[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 21]
[Senate]
[Page 31075]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                     THE DAKOTA WATER RESOURCES ACT

  Mr. CONRAD. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss an important piece 
of legislation for my State of North Dakota. S. 623, the Dakota Water 
Resources Act, is legislation I introduced in the last Congress and 
early in this Congress to re-direct the existing Garrison Diversion 
project. This bill is designed to meet the contemporary water needs of 
the State of North Dakota, substantially reduce the cost of the 
project, and require compliance with environmental laws and our 
international treaty obligations with Canada.
  North Dakota has significant water quality and water quantity needs 
that must be addressed. In many parts of my state, well water in rural 
communities resembles weak coffee or strong tea. It turns the laundry 
gray after the first wash, and in many places is unfit even for cattle 
to drink. This bill is designed to address those situations and help 
provide clean, reliable water to families and businesses across North 
Dakota.
  This bill was favorably reported from the Senate Energy Committee 
earlier this year, after hearings were held in this Congress and in the 
previous Congress. During consideration in the Energy Committee, 
several amendments were adopted that reduced the cost of the bill by 
$140 million and strengthened environmental protections in the bill. I 
should also note that this bill reduces the cost of constructing the 
currently-authorized project by about $1 billion.
  The bill is now pending on the Senate calendar, and was packaged with 
a group of other bills reported by the Energy Committee to be 
considered by this body. Unfortunately, when the Senate attempted to 
consider this legislation in recent days, objections to its 
consideration were registered by other Senators from another state who 
had concerns about the bill. In response, Senator Dorgan and I have 
worked with those Senators to address their concerns. We have engaged 
in those discussions in good faith, believing that if we continued to 
work with other states we would be able to address their concerns.
  Unfortunately, those discussions have not yielded the results we were 
hoping for that would have allowed the bill to pass the Senate. 
Enacting this legislation will help my state overcome the tremendous 
water needs that are well documented, and I will continue to work in 
good faith with other Senators to pass this important bill. I am 
willing to address the concerns of other states, but it must be a two-
way street. I look forward to our discussions under the auspices of the 
Energy Committee in February to resolve those issues.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

                          ____________________