[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 20]
[Senate]
[Page 29392]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                       DAKOTA WATER RESOURCES ACT

  Mr. ASHCROFT. Mr. President, I am here on the floor today to talk 
about one of Missouri's most important natural resources, and that is 
the Missouri River. There is a bill that another Member is trying to 
pass by unanimous consent that would threaten the Missouri River. I am 
making it clear that I have an objection to this bill, and I am firm on 
this issue.
  On Friday around 4 p.m., 52 bills were hot-lined to be passed by 
unanimous consent in the Senate. Most of the time, Members pass bills 
by unanimous consent that are noncontroversial. However, buried in this 
list of 52 bills was one that I am opposed to, S. 623, the Dakota Water 
Resources Act. I am opposed to it because it would divert a substantial 
amount of water out of the Missouri River. The bill that I am objecting 
to authorizes $200 million to divert additional water from the Missouri 
River system to the Cheyenne River and the Red River systems. This is 
an inter-basin transfer of water which could have substantial impacts 
all along the Missouri River basin. I do not blame the North Dakota 
Senators for fighting for this, but it hurts my State and it hurts 
other States, and I cannot consent to its approval by unanimous 
consent. Apparently, this bill has broad opposition by many different 
parties along the Missouri River. It is a very controversial provision 
and should not be passed in the dead of night on a consent calendar 
with a lot of noncontroversial bills.
  This is opposed strongly by the Governor and the Department of 
Natural Resources in Missouri. It is opposed by Taxpayers for Common 
Sense. It is opposed by a host of environmental groups--including the 
National Wildlife Federation, the National Audubon Society, Friends of 
the Earth, and American Rivers. The Canadian Government opposes this 
bill and has opposed the program it authorizes for decades, claiming 
that it violates a 1909 United States-Canada Boundary Waters Treaty. 
The Governor of Minnesota opposes this measure. The Minnesota State 
Department of Natural Resources opposes it, and the list goes on.
  It is too early in the process for me to clear this bill. There are 
too many questions that remain to be answered. There are too many 
related issues that the States are negotiating at this time. We are 
awaiting the recommendations of the Corps of Engineers on how much 
additional water they intend to reserve for Dakota purposes. The senior 
Senator from Missouri and I will continue to object. As a result of our 
objections, the sponsor of the bill is holding up 51 other unrelated 
bills.
  Let me be clear. These 51 holds are not related to the longstanding 
dispute between North Dakota and Missouri and many other parties over 
the water allocation in the Missouri River. Therefore, Senator Bond and 
I will not be pressured into lifting our hold on a bill that will harm 
the livelihood of the people of Missouri. These types of interstate 
river disputes that have been going on for years simply should not be 
resolved without all interested parties involved and without adequate 
consideration given to the ecological and commercial effects.
  From the farm to the factory, the Missouri River creates jobs in the 
Midwest. The Missouri River is a stable water supply and a source of 
hydro power for major cities. We must be very cautious about changing 
water levels along the Missouri River in order to maintain the 
recreational opportunities for local communities, as well as hatcheries 
for fish and flyways for migratory birds.
  I regret that important unrelated and noncontroversial measures are 
being held up by the sponsors of S. 623, but I cannot consent to 
passage of this bill at this time. The water flow of the Missouri River 
is too important to the livelihood of numerous metropolitan areas and 
small cities, and transportation and industry not only in Missouri but 
all along the waterway. We must deal with this measure reasonably and 
in the context of real negotiations, not as a matter of consent to be 
undertaken without full discussion by the parties.
  I thank the Senate for my opportunity to reference my position on 
this issue. I yield the remainder of the time.

                          ____________________