[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 41 (Tuesday, March 16, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2733-S2737]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. CONRAD (for himself and Mr. Dorgan):
  S. 623. 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 
Environment and Public Works.


                   Dakota Water Resources Act of 1999

  Mr. CONRAD. I rise today to introduce the Dakota Water Resources Act 
of 1999, as cosponsored by my colleague, Senator Dorgan. Our colleague, 
Congressman Pomeroy, is introducing identical legislation in the House 
of Representatives today.
  Mr. President, the Dakota Water Resources Act represents a fiscally 
responsible, environmentally sound, treaty-compliant approach to 
completing the Garrison project. The U.S. Senate is well aware of the 
history of failed promises on water development projects on the 
Missouri River. The 1944 Flood Control Act authorized six main-stem 
dams along the Missouri River. These structures flooded about 550,000 
acres of land in North Dakota. These were prime agricultural lands that 
were flooded. We were promised that we would get certain things in 
return for the loss of these lands. We were promised that we would get 
a major water project for the State of North Dakota. Unfortunately, 
only part of that promise has been kept.
  You can see here the kinds of things that have happened. This is the 
town of Elbowoods, July 7, 1954. This town is now under water. It is 
not the only town that is under water. Town after town along the 
Missouri was flooded in order to give protection to downstream States, 
to remove from them the flood threat that so long had devastated them 
economically.
  We accepted the permanent flood, a flood that came and has never 
gone. That flood has cost our State tremendously. All we are asking is 
that the promise that was made to us in exchange for flooding these 
550,000 acres now be kept.
  Mr. President, the Dakota Water Resources Act would assure North 
Dakota an adequate supply of quality water for municipal, rural, and 
industrial purposes. In fact, without these amendments, many 
communities in North Dakota will be forced to be without clean and 
reliable water supplies.
  I think you can see these two jars. This is water that is delivered 
to rural North Dakotans via a pipeline. It is clean. It is healthy. It 
is wholesome.
  This is the typical water supply for rural North Dakotans. It looks 
like coffee or dark tea. This is actually what comes out when you turn 
on your spigot in the homes of many of the people in rural North 
Dakota. This is like living in the Third World. I tell my colleagues, 
there is nothing quite like getting ready to step into a bathtub of 
water when it looks like this; even worse, to have your child getting 
ready to step into a bathtub of water that looks like this. This is 
absolutely at the heart of what we are trying to accomplish with the 
Dakota Water Resources Act, to provide clean, healthy supplies of water 
to our population.
  Mr. President, water development is essential for economic 
development, agriculture, recreation and improving the environment. The 
legislation that we are offering today will provide an adequate and 
dependable water supply throughout North Dakota, including communities 
in the Red River Valley.
  This picture shows what we have faced in the past. This is 1910. This 
is the Red River, the famous Red River of the North. You could have 
walked

[[Page S2734]]

across this river. You can see, at that point it was nothing more than 
a few puddles. It had virtually dried up. Now, since that time we have 
had major cities spring up, and we can't face a circumstance in which 
those towns would be high and dry. Fargo, ND--I think many people have 
heard of Fargo, ND--Grand Forks, ND; they are on the Red River. They 
depend, for their water supplies, on the Red River. Yet periodically in 
history the Red River all but dries up. We need to make certain that 
there is ample supplies of water so that we aren't facing that 
circumstance.

