SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS
Page 1 TOP OF DOC
51–878 l
1998
GARRISON UNIT REFORMULATION
OVERSIGHT HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER
of the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
SEPTEMBER 29, 1998, WASHINGTON, DC
Serial No. 105–114
Page 2 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/house
or
Committee address: http://www.house.gov/resources
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman
W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah
JIM SAXTON, New Jersey
ELTON GALLEGLY, California
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee
JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado
JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland
KEN CALVERT, California
RICHARD W. POMBO, California
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming
HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho
LINDA SMITH, Washington
GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California
WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North Carolina
Page 3 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas
JOHN SHADEGG, Arizona
JOHN E. ENSIGN, Nevada
ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon
CHRIS CANNON, Utah
KEVIN BRADY, Texas
JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania
RICK HILL, Montana
BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado
JIM GIBBONS, Nevada
MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho
GEORGE MILLER, California
EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
BRUCE F. VENTO, Minnesota
DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan
PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American Samoa
NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii
SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California
CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELÓ, Puerto Rico
Page 4 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York
ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam
SAM FARR, California
PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island
ADAM SMITH, Washington
WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
CHRIS JOHN, Louisiana
DONNA CHRISTIAN-GREEN, Virgin Islands
RON KIND, Wisconsin
LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas
LLOYD A. JONES, Chief of Staff
ELIZABETH MEGGINSON, Chief Counsel
CHRISTINE KENNEDY, Chief Clerk/Administrator
JOHN LAWRENCE, Democratic Staff Director
Subcommittee on Water and Power Resources
JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California, Chairman
KEN CALVERT, California
RICHARD W. POMBO, California
HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho
LINDA SMITH, Washington
GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California
WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas
Page 5 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona
JOHN E. ENSIGN, Nevada
ROBERT F. SMITH, Oregon
CHRIS CANNON, Utah
MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho
PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
GEORGE MILLER, California
OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia
CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California
SAM FARR, California
ADAM SMITH, Washington
RON KIND, Wisconsin
LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas
————— —————
————— —————
ROBERT FABER, Staff Director/Counsel
JOSHUA JOHNSON, Professional Staff
STEVE LANICH, Minority Staff
C O N T E N T S
Hearing held September 29, 1998
Page 6 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Statement of Members:
Conrad, Hon. Kent, a Senator in Congress from the State of North Dakota
Prepared statement of
DeFazio, Hon. Peter, a Representative in Congress from the State of Oregon
Doolittle, Hon. John, a Representative in Congress from the State of California
Prepared statement of
Dorgan, Hon. Bryon, a Senator in Congress from the State of North Dakota
Pomeroy, Hon. Earl, a Representative in Congress from the State of North Dakota
Prepared statement of
Statement of Witnesses:
Beard, Dan, Senior Vice President, Public Policy, National Audubon Society, Washington, DC
Prepared statement of
Dorso, Hon. John, State Representative and Majority Leader, North Dakota State House of Representatives
Prepared statement of
Furness, Hon. Bruce, Mayor, Fargo, North Dakota
Prepared statement of
Haak, Norman, Chairman, Garrison Diversion Conservancy District, North Dakota
Koland, David, Executive Director, North Dakota Rural Water Systems Association
Prepared statement of
Martinez, Eluid, Commissioner, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Department of Interior, Washington, DC
Prepared statement of
Mason, Russell, Sr., Chairman, Three Affiliated Tribes, North Dakota
Prepared statement of
Page 7 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
McCormack, Michelle, Southwest Water Authority, North Dakota
Prepared statement of
Nargang, Ronald, Deputy Commissioner, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
Prepared statement of
Peterson, Scott, President, North Dakota Chapter of The Wildlife Society
Prepared statement of
Schafer, Hon. Edward, Governor, State of North Dakota
Prepared statement of
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON GARRISON UNIT REFORMULATION
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 29, 1998
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Water and Power,
Committee on Resources,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:05 p.m., in room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. John Doolittle (chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN DOOLITTLE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. DOOLITTLE. The Subcommittee on Water and Power will come to order.
The Subcommittee is meeting today to hear testimony concerning the Garrison Reformulation Unit and to also receive testimony regarding H.R. 1213, the Perkins County Rural Water Systems Act of 1998.
Page 8 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Today's hearings will cover these two projects. So these projects, and particularly Garrison, have been the subject of thousands of hours of debate over the last several decades. In the last couple of years, many of those who are presenting information today have made a dedicated effort to resolve some of the major outstanding issues. We acknowledge their hard work and their thoughtful consideration regarding this complicated situation. I believe that everyone involved in these projects has a genuine desire to address the fundamental needs for water.
The Garrison Unit of Pick-Sloan Land has a colorful history. It represents a longstanding effort to develop North Dakota's water resources. It has been at times controversial, both inside the State and in the Nation's Capitol. Management of these water needs in North Dakota is incredibly complex, from too much water at Devil's Lake to too little water quality in the Red River Valley.
The project remains an issue with the Canadian Government, several other States, and interest groups outside North Dakota.
Very much related to the Garrison project is the Perkins County project to provide Garrison water to Perkins County, South Dakota. The Perkins project was considered when the Garrison Diversion Unit Reformation Act of 1986 was passed.
I hope that these hearings will provide a discussion on the available alternatives to provide reliable, high-quality water supplies in both these North Dakota and South Dakota project areas.
Several different agencies have participated in rural water system development projects over the years, including the Bureau of Reclamation. However, rural water development does not have a regular place in the Federal budget. In imperative declining budgets, it remains a serious challenge to provide for these programs while continuing to meet the other obligations we must fund such as existing authorized projects, the Safety of Dams Program, and the substantial backlog of maintenance activities.
Page 9 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We look forward to hearing from our witnesses today and be pleased to recognize our Ranking Member, Mr. DeFazio, for his statement.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Doolittle follows:]
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Today's hearings cover the Garrison Unit in North Dakota, and the Perkins County Rural Water System in South Dakota. These projects, and particularly Garrison, have been the subject of thousands of hours of debate over the last several decades. In the last couple of years, many of those who are presenting information today, have made a dedicated effort to resolve some of the major outstanding issues. We acknowledge their hard work and their thoughtful consideration regarding this complicated situation. I believe that everyone involved in these projects has a genuine desire to address the fundamental needs for water.
The Garrison Unit of the Pick-Sloan plan has a colorful history. It represents a long-standing effort to develop North Dakota's water resources. It has been at times controversial, both inside the state and in the Nation's Capital. Management of North Dakota's water needs is incredibly complex, from too much water at Devil's Lake to too little quality water in the Red River Valley. The project remains an issue with the Canadian government, several other states, and interest groups outside North Dakota.
Very much related to the Garrison Project is the Perkins County Project to provide Garrison water to Perkins County, South Dakota. The Perkins project was considered when the Garrison Diversion Unit Reformation Act of 1986 was passed.
I hope that these hearings will provide a discussion on the available alternatives to provide reliable, high quality water supplies in both these North Dakota and South Dakota project areas. Several different agencies have participated in rural water system development projects over the years, including the Bureau of Reclamation. However, rural water development does not have a regular place in the Federal budget. In a period of declining budgets, it remains a serious challenge to provide for these programs while continuing to meet the other obligations we must fund, i.e., existing authorized projects, the dam safety program, and the substantial backlog of maintenance activities.
