakota Chamber of Commerce, the Fargo Chamber of Commerce, the 
Industrial Development Association of North Dakota, and the North 
Dakota Education Association.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that these letters be printed 
in the Record following my remarks and before the legislation itself.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, this outpouring of support is 
unprecedented. In essence, our citizens are saying to Washington, take 
note. This is essential for our future.
  Before I conclude, I would like to say that in addition to many fine 
people in North Dakota who helped in the crafting of this legislation, 
I want to recognize the special efforts of staff members of mine who 
worked long and hard to produce these results: Robert Van Heuvelen, 
Derik Fettig, Kirk Johnson, and Mary Knapp.
  Their dedication in getting amendments drafted has contributed 
tremendously to the positive product we are introducing today. They 
have been instrumental in forging the consensus which is a hallmark of 
this legislation. Through careful attention to detail, endless rounds 
of communications with all interested parties and preparation of myriad 
of drafts, these four professionals have made a real mark. As many in 
North Dakota will attest, Robert, Derik, Kirk, and Mary exemplify the 
finest that we find among congressional staff. I thank them for their 
contribution today.
  In addition to my own staff, I want to take this moment to also thank 
three other outstanding congressional staffers for their help in 
achieving this result: Doug Norell, the legislative director for 
Senator Dorgan, Andrea

[[Page S12464]]

Nygren, Ruth Fleischer, and Mike Eggl of Senator Dorgan's staff, Karen 
Frederickson and Amy Goffe, the chief of staff and legislative 
assistant, respectively, for North Dakota Congressman Earl Pomeroy. 
This has been a collaborative effort among the delegation, the State's 
elected leaders and their staffs. And I thank them for it.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I listened with interest to the 
presentation by my colleague, Senator Conrad. He is presenting today, 
and I join him in presenting, a picture of water issues in North Dakota 
that are critically important to the future of our State. I would like 
to describe for my colleagues why this is the case and what we propose 
to do to respond to the water needs of our region.
  We live in a semiarid State, Mr. President. North Dakota gets 15 to 
17 inches of rainfall a year. About 100 years ago, John Wesley Powell 
told the North Dakota Constitutional Convention in the year 1888 that 
North Dakota would have a series of years when they would have abundant 
crops, and then for 2 or 3 years, they would have less rainfall. There 
will be failure of crops, and disaster will come on thousands of people 
who will become discouraged and leave.
  That is the history of those who live on the border between humid and 
arid lands.
  This is a picture showing some of the crusted dirt of parched soil 
that has not had enough moisture. What has happened in our State is 
exactly what was predicted a century ago. We are a wonderful, bountiful 
agricultural State, but we do suffer being a semiarid State with the 
lack of rainfall, lack of water. We wanted to try to do something about 
that, to provide some stability.
  The Senator from North Dakota, Senator Conrad, held up a picture that 
showed water in jars. It is interesting, I come from southwestern North 
Dakota and know a lot about the water-quality issue Senator Conrad was 
talking about. A fellow brought a jar of water to one of our hearings, 
and he sat the jar on the table. You would have sworn it was tobacco 
juice; if not tobacco juice, at least strong coffee; and if not strong 
coffee, very strong tea. But, no, that jar of brown water was his 
drinking water. It was from his well.
  We suffer water-quality problems in addition to the lack of water in 
North Dakota, which is a semiarid State. We have known now for a 
century the consequences of that. The consequences of that are imposed 
upon our economic well-being in a State that is a wonderful State, but 
suffers from having 42 of its 53 counties declining in population. Only 
11 counties have a growing population.

  Mr. President, I come from a county in southwestern North Dakota. It 
had a population of 5,000 when I left. It now has a population of 
3,000. The neighboring county, about the same size as my home county, 
is called Slope County. It is the size of the State of Rhode Island in 
landmass. Nine hundred citizens live in Slope County, and last year 
there were only seven babies born in Slope County. I say that just to 
give people an understanding of the size of our State and what is 
happening in some of the rural counties where the population is 
shrinking and we are seeing outmigration. Yet we are a State that is 
recognized as one of the most bountiful agricultural States in America.
  Something happened in the 1940's that portended for us a change. What 
happened in the 1940's was the discussion of the Pick-Sloan plan that 
would create flood control down the reaches of the Missouri River with 
a series of dams. In 1943, there was a great flood on the Missouri 
River, and it crippled the delivery of supplies for American troops 
fighting in World War II to the gulf ports. It brought home, more than 
anything, the need for reliable transportation and navigation on the 
river, for reliable flood control on the river.
  From it was born the Pick-Sloan plan to try to harness the Missouri 
River and create a series of dams that would provide flood control and 
a range of other benefits.
  As part of that plan, we were told in North Dakota, because the 
Federal Government wishes to harness the Missouri River and create six 
dams in order to do so, we would like you in North Dakota to do us a 
favor. We would like you to host a flood that comes and stays. We would 
like to create a 500,000-acre flood in North Dakota, about the size of 
the State of Rhode Island. We want to take a Rhode Island-size flood, 
put it in your State by backing up the river with a dam and you keep it 
there. A flood that comes and stays forever.
  North Dakotans thought about that a little bit and said, ``Gee, so 
you want to give us a Rhode Island-size flood, what does that mean for 
us?''
  The Federal Government said, ``Well, you need to understand the 
second half of this. We would like you to host a flood that comes and 
stays, but we propose to give you a very significant benefit. You are a 
semiarid State. We would like you to be able to take water from behind 
that dam and from that flood and move it all around your State in order 
to deal with water quality and water accessibility and irrigation all 
across your State.''
  The people of North Dakota thought, ``Gosh, that sounds like a really 
good deal, something needed in our State.''
  From that was born the Garrison Diversion Project. Behind the 
Garrison Dam, the ability to divert water all around our State to 
irrigate, provide good quality drinking water, to provide assured 
supplies of water for municipal and industrial use in cities and, yes, 
even in the eastern part of our State who are served by the Red River, 
which has run dry in the past. All of that sounded good to North 
Dakota, so we got the flood.
  Elbow Woods--where my dad lived as a young boy and used to herd 
horses up on the Indian reservation--Elbow Woods doesn't exist anymore. 
It is a community that is gone because now where Elbow Woods stood is a 
lake, a flood. Elbow Woods and other communities were flooded, and the 
Indian population moved to the upland, so the flood came and stayed.
  But when President Eisenhower went out to dedicate the dam that held 
back the water and created the flood and the people were moved and we 
had the Rhode Island-size flood, it took a while for the benefits to 
come to North Dakota. We had the cost now. The cost was this flood, but 
the benefits were something else. The benefits kept shrinking and 
shrinking because controversy developed, and finally we passed a piece 
of legislation in 1965 and another one in 1986 to try to make sure that 
we got the benefits we were promised.