  The bill that we are offering today is addressing the current water 
needs of our State. Those needs are significantly different than what 
we faced in 1944.
  Let me briefly summarize the bill. It provides $300 million for 
statewide MR&I projects. It provides $200 million for tribal MR&I 
projects--in many cases, the water conditions on our reservations are 
even worse than the ones that I have shown that pertain in much of 
rural North Dakota--$200 million to deliver water to the Red River 
Valley to make certain that those towns and cities have reliable and 
adequate supplies of water; $40 million to replace the dangerous Four 
Bears Bridge that was required because of flooding that occurred, a 
bridge was built--that bridge is now badly out of date and dangerous--
$25 million for a natural resources trust fund; $6.5 million for 
recreation projects; and an understanding that the State pays for the 
project facilities that it uses. We think that is a fundamental 
principle that ought to be recognized.
  Those are the key elements of the bill that we are offering. Let me 
say, this bill is friendly to taxpayers as well, because our bill, 
while proposing $770 million of new authority to complete the project, 
deauthorizes many parts of the project that were previously authorized. 
The total project cost of the Dakota Water Resources Act would be 
roughly $1.5 billion, nearly $500 million less than the current cost of 
constructing the remainder of the 1986 project that is already 
authorized. In other words, we are trading in parts of the project that 
no longer make the most sense in exchange for new elements which do 
make sense, and we are doing it in a way that is cost-effective for the 
taxpayers, reducing the overall bill by $500 million.
  Now, there are some, representing certain national environmental 
organizations that will remain unnamed here, who have said that this is 
nearly a billion dollars of new spending. They aren't telling the 
truth. That is not the truth. We are reducing the spending by 
deauthorizing certain features previously authorized in exchange for 
new ones, less costly ones that make sense in light of contemporary 
needs.
  Mr. President, North Dakota has been waiting a long time, a long time 
for the promise to be kept to our State. It is desperately needed.
  Mr. President, this legislation represents a fiscally responsible, 
environmentally sound, treaty-compliant approach to completing the 
Garrison Project that was promised in North Dakota. I look forward to 
continuing to work with Members of this body and the other body and the 
administration to advance this legislation.
  I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I am happy to join my colleague, Senator 
Conrad, on the introduction of the Dakota Water Resources Act of 1999. 
We have previously introduced similar legislation.
  We worked on this legislation with the Governor of North Dakota, as 
well as the bi-partisan leadership in the State legislature in North 
Dakota, Tribal leaders, and many others. Republicans and Democrats 
together developed a piece of legislation that we think is not only 
good for our State and important for the State's long-term future, but 
which also completes the promise that was given our State many, many 
years ago.
  I will not talk about the specific provisions of the bill in a way 
that will duplicate information which has already been provided, but 
let me again describe the story, just for a moment. People say, Water 
projects--this is some kind of proposal to enrich your region of the 
country. Well, there is more to the story.
  In the 1940s, we had a wild Missouri River that would periodically 
flood in a very significant way, and in the downstream reaches of the 
river, Kansas City, MO, and elsewhere, areas would have massive spring 
flooding. The Federal Government said, Let's put some main stem dams on 
the Missouri River in order to control that flooding. As we put these 
dams on that river, we will also be able to generate electricity from 
those dams, so we will prevent flooding and provide electrical 
benefits. It will be a wonderful opportunity.
  North Dakota, your deal in this is to accept a flood that comes and 
stays every year. You take a half-million-acre flood that comes to your 
State and stays there forever. If you are willing to play host to a 
flood forever, we will make you a deal. We know it is not in your 
interest to say, please, bring us a permanent flood, so if you do that, 
we will make you a deal. Accept a flood--the size of the State of Rhode 
Island, by the way--and when that flood comes, you can take the water 
from behind the reservoir and move it around your State for water 
development and quality purposes.
  That was the original Garrison proposal. Now, that promise, that 
commitment has not been kept. The flood came; that part of the bargain 
has been kept. But we have not received the full flower of benefits 
that we would expect as a result of the Federal commitment. For that 
reason, we continue to insist that if your word is your bond and the 
Federal Government said take this flood and we will provide these 
benefits for your State, and we need these benefits for our State to be 
able to move good quality water around our State, for that reason we 
feel compelled to say to the Federal Government, finish the job.
  That is what this legislation is about. It is not, as some 
environmental organizations insist, some new billion-dollar project. It 
is not that at all. In fact, what we are doing will, in a minor way, 
reduce the authorized project that already exists as a result of the 
1965 authorization and the 1986 authorization. This bill makes the 
final adjustments to this project.
  I have a series of charts which I will not go through, recognizing 
that the folks who are in charge of the timing of this institution want 
to go to lunch. Let me come back at a more appropriate time and go 
through all of my charts in great detail for the benefit of everyone.
  I will only say in closing that my colleague and I feel that this is 
a very important project and a bipartisan piece of legislation that 
will be good for this country, allow our country to keep its promise 
and will especially be a good investment for North Dakota. My prepared 
remarks on the Dakota Water Resources Act will explain these points in 
greater detail.
  Mr. President, the new bill has been substantially modified in the 
form of a substitute amendment (No. 3112) which we introduced on July 
9, 1998. This revised bill represents a bi-partisan consensus carefully 
negotiated by the major elected officials in our State.
  It's a water development bill that I am proud to sponsor. It reduces 
Federal costs, meets environmental and international obligations, and 
fulfills the Federal promise to address North Dakota's contemporary 
water needs.
  This is still among the most important pieces of legislation I will 
introduce for my State. I emphasize once more that this is because the 
key to North Dakota's economic development is water resource management 
and development. And the key to water development in my State has come 
to be the Garrison Diversion Project in the Dakota Water Resources Act 
of 1999.
  I want to share with my colleagues in greater detail the frustrating 
story of an unfulfilled promise to build a water project because some 
have questioned the rationale for the project. I want to explain why 
the people of North Dakota need and expect to have this promise 
fulfilled in the form of the Dakota Water Resources Act.
  Over 100 years ago, John Wesley Powell of the U.S. Geological Survey 
predicted to the North Dakota Constitutional Convention that the lean 
years in agriculture would cause ``thousands of people . . . (to) 
become discouraged and leave.'' He was referring to the difficulty of 
making a living on farms and ranches in a state with abundant water but 
limited rainfall.