Page 10 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today.
STATEMENT OF HON. PETER DEFAZIO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON
Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will not be able to stay for a good part of the hearing today but will review the testimony. We have an impressive list of witnesses, and I look forward to the discussion.
I am best described as a skeptic on the issue, particularly the original proposal and aspects of the current proposal which might reflect that or move us back in that direction. But I also represent a very large district and a district where I have communities that are water poor and need some Federal assistance with rural water development, so I'm sympathetic particularly to those aspects of it.
And I've got to say that our colleague, Earl Pomeroy, has done a tremendous job in advocacy and in bringing this forward to fruition in the hearing because, you know, they're sort of the initial reaction for those members who have been around here for a long time is, ''Oh, no, not again.''
[Laughter.]
So I congratulate him on his persistence and the fact that he has convinced those of us who have concerns, you know, to work with him and work through the process and see if we can resolve those as we go forward.
I'd be remiss if I didn't mention a letter from the Ambassador of Canada who was expressing grave concerns about the interbasin transfer, similar to ones they've expressed in the past, and so there are some big hurdles that we have to—that the advocates will have to overcome.
So I appreciate the chairman making the Committee available and gathering information on this.
Page 11 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you.
We have a distinguished panel of witnesses before us.
As I understand, Senator Conrad is on his way and Senator Dorgan, his whereabouts is being ascertained, so perhaps we'll begin with the representative for the State of North Dakota, Mr. Pomeroy, who has done so much to get us to hold this hearing.
STATEMENT OF HON. EARL POMEROY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA
Mr. POMEROY. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I think this afternoon's hearings is amazing in two respects. First, that it's being held at all; this is a day where no recorded votes are scheduled, and the fact that you have proceeded to hold the hearing as you promised me you would, I think really reflects very, very highly on you. And you're a man of your word, and the State of North Dakota appreciates it because we've been looking forward to this opportunity.
The second thing that's amazing about this hearing is here we are, 5 weeks from a general election and you'll see the senior elected leadership of the State of North Dakota before you. We are not all of one party, yet we will all be singing from the same play book this afternoon. This is a broad, bipartisan consensus on behalf of this Dakota Water Resources Act, and I think it—especially at a time when many issues are highly polarized and extremely political—it's remarkable the depth of unity in North Dakota behind this bill.
We all see H.R. 3012 and it's companion bill, Senate Bill 1515, as critical to the future of North Dakota. We think that the broad support it has among the political leadership is also reflected upon the depth of support it has back in North Dakota, across not just the people of North Dakota, but a host of groups that represent a variety of important perspectives.
To that end, Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer into the record today, letters from these groups. There are in excess of 20 entities represented in these letters, as well as the testimony of the Spirit Lake Tribe. Now one of the tribes will be testifying on behalf of all of the tribes in the course of this hearing, but this testimony I'd like to introduce as well.
Page 12 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Yes, without objection, so ordered.
[The information referred to may be found at end of hearing.]
Mr. POMEROY. In the mid-1950's, construction was completed on six mainstem dams on the Missouri River, and the flooding began in North Dakota creating our largest lake, Lake Sakakawea. The flooding destroyed prime farmland, about 500,000 acres of it. It cut the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation into two separate geographic units which has caused tremendous hardship over the years in terms of transportation, economic development, administrative demands.
In addition, the Oahe Dam, created in South Dakota on the Missouri, flooded up into North Dakota and split the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation in North and South Dakota. Unlike the floods most folks are used to, this flood is with us for good, flooding an area in our State about the size of the State of Rhode Island, to let you know the North Dakota contribution to this Missouri River management plan.
Now when we agreed to play host to this flood, we were also given some commitments, commitments that water from the Fort Peck Dam in eastern Montana would be used in western North Dakota for irrigation. Over the years, it was determined through extensive testing that irrigation was not feasible in light of the soil and other issues, and attention turned to irrigating the eastern part of our State with water from the Garrison reservoir.
This plan has been changed and changed and changed over the years, yielding to feasibility difficulties as well as to political realities. The status right now is that we've got more than 100 miles of supply works constructed delivering water to nowhere.
In response to the concerns involving the feasibility of widespread irrigation and our frustration with the status of the existing project, the elected leadership of North Dakota has refocused the priorities of the Garrison project to address our needs going on into the next century, primarily by focusing the project on to creating a safe, reliable water supply for municipal, rural, and industrial use.
Page 13 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Dakota Water Resources Act completes the journey started in 1944 by providing safe water to these communities. The irrigation feature has shrunk from more than 100 million acres envisioned in the first design of the project to now 70,000 acres of authorization is what we're seeking in this plan before you.
I can personally tell you, Mr. Chairman, about the difficulties we have across this State with quality potable water. I grew up three miles outside the town of Valley City. My family had to haul drinking water because our well water wasn't fit to drink, and that is precisely the situation many North Dakota families continue to find themselves in.
Now the MR&I feature of the existing Garrison authorization, has met the drinking water needs of a number of families. For example, the Southwest Water Pipeline, to date, has taken families—we're dealing with tap water of this color and turned it into safe, potable drinking water, now delivered through the Southwest Water Pipeline. I think this is an example of what can be accomplished through MR&I works in the State of North Dakota.
It should certainly be noted that there's a lot of work to be done. We have a number of communities across the State and on our Indian reservations where people every morning turn on tap water to this rather than this. It's especially ironic when you consider the States of the reservations being adjacent to this tremendous reservoir of water and yet not able to find potable water in light of the destruction done to their artisan wells and the aqueducts in their region.
We have reformulated a project so that it has $300 million geared to the State MR&I needs. This will continue on a 75–25 cost share basis with the State. We also pay particular attention to Indian MR&I needs, moving funding from $20.5 million provided in the 1986 Act, up to $200 million. The 1986 Act was represented to be a place holder figure while the full extent of Indian MR&I needs was ascertained. Even at the $200 million figure, we estimate that it is only 80 percent of meeting the full water needs presently experienced on our Indian reservations.
Page 14 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The final major component of H.R. 3012 is $200 million designed for developing reliable water supply to the Red River in eastern North Dakota. I call your attention to the pictures on the charts. They reflect two different occasions—we have a third illustrated as well—where the Red River essentially ran dry. Now the Red River is two of our largest cities; Fargo and Grand Forks, are on the Red River, and you can take a look at what history has dealt us to know why we're concerned about the adequacy of Red River water supply to our major metropolitan areas going on into the future.
We construct a canal—to begin with, we constructed canals under the earlier versions of the project which create water supply heading to eastern North Dakota. The key linking structure didn't work under the 1986 Act. And what we do in the bill before you is have a pipeline connection that delivers the water from the canals to waterways that can carry the water to the Red River Valley and deal with this issue.
To address the concerns that have existed in the past about interbasin transfer of water, we actually provide for the treatment of this water in the pipeline supply works to deal head-on with that problem that has been central to the fate of this bill in the past.
The final issue I'd mention in the bill before us, $25 million for the expansion of existing Wetlands Trust, $6.5 million for recreation and ecotourism development, and $40 million for construction of a new bridge across Lake Sakakawea on the Fort Berthold Reservation.