  At least part of the benefits were to, for example, move water 
throughout North Dakota. From the 1986 act, we finally have water 
coming to southwestern North Dakota. We have a plan to move water to 
northwestern North Dakota. These areas are areas from where we see this 
picture about the drinking water that looks like tobacco juice. This 
now represents an area that is getting water from the Missouri River, 
good quality water moved to all these communities, which helps them 
enormously. But more needs to be done. We cannot finish the project and 
complete the promise given to our State until we enact changes once 
more in the Garrison diversion legislation.
  It has been enormously controversial. Canada has objected; 
environmental groups have objected. So we put together a group of 
elected officials who are the elected leaders of North Dakota--the 
Governor, the congressional delegation, the Republicans and Democrats 
who are leaders in the State legislature--House and Senate--and we 
created a negotiating team. All of us, which is pretty unusual, sat 
around a table for many, many months at various periods and negotiated 
a bipartisan solution that will finish this plan for North Dakota. When 
finished, we hope it will provide this kind of sight all across our 
State in small towns and big towns, on farms, in cities--clean drinking 
water enjoyed by North Dakota, opportunities from water delivery to all 
parts of our State. That is what we hope the benefits of this plan will 
be.
  I have taken some time to give a much broader history of how we have 
gotten to this point, simply because I want people to understand, this 
does not have as its origin in our State coming to Washington saying, 
``Give us something, please; we'd like you to give us a plan, please.'' 
That was not the origin. The origin was the Federal

[[Page S12465]]

Government going to North Dakota saying, ``Please play host to a flood 
the size of the State of Rhode Island that will be forever in your 
State, and we will promise you that you will get from that an 
opportunity to move good quality water throughout the State for 
municipal, rural, and industrial purposes, and for irrigation.''
  What has happened to us is we bore the cost of the flood, but we 
never received the full flower of the benefits that were promised us 
under the act.
  Senator Conrad and I and our colleague, Congressman Pomeroy, in the 
House, today offer a bipartisan piece of legislation that will, if 
completed, finally allow us to realize the full benefits of this 
project.
  I am not going to go into all the details of it except to say that 
the compromise that we offer finally allows us to connect the 
waterworks, to get water to eastern North Dakota, and an assured supply 
of water for some of the largest communities in North Dakota that live 
along the Red River.
  It addresses in a very significant way the concerns that were 
expressed by environmental organizations. It addresses the issues that 
were raised by a number of others who have had concerns about the 
project. In short, it says, let us finish this project in a way that 
satisfies the interests and needs of North Dakota, but also do it in a 
way that addresses the concerns others have raised about this project.
  This project is fiscally responsible. It would in fact, if completed 
the way we envision, cut nearly $200 million from the current 
authorization. So we are talking about completing a project in a 
different way but cutting up to $200 million from the current 
authorized level for this project. The Act provides substantial 
environmental benefits, incentives for water conservation, the creation 
of a natural resources trust, and additional incentives for the State 
to establish and meet other specified conservation goals. So it 
provides substantial environmental benefits.
  We believe that the cooperative effort with the congressional 
delegation and the State's political leaders have vastly strengthened 
this bill. I want to commend especially the North Dakota chapter of the 
Wildlife Society, which, incidentally, wrote a letter saying: ``We 
support this compromise. This compromise meets the test of being 
environmentally sound.''
  The third test this bill meets is that it provides more in economic 
development than natural resource enhancement alone. Water is necessary 
for all life, but in a semi-arid plain State it is critical.
  I began this description by talking about the outmigration from rural 
counties and the desperate need to try to pump some economic life into 
those counties. One way to do that is to have an assured supply of good 
water. The fourth test this bill meets is project completion. This 
finally would complete the project and allow North Dakota to realize 
the full promise that the Federal Government gave North Dakota.
  Finally, our bill represents a rare consensus among all the major 
participants in State water development and conservation. It is a rare 
thing, I suppose, to hear these days that this is a bipartisan plan. It 
is the product of Republicans and Democrats sitting around a table, not 
describing themselves as partisans, not describing themselves by their 
political party, but describing themselves as leaders serving North 
Dakota's long-term interests. We did that. And I am very pleased with 
the result.
  Senator Conrad described the support across North Dakota. And we are 
going to put in the Congressional Record the letters of support from 
all of the people who have written us, communities and many, many 
others, for this project.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has spoken for in excess of 10 
minutes.
  Mr. DORGAN. I ask unanimous consent to finish in 1 additional minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN. Finally, Mr. President, let me add my compliments to 
Senator Conrad himself. Senator Conrad has played an instrumental role 
in getting us to this point. We would not be here without Senator 
Conrad's leadership. Let me also commend Senator Conrad's staff, and 
let me echo the words of praise that Senator Conrad gave to Doug 
Norell, the legislative director of my staff, and Ruth Fleischer and 
Andrea Nygren, and so many others.
  Congressman Pomeroy has played a critically important role here. 
Governor Schafer, the state legislative leaders, State senator Tim 
Mathern, State representative Merle Boucher, State representative John 
Dorso, State senator Gary Nelson all were important in getting us to 
this point.

  My hope is that we will now begin a process to move this legislation, 
have some hearings, and I hope at the end of this struggle--I am not 
sure when that end will occur; it is not clear that this is going to 
move quickly--but at the end of this struggle we in North Dakota will 
be able to look back and say, it was a long, hard fight, but we got 
what was promised for our State. And not only did we get what was 
promised, but it was important, critically important, for the long-term 
economy of North Dakota.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. CONRAD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, let me just thank my colleague, Senator 
Dorgan. Senator Dorgan and his staff have worked tirelessly to produce 
this result. This isn't something we have just worked on the last few 
months. This has been an effort of 6 years to bring us to this point. 
It is remarkable to have brought together such a broad cross-section of 
the State of North Dakota in support of a project as significant as 
this one.
  I just want to thank my colleague for all of his efforts and all of 
his leadership. He was involved in the 1986 reformulation. He early on 
recognized that we had an additional opportunity here to have something 
develop that would secure the economic future of our State.
  I think we should also acknowledge that we understand we face a tough 
struggle to pass this legislation. We know that we have determined 
opponents downstream, that we have other opponents as well, certain 
national environmental organizations. And the State of Minnesota and 
our neighbors to the north in Canada all have expressed reservations. 
But we have done our level best to address their concerns. We have 
brought forward a project that is environmentally sensitive, that is 
fiscally sound, and does meet the current and long-term water needs of 
the State of North Dakota, all within the context of changing what has 
already been approved by Congress.
  Senator Dorgan made the point and made it well. We have an approved 
project that is even a bigger project than what we are proposing here 
today, but it is unlikely to ever be built. Now is the time to step 
forward and to propose reasonable alternatives that are alternatives 
that would secure the long-term interests of the State of North Dakota.
  So, again, I want to especially thank my colleague from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. CONRAD. Yes.
  Mr. DORGAN. It might be useful to discuss the plans as we proceed. We 
introduced the legislation today here in the Senate. It will be 
concurrently introduced in the House of Representatives by our 
colleague, Congressman Pomeroy. At that point my expectation would be 
that we will want to hold some hearings.
  This will likely be referred--without doing the Parliamentarian's 
job, I assume will be referred--to the Senate Energy and Natural 
Resources Committee on which I sit. We expect to request some hearings 
by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. My expectation is 
we would want to perhaps hold some North Dakota hearings with the joint 
leadership in North Dakota to have an opportunity to further discuss 
this project.
  I want to emphasize something Senator Conrad just indicated. There 
will be opposition. This is a bipartisan approach, but there will be 
opposition.
  There is this old story about the radio announcer who was 
interviewing an old guy, some 85-year-old codger. And he said, ``You've 
seen a lot of changes in your life, ain't you?'' And the guy said, 
``Yeah, I sure have.'' The old guy added, ``I've been against all of 
them, too.''

