[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 80 (Thursday, June 18, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6519-S6521]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




         ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1999

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I understand that we are in morning 
business. However, the pending business, beginning at 2 o'clock, is the 
Energy and Water appropriations bill. I will make a couple of comments 
about the legislation brought to the floor by Senator Domenici and the 
ranking member, Senator Reid.
  I am a member of the Subcommittee on Energy and Water, and I support 
this piece of legislation. I think Senator Domenici and Senator Reid 
have done a wonderful job. I understand that a lot of the details of 
this legislation will not be discussed at great length today, but I 
want to mention a couple of things in this bill just for purposes of 
alerting people that there are some significant problems that are being 
addressed, especially in the State of North Dakota, in this 
legislation.
  One piece of this legislation deals with funding for something called 
the Garrison Diversion Project. Now, that is a foreign language to most 
people, and no one really would be expected to know much about the 
Garrison Diversion Project in North Dakota. But I want to give some 
history, just for a few brief minutes, about this project and why it is 
important.
  Many years ago, the Missouri River--which was an aggressive, large 
river coming out of the mountains in Montana--was untamed, and during 
the spring flooding it would race down over its banks, and in the lower 
regions of the Missouri River down in Kansas City and elsewhere you 
would have massive flooding, flooding, in fact, all the along the way, 
including cities in North Dakota. It became a huge problem. Federal 
officials said let us try to harness the Missouri River with a series 
of dams. They proposed a series of ``stem'' dams on the Missouri River 
and one would have been in North Dakota.
  In the 1940s, the Federal officials said the folks downstream want 
the river harnessed so it won't flood, so they don't have all the 
problems downstream. What we would like to do is build a dam in your 
State. We would like to have a flood come to your State--behind the 
dam--that comes and stays forever. The flood in your State of North 
Dakota will be a 500,000-acre flood about the size of the State of

[[Page S6520]]

Rhode Island. So they said to North Dakotans--in the 1940s--if you will 
allow us to put a permanent flood in your State by building a dam and 
damming up the water behind it, put a permanent flood that comes and 
stays forever in your State, we will give you the ability to move that 
water behind that dam in that reservoir around the State for a whole 
range of important purposes, including municipal, rural and industrial 
water needs.
  People of North Dakota thought, that is not a bad deal. We will 
accept the flood that comes and stays forever, but then we will get 
this promise from the Federal Government of being able to take water 
from behind that dam and moving it around the State to improve water 
supplies to farmsteads, cities and so on in North Dakota, to provide 
water for industrial development and a whole range of things that will 
create more economic growth in the State.
  So they built the dam. President Eisenhower came out and dedicated 
the dam. Then they created the flood. So the dam is there, the flood 
came, the flood stayed, and we have a Rhode Island-size flood in our 
State forever.
  So we got the cost, we are now hosts to a permanent flood, but we 
have not yet gotten all of the benefits. And that is what the Garrison 
Diversion Project and the funding in this bill is about.
  With the consent of the Presiding Officer, I will show my colleagues, 
or at least provide a demonstration today for those watching, the 
quality of water that we are talking about in some of our communities.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I brought to the floor a little container 
of water. Now I know this looks very much like coffee. It is not 
coffee. It is well water from a well at Keith and Ann Anderson's place 
in North Dakota. The water that comes from that well, looking like the 
color of coffee, is water that will be replaced by water behind the 
Garrison Dam from the Missouri River.
  That new water, the fresh water, coming out of the mountains from 
Montana in that large reservoir now in North Dakota can be moved around 
our State and can replace this water and we will have safe, wholesome 
and healthy drinking water in communities and on farmsteads in our 
State.
  That is one part of this project. This chart shows what I have just 
showed a moment ago, the color of some of this water, the quality of 
the water that is being used, forced to be used in some communities, in 
some farmsteads in North Dakota and why we must find a supplemental 
supply for it. That is what this project is about. Water delivered to 
rural North Dakota by pipeline behind the reservoir looks like this 
clear water, and it replaces this brown water.
  Is that good for people's health? Of course it is. Is it good for our 
State? Is it a good investment in our future? Of course it is. Is it, 
more importantly, keeping a promise to a State that got the cost of a 
flood that comes and stays, keeping the promise to be able to use that 
water for economic development for our future? Yes, that is an 
important promise for this government to keep. For that, I appreciate 
the work of the Senator from New Mexico and the Senator from Nevada 
today on this piece of legislation.
  I will make a point about one additional provision in this 
legislation dealing with some construction money for what is called an 
emergency outlet at Devils Lake, ND. I show a photograph that was taken 
in 1965. This is a woman standing next to the bottom of a telephone 
pole. She is looking up to the top of the pole. The pole actually ended 
about here. This lake, is now way up to here, far, far above her head. 
This is Devils Lake, which is part of a basin the size of the State of 
Massachusetts. It is one of two closed basins in the United States. One 
is the Great Salt Lake and one is Devils Lake.