We believe, Mr. Chairman, that there's a commitment that was made to us that has gone unfulfilled, and the sheer weight of the needs of the people of North Dakota for safe and clean water drive this legislation. We should not have people dealing with the water quality issues that presently exist in all too many homes in North Dakota. We need better water, and the bill before us would help us get this water.
Page 15 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I thank you for your interest. I can't emphasis how critical we believe this project is to the future of North Dakota.
[The statement of Mr. Pomeroy follows:]
STATEMENT OF HON. EARL POMEROY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA
Thank you Mr. Chairman for holding this hearing on the Dakota Water Resources Act of 1998.
I am grateful for the opportunity to express my strong support for this legislation—H.R. 3012 in the House, and its companion, S 1515 in the Senate. This legislation is a critical component to the future of North Dakota and has a very broad, bipartisan base of support in my state as you will hear from the testimony today.
In the mid 1950s, construction was completed on one of the six main stem dams on the Missouri River. At this time, the flooding began which eventually created North Dakota's largest lake—Lake Sakakawea. This flooding destroyed prime farmland on the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation and created a geographic separation which has caused numerous hardships in terms of transportation, economic development, and various administrative demands. In addition, the Oahe dam in South Dakota created Lake Oahe, which is partially situated on the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation of North and South Dakota. Unlike the floods most folks are used to—the type where a spring snow melt causes a river to rise, or a storm temporarily makes a river flow over its banks, this flood is with us for good. In total, almost 550,000 acres of North Dakota land—a chunk of real estate the size of Rhode Island—has been lost for the sake of this project.
When North Dakota agreed to play host to this flood, a commitment was made to our state that we would be able to use water from the Fort Peck dam in eastern Montana for irrigation.
Extensive testing of the soils in western North Dakota revealed that the land was not suited to such irrigation development and attention turned to irrigating the eastern part of our state with water from the Garrison reservoir. Numerous problems arose as we pursued this plan and further studies and negotiations resulted in a series of changes, most notably reducing the irrigation component from an original figure of over 1.2 million acres to the 70,000 acres in this bill—none of which will be located in the Hudson Bay drainage basin.
Page 16 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In response to the concerns involving the feasibility of wide-scale irrigation, elected leaders of North Dakota have refocused the priorities of the Garrison Project to better address the need across the state for safe, reliable water supplies for municipal, rural, and industrial use. The Dakota Water Resources Act completes the journey started in 1944 and will provide this safe water to communities across the state.
Today you will hear of the tremendous success of the Southwest Water Pipeline, a feature of the Garrison Project which has brought clean water to thousands of North Dakotans who no longer have to haul their water from town. Mr. Chairman, I can personally attest to the difficulties of growing up with poor well water. For years, my family hauled water from town to our home outside Valley City. Prior to the Southwest Pipeline, water in some communities was both unreliable and unsafe.
I would like to show you just exactly what these folks dealt with and what many still deal with in North Dakota where good water isn't available. I have a pop bottle here that I'm glad no one mistook for a Pepsi and tried to drink. This is water from a community in Southwest North Dakota prior to the construction of the Southwest Pipeline. Now, these people enjoy clean, safe drinking water, but there are plenty of other communities across North Dakota, and on our Indian Reservations, where people get up every morning and turn on their tap to find water like this. I believe Chairman Bud Mason of the Fort Berthold Reservation has brought some samples of his own to show you today—a sad irony considering the people who use the water he will show you are little more than a stone's throw away from Lake Sakakawea itself, yet cannot tap into its vast store of clean, safe water.
To continue to the progress we have made with features such as the Southwest Water Pipeline, the Dakota Water Resources Act authorizes $300 million to continue work on this pipeline and develop other projects across the state which will bring safe, clean water to many North Dakota communities. This will continue on a 75-25 cost-share basis with the state. In addition, a second major component of this legislation is the commitment to the Indian Reservations in North Dakota. The Garrison Reformulation Act of 1986 provided for MR&I funding of $20.5 million for The Standing Rock Sioux, the Three Affiliated Tribes, and the Spirit Lake Nation. It was understood this number was not representative of their needs, but rather a starting point. Of course, we now recognize this was a wholly inadequate level of funding and the unique and pressing needs of the reservations in North Dakota are much greater. The Dakota Water Resources Act provides $200 million for water development on the reservations in North Dakota—which, in fact, is still short of meeting their documented needs.
Page 17 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The final major component of H.R. 3012 is the $200 million designated for developing a reliable water supply to the Red River Valley in eastern North Dakota. This area of North Dakota is the most heavily populated, and the city of Fargo is one of the most rapidly growing cities in the region.
The Red River is known for its dramatic changes in stream flow from one year to the next. We all recall the vivid pictures from the great flood of 1997, yet vivid pictures of just the opposite are something we've experienced on many occasions in the past. A photo here taken in 1932 of the Red River shows children playing within its banks.
To address this, we began building canals under earlier versions of this project which were designed to connect the water supply created by the Garrison dam to the Sheyenne River, which flows into the Red River. However, after building canals from each end of this project, the key linking structure in this plan was deemed unworkable, leaving approximately 20 miles between these two canals which remains unconnected today. A number of issues led to the stoppage of this project, one of which was that bringing water from the Missouri basin to the Red River Valley would result in an interbasin transfer of water. Should the study of water needs and supply in the valley conclude that this is the most appropriate method for delivering water to communities in eastern North Dakota, the interbasin transfer of water concerns would be addressed by using a pipeline link the two canals which would incorporate treatment of this water to meet the environmental concerns of downstream interests.
This component of the legislation, as well as the portion of those structures already in place which may be used to move water to the east will be reimbursable. This is considerable value to the U.S. Government, as the state would not be repay the Federal Government for existing project features which will never be placed into service.
Finally, the bill before us today includes $25 million for the expansion of the existing Wetlands Trust, $6.5 million for recreation and ecotourism development, and $40 million for construction of a new bridge across Lake Sakakawea on the Fort Berthold Reservation.
Page 18 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Chairman, while we believe a commitment was made to us which has gone unfulfilled, it is the sheer weight of the needs of the people of North Dakota for clean and safe water which drive this legislation. No child should have to bathe in water like this. The resource is available, the need is significant, and this legislation is our answer. This is a fair and reasonable closure to the commitment by the Federal Government to the state of North Dakota. The need across the state and on our Indian reservations for an improved water supply—one that is safe and reliable—is well-documented. The bill before us today is the product of numerous, intense negotiations among the elected leaders of both parties in North Dakota, tribal leadership, the environmental community, city leaders, and others to develop a plan that effectively addresses these water needs and fulfills the commitment of the Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program. I would like to submit for the record almost thirty letters recently received from organizations across the state which demonstrate the support I mention for this Act.
Again, I thank you Mr. Chairman for your interest in this project and for scheduling this hearing. This is one of the most critical issues before the people of North Dakota and your willingness to hold this hearing is very important as we move forward to bring clean, safe water to the people across my state.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you.
Our next witness is Senator Kent Conrad from the State of North Dakota. Senator.
STATEMENT OF HON. KENT CONRAD, A SENATOR IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA
Senator CONRAD. Thank you, Congressman; thank you very much, very much, for holding this hearing, and thank you very much for your patience.
