[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.
____________________