[[Page S12466]]

  You know, there are people like that. They are against all changes 
until it is demonstrated that change was good, and then they say, ``OK, 
now let me just oppose the next change.'' So it is clear to me that we 
will have opposition.
  The test for us, however, is to have developed a plan, which I think 
this plan meets, that is sensitive to all of the issues that are raised 
in opposition.
  When environmental organizations say to us, ``Well, we have some real 
problems with this,'' I think what we are able to say is we worked with 
major environmental organizations in our State and negotiated with 
them, made changes relative to the recommendations they made, and they, 
I am pleased to say, have sent us a letter saying, ``We support this 
approach.''
  We think this approach is a good compromise, meets the environmental 
tests. So my expectation is that today is getting this piece of reform 
legislation to the starting line. We have a hill ahead of us. The 
question is, how steep, how long does it take to get up the hill and 
down the other side? We will get there. The question is, how difficult 
is this and what is the timeframe?
  So I thought we might want to talk about that kind of approach today.
  Mr. CONRAD. I just respond by saying, I think it is very important 
that we have hearings--and have hearings in North Dakota--to be able to 
hear from all affected interests there. We already have heard from 
virtually every affected interest in the State of North Dakota. They 
have sent us letters in support of this project.
  There is absolutely an unprecedented degree of bipartisan support, 
virtually every affected interest in the State of North Dakota. But we 
also will look forward to hearings here because we understand there are 
people in opposition, there are tests in opposition. We want the 
opportunity to explain what we have done to respond to their concerns, 
because I think this is a remarkable effort to try to listen to what 
other people have said and to try to design a project that meets their 
concerns.
  So I think we are looking forward to the opportunity to tell our 
story and to make our case. We believe it is a powerful one. As I 
indicated earlier, we believe this project is environmentally 
sensitive, fiscally sound, and in the long-term interests of the State 
of North Dakota and of the Nation.
  So, again, I want to thank my colleague from North Dakota for all of 
his efforts in bringing us to this day.
  Mr. DORGAN. If you might yield for one additional point.
  I think what we say today when we introduce this legislation is, we 
say to the Federal Government, ``Keep your promise. You made our State 
a promise. We expect the Federal Government to keep their promise.'' 
This legislation, in our judgment, the combined judgment of the 
Governor, the congressional delegation, the elected leaders of the 
State legislature, on a bipartisan basis, we believe this legislation 
allows the Federal Government to keep its promise.
  There might be controversy here about this in this Chamber, but we 
would say that ``You owe North Dakota this project. You promised it. We 
have the flood. The flood isn't going away. Now you must provide the 
benefits you promised, Federal Government.'' So that is what we say 
today to the Federal Government: Keep your promise.
  We would say, I think, to those who are naysayers, those who look at 
this and say, ``Well, we don't support this,'' we want to hear you. We 
are willing to listen. We are going to hold hearings. If you have a 
better approach, if you have a better plan, tell us. If you have 
problems with this, tell us what those problems are.
  We want to address all the real problems that exist, but we intend at 
the end of the day to get for our State what was promised to our State. 
It is not just because we want to get something; it is because our 
State's economic future depends on our ability in the coming years to 
complete this project the way it was promised to North Dakota.

  So let me, finally, Mr. President--and I thank Senator Conrad for 
yielding--indicate that Senator Conrad already mentioned that Bob Van 
Heuvelen and Derik Fettig and Kirk Johnson of his staff played a very 
important role in this, as did Karen Frederickson and Amy Goffe of 
Congressman Pomeroy's staff. I don't know if we mentioned Dave 
Sprynczynatyk working for Governor Schafer, and Murray Sagsveen and Bob 
Harms, as well as critically important staff members at the State 
level, to help us formulate this set of amendments that we offered 
today to the U.S. Senate.
  Mr. CONRAD. If the Senator would just yield, I think we also want to 
acknowledge, I might say, the individuals from the State level that we 
have acknowledged in our statements. We should add Mike Dwyer, of the 
North Dakota Water Users, who played a critical role of shuttle 
diplomacy, going back and forth in the final days to reach conclusion 
here.
  So this has been a true team effort, with Dave Sprynczynatyk, the 
State water engineer, and Maj. Gen. Murray Sagsveen working on behalf 
of the Governor and Bob Harms, of the Governor's staff, and, as I have 
indicated, Mike Dwyer of the North Dakota Water Users. All of them 
played very important roles, as did Mike Olson, Bill Bicknell and Dick 
Kroger of the North Dakota Chapter of the Wildlife Society.
  In the final hours, in the final days, it took a real coming together 
to achieve this result. We certainly appreciate all of their efforts.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

                               Exhibit 1


                                                 North Dakota,

                                                 November 7, 1997.
     Sen. Frank Murkowski,
     Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. 
         Senate, Washington, DC.
     Sen. Dale Bumpers,
     Ranking Member, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, 
         U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
     Rep. Don Young,
     Chairman, Committee on Resources, U.S. House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
     Rep. George Miller,
     Ranking Member, Committee on Resources, U.S. House of 
         Representatives, Washington DC.
       Gentlemen: Today marks a significant milestone for the 
     State of North Dakota. We, the elected political leaders of 
     the state, have agreed to support the introduction and to 
     urge the passage of the ``Dakota Water Resources Act.'' The 
     attached legislation, if enacted, will play an integral part 
     in the economic future of our state.
       We are proud that this legislation is the product of 
     extensive and full consultation with people who represent 
     nearly all aspects of the life of our state. It represents a 
     cooperative effort which has not only reached across partisan 
     political lines, but also has constructively engaged all 
     affected interests of the state. It reflects the views of 
     Republicans and Democrats, Tribal leaders, the North Dakota 
     Chapter of the Wildlife Society, The North Dakota Water Users 
     Association, and the Rural Electric Cooperatives.
       Accordingly, we urge you to give this legislation your 
     early review and full support.
           Sincerely,
         Kent Conrad, U.S. Senator; Byron Dorgan, U.S. Senator; 
           Carl Pomeroy, U.S. Representative; Edward Schafer, 
           Governor; Gary Nelson, Majority Leader, State Senate; 
           Timothy Mathern, Minority Leader, State Senate; John 
           Dorso, Majority Leader, State House; Merle Boucher, 
           Minority Leader, State House.
       Attachment.
                                                                    ____


              North Dakota Chapter of The Wildlife Society


  STATEMENT CONCERNING THE NOVEMBER 7TH, 1997 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO 
              GARRISON DIVERSION REFORMULATION ACT OF 1986

       The North Dakota Chapter of The Wildlife Society supports 
     the proposed amendments to Garrison Diversion Reformulation 
     Act as described in the November 7, 1997 Discussion Draft. We 
     strongly believe the cooperative effort with the 
     Congressional Delegation and North Dakota's state political 
     leaders has strengthened the bill. Throughout this effort we 
     have sought to develop legislation that benefits North 
     Dakotans through water development and minimizes potential 
     impacts to our state's natural resources.
       Modification of the 1986 Reformulation Act will benefit 
     substantially more North Dakotans by emphasizing municipal, 
     rural, and industrial water needs of the State. The November 
     6, 1997 additions also place an equal emphasis on recognition 
     of the enhancement of fish and wildlife and other natural 
     resources as a full project feature. We are pleased to see 
     the designation of Lonetree as a wildlife conservation area. 
     This change is consistent with the recognition of natural 
     resource conservation as a project feature that benefits 
     North Dakota and the State's economy.
       We are also encouraged by the addition of funds and the 
     increased opportunities for natural resource conservation in 
     North Dakota presented by the evolution of the Wetlands Trust 
     into the new Natural Resources Trust. We believe the 
     establishment of an account within the Natural Resources 
     Trust to

