[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 158 (Wednesday, November 10, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Page S14499]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       DAKOTA WATER RESOURCES ACT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I would like the opportunity to respond to 
statements that have been made about the Dakota Water Resources Act 
over the last several days by the Senator from Missouri. Yesterday we 
were told that North Dakota is seeking somehow to steal water from our 
neighbors to the south. That is factually incorrect. It is untrue. We 
are not making any claim on anybody's water but our own.
  Under the current law, North Dakota has a right to water flowing 
through the Missouri River. That is in the law today. In the law today 
there is authorized a very large water project for North Dakota called 
the Garrison Diversion Project. The reason it is authorized is because 
North Dakota accepted the permanent flood of 550,000 acres of the 
richest farmland in North Dakota--permanently inundated to provide 
flood protection to downstream States, including Missouri. We have 
saved billions of dollars of flood damage in those States because North 
Dakota has accepted this permanent flood of over half a million acres. 
That is the fact.
  The new legislation before us is designed to substantially alter what 
is currently authorized in the law to reduce its costs by $1 billion to 
reduce dramatically the number of irrigated acres, and instead to have 
water supply projects for cities and towns that desperately need it.
  The assertion has been made that this would somehow deplete the water 
going to Missouri.
  The fact is, the flow of the Missouri River in Missouri is 50,000 
CFS. We are talking about 100 CFS to meet the legitimate water needs of 
the State of North Dakota, water needs that are already recognized in 
the law.
  Today, in order to respond to the legitimate concerns of the Senators 
from Missouri, we offered to go even further and to put into law an 
assurance that they would not lose water at their key navigation time, 
during this key period when they are concerned with losing even half an 
inch. That is what this translates into: A reduction of one half an 
inch, the water level of the Missouri River in the State of Missouri. 
We are prepared to assure them they don't even lose that half an inch. 
This is in response to the documented need for water that is so 
desperately required in my State. We have people who are turning on 
their tap right now in North Dakota and what comes out looks filthy. It 
looks filthy because it is filthy.
  North Dakota was made a promise that, if you accept the permanent 
flood to provide flood protection for downstream States, we will 
compensate you by allowing you to improve the water supply for your 
citizens. That is what this bill is about. It is not designed in any 
way to hurt the State of Missouri. We are prepared to make changes in 
the legislation to make that clear.
  Let me conclude by saying we received a letter today that totally 
confuses this project with the Devil's Lake outlet which is required to 
solve another problem in another part of the State. These two projects 
are not the same. We hope officials in Missouri will get it 
straightened out in their own minds that these are two totally distinct 
projects. An outlet from Devil's Lake has nothing whatever to do with 
the Dakota Water Resources Act Project.
  I thank my colleagues for their patience, and I yield the floor.

                          ____________________