  In this basin the water runs down, just like any funnel, except there 
is no place for it to go. This lake has gone up and up and up. You can 
see, relative to this picture in 1965, where the water is today. This 
graph shows it even better. It shows what has happened over 150 years 
with respect to the water level. It is at 1,445.5 feet now. The 
cumulative damages from all of this are substantial: hundreds of 
millions of dollars, threatening people's homes, inundating farmland, 
threatening cities. This has been a huge problem, and there is no 
obvious solution for it--at least there is no one obvious solution.
  We are working on a range of things to try to resolve and respond to 
this issue: No. 1, upland storage, up in the upper part of the basin, 
to store water so it doesn't flow down to the lake, building dikes to 
protect cities; No. 3, raising roads, which is expensive, we have had 
to raise roads and then raise them again; No. 4, an emergency outlet to 
try to take some pressure off of that lake--an emergency outlet that 
would go over to the Sheyenne River. That is what is in this piece of 
legislation--another component of financing for an emergency outlet 
from Devils Lake.
  I know for those who have never seen or heard of Devils Lake that 
this doesn't mean very much. But this means almost everything to the 
people in the region and who are now threatened every day by this lake 
that continues to rise. The lake has doubled in size and tripled in 
volume in just a few short years. It now threatens a very substantial 
city in our State, cripples an economy, inundates roads, and it is a 
very, very serious problem.
  The piece of legislation before us provides another increment of 
construction funding for an emergency outlet. The outlet would not be 
huge; it would not be an outlet sufficient to let a lot of water off of 
the lake. But the outlet would remove a foot to a foot and a half a 
year of water from the lake depth. Marginally, over a period of years, 
it would help to take some pressure off of that lake.
  So that is the story of these two projects. Once again, I wanted to 
simply indicate that both of them are very important. We have had the 
cooperation of the chairman of the subcommittee, the ranking member, 
and others, on the appropriations subcommittee, to get some funding for 
both of these projects. Both projects will be good investments in our 
country and in our country's future.
  I commend the Chairman of the Energy and Water Subcommittee, Mr. 
Domenici, and the ranking member, Mr. Reid, for the consideration given 
to the people of North Dakota in the Fiscal Year 1999 Energy and Water 
Appropriations bill. The people of North Dakota are most thankful for 
the Appropriations Committee's support of the state's priority water 
projects, particularly the Devils Lake emergency outlet and the 
Garrison Diversion project.
  I am privileged to serve on the Subcommittee and I note that Senator 
Domenici, in his statement before the Full Committee, remarked that he 
was able to provide only between 60-70 percent of the optimal funding 
level for water project construction in this bill. He faced enormous 
difficulties in this bill brought on by a budget request which was $1.8 
billion below the level required to continue ongoing construction 
projects at their optimal level.
  In the face of these difficulties, the Subcommittee supported funding 
for an emergency outlet from Devils Lake--a body of water that normally 
has no natural outlet. It's a body of water that is rising inexorably 
and with a vengeance, displacing people, rendering formerly productive 
fields and roads useless. The devastating flooding in the Devils Lake 
region is very similar to recent flooding at Salt Lake, Utah--the other 
major closed basin in the United States.
  A headline this week from a local newspaper reads: ``Economic costs 
of Devils Lake flood are staggering.'' More than 170 homes have had to 
be moved. Damage to roads, bridges, and other property is estimated at 
around $250 million. And 70,000 acres of prime land have disappeared. 
The long-term effects of this flood emergency on personal incomes, on 
regional agriculture and local businesses, and on the local tax base 
are as yet undetermined. But the short-term impacts are unmistakable as 
bankruptcies multiply, farm auctions become routine, and local 
governments scratch to pay for mounting costs with dwindling revenues.
  The Senate Subcommittee and Full Committee honored the President's 
request for funding to address this emergency. Some predictions are 
that the lake could keep on rising and eventually spill into the 
Sheyenne River, resulting in a flood of unknown magnitude, but sure to 
result in the loss of