[[Page S12467]]

     operate and maintain wildlife development areas will benefit 
     wildlife resources in the state. This will ensure the stated 
     commitments of the project are met in the future.
       The findings of the Environmental Impact Statement written 
     by the Bureau of Reclamation will provide a framework for a 
     project which minimizes impacts to North Dakota's natural 
     resources and provides for opportunities to meet the 
     comprehensive water needs of eastern North Dakota. We will 
     gladly be a full participant in this process to help ensure 
     that the water needs of Fargo, Grand Forks, and neighboring 
     communities are met in an environmentally sound cost 
     effective manner.
       Our involvement in this legislation has not ended. We look 
     forward to working with all parties involved to develop the 
     corresponding report language to capture all points of 
     agreement. Full involvement by all interested parties has 
     produced a final bill that North Dakotans can embrace. We 
     welcome the opportunity to cooperatively work on this and 
     other issues effecting North Dakota's natural resource 
     heritage.
                                                                    ____



                           North Dakota Education Association,

                                   Bismarck, ND, November 7, 1997.
     Hon. Kent Conrad,
     U.S. Senator, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Conrad: On behalf of the North Dakota 
     Education Association, we encourage you to support the 
     proposal to amend the 1986 Reformulation Act and complete the 
     Garrison Division water facilities. The proposal you have 
     developed is important to the future of our state.
       We appreciate your efforts and encourage you to support the 
     legislation that will enact a water policy for the state of 
     North Dakota that has been long awaited.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Joseph A. Westby.
     Executive Director.
                                                                    ____

                                       North Dakota Association of


                                  Rural Electric Cooperatives,

                                     Mandan, ND, November 7, 1997.
     To: Sen. Kent Conrad, Sen. Byron Dorgan, Rep. Earl Pomeroy, 
         Gov. Ed Schafer, Sen. Gary Nelson, Sen. Tim Mathern, Rep. 
         John Dorso, and Rep. Merle Boucher.
     From: Dennis Hill, Executive Vice President.
     Re: Amendments to 1986 Garrison Reformulation Act.
       On behalf of the rural electric network in North Dakota, I 
     want to commend each of you for the leadership you've 
     provided to develop a set of amendments to the 1986 Garrison 
     Reformulation Act. This process has been an impressive 
     display of bi-partisan leadership that has resulted in a set 
     of amendments that will finish a major water supply project 
     for our state.
       The rural electric network has long supported the 
     completion of Garrison Diversion. We supported the 1965 Act, 
     the 1986 Reformulation, and we now support these amendments 
     that you have been able to craft that will help our state 
     meet its future contemporary water needs.
       We pledge our continuing support of this project and this 
     process. Please let us know how can we be of help in moving 
     this set of amendments through the Congress.
       Again, thanks for the excellent leadership.
                                                                    ____

                                                North Dakota Water


                                            Users Association,

                                   Bismarck, ND, November 7, 1997.
     To: Gov. Edward Schafer, Sen. Kent Conrad, Sen. Byron Dorgan, 
         Rep. Earl Pomeroy, Sen. Gary Nelson, Sen. Tim Mathern, 
         Rep. John Dorso, Rep. Merle Boucher.
     From: North Dakota Water Users Association.
     Re: Garrison Amendments.
       We would like to thank you for your considerable effort to 
     achieve consensus on a proposal to further the Garrison 
     project and meet the critical water needs of North Dakota. We 
     sense there is a unity we have not had before among state 
     water users, state wildlife interests, Tribes, power 
     customers and others on how we should proceed in proposing to 
     complete Garrison Diversion water supply facilities.
       We fully support the amendments that have been developed to 
     enable the 1986 Reformulation Act to be modified and 
     implemented. While the amendments eliminate most of the 
     irrigation opportunities provided in the 1965 and 1986 Acts, 
     we will vigorously support the current proposal in the spirit 
     of compromise with the many competing interests in this 
     project, and with the belief that the proposal will meet the 
     critical water needs of our state, including the opportunity 
     to utilize the existing facilities to provide Missouri River 
     water to meet the water needs of the Red River Valley.
       We look forward to working with you and the Tribe, state 
     wildlife interests, cities, rural water systems, other water 
     users, power customers and others to secure approval and 
     implementation of the proposed amendments.
     Mike Dwyer,
       Exectuvie Vice President.
     Jack Olin,
       President.
                                                                    ____



                                    Southwest Water Authority,

                                  Dickinson, ND, November 7, 1997.
     Gov. Edward Schafer,
     State Capitol,
     Bismarck, ND.
     Sen. Kent Conrad,
     Hart Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
     Sen. Byron Dorgan,
     Hart Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
     Rep. Earl Pomeroy,
     Longworth Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
     Sen. Gary Nelson,
     Casselton, ND.
     Sen. Tim Mathern,
     Fargo, ND.
     Rep. John Dorso,
     Fargo, ND.
     Rep. Merle Boucher,
     Rolette, ND.
       Dear Gentlemen: The Southwest Water Authority Board of 
     Directors supports the proposal to amend the 1986 
     Reformulation Act and the completion of Garrison Diversion 
     water facilities.
       Your joint effort on this issue is a reflection of the 
     statewide support for water development in North Dakota. 
     Garrison Diversion does not only support eastern North 
     Dakota. We in southwestern North Dakota also benefit from 
     this project.
       Currently the Southwest Pipeline Project provides water to 
     15 communities, Assumption Abbey, Sacred Heart Monastery, and 
     1200 farms and ranches. Construction to these areas was 
     possible because of funding through Garrison Diversions' 
     Municipal, Rural, and Industrial Fund and the North Dakota 
     Resource Trust Fund.
       The cities of Hettinger, Reeder, and Glen Ullin, cited for 
     excessive fluoride violations, await a new water supply. The 
     Southwest Pipeline Project will be that new source of water. 
     An additional 11 cities and approximately 2300 farms and 
     ranches are waiting for water from the Southwest Pipeline 
     Project. The amended 1986 Reformulation Act will supply funds 
     necessary for completion of the Southwest Pipeline Project.
       Your support and efforts are appreciated. The Southwest 
     Water Authority offers its support and assistance to you as 
     necessary.
           Sincerely,
                                               Pinkie Evans-Curry,
     Manager/CEO.
                                                                    ____

                                                 Devils Lake Basin


                                   Joint Water Resource Board,

                                Devils Lake, ND, November 7, 1997.
     Gov. Edward Schafer,
     State Capitol,
     Bismarck, ND.
     Sen. Gary Nelson,
     Casselton, ND.
     Sen. Kent Conrad,
     Hart Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
     Sen. Tim Mathern,
     Fargo, ND.
     Sen. Byron Dorgan,
     Hart Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
     Rep. John Dorso,
     Fargo, ND.
     Rep. Earl Pomeroy,
     Longworth Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
     Rep. Merle Boucher,
     Rolette, ND.
       Gentlemen: On behalf of the Devils Lake Basin Joint Water 
     Resource Board this is to communicate our support of the 
     proposal to amend the 1986 Reformulation Act and complete the 
     Garrison Diversion water facilities.
       The proposal you have jointly and cooperatively developed 
     will meet the water needs of North Dakota.
       Your efforts to achieve consensus are greatly appreciated. 
     We stand ready to provide necessary support and assistance.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Ben Varnson,
     Chairman.
                                                                    ____

                                                    City of Minot,


                                          Office of the Mayor,

                                                 November 7, 1997.
     Gov. Ed Schafer,
     State Capitol,
     Bismarck, ND.
     Sen. Kent Conrad,
     Hart Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
     Sen. Byron Dorgan,
     Hart Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
     Rep. Earl Pomeroy,
     Longworth Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
     Sen. Gary Nelson,
     Casselton, ND.
     Sen. Tim Mathern,
     Fargo, ND.
     Rep. John Dorso,
     Fargo, ND.
     Rep. Merle Boucher,
     Rolette, ND.
       Dear Gentlemen: On behalf of the City of Minot, this is to 
     communicate our support the proposal to amend the 1986 
     Reformulation Act and complete the Garrison Diversion water 
     facilities.
       The proposal you have jointly and cooperatively developed 
     will finish a project that has languished far too long.