[[Page S2735]]

  Unfortunately, Powell's prediction is as telling today as it was in 
the last century. Thousands of North Dakotans are leaving the State for 
economic opportunities in cities such as Denver and Minneapolis. Due to 
this substantial out-migration only 7 North Dakota counties, or less 
than one in seven, had population increases in the past decade. What 
perhaps worries me even more is the fact that our farm youth population 
has declined by 50% in both of the last two decades. In other words, 
out-migration is pummeling our State's well-being and threatening our 
economic future.
  I would say to my colleagues that the root of the North Dakota's 
problem is two-fold. One, we need to diversify our agricultural base so 
that family farmers can make a more dependable living. This requires 
access to water for the growth and processing of specialty crops to 
replace or augment the usual grains that North Dakota farmers have 
grown for decades. Second, we must provide reliable supplies of clean, 
affordable water needed for economic growth in towns and cities across 
North Dakota. Too many of them now lack dependable water supplies for 
municipal and industrial growth.
  What we need, then, is water development. And we thought we would get 
it!
  Over fifty years ago, the Federal Government began building a series 
of main stem dams on the Missouri River to provide flood protection, 
dependable river navigation and inexpensive hydropower--primarily for 
the benefit of states in the Lower Missouri Basin. The problem became 
acute when flooding during World War II disrupted the transport of war 
supplies and spawned disaster relief needs in a budget already over-
stretched.
  When North Dakota allowed the Garrison Dam and Reservoir to be built 
in the State (and the consequences of the Oahe Reservoir in South 
Dakota are added in), it agreed to host permanent floods that inundated 
500,000 acres of prime farm land and the Indian communities on two 
reservations. The State and Tribes did so in exchange for a promise 
that the Federal Government would replace the loss of these economic 
and social assets with a major water development project, the Garrison 
Diversion Unit.
  But 50 years later, the project is less than half done.
  I would like to explain for the benefit of my colleagues just how 
this bill relates to the Federal commitment to my State, what progress 
has been made on that commitment, what remains to be done, and how this 
bill will complete the project in a prudent way.
  May I remind my colleagues that the State lost a half million acres 
of prime farm land, a major component of its overall economic base. To 
grasp the size of this negative impact, I ask my colleagues to think of 
flooding a chunk of farm land the size of Rhode Island. As a result, 
North Dakota has lost hundreds of millions of dollars in farm income. 
Think, too, of Indian Tribes that lost their traditional homelands, 
their economic and social base, hospitals and roads, and a healthy 
lifestyle. Their lives were disrupted and their culture was turned 
upside down.
  We were promised, in exchange, a major water and irrigation project. 
It was designed to help meet the agricultural needs of a semi-arid 
state that gets only 15-17 inches of rainfall per year. We originally 
expected the resources to irrigate over a million acres of land, most 
of it in areas less productive than the land lost to the Garrison 
Reservoir. The Federal Government eventually started a scaled-down 
version of the project, with 250,000 acres of irrigation. In response 
to criticisms that the project was too costly and too environmentally 
disruptive, a federal commission proposed a major revision in 1984 and 
made recommendations on how to meet the State's contemporary water 
needs.
  But make no mistake, the promise remained. The Garrison Diversion 
Unit Commission stated:

       1. The State of North Dakota deserves a federally-funded 
     water project, at least some of which should be in the form 
     of irrigation development, for land lost through inundation 
     by reservoirs of the Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program.
       2. The Commission agrees with Congress that a moral 
     commitment was made in 1944 to the Upper Basin States and 
     Indian Tribes with the passage of the Flood Control Act of 
     1944. The language of the statute establishing this 
     commission reinforces this view. The State of North Dakota 
     sacrificed hundreds of thousands of acres, much of it prime 
     river bottomland, for the greater benefit of the nation. In 
     return, the Federal Government promised assistance in 
     replacement of the economic base of the State and Indian 
     Tribes. There is evidence this has not taken place.

  In 1986, I renegotiated the project with the Reagan Administration, 
the House Interior Committee, and national environmental groups and 
these talks resulted in the Garrison Diversion Reformulation Act of 
1986. The law implemented the Garrison Commission findings and 
recommendations and included a 130,000 acre irrigation project for the 
State and tribes, the promise of Missouri River water to augment water 
supplies in the Red River Valley, an installment on municipal, 
industrial, and rural (MR&I) water for communities across the State, 
the initial water systems for the Standing Rock, Fort Berthold, and Ft. 
Totten Indian reservations and a range of activities to mitigate and 
enhance wildlife and habitat.
  So you may ask, ``What progress has been made on the project?''
  Although the promise of irrigation remains largely unfulfilled--with 
the exception of the Oakes Test Area--we have made substantial progress 
in laying the groundwork for water delivery and the provision of a 
partial network for MR&I supplies across the state.
  Over one-third of North Dakotans now benefit from 25 MRI programs on 
four Indian reservations and in some 80 communities.
  The Southwest Pipeline constructed by the Bureau of Reclamation has 
begun to solve water problems in the region where I grew up. For 
example, in my hometown of Regent the ranching family of Michelle 
McCormack used to struggle with coffee-colored water that stained their 
fixtures and clogged their distiller with sludge. Their well barely 
provided enough water for a family of six, let alone a herd of cattle. 
Because of the Garrison Project, the McCormacks can now enjoy ample 
supplies of quality, clean water--something most of us take for 
granted. And they can make a better living to boot.
  We have also taken great strides to mitigate wildlife areas impacted 
by the development of the McClusky and New Rockford Canals. We now have 
mitigated over 200% of the required lands, developed a Wetlands Trust 
Fund and programs, and begun to manage the former Lonetree Dam and 
Reservoir as a state wildlife conservation area. Incidentally, our new 
legislation would complete the process by de-authorizing the Lonetree 
features and converting them into a wildlife conservation area.
  For a variety of reasons, though, we have not fully realized the 
promise of the 1986 Act. Despite some strides, we have yet to develop a 
major irrigation unit under the Garrison Diversion project. We have 
only been able to develop a pilot research plot near Oakes, which has 
validated the use of irrigation for growing high value crops in 
North Dakota. Under terms of the 1986 Act, we would have 130,000 acres 
of irrigation, which will be scaled back to 70,000 acres in the bill we 
introduce today. This will reduce project costs and target limited 
funds in the bill on high priority irrigation and MR&I water 
development.

  We have completed Phase 1 of Municipal, Rural and Industrial 
development for three Indian tribes. There remains well over $200 
million in needs to complete projects on all four reservations which 
will meet the charge of the Garrison Reformulation Act for the 
Secretary of the Interior ``to meet the economic, public health, and 
environmental needs'' of North Dakota tribes. From hearings I have held 
on the reservations, I can tell you that tribal members have some the 
worst water problems in the nation and we must fulfill the 1986 
mandate. Our new legislation will provide $200 million to meet the 
critical water needs of North Dakota's four Indian nations.
  We have developed major elements of a water delivery system for the 
Red River Valley. But the Bureau of Reclamation is currently reviewing 
that issue with the State of North Dakota to determine the best way to 
meet the needs of Fargo, Grand Forks, and other communities throughout 
the Red River Valley.
  Let me illustrate the severity of the problem for the valley by 
noting that in many years in this century, the Red River either has 
slowed to a trickle or