I believe this project is fiscally responsible, is environmentally sensitive, and is a treaty-compliant approach to completing the Garrison project.
Page 19 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Chairman, we started on this effort five long years ago. When we recognized, in a bipartisan basis in the State of North Dakota, that with the 1986 reformulation, we were never going to achieve the results promised to the people of North Dakota. It was just very unlikely that the Sykeston Canal would ever be completed to deliver water to eastern North Dakota.
And so 5 years ago, we started on what we called the ''Collaborative Process.'' And in that collaborative process, we tried to involve all of the stakeholders. The Governor was involved, the congressional delegation; the Bureau of Reclamation worked with us on a technical basis. We had all of the tribes of North Dakota represented, and we asked both the national environmental community as well as the environmental community in the State of North Dakota to participate. It is a result of the lengthy deliberations through the collaborative process, a myriad of studies that were done by the Bureau of Reclamation that has brought us to where we are today.
Mr. Chairman, in 1997, in February, we held in my office a 10-hour marathon negotiating session to reach agreement on the 12 principles that would guide the drafting of the legislation. With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to enter those 12 principles into the record at this point.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Certainly. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information referred to follows:]
Senator CONRAD. Mr. Chairman, we believe we have been faithful to those 12 principles. They form the foundation of the bill that is before us today.
And I want to especially highlight organizations that help bring this all together in North Dakota. The North Dakota Water Users and the North Dakota Chapter of the Wildlife Society, they played absolutely critical roles in bringing us together.
Page 20 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And, Mr. Chairman, what you see is remarkable. I've never in my experience in public life in North Dakota, seen more agreement in our State than on this measure, on a bipartisan basis, with every stakeholder signed up to support the Dakota Water Resources Act. So we believe we've made enormous progress.
Mr. Chairman, we have been working very closely with the Bureau of Reclamation, and they had a whole series of things that they believed we ought to change. And so for 3 months, we have worked with them, and now we believe we're down to four issues. We met with them again last week, and we think dramatic progress has been made. Let me just highlight the four, and then I will end.
They're still concerned about the OM&R costs in this bill. They estimate they are from $5 to $12 million a year, with $200 million available in their budget on a yearly basis, they're concerned with that amount of money.
Second, they are concerned about the revolving loan fund feature of the $300 million of State MR&I.
Third matter, is they are concerned about the Four Bears Bridge that is included here. Mr. Chairman, we understand this is unusual to have a bridge in a reclamation bill. The reason that it's here is because it is project-related and because this bridge, which is going to cost $45 million, is truly a hazard. I'd invite the chairman and anybody else who is interested to come and go across that bridge with us sometime—about midnight on a Saturday night would be a good time. Mr. Chairman, it is a hazard; it needs to be replaced. The State doesn't have the money to do it. It is project-related, and we thought the best place to put it was here.
Finally, they raised the issue of total cost. I think we probably understand that they make the point that we still need to have a shave and a haircut here. I'm hopeful that it will be just a minor shave and a minor haircut, because frankly, Mr. Chairman, we've gone a long way toward making this project fiscally responsible, environmental sensitive, and Treaty-compliant. We believe we have delivered a project like that to the Committee and to the Congress.
Page 21 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We are certainly prepared to listen as you counsel us in what other changes need to be made so that we can cross the line.
And again, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for your patience and your interest.
[The statement of Mr. Conrad follows:]
STATEMENT OF HON. KENT CONRAD, A SENATOR IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA
Mr. Chairman, I greatly appreciate your willingness to hold this hearing. It is a pleasure to indicate my strong support for the Dakota Water Resources Act of 1998.
I believe this legislation represents a fiscally-responsible, environmentally-sound, Treaty compliant approach to completing the Garrison project. I will focus my comments on the history of the development of the bill before the Committee, because the process we have followed has been an unprecedented and cooperative process that has taken more than five years. Our approach has been to seek input from every quarter.
THE COLLABORATIVE PROCESS
In 1993, after it became apparent that the project authorized by the 1986 Garrison Diversion Reformulation Act would not be constructed, we began the ''Collaborative Process'' to seek ways to again reformulate the project into one that could be completed. That process involved a group of representatives from the North Dakota congressional delegation, the State of North Dakota, the Indian Tribes within North Dakota, and local and national environmental organizations.
Additionally, the Bureau of Reclamation provided technical support to the group and acted as a facilitator to the discussions. Those initial discussions, while not leading to an immediate compromise, began the 5-year long process of formulating a new project.
Page 22 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Following the ''Collaborative Process'' and time for organizations to develop alternatives, we organized meetings with all stakeholders to begin a new effort to complete the project.
DEVELOPING THE DAKOTA WATER RESOURCES ACT
We held public meetings in North Dakota in December, 1996, to get a fresh start with the various stakeholders to develop the plan to meet the contemporary and future water needs of North Dakota. Those meetings were used to solicit views from all interested groups about how the project should be reformulated.
In February, 1997, we met with several North Dakota and national environmental interests in my Washington office to discuss how to develop an environmentally-sensitive approach to completing the project. From that 10-hour meeting, we developed 12 principles that have guided our efforts to craft the detailed legislative language to settle this issue. I ask consent to have a copy of the ''12 Principles'' included in the record.
The bill, based on those 12 points, requires full compliance with NEPA and the Boundary Waters Treaty with Canada. It includes additional funds for wetland enhancement and other natural resource conservation in the state. The bottom line, Mr. Chairman, is that we have developed a bill that is an environmentally-sensitive proposal based on the agreement we reached at that marathon negotiating session in February, 1997.
Let me emphasize that all parties came to an agreement at that meeting, including two organizations that will present testimony today in opposition to the bill. We have continued to reach out to those organizations to hear their views about how the substitute amendment before Congress differs from the 12 Points. We remain willing to hear their specific concerns.
Page 23 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Following the February, 1997 discussions, we worked to write the legislative language that would remain true to the 12 Points. After going through several drafts and seeking reaction from interested groups, we reconvened all the stakeholders for a day-long meeting in Washington last October. Unfortunately, at that time the National Audubon Society and the National Wildlife Federation chose to withdraw from the process, and invited us to introduce the legislation we had developed for a thorough public debate.
That October session helped us further narrow differences on the draft bill. At this point I would like to highlight the yeoman's effort of two organizations—the North Dakota Water Users and the North Dakota Chapter of the Wildlife Society. Those groups put forward an extraordinary effort to help us complete drafting the bill in a way that meets North Dakota's water needs in an environmentally-acceptable manner. That effort culminated in S. 1515 and H.R. 3012, which were introduced November 10, 1997, in the Senate and House of Representatives.
PROGRESS SINCE INTRODUCTION
Since we introduced the bill, we held a field hearing in Fargo, North Dakota, in February to hear the reaction of North Dakotans to the proposal. At that hearing, virtually every organization or interest that testified supported the Dakota Water Resources Act. I have never seen such broad, bipartisan support for anything in our state.
That support ranges from North Dakota's bipartisan elected leadership, the four Indian Tribes located in North Dakota, a wide variety of water interests across the state, the North Dakota Wildlife Society, the North Dakota Rural Electric Cooperatives, the state's Chamber of Commerce (called the Greater North Dakota Association), the North Dakota Farmers Union, the North Dakota Education Association; and many more.