[[Page S12468]]

       Your efforts to achieve consensus are greatly appreciated. 
     We stand ready to provide necessary support and assistance.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Orlin W. Backes,
     Mayor.
                                                                    ____

                                            Industrial Development


                                  Association of North Dakota,

                                                 November 7, 1997.
     Gov. Edward Schafer,
     State Capitol,
     Bismarck, ND.
     Sen. Kent Conrad,
     Hart Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
     Sen. Byron Dorgan,
     Hart Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
     Rep. Earl Pomeroy,
     Longworth Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
     Sen. Gary Nelson,
     Casselton, ND.
     Sen. Tim Mathern,
     Fargo, ND.
     Rep. John Dorso,
     Fargo, ND.
     Rep. Merle Boucher,
     Rolette, ND.
       Dear Gentlemen: On behalf of the Industrial Development 
     Association of North Dakota, and as a member of the North 
     Dakota Water Coalition, we support the proposal to amend the 
     1986 Reformulation Act and completion of the Garrison 
     Diversion water facilities plan. My understanding is that 
     this is being offered under the ``Dakota Water Resources Act 
     of 1997''.
       Water is one of the predominant economic development issues 
     for many of the communities in the state. Simply stated, we 
     seem to have too much water in some areas and not enough in 
     others. Therefore, we support the consensus efforts of the 
     water coalition and our congressional delegation in crafting 
     legislation that will help us build our future by developing 
     water delivery systems across our state.
       We appreciate your initiative in this important matter. We 
     look forward to working with you in the future.
           Sincerely,
                                               Thomas C. Rolfstad,
     Immediate Past President.
                                                                    ____

                                                    City of Fargo,


                                          Office of the Mayor,

                                                 November 7, 1997.
     Hon. Kent Conrad,
     U.S. Senate,
     Hart Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Conrad: The latest draft amendments to the 
     Garrison Diversion Reformulation Act of 1986 have been 
     received and reviewed by Fargo staff and elected officials. 
     We are very supportive of the proposed language.
       As the State's largest City which continues to have a 
     population growth of nearly 2% per year--this rate of 
     increase has sustained for over 20 years--the need for an 
     adequate, reliable and quality source of water is key to our 
     future. The City has just completed construction of a state 
     of the art water treatment facility having the capabilities 
     of addressing all current and anticipated safe drinking water 
     standards well into the 21st Century. While this facility is 
     on line and treating water from the Red River of the North 
     and the Sheyenne River, it will be of little use if water is 
     not available in either of these water sources.
       History bears out the fact that the lack of water in these 
     rivers is a real possibility--in the 1930's low flow 
     conditions prevented the use of water from the Red River for 
     seven straight years. As late as 1975, severe rationing of 
     water in Fargo was caused by low flows in the Red River.
       The introduction of new legislation to continue the 
     Garrison Diversion effort is very timely. The modifications 
     to the established legislation will greatly enhance Fargo's 
     and eastern North Dakota's potential as a growth area--for 
     population, economic and agricultural purposes--in the 
     Midwest.
       Your continued support and work on this very important 
     legislation is needed and appreciated. If we can do anything 
     to further this legislative effort, please call on me.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Bruce W. Furness,
                                                            Mayor.
                                           Turtle Mountain Band of


                                             Chippewa Indians,

                                   Belcourt, ND, November 7, 1997.
     Hon. Byron Dorgan,
     U.S. Senate,
     Hart Building,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Kent Conrad,
     U.S. Senate,
     Hart Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator: The Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians 
     approve the efforts of our congressional representatives in 
     your effort with regard to the ``Dakota Water Resources Act'' 
     We know how hard this type of legislation is to get 
     bipartisan agreement and feel your efforts have been 
     exceptional.
       We of the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians 
     appreciate being invited to the October 27th, 1997 hearing on 
     the Draft Garrison Amendments. We feel that the hearings were 
     very productive and appreciate the cooperation and courtesies 
     extended to the tribes of North Dakota.
       We have reviewed the total ``discussion draft'' dated 
     November 5, 1997 as was sent to us.
       1. We feel this draft is well put together and generally 
     portrays the feeling of the majority of attendees at the 
     table. The Tribes of North Dakota agreed on the breakdown of 
     the Native American authorizations and find them as was 
     discussed.
       2. We note that you have taken some of the suggestions put 
     forth in Russell D. Mason, Sr. letter dated October 27, 1997 
     handed out at the hearings.
       3. We note that in section 7(c) you have made specific 
     reference to the Trenton Indian Service Area in the Turtle 
     Mountain allocation and are pleased with that thought.
       4. In the Section 7(c) page 14 line 22, you have included 
     ``along with adjacent areas'' what is the intent of this?
       The Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians feel this 
     document is put together in the spirit of cooperation with 
     the entities involved and look forward to doing whatever the 
     Tribe can do to support the passage of this legislation. 
     Please contact myself or Ken Loveland at any time if we can 
     assist your efforts toward final passage of the Dakota Water 
     Resources Act.
           Respectfully yours,
     Raphael J. DeCoteau.
                                                                    ____



                                    Standing Rock Sioux Tribe,

                                                 November 7, 1997.
     Hon. Kent Conrad,
     Hart Senate Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Conrad: The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe is in 
     full support of the amendments to the Garrison Reformulation 
     Act of 1986.
       The Tribe especially appreciates the inclusion of the 
     irrigation issues for the Standing Rock reservation and the 
     $200 million requested for water systems on the reservation.
       The Tribe hereby acknowledges the efforts of all our 
     representatives in Congress and will continue to endorse the 
     North Dakota Congressional delegation with regards to Indian 
     Affairs.
       I was very grateful for the opportunity to represent my 
     tribe by giving testimony on this very important piece of 
     legislation. I look forward to a continued effort on both our 
     parts to ensure the very best for our State and my Tribe.
           Sincerely,
                                                Charles W. Murphy,
     Chairman.
                                                                    ____


                                S. 1515

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Dakota Water Resources Act 
     of 1997''.

     SEC. 2. PURPOSES AND AUTHORIZATION.