[[Page S2736]]

stopped running altogether. Imagine a major city that depends on a 
river for its municipal and industrial water supply and that river 
stops running. That is why our bill provides $200 million to meet the 
critical water needs the most populous part of our state. But let me 
add that this money will be fully repaid by water users.
  Finally, we have dozens of communities awaiting the promise of 
reliable supplies of clean and usable water. In several hearings I have 
held up bottles of coffee-like water from the McCormack ranch and 
several others, which have not yet been served by such projects as the 
Southwest Pipeline or the Northwest Area Water System.
  Patsy Storhoff's family, for one, has to haul and store water for 
their household use. At times, they make 1,400 gallons last up to three 
weeks--what most families tap in just five days. She sometimes tells 
her kids they have to postpone a bath in order to conserve scarce water 
because the neighbor who hauls their water won't get to Nome for a 
couple more days. Although when you pause to think about it, taking a 
bath in coffee-like water is a liquid oxymoron.
  In part because the State would forego 60,000 acres of irrigation in 
this bill and because we have realized only half of the Garrison 
Commission's promise of MR&I water for nearly 400,000 North Dakotans, 
we do provide $300 million for MR&I development across the state. That 
amount, plus the existing $200 million in authority for MR&I, will 
roughly match the amount promised by the Commission and the 1986 Act.
  So the Dakota Water Resources Act provides $700 million in new 
authority for water development, of which $200 million is fully 
repayable. In order to complete this project, however, North Dakota has 
had to make some major changes. In November of 1997, the delegation 
introduced the Dakota Water Resources Act as a bill that reflected a 
consensus of the bi-partisan elected leadership of the state, major 
cities, four tribal governments, water users, conservation groups, the 
State Water Coalition, and the Garrison Conservancy District.
  In a word, the bill scaled back irrigation from 130,000 to 70,000 
acres, provided new resources to complete the major MR&I delivery 
systems for the four Indian tribes and the state's water supply 
network, and provided a process for choosing the best way to address 
Red River Valley water needs. It also made wildlife conservation a 
project purpose, expanded the Wetlands Trust into a more robust Natural 
Resources Trust, funded a critical bridge on the Ft. Berthold 
Reservation and a few priority recreation projects.
  Subsequently, the Bureau of Reclamation raised several questions and 
concerns about the bill which we have addressed in a series of 
negotiations and discussions over the past months. The revisions mainly 
address reducing costs, meeting tough environmental standards, 
strengthening compliance with an international border agreement, and 
reaffirming the role of the Secretary of the Interior in decision-
making. The bi-partisan elected leaders embraced those changes and have 
agreed to re-introduce the Dakota Water Resources Act with the same 
language as the substitute amendment (No. 3112) which I offered with 
Senator Conrad last year.
  Mr. President, permit me to outline the specific provisions in the 
new version of the bill:
  1. Retain the cost share of 25% for MR&I projects, along with a 
credit for cost share contributions exceeding that amount. This, in 
place of a 15% cost share.
  2. Reimburse the federal government for the share of the capacity of 
the main stem delivery features which are used by the state. This, 
instead of writing off these features.
  3. Index MR&I and Red River features only from the date of enactment, 
not since 1986.
  4. Expressly bar any irrigation in the Hudson's Bay Basin.
  5. Give the Secretary of the Interior the authority to select the Red 
River Valley Water Supply feature and to determine the feasibility of 
any newly authorized irrigation areas in the scaled-back package.
  6. Extend the Environmental Impact Studies period and firm up 
Boundary Waters Treaty measures.
  Taken together with prior provisions, these changes achieve four 
purposes. First, they reduce costs by limiting indexing; by defining 
specific State responsibility for repayment of existing features 
instead of blanket debt forgiveness; by de-authorizing such major 
irrigation features as the Lonetree Dam and Reservoir, James River 
Feeder Canal and Sykeston Canal; and by retaining current law with 
respect to MR&I cost-sharing and repayment for Red River supply 
features.
  Second, the changes affirm the decision making authority of the 
Secretary of the Interior on key issues. The Secretary consults with 