Page 24 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Following that hearing in Fargo; the Interior Department raised questions about the legislation and interpreted parts of the bill differently than we intended. For more than three months this summer we held an intensive effort to re-write the bill to clarify provisions that were open to interpretation and to make substantive changes to address concerns expressed by the Department.
From those discussions, we significantly narrowed the differences between the Bureau and the sponsors of the bill. The substitute amendment before the Subcommittee represents those changes, and I believe the Administration's testimony today will acknowledge that effort.
I believe we have substantially narrowed the differences on this legislation so that we now have only a handful of issues remaining with the Department. We have been working since the July hearing before the Senate Energy Committee to continue to discuss those issues with the Department.
CONCLUSION
Mr. Chairman, the work of the past two years has brought us to where we are today—ready to move forward with a plan to re-direct, and complete, the Garrison Diversion project. The process we have followed in developing the bill is one of inclusiveness.
The legislation represents a fiscally-responsible, environmentally-sound, Treaty-compliant approach to completing the Garrison project. I urge the Committee to approve this bill and send it to the full House for its consideration.
SUMMARY OF GARRISON DISCUSSIONS
FEB. 24, 1997, WASHINGTON D.C.
Page 25 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
As a result of the non-binding talks on Feb. 24, the following are areas of potential agreement.
1. Form of legislation—offer as amendments to the 1986 Reformulation Act.
2. Indian MR&I—increase current authorization by $200 million. Will need to: (1) net BUREC OK on needs assessment and (2) require Sec. Interior to rank projects and set a timetable in consultation with Indian Health Service.
3. Indian Resources—keep existing authority for irrigation at Standing Rock and Ft. Berthold; add an estimated $40 million to replace Four Bears Bridge at Ft. Berthold; get refined bridge cost estimates from DOT and ND DOT, seek funding for Ft. Yates Bridge in Highway Reauthorization Bill once tribe agrees to move ahead.
4. State MR&I—increase current authority by $300 million. Should fund 80 percent of 40-year needs.
5. Water to Red River Valley—increase current authority by $200 million for construction of facilities to provide Missouri River water to RRV or for alternative solutions preferred by the local communities and the state. Establish a process by which the BUREC would complete its phase 2 study so that all stakeholders could make a decision by the end of 1997.
6. State Role—continue to share MR&I and other costs; handle O&M on completed facilities.
7. Devils Lake—do not include outlet or inlet in amendments to '86 Act. Outlet is being considered on a separate emergency basis.
8. Integrated Projects—(a) require Corps review of Missouri River bank stabilization options downstream of Garrison Dam, (b) retain authorization for Turtle Lake demonstration and deal with next steps in report language after peer review is completed, and (c) increase authority for recreation projects by $5 million.
Page 26 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
9. Repayment—reaffirmed principle that ND should only pay for capacity or features it uses. Feds pay 100 percent of Sheyenne treatment/distribution. Define a specific plan for forgiving capital and operation/maintenance costs for existing facilities and apportioning costs for future facilities. Power Rates—leave as in '86 Act to retain existing rate structure.
10. Irrigation—Keep irrigation as an authorized purpose. Retain canal-side irrigation on McClusky Canal of 10,000 acres and authorize 1,200 acres along New Rockford Canal if full costs are paid. Do not provide Federal funding for 5,000 acre Oakes site. Deauthorize other designated irrigation except as provided in Indian Resources and Integrated Projects.
11. Wildlife and Water Resource Management—keep current authority for Kraft Slough; turn the Wetlands Trust into a broader Resources Trust, which would then deal with grasslands conservation and riparian areas, too; increase Trust by $25 million; earmark a specific share of the Trust to prevent any decrease for wetlands; funci a $1.5 million Intepretive Center through the Trust; deauthorize Lonetree Reservoir and convert to a Wildlife Management Area; keep operation's maintenance/repairs of mitigation projects as a Federal responsibility.
12. Economic Recovery Fund—do not include in legislation.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Well, thank you very much.
Our next witness is the other Senator from the great State of North Dakota, Senator Byron Dorgan.
STATEMENT OF HON. BRYON DORGAN, A SENATOR IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA
Senator DORGAN. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
Page 27 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
My colleagues have pretty well covered it. Let me add a couple of points.
First, a more historical note, I wasn't here back in the 1940's when those viewing the Missouri River decided it was kind of a ornery river from time to time. Especially in the spring it would create chaos and massive flooding in the downstream cities, and softball would be interrupted in the city parks in Kansas City because of a river that was overflowing and wild and ornery.
So, Federal officials decided the way to harness the Missouri River and get some benefits from that river was to build a series of mainstem dams. They decided they wanted to have one of those dams in North Dakota. So they came to North Dakota with this plan, the Pick-Sloan Plan, and told North Dakotans, ''In order to control this river and prevent flooding from downstream and all of the problems it causes, we'd like to propose that we have a permanent flood in your State. If you'd just be willing to accept this, the flood will come and visit your State and stay forever. We propose it be about the size of Rhode Island. We propose that it never leave, and we understand that it would be kind of a dumb thing for you to say, 'Yes, we'd love to have a permanent flood without getting something in return.'
''So what we'd do is this; we'd propose a bargain with you. We'd have the flood visit your State, and you be host to it forever, and we will understand that you are a semi-arid State and would be able to use water from behind that dam to move around your State for the benefit of your State—for safe drinking water, clean water, municipal and industrial needs, industrial development and so on.''
The State thought about that and decided, well, that was a pretty good trade and a pretty good bargain to make, and so we did, and so the flood came. And President Eisenhower went out and cut the ribbon to dedicate the dam, and the water came, and so we're now host to a permanent flood.
We got the costs of this bargain, but have never realized the full promise. It's not to say we haven't realized anything; we have received benefits—about a half a billion dollars and the clean water that Congressman Pomeroy held up which comes to my hometown and many others in North Dakota. There are very significant benefits from this project.
Page 28 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Throughout the years this project, we were promised as much as a million acres of irrigation—which is a very significant issue for a semi-arid State like ours. Imagine! A million acres of irrigation we were told. That project has now, like a plum to a prune, has shrunk and shriveled. And now with all of its wrinkles, is 70,000 acres of irrigation in the reformulated plan pending before the Subcommittee.
The plan itself is necessary because in 1986 we reformulated the then-Garrison Diversion project to best meet the State's needs at that point. But in this room and in the agreement that was made, there was one piece called the Sykeston Canal which was the connecting link needed to accomplish a lot of the project's purposes. It was uncertain whether that link was going to work as intended. Of course, over time, it was clear. It was from an engineering standpoint, not workable; from a cost standpoint, not workable.
And so we had, then, to retool this project one additional time, one last reformulation to fine tune the project to better meet the needs of the State.
The latest revisions in S. 1515 include all of the features my two colleague have just mentioned. I will not mention them again. But I do want to mention three final issues very quickly.
First is the issue dealing with North Dakota Indian reservations. My father spent some time in his youth in Elbow Woods, North Dakota, and that doesn't exist anymore. That's at the bottom of our permanent flood. Chairman Russell Mason of the Three Affiliated Tribes is here to testify; he comes from that part of North Dakota. His tribe very much needs the resources that were promised and the resources that will be delivered in this piece of legislation, as do the people of eastern North Dakota and many other communities throughout the State who will benefit from this legislation.