       Section 1 of Public Law 89-108 (79 Stat. 433; 100 Stat. 
     418) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) in paragraph (2), by striking ``of'' and inserting 
     ``within'';
       (B) in paragraph (5), by striking ``more timely'' and 
     inserting ``appropriate''; and
       (C) in paragraph (7), by striking ``providing irrigation 
     for 130,940 acres of land'' and inserting ``providing for the 
     development of municipal, rural, and industrial water 
     systems, ground water recharge, augmented stream flows, 
     irrigation, and enhanced fish and wildlife habitat and other 
     natural resources'';
       (2) in subsection (b)--
       (A) by inserting ``, jointly with the State of North 
     Dakota,'' after ``construct'';
       (B) by striking ``the irrigation of 130,940 acres'' and 
     inserting ``irrigation'';
       (C) by striking ``fish and wildlife conservation'' and 
     inserting ``fish, wildlife, and other natural resource 
     conservation'';
       (D) by inserting ``augmented stream flows, ground water 
     recharge,'' after ``flood control,''; and
       (E) by inserting ``(as modified by this Act)'' before the 
     period at the end;
       (3) in subsection (e), by striking ``terminated,'' and all 
     that follows and inserting ``terminated.''; and
       (4) by striking subsections (f) and (g) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(f) Nonreimbursability of Features.--All features 
     constructed by the Secretary before the date of enactment of 
     the Dakota Water Resources Act of 1997, including the Oakes 
     Test Area, shall be nonreimbursable.
       ``(g) Agreement Between the Secretary and the State.--The 
     Secretary shall enter into an agreement with the State of 
     North Dakota providing for the operation and maintenance of 
     the completed unit facilities and the design and construction 
     of authorized new unit facilities by the State. The Secretary 
     shall be responsible for the cost of operation and 
     maintenance of the proportionate share attributable to the 
     facilities which remain unused.
       ``(h) Mitigation and Enhancement.--The Secretary shall be 
     responsible for operation, maintenance, and replacement of 
     mitigation and enhancement measures associated with features 
     constructed under this Act.''.

     SEC. 3. FISH AND WILDLIFE.

       Section 2 of Public Law 89-108 (79 Stat. 433; 100 Stat. 
     419) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (c)--
       (A) in paragraph (1)--
       (i) by striking ``(1) If, before commencement of 
     construction of the unit, non-Federal public bodies agree'' 
     and inserting ``If non-Federal public bodies continue to 
     agree''; and

[[Page S12469]]

       (ii) by inserting ``and the State of North Dakota'' after 
     ``the Secretary''; and
       (B) by striking paragraph (2);
       (2) in subsection (d), by striking ``: Provided, That'' and 
     all that follows through ``years'';
       (3) in subsection (e)--
       (A) by redesignating paragraphs (1) and (2) as paragraphs 
     (2) and (3), respectively;
       (B) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``(e)'';
       (C) in the first sentence of paragraph (2) (as redesignated 
     by subparagraph (A)), by striking ``within ten years after 
     initial unit operation''; and
       (D) in the first sentence of paragraph (3) (as redesignated 
     by subparagraph (A))--
       (i) by striking ``, within ten years after initial 
     operation of the unit,''; and
       (ii) by striking ``paragraph (1) of this subsection'' and 
     inserting ``paragraph (2) of this subsection''; and
       (4) in subsection (j)--
       (A) by striking paragraph (1); and
       (B) by redesignating paragraphs (2) and (3) as paragraphs 
     (1) and (2), respectively.

     SEC. 4. IRRIGATION FACILITIES.

       Section 5 of Public Law 89-108 (100 Stat. 419) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``Sec. 5. (a)(1)'' and all that follows 
     through subsection (c) and inserting the following:

     ``SEC. 5. IRRIGATION FACILITIES.

       ``(a) In addition to the existing 5,000-acre Oakes Test 
     Area, the Secretary is authorized to develop irrigation in 
     the following project service areas: Turtle Lake (13,700 
     acres) and McClusky Canal (10,000 acres). The Secretary may 
     also develop 1,200 acres of irrigation in the New Rockford 
     Canal Service Area provided that the Secretary also 
     implements user fees for full reimbursement. The Secretary is 
     prohibited from developing irrigation in these areas in 
     excess of the acreage specified herein, except that the 
     Secretary is authorized and directed to develop up to 28,000 
     acres of irrigation in other areas of North Dakota (such as 
     Nesson Valley and Horsehead Flats areas), not located in the 
     Hudson Bay, Devils Lake, or James River drainage basins.'';
       (2) by redesignating subsections (d), (e), and (f) as 
     subsections (b), (c), and (d), respectively;
       (3) in the first sentence of subsection (b) (as 
     redesignated by paragraph (2)), by striking ``(a)(1)'' and 
     inserting ``(a)''; and
       (4) in the first sentence of subsection (c) (as 
     redesignated by paragraph (2)), by striking ``Lucky Mound 
     (7,700 acres), Upper Six Mile Creek (7,500 acres)'' and 
     inserting ``Lucky Mound (7,700 acres) and Upper Six Mile 
     Creek (7,500 acres), or such other lands at Fort Berthold of 
     equal acreage as may be selected by the tribe and approved by 
     the Secretary,''.

     SEC. 5. POWER.

       Section 6 of Public Law 89-108 (79 Stat. 435; 100 Stat. 
     421) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b)--
       (A) by striking ``Notwithstanding the provisions of'' and 
     inserting ``Pursuant to the provisions of''; and
       (B) by striking ``revenues,'' and all that follows and 
     inserting ``revenues.''; and
       (2) in subsection (c)--
       (A) in the first sentence, by striking ``any reallocation'' 
     and all that follows and inserting ``section 1(e) shall not 
     result in any reallocation of project costs and shall not 
     result in increased rates to Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin 
     Program customers.''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following: ``Nothing in this 
     Act shall alter or affect in any way the current repayment 
     methodology for other features of the Pick-Sloan Missouri 
     Basin Program.''.

     SEC. 6. MUNICIPAL, RURAL, AND INDUSTRIAL WATER SERVICE.

       Section 7 of Public Law 89-108 (100 Stat. 422) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) in paragraph (3)--
       (i) in the second sentence--

       (I) by striking ``The non-Federal share'' and inserting 
     ``Unless otherwise provided in this Act, the non-Federal 
     share''; and
       (II) by striking ``this section shall be 25 percent'' and 
     inserting ``this section and section 8(a) shall be 15 
     percent'';