[[Page S6521]]

key roads, vital infrastructure and thousands of acres of farmland. 
Such an uncontrolled outflow from the east end of the lake, with 
extremely high levels of dissolved solids, would create environmental 
havoc for the water supplies of downstream communities.
  For these reasons and others, the Committee wisely provided 
additional funding for an emergency outlet from the west end of the 
lake, where water quality is compatible with the Sheyenne River. 
Controlled releases would also be managed so as to avoid any downstream 
flooding.
  I would further point out to my colleagues that the project must meet 
tough fiscal and engineering tests, besides complying strictly with the 
National Environmental Policy Act and the Boundary Waters Treaty of 
1909. The latter requirement involves full consultation with the 
International Joint Commission in order to address potential concerns 
of the Government of Canada.
  Finally, let me emphasize that the appropriation for an outlet bars 
the use of these funds to build an inlet to Devils Lake. Despite the 
lingering fears of some interests, neither the FY 1999 appropriations 
nor the prior appropriations would allow for an inlet. Moreover, 
pending legislation to revise North Dakota's main water development 
project, the Garrison Diversion Unit, includes no provision for either 
an inlet to or an outlet from Devils Lake. This reflects a joint 
determination by the bi-partisan elected leadership of North Dakota on 
how to proceed with these projects.
  This FY99 funding bill also addresses another emergency situation 
near Williston, North Dakota. There again rising waters are threatening 
to render useless thousands of acres of farmland in the Buford-Trenton 
project and to displace farmers. The funding provided by the Senate 
will allow for the purchase of easements which are authorized under the 
Water Resources Development Act of 1996. This is another extremely 
important project which the Senate has supported at a reasonable level.
  The Subcommittee has added $6 million to the budget request the 
Garrison Diversion project, in order to meet the federal responsibility 
for critical water development needs in our state. Let me state that 
the key to economic development in North Dakota is water development 
and that the key to water development is the Garrison Diversion 
project.
  Let me illustrate the importance of this project. Garrison funding 
will ensure that Indian tribes can provide clean drinking water to 
tribal members that often have to use some of the worst water in the 
nation. It will also deliver reliable water supplies for irrigation, 
industry, and residential use in semi-arid regions of the state and to 
communities whose normal drinking water looks more like tobacco juice. 
Moreover, the bill will continue to support environmental enhancements 
and wildlife habitat by means of such Garrison programs as the Wetlands 
Trust.
  In a word, the Garrison funding will help to fulfill the federal 
commitment to develop a major water project in North Dakota to 
compensate the state for the loss of 500,000 acres of prime farmland. 
This land was flooded behind the garrison Dam in order to offer flood 
protection and inexpensive hydro power to states downstream.
  I would also advise my colleagues that North Dakota's elected leaders 
are working on legislation to revise the Garrison project to meet the 
state's contemporary water supply needs in a fiscally and 
environmentally responsible way. The Garrison revision bill will 
refocus the project to provide municipal, rural and industrial water 
supplies to regional water systems, Indian reservations, and the Red 
River Valley while enhancing fish and wildlife habitat.
  Finally, the bill before the Senate has supported funding which will 
allow the Army Corps of Engineers to proceed on a long-term flood 
protection plan for the city of Grand Forks, North Dakota on the Red 
River. Approximately one million dollars included will be used for 
preparatory studies and planning of the permanent levees to protect the 
sister cities of Grand Forks, North Dakota and East Grand Forks, 
Minnesota that were devastated in the catastrophic floods of 1997.
  My purpose today is to thank the leadership of the Energy and Water 
Subcommittee, and the Full Committee leadership, Mr. Stevens and Mr. 
Byrd, for addressing in this bill projects of critical importance to 
North Dakota. Their leadership is appreciated.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is currently in morning business, 
and Senators are permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes.

                          ____________________