Second, we dealt with this with a realistic budget. One, we retained the cost share of 25 percent for the MR&I projects. Two, we repay the $200 million for Red River water supplies. Three, we also reimburse the government for the share of the capacity of the mainstem delivery features, index MR&I features only from date of enactment, and we target the State's critical water development needs. Meanwhile, the Federal Government will earn tax revenues from economic growth and receive reimbursement from the project users.
Page 29 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And finally, let me just make another quick point. We addressed the legitimate concerns of the environmental groups, the Canadians, and the downstream States. Those who say that we didn't address those problems are just dead wrong. We expressly bar any irrigation in the Hudson Bay Basin. We give the Secretary of the Interior the authority to select the Red River Valley water supply feature, determine the feasibility of newly authorized irrigation areas in the scaled-back project, and we extend the EIS period. As far as boundary water measures are concerned, biota transfers is a non-issue because only treated water would be transferred, and so on.
Moreover, we scale back the authorized irrigation for 130,000 to 70,000 acres and limited withdrawals from the Missouri River to 200 cfs.
All of this is in my full statement that I would hope you'd make a part of the record.
All of these provisions reflect those of us in this group, Republicans and Democrats who are interested in this project from the standpoint of benefiting our State. We understood what kinds of criticisms were being leveled at this project, and we dealt with those criticisms in a very direct way. I'm proud, as Senator Conrad and Congress Pomeroy indicated, to be sitting here with the Governor and the majority leader of the State house; we're united on what's important for our State and what we'll invest and build for the future of our State, and I'm pleased to be here to present this testimony.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you. I must say, I've never experienced nor do I know of a situation where we've had this kind of top-elected leadership of the State assemble all for one purpose such as this. It is quite remarkable I think.
As Governor, we've talked several times about this. I know you, along with the others, have been a real leader and proponent of bringing this issue to the forefront. I'd like to recognize you now for your testimony, Governor Ed Schafer, Governor of North Dakota.
Page 30 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD SCHAFER, GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA
Governor EDWARD SCHAFER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the opportunity to be here and testify. We do appreciate the time.
For the record, my name is Edward T. Schafer. I'm the Governor of North Dakota, and I do thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of the Dakota Water Resources Act.
As Governor of North Dakota, I am here today to address the current and future water needs of our State, and to show how this Act will serve the Federal Treasury—will save the Federal Treasury—compared to the cost of completing the Garrison Diversion project under current law.
The Dakota Water Resources Act is the key to solving these needs. The project unlocks North Dakota's future as an indispensable element for water supply, economic development, agriculture, recreation, tourism, and wildlife enhancement.
The Bureau of Reclamation has stated that the cost of the Dakota Water Resources Act is no more than the cost of the 1986 Garrison Diversion Reformulation Act. As a matter of fact, the cost of meeting the needs of the 1986 Act is far in excess of the cost of the Dakota Water Resources Act, and for these reasons, what is good for North Dakota is good for the Nation as well.
The greatest challenge before us is to find a solution for a dependable water supply for current and future generations of North Dakotans. Good drinking water is necessary for economic stability and growth. Presently, much of North Dakota suffers from either insufficient quantity or/and a lack of adequate supply of water quality for drinking. The solution to this challenge is the delivery of water from the Missouri River throughout our State. By providing Missouri River water throughout the State, we will also be able to support the growth experienced in certain areas of our State in recent years. This growth has come about largely because of new manufacturing and new industry service centers. As communities grow, so does the demand for water and so does the need for a safe water supply.
Page 31 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Dakota Water Resources Act ensures our citizens an adequate supply of high quality and reliable water for MR&I water systems across this State. The greatest single need in this regard is to provide citizens of the Red River Valley with long-term water supply. This includes the need for our citizens as well as the need for our neighbors in Minnesota.
An important aspect of the Red River water supply is the fact that the cost of delivery of Missouri River water is reimbursable with interest. This is an important factor which helps reduce the impact of the Federal Treasury.
Water supply development for Native Americans on our Indian reservations within our State also is included in this Act, as well as opportunities to manage and conserve the natural resources of North Dakota through an expanded Natural Resources Trust.
When Congress authorized the MR&I Water Supply Program in 1986, it was a positive first step in fulfilling the water needs of our State. The total identified needs then were more than $400 million. And unfortunately, even after addressing some of these needs under current law, the total remaining water supply needs in the State today exceeds $600 million because of inflation and newly identified needs.
The current need is outlined in a report that I have provided to the Committee for the record.
[The information referred to may be found at end of hearing.]
Governor EDWARD SCHAFER. This report lists water supply needs for more than 520,000 people in 144 water systems, including community and rural needs as well. The report does not cover the water supply and water treatment needs of the Indian reservations in North Dakota. A separate needs assessment reports are to be completed for the reservations. Also, the means for contributing the non-Federal share of the State MR&I program are already in place.
Page 32 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
MR&I funds include local, State, and Federal funds, have improved the quality of life for many North Dakotans; 32 communities and rural water projects have been developed since 1986 at a cost of more than $200 million. And the non-Federal contribution to these projects has been approximately $73 million.
I might take a minute, Mr. Chairman, you mentioned in your comments about the Perkins County project. The South Dakota project, however, ties into North Dakota water supply projects, and unlike some other States or neighbors, North Dakota is cooperating with this project and certainly support the needs of South Dakota, their people, and this water development project in Perkins County.
The water supply needs of the Red River Valley are being addressed separately in order to evaluate the best available method to solve the Red River Valley water supply problem. And as you've heard, this is a cooperative effort of Federal, State, and local agencies. Water conservation, available water supplies in the basin, and diversion of water from outside the basin are all being considered for the future Red River Valley needs.
The preliminary estimates for total water requirement for Red River Valley ranges from 100 to 200 cubic feet a second in the Cheyenne and Red Rivers to meet the supply needs of the valley by 2050. And under any scenario, the amount of water necessary for the Red River Valley represents less than 1 percent of the annual Missouri River flow leaving North Dakota.
You know the Red River Valley Water Supply projects, the Southwest Water Pipeline, the Northwest Water Pipeline, evidenced here, the projects that we've been working on, but it is equally important to complete the project to allow North Dakota to use the Missouri River water properly throughout our State.
That distribution of the water will also provide a habitat to sustain fish and wildlife through drought years and will allow enhanced recreation during normal years.
We have identified $1.6 billion of water management projects in the State. Since 1986, local and State entities have spent more than $88 million; therefore, we do believe we are showing our willingness to continue to fund our share of these water supply projects.
Page 33 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We've talked about the reduction of irrigation acres, but it's important to note that no additional Federal funds are being sought for the developing of these acres. This results in a further reduction to the Federal Treasury in cost, and that is authorized under current law. None of the irrigation is located in the Red River Basin or in the Devil's Lake Basin.
Water supply to North Dakota is a great concern to Manitoba and Canada, and these concerns will be thoroughly addressed through the consultative process to ensure compliance with the United States-Canada Boundary Waters Treaty Act of 1909. And from a technical standpoint, compliance is clearly attainable.