       (ii) by inserting after the second sentence the following: 
     ``The State may use the Federal and non-Federal funds to 
     provide grants or loans for municipal, rural, and industrial 
     water systems. The State may continue to use funds from 
     repaid loans for municipal, rural, and industrial water 
     systems.''; and
       (iii) by striking the last sentence and inserting the 
     following: ``The Southwest Pipeline Project, the Northwest 
     Area Water Supply Project, the Red River Valley Water Supply 
     Project, and other municipal, industrial, and rural water 
     systems in the State of North Dakota shall be eligible for 
     funding under this section.''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) Project features for red river valley water needs.--
       ``(A) Report on red river valley water needs and delivery 
     options.--Not later than 90 days after the effective date of 
     the Dakota Water Resources Act of 1997, the Secretary, acting 
     through the Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation, and 
     the State of North Dakota shall jointly submit to Congress a 
     report on the comprehensive water quality and quantity needs 
     of the Red River Valley and the options for meeting those 
     needs, including the delivery of Missouri River water to the 
     Red River Valley. Such needs shall include, but not be 
     limited to, augmenting stream flows and enhancing: municipal, 
     rural, and industrial water supplies; water quality; aquatic 
     environment; and recreation.
       ``(B) Environmental impact statement.--Not later than 180 
     days after the date of enactment of the Dakota Water 
     Resources Act of 1997, the Secretary shall, in coordination 
     with and with the concurrence of the State of North Dakota, 
     prepare and complete a draft environmental impact statement 
     concerning all feasible options to meet the comprehensive 
     water quality and quantity needs of the Red River Valley and 
     the options for meeting those needs, including the delivery 
     of Missouri River water to the Red River Valley.
       ``(C) Process for selection.--After reviewing the final 
     report required by section 7(a)(4)(A) and complying with the 
     requirements of section 7(a)(4)(B), and after consultation 
     with the Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of State, 
     and other interested parties, the State of North Dakota in 
     coordination with affected local communities shall select 1 
     or more project features described in section 8(a)(1) that 
     will meet the comprehensive water quality and quantity needs 
     of the Red River Valley. The Secretary is authorized and 
     directed to enter into, within 180 days after the record of 
     decision has been executed, agreements in accordance with 
     sections 1(g) and 7(a) to construct the feature or features 
     selected by the State.
       ``(D) Water conservation program.--Funds provided in 
     section 10(b)(1) and funds provided in section 10(b)(2) to 
     carry out section 8(a) may be used by the State to develop 
     and implement a water conservation program. The Secretary and 
     State shall jointly establish water conservation goals to 
     meet the purposes of the State's program and to improve the 
     availability of water supplies to meet the purposes of this 
     Act. If the State achieves the established water conservation 
     goals, the non-Federal cost share established in section 
     7(a)(3) shall be reduced by 0.5 percent.''.
       (2) in subsection (b)--
       (A) in the first sentence, by striking the period at the 
     end and inserting ``or such other feature or features as may 
     be selected under subsection (a)(4)(C).'';
       (B) in the second sentence, by striking ``conveyance'' and 
     inserting ``a project feature selected under subsection 
     (a)(4)(C)''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following: ``In addition, the 
     costs of construction, operation, maintenance, and 
     replacement of Northwest Area Water Supply Project water 
     treatment facilities deemed attributable to meeting the 
     requirements of the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909 shall also 
     be nonreimbursable.''.
       (3) in subsection (c), by striking ``and Fort Totten Indian 
     Reservations'' and inserting ``Turtle Mountain (including the 
     Trenton Indian Service Area), and Fort Totten Indian 
     Reservations and adjacent areas''; and
       (4) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(e) Nonreimbursability of Costs.--With respect to the 
     Southwest Pipeline Project, the Northwest Area Water Supply 
     Project, the Red River Valley Water Supply Project, and other 
     municipal, industrial, and rural water systems in North 
     Dakota, the costs of the features constructed on the Missouri 
     River by the Secretary of the Army before the date of 
     enactment of the Dakota Water Resources Act of 1997 shall be 
     nonreimbursable.''.

     SEC. 7. SPECIFIC FEATURES.

       (a) In General.--Section 8 of Public Law 89-108 (100 Stat. 
     423) is amended by striking ``Sec. 8.'' and all that follows 
     through subsection (a) and inserting the following:

     ``SEC. 8. SPECIFIC FEATURES.

       ``(a) Authorization.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Secretary is authorized and directed 
     to construct a feature or features to deliver Missouri River 
     water to the Sheyenne River water supply and release facility 
     or such other feature or features as are selected under 
     section 7(a)(4)(C). The feature shall be designed and 
     constructed to meet only the water delivery requirements of 
     the irrigation areas, municipal, rural, and industrial water 
     supply needs, ground water recharge, and streamflow 
     augmentation (as described in section 7(a)(4)(A)) authorized 
     in this Act. The feature shall be located, constructed, and 
     operated so that, in the opinion of the Secretaries of the 
     Interior and State, no violation of the Boundary Waters 
     Treaty of 1909 would result. The Secretary may not commence 
     construction on the feature until a master repayment contract 
     consistent with the provisions of this Act between the 
     Secretary and the appropriate non-Federal entity has been 
     executed.
       ``(2) Deauthorization of lonetree dam and reservoir.--The 
     Lonetree Dam and Reservoir is deauthorized, and the Secretary 
     shall designate the lands acquired for the former reservoir 
     site a wildlife conservation area.
       ``(3) The Secretary is authorized and directed to enter 
     into an agreement with the State of North Dakota providing 
     for the operation and maintenance of the Lonetree wildlife 
     conservation area, the costs of which shall be paid by the 
     Secretary.
       (b) Taayer Reservoir.--Section 8(b) of Public Law 89-108 
     (100 Stat. 423) is amended in the second sentence--
       (1) by inserting ``acting through the Commissioner of the 
     Bureau of Reclamation'' after ``Secretary''; and
       (2) by inserting ``, including acquisition through donation 
     or exchange,'' after ``acquire''.

[[Page S12470]]

     SEC. 8. EXCESS CROPS.

       Section 9 of Public Law 89-108 (100 Stat. 423) is amended 
     by adding at the end the following: ``Upon transfer of the 
     Oakes Test Area to the State of North Dakota, but not later 
     than 1 year after enactment of the Dakota Water Resources Act 
     of 1997, Federal funds authorized by this Act may not be used 
     to subsidize the irrigation of any crop at the Oakes Test 
     Area.''.

     SEC. 9. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       Section 10 of Public Law 89-108 (100 Stat. 424; 106 Stat. 
     4669, 4739) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) in the first sentence of paragraph (1), by striking 
     ``$270,395,000 for carrying out the provisions of section 
     5(a) through section 5(c) and section 8(a)(1) of this Act'' 
     and inserting ``to carry out section 5(a) $84,200,000''; and
       (B) in the first sentence of paragraph (2), by striking 
     ``5(e) of this Act'' and inserting ``5(c)'';
       (2) in subsection (b)--
       (A) in paragraph (1), by inserting after the first sentence 
     the following: ``In addition to the amount authorized under 
     the preceding sentence, there is authorized to be 
     appropriated $300,000,000 to carry out section 7(a).''; and
       (B) in paragraph (2), by inserting after the first sentence 
     the following: ``In addition to the amount authorized under 
     the preceding sentence, there are authorized to be 
     appropriated $200,000,000 to carry out section 7(c), to be 
     allocated as follows: $30,000,000 to the Fort Totten Indian 
     Reservation, $70,000,000 to the Fort Berthold Indian 
     Reservation, $80,000,000 to the Standing Rock Indian 
     Reservation, and $20,000,000 to the Turtle Mountain Indian 
     Reservation. Also, in addition to the amount authorized under 
     the first sentence of this subsection, there are authorized 
     to be appropriated $200,000,000 to carry out section 8(a).''.
       (3) in subsection (c)--
       (A) by striking the second sentence and inserting the 
     following: ``In addition to the amount authorized under the 
     preceding sentence, there are authorized to be appropriated 
     $6,500,000 to carry out recreational projects and, subject to 
     section 11(a)(2), $25,000,000 to carry out section 11. Of the 
     funds authorized for recreational projects, up to $1,500,000 
     may be used to fund a wetland interpretive center in the 
     State of North Dakota.'';
       (B) in the last sentence, by striking the period at the end 
     and inserting ``(including the mitigation and enhancement 
     features).''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following: ``Expenditures for 
     operation and maintenance of features substantially completed 
     and features constructed before the date of enactment of the 
     Dakota Water Resources Act of 1997, including funds expended 
     for such purposes since the date of enactment of Public Law 
     99-294, shall not be subject to the authorization limits in 
     this section. When the features authorized by section 8(a) 
     are operational, a separate account in the Natural Resources 
     Trust authorized in section 11 shall be established for 
     operation and maintenance of the mitigation and enhancement 
     lands associated with the unit.'';
       (4) in subsection (e), by striking ``portion of the 
     $61,000,000 authorized for Indian municipal, rural, and 
     industrial water features'' and inserting ``amounts under 
     subsection (b)''; and
       (5) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(f) Four Bears Bridge.--There is authorized to be 
     appropriated, for demolition of the existing structure and 
     construction of the Four Bears Bridge across Lake Sakakawea 
     within the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation, $40,000,000.''.