the State of North Dakota on the plan to meet the water needs of the 
Red River Valley but he makes the final selection of the plan that 
works best. The Secretary also negotiates cooperative agreements with 
the State on other aspects of the project. These arrangements protect 
the Federal interest while assuring that North Dakota is a partner in a 
project so closely linked to its destiny.
  Third, the bill forthrightly addresses concerns of Canada. The U.S. 
and Canada have a mutual responsibility to abide by the Boundary Waters 
Treaty and other environmental conventions. The Dakota Water Resources 
Act states in the purpose that the United States must comply strictly 
with the Treaty. It further bars any irrigation in the Hudson's Bay 
drainage with water diverted from the Missouri River, thus limiting 
biota transfer between basins. Again, the Secretary of Interior chooses 
the Red River Valley water supply plan, but if that choice entails 
diversion of Missouri River water, then it must be fully treated with 
state-of-the-art purification and screening to prevent biota transfer. 
And as noted before, the bill de-authorizes the Lonetree features to 
which Canada previously had objected.
  Fourth, the revised bill strengthens environmental protection and 
does so by incorporating the specific recommendations of North Dakota 
wildlife and conservation groups. It lengthens the periods for 
completing Environmental Impact Statements. It also protects the 
Sheyenne Lake National Wildlife Refuge. Moreover, it preserves the role 
of the Secretary of the Interior on compliance matters and drops the 
provision that called for a study of bank stabilization on the Missouri 
River.
  In other words, these measures improve even more the proposals in the 
1985 Garrison Commission Report on how to meet North Dakota's 
contemporary water needs. This sounds reasonable, but how does it stack 
up against the fiscal and environmental challenges of 1999?
  Irrespective of the Federal commitment to North Dakota, the State has 
not even received a proportional share of Bureau of Reclamation funds. 
Although my state includes six percent of the population in western 
states, it has received only two percent of Bureau funding.
  Next, most Bureau projects were awarded to augment water development 
and economic growth, not to compensate states for losses suffered from 
the construction of flood control projects by the Corps of Engineers. 
So just on the equities, North Dakota has a fair claim to complete 
Garrison project.
  The revised bill will also save the American taxpayer $500 million--
when compared to the cost of completing the current project. Moreover, 
of the $770 million in new authority in the revised bill, North Dakota 
will repay $345 million--almost half. There is no blanket debt 
retirement because North Dakota will pay for all facilities it uses.
  Moreover, this bill is not just about costs, though reduced and 
restrained, but about investments. The Dakota Water Resources Act 
underpins North Dakota's entire effort to stop the out-migration of its 
young people, the dwindling of family farms, and the decimation of 
rural communities. It is a charter for rural renewal and economic 
growth that will help family farms keep the yard lights burning and 
small towns keep their shop signs glowing.
  Finally, this bill is environmentally sound. It does not destroy 
wetlands, it preserves them. It preserves grasslands and riparian 
habitat, too. It was not dreamed up by a water development group. It 
was drafted with the input of tribal and community leaders, local and 
national environmental groups,

[[Page S2737]]

 the bipartisan leadership of the state, and the Bureau of Reclamation 
and Office of Management and Budget. It reflects a balanced approach to 
water resource development that applies the principles of conservation 
while offering the hope of economic development.
  Ultimately, this bill practices the policy of being a good neighbor 
that is the hallmark of our state. The Government of Canada approved 
the 1986 Garrison Act. This bill provides even more protection for 
Canadian interests. So while we can't appease the political agendas of 
certain folks in Canada, we can sure keep faith with the Boundary 
Waters Treaty. And we do.
  In conclusion, the Dakota Water Resources Act of 1999 will guarantee 
that this project meets the tests of fiscal responsibility, 
environmental protection, and treaty compliance. It will do so while 
also addressing the critical water development needs of North Dakota 
and fulfilling the Federal obligation for water development for the 
communities and tribes of our State. Accordingly, I urge that my 
colleagues support the Dakota Water Resources Act of 1999.
                                 ______