I know that there's also been a concern raised about the efforts of our State to control the flood at Devil's Lake. Some suggest that this is a back-door approach to diverting Missouri water to Devil's Lake, and this is simply not the case. And for the record, the proposed Devil's Lake outlet cannot be operated in any way to divert Missouri River water to Devil's Lake. These two issues are totally separated physically, as well as by law.
In addition, you will hear testimony from folks and organizations from outside of our State that purport to be testifying in our best interest. And I want to assure you that the people of North Dakota that live and work in our State understand our needs and desires, including the wildlife and environmental organizations, support this project in our State. We are 100 percent committed to meeting the quality and environmental standards and safeguards that Congress has had the foresight to put in place. And the Dakota Water Resources Act is written in such a way that there is no question that we will fully comply with the National Environmental Policy Act, as well as the Boundary Water Treaties Act.
I know my time is up here, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to testify.
In closing, I do have more comments which I'll submit for the record, but I would like to enter into the record also the Resolution of the North Dakota State Water Commission, which I chair, supporting the authorization of the Dakota Water Resources Act.
Page 34 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
[The information referred to may be found at end of hearing.]
Governor EDWARD SCHAFER. North Dakotans from cities, from farms, from businesses are committed to this Garrison Diversion project. The project we know will never be what was promised to us in 1944, but it will continue to be the most important water management project in our State.
I want to thank you for your past support for the Garrison Diversion project, and I hope that you will continue your support to helping secure a brighter, better, and bolder future for North Dakota through this water resources Act. Let's bring this 50-year project to closure.
In closing, let me ask—I guess I'm kind of curious when we receive a letter from Canada, when we have a neighboring State comment, when a national environmental or wildlife group, or a downstream State makes some testimony, I guess I'm curious as to why those efforts get the credence, the creditability, and the priority over North Dakotans when we who live and work in our State know the needs. We love the environment, our clean air, and our clean water, and we would never do anything to ruin the quality of life in our State or for anybody else in a neighboring State or country.
I thank you for the opportunity, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Governor Schafer follows:]
STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD T. SCHAFER, GOVERNOR, NORTH DAKOTA
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, my name is Edward T. Schafer, Governor of North Dakota. Thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of the Dakota Water Resources Act.
As Governor of North Dakota, I am here today to address the current and future water needs of our state, and to show how this Act will serve the Federal treasury compared to the cost of completing the Garrison Diversion Project under current law. The Dakota Water Resources Act is the key to solving these needs. The project unlocks North Dakota's future and is an indispensable element for water supply, economic development, agriculture, recreation, tourism, and wildlife enhancement. The Bureau of Reclamation has stated that the cost of the Dakota Water Resources Act is no more than the cost of the 1986 Garrison Diversion Reformulation Act, and as matter of fact, the cost of meeting the needs of the 1986 Act is far in excess of the cost of the Dakota Water Resources Act. For these reasons, it is good for North Dakota as well as the nation.
Page 35 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The greatest challenge before us is to find the best solution for a dependable water supply for current and future generations of North Dakotans. Good drinking water is necessary for economic stability and growth. Presently, much of North Dakota suffers from either insufficient quantity or lack of an adequate supply of good quality water for drinking. The solution to this challenge is the delivery of water from the Missouri River throughout the state. By providing Missouri River water throughout the state, we will also be able to support the growth experienced in certain areas of the state in recent years. This growth has come about largely because of new manufacturing and new industry service centers. As communities grow, so does the demand for water and so does the need for a safe water supply.
The Dakota Water Resources Act ensures our citizens an adequate supply of high quality and reliable water for municipal, rural and industrial water systems across the state. Our greatest single need in this regard is to provide the citizens of the Red River Valley with a long-term water supply. This includes the need for our citizens as well as the need for some of our neighbors in Minnesota. An important aspect of the Red River water supply is the fact that the cost of the delivery of Missouri River water is reimbursable with interest. This is an important factor which helps to reduce the impact to the Federal treasury. Water supply development for Native Americans on the Indian reservations within our state is also included in the Act, as well as opportunities to manage and conserve the natural resources of North Dakota through the expanded Natural Resources Trust.
When Congress authorized the Garrison Municipal, Rural and Industrial (MR&I) Water Supply program in 1986, it was a positive first step in fulfilling the water needs of our state. The total identified needs then were more than $400 million. Unfortunately, even after addressing some of these needs under current law, the total remaining water supply needs in the state today exceeds $600 million because of inflation and newly identified needs. The current need is outlined in a report I have provided to the Committee for the record. The report lists water supply needs for more than 520,000 people in 144 water systems including community and rural needs. The report does not cover the water supply and water treatment needs of the Indian reservations within North Dakota. Separate needs assessment reports are to be completed for the reservations. Also, the means for contributing the non Federal share of the state MR&I program is already in place.
Page 36 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
MR&I funds including local, state and Federal funds have improved the quality of life for many people across North Dakota. Thirty-two (32) community and rural water projects have been developed since 1986 at a cost of more than $200 million. The non-Federal contribution to these projects has been approximately $73 million.
The water supply needs of the Red River Valley are being addressed separately in order to evaluate the best available method to solve the Red River Valley water supply problems. This is a cooperative effort of Federal, state and local agencies. Water conservation, available water supplies in the basin, and diversion of water from outside the basin are all being considered to meet future Red River Valley needs. The preliminary estimates for the total water requirement for the Red River Valley ranges from 100-200 cubic feet per second to the Sheyenne and Red Rivers to meet the water supply needs in the year 2050. Under any scenario, the amount of water necessary for the Red River Valley represents less than 1 percent of the annual Missouri River flow leaving North Dakota.
Projects such as the Red River Valley Water Supply, the Southwest Pipeline Project, the Northwest Area Water Supply, and many other city and rural projects are all important parts of the Dakota Water Resources Act. Furthermore, and equally as important, completing this project will allow North Dakota to use its Missouri River water right.
Distribution of Missouri River water in the state will also provide habitat to sustain fish and wildlife through drought and to allow for enhanced recreation during normal years. Providing additional water from the Missouri River is a potential solution to low stream flows as well as meeting municipal, rural and industrial needs.
Besides need for water supply, North Dakota's State Water Management Plan shows overall needs for flood control, recreation, irrigation water supply, bank stabilization, and fish and wildlife. The Plan identifies $1.6 billion of total water management needs in the state. Since 1986, the state and local entities have spent more than $88 million on water management projects alone, and are willing to continue to fund their share of future projects. These efforts are in addition to our efforts for water supply projects.
Page 37 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
It is important to note that the Dakota Water Resources Act will reduce the number of acres of irrigation from 130,000 acres to 70,000 acres. No additional Federal funds are being sought for developing these acres, resulting in a further cost reduction from the Federal treasury as authorized under current law. Also, none of the irrigation is located in the Red River Basin or the Devils Lake Basin.
Water supply to eastern North Dakota has been a great concern to Manitoba and Canada. These concerns will be thoroughly addressed through a consultative process to ensure compliance with the United States-Canada Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909. From a technical standpoint, compliance is clearly attainable.
Concern has also been raised about the state's effort at flood control at Devils Lake, which some suggest is a back-door approach to diverting Missouri River water to Devils Lake. This is not the case. The proposed Devils Lake outlet cannot be operated in any way to divert Missouri River water to Devils Lake. These two issues are totally separated physically, as well as by law. In addition, you will hear testimony from some folks and organizations from outside of our State, that purport to be testifying in our best interest. I want to assure you that the people of North Dakota that live and work in our state and understand our needs and desires, including wildlife and environmental organizations, support this project. We are all 100 percent committed to meeting the quality and environmental standards and safeguards that Congress has had the foresight to put in place. Some of these folks will give you misguided information and numbers in an attempt to subvert this project. The Dakota Water Resources Act is written in such a way that there is no question that the project will fully comply with NEPA, the National Environmental Policy Act, as well as the Boundary Waters Treaty.
The Dakota Water Resources Act also provides for the continuation of our efforts to manage and conserve wetlands as well as other essential natural resources. Operating since 1986, the North Dakota Wetlands Trust has been successful in protecting wetland areas, and when expanded to a Natural Resources Trust will manage and protect other areas as well, such as tall grass prairies, woodlands and river bottoms. Overall, the Dakota Water Resources Act will greatly enhance our environment, and the State's natural resources.
Page 38 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Everyone must cooperate to meet the challenge of providing safe, affordable and reliable water to our citizens and neighbors, and to address our water management needs. There are problems in all corners of our state, and there is agreement that cities, rural areas, agricultural interests, conservationists, and water managers can solve these problems by working together. The completion of the Garrison Diversion Project, through the Dakota Water Resources Act, is the best approach to solving our difficult water problems for current and future generations of North Dakotans.
The Dakota Water Resources Act is a reasonable solution from the Federal perspective as well. As I stated earlier, we have reduced the acres of irrigation and although our total MR&I need is more than $600 million, we have agreed to provide $100 million upfront to projects and to also reimburse $200 million for the delivery of water to the Red River. As you can see, the people of North Dakota are willing to provide for 50 percent of the identified MR&I need.
In 1944, when the Pick-Sloan Missouri River program was authorized, North Dakota agreed to give up 550,000 acres of valuable Missouri River bottomland for the creation of dams and reservoirs providing a multitude of benefits for our country. We, in turn, hoped to realize the benefits promised for our state. Passage of the Dakota Water Resources Act is necessary to help our state recover its losses from the development of the Pick-Sloan reservoirs. The Act will bring to a reasonable and final conclusion, the long and sometimes controversial history of Garrison.
Finally, I am providing a December 1, 1997 resolution of the North Dakota State Water Commission, which I chair, supporting the authorization of the Dakota Water Resources Act. North Dakotans from cities, farms and businesses are committed to the Garrison Diversion Project. The project can never be what it once was planned to be in 1944, but it will continue to be the most important water resource management project in our state. I thank you for past support for the Garrison Diversion Project, and it is my hope you will continue your support in helping to secure a better, brighter, and bolder future for North Dakota through the Dakota Water Resources Act, and bring this 50 year project to a final closure.
Page 39 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Thank you.
INSERT OFFSET FOLIO 1 HERE
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you.
Our final witness at the beginning here will be Representative John Dorso, who is the majority leader in the State House of Representatives, who has also been a vigorous proponent and been in contact with the Committee on various occasions.
Representative Dorso.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN DORSO, STATE REPRESENTATIVE AND MAJORITY LEADER, NORTH DAKOTA STATE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Mr. DORSO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the Committee. For the record, my name is John Dorso; I'm North Dakota House of Representatives majority leader.
I really appreciate the opportunity to testify today in support of the Dakota Water Resources Act. As part of the leadership of the North Dakota Legislature, I am here to speak in behalf of the State legislature.
Also with me today and sitting behind me is the State senate majority leader, Gary Nelson. Unfortunately, neither State Minority Leader Tim Mathern nor State House of Representatives Minority Leader Merle Boucher could be here today, although, as well as Senator Nelson, they asked me to stress the importance of the Dakota Water Resources Act to the State of North Dakota, and the total bipartisan support of the legislature, and the past and present willingness of the State to contribute to the implementation of the Garrison Diversion project.
You have heard from our congressional delegation, as well as the Governor, on the importance of this Act to the State of North Dakota. Senator Nelson, Mathern, and I all live in the Red River Valley in eastern North Dakota. Our principal water supply, the Red River, has gone dry several times in the past. Also, the population of the Red River Valley has increased substantially where today more than 25 percent of our population resides within 15 miles of our eastern border with Minnesota. It is obvious that we need to develop the future water supply for that area. The Red River Valley is a significant and critical economic engine for North Dakota. Without a water supply for it, as would be reauthorized by this Act, our whole State will suffer.
Page 40 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Every State legislative assembly since 1944 has gone on record by resolution supporting this project, and most recently in 1997, the framework for the Dakota Water Resource Act. That resolution has come completely by bipartisan support, urges the completion of the project, and recognizes the critical priority of the project for water management and development in North Dakota. Be it for municipal, rural, industrial, tribal, recreation, or fish and wildlife needs, the Dakota Water Resources Act is essential for economic sustainment and development of our State.
Because of the importance to North Dakota, the State legislature has provided funding to show its commitment to the Garrison project. In the past, we have appropriated general funds for water projects, including the Garrison Diversion project, and we have also dedicated, by constitutional measure, a Resources Trust Fund for water development. Most recently in 1997, we provided authority for bonding for the Garrison project as part of our comprehensive statewide water development program. The State legislature stands ready to address ways to meet future needs for funding the non-Federal share of the Dakota Water Resource Act as proposed.
Mr. Chairman, I'm going to just digress a little bit from my written testimony here. I heard you mention, or maybe it was Representative DeFazio earlier, about Representative Pomeroy's persistence in this matter. The fact of the matter is, is I think any of us who live in North Dakota and are elected to be political leaders of our State, will continue to be persistent. I don't think we have any choice because of the nature of the changing economy of our State where we have tried, through bipartisan efforts, to diversify our economy, water has become so critical. We have no choice but to be here and continue to ask to get something done, because the Red River Valley cannot sustain itself without a sustainable, clean source of water.
So I would appreciate your support and members of the Committee. We will continue to be here and work with you as much as we can to solve this problem for our people.
Page 41 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Dorso may be found at end of hearing.]
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Well, thank you.
I just have a couple of questions. Maybe Mr. Dorso—let me just ask you, do you and your colleagues accept the present cost share that's proposed for the State in this bill? I mean you think you'd be able to meet that?
Mr. DORSO. Well, Mr. Chairman, to be completely honest, I didn't really like the formula. I thought it should be quite a bit less, the State's share, based on what we've spent in the past. But, through the compromise process, I can assure you that the legislature will support this formula for funding, and hopefully we'll be able to do something in 1999 as we meet to move forward.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. I know you're not going to like the direction of this and, hopefully from your standpoint, it will be what it is in the bill, but does the State's legislature have the will—does the State have the capacity if it took even a higher share of local cost to accomplish this, do you think you could rise to that occasion?
Mr. DORSO. Well, Mr. Chairman, I think that that's a fair question, but I think I have to ask you, if we have to do something about the Devil's Lake problem, and that's the outlet, and all of the costs there, I think in the short run, ''No.'' I think we'd be very hard pressed with all of the problems that we have dealing with water in North Dakota. We also have the Grand Forks Dike issue that we have to face. I just don't know