     SEC. 10. NATURAL RESOURCES TRUST.

       Section 11 of Public Law 89-108 (100 Stat. 424) is 
     amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) by striking ``Wetlands'' and inserting ``Natural 
     Resources'';
       (B) by striking ``The amount of each such annual 
     contribution shall be as follows:'';
       (C) by striking paragraphs (1), (2), and (3);
       (D) by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (1); and
       (E) by inserting after paragraph (1) (as redesignated by 
     subparagraph (D)) the following:
       ``(2) Additional federal contribution.--In addition to the 
     amounts authorized in the preceding subsection, the total 
     amount of the Federal contribution pursuant to this Act is 
     increased by $25,000,000.
       ``(A) The amount of each annual Federal contribution 
     authorized by this subsection shall be 5 percent of the total 
     amount appropriated under section 10(b)(1) and under section 
     10(b)(2) to carry out section 8(a) of this Act.
       ``(B) The sums appropriated under section 11(a)(2)(A) shall 
     not exceed $10,000,000, subject to the provisions of section 
     11(a)(2)(C).
       ``(C) The remaining $15,000,000 may not be appropriated 
     until the features authorized by section 8(a) are operational 
     and meeting the objectives of that section as determined 
     jointly by the Secretary and the State.'';
       (2) in subsection (b), by striking ``Wetlands Trust'' and 
     inserting ``Natural Resources Trust''; and
       (3) in subsection (c)--
       (A) by striking ``Wetland Trust'' and inserting ``Natural 
     Resources Trust'';
       (B) by striking ``are met'' and inserting ``is met'';
       (C) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``, grassland 
     conservation and riparian areas'' after ``habitat''; and
       (D) in paragraph (2), by adding at the end the following:
       ``(C) The power to fund incentives for conservation 
     practices by landowners.''.

     SEC. 11. BANK STABILIZATION.

       The Secretary of the Interior shall cause to be performed a 
     review of the options for stabilization of the banks of the 
     Missouri River downstream of the Garrison Dam in the State of 
     North Dakota.

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Dakota Water 
Resources Act of 1997. I introduce this bill jointly with my colleague, 
Senator Kent Conrad, while our colleague in the U.S. House of 
Representatives, Representative Earl Pomeroy, will introduce an 
identical companion bill.
  This bill is the most important piece of legislation I will introduce 
for my State. I say this because the key to North Dakota's future is 
economic development based on water resource management and 
development. And the key to water development in my State is the Dakota 
Water Resources Act.
  Over 100 years ago, John Wesley Powell of the U.S. Geological Survey 
told the North Dakota Constitutional Convention that the State would 
have:

       . . . a series of years when they will have abundant crops; 
     then for two or three years they will have less rainfall and 
     there will be failure of crops and disaster will come on 
     thousands of people, who will become discouraged and leave. 
     That is the history of those who live on the border between 
     humid and arid lands.

  Well, I want to let my colleagues know that what was true in 1889 is 
still true in 1997. Thousands of people are leaving North Dakota for 
economic opportunity Denver, Minneapolis, and dozens of other places. 
Only 11 counties in North Dakota had population increases in the past 
decade. The root of the problem is the challenge of making a dependable 
living on farms in rural areas and of planning for a dependable 
economic future in major cities that do not now have reliable water 
supplies.
  Before turning to the main features of the Dakota Water Resources 
Act, I thought my colleagues would find it useful to know how the 
stoppage of war supplies in 1943 brought us to introduction of this 
legislation in 1997.


                           KEEPING A PROMISE

  This bill offers hope to North Dakotans that they will finally see 
the completion of a major Federal-State water development project that 
was promised over 50 years ago. The promise was that North Dakota would 
get a comprehensive water development project if it accepted a 
permanent Rhode Island-sized flood behind a dam built for downstream 
flood protection and generation of hydro-electric power primarily for 
out-of-State customers.
  It all started in 1943 when a great flood on the Missouri River 
crippled the delivery to gulf ports of supplies for American troops 
fighting World War II. The Army Corps of Engineers and Bureau of 
Reclamation responded with the Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program to 
bring massive flood control with dams in the States of the Upper 
Missouri Basin. The dams were built under the authority of the 1944 
Flood Control Act.
  When the Garrison Dam and Reservoir were completed in 1955, North 
Dakota lost 550,000 acres of rich farmlands in the Missouri River 
Valley. The cumulative value of farming losses over several decades 
amounts to hundreds of millions of dollars. In addition, the State lost 
access to valuable coal and oil reserves. But the losses didn't stop 
here: valuable wildlife habitat, especially along game-rich river 
bottoms, also were lost.
  In return, North Dakota expected to receive both a network of 
irrigation systems across the State to develop more than 1 million 
acres and access to reliable supplies of municipal, rural, and 
industrial water. The 1965 Reauthorization Act set the stage for the 
development of the Garrison diversion project. The project consisted of 
a network of canals throughout North Dakota to irrigate more than 
250,000 acres. That plan eventually encountered some stiff opposition 
and had to be modified.
  In 1986, I wrote the Garrison Diversion Reformulation Act to 
implement the Federal commitment to North Dakota in a way that 
addressed concerns raised about the project. That act provided 
substantial benefits to North Dakota, primarily in the form of water 
systems for nearly 200,000 North Dakotans in almost 100 communities. 
Three Indian reservations, with some of the

[[Page S12471]]

worst water in the State, have started to realize the Reformulation 
Act's promise of safe drinking water as they have completed the first 
phase of their own MR&I programs.
  Experts from North Dakota State University have conducted valuable 
research at the Oakes test area, also authorized by the 1986 act, on 
alternative crops such as beans, onions, and carrots, which were not 
traditionally grown in our State. This research provided the basis for 
farming diversification that will benefit our economic future. With 
such research in hand, the State will be able to carry out agricultural 
development in five areas authorized by the new bill.
  In addition, the 1986 act provided for the purchase of 23,000 acres 
of wetlands, grasslands, and woodlands for wildlife mitigation and 
enhancement and authorized development of the 5,000-acre Kraft Slough 
National Wildlife Refuge.


              RETHINKING THE PROMISE OF WATER DEVELOPMENT

  Despite the Garrison act's benefits, much of its promise remains 
unrealized. We still have not completed a means of meeting the water 
needs of North Dakota's most populous area, the Red River Valley with 
key cities at Wahpeton, Fargo, Grand Forks, and Grafton, ND. That act 
also included authorizations for agricultural projects that were deemed 
to be too costly or too environmentally disruptive to pursue.
  So the bipartisan leadership of the State, including the Governor, 
the majority and minority leadership of the State legislature, and the 
congressional delegation embarked on an effort to complete the project 
in a way that could meet the tough tests of fiscal responsibility, 
environmental protection, economic opportunity, project completion, and 
statewide support.
  I want to commend publicly the efforts of my two congressional 
colleagues, Senator Kent Conrad and Congressman Earl Pomeroy, as well 
as Gov. Ed Schafer, and the bipartisan leadership of the North Dakota 
Legislature--State Senators Gary Nelson and Tim Mathern, and State 
Representatives John Dorso and Merle Boucher--for their creative and 
tireless efforts to build a statewide consensus for a bill that meets 
those tests.

                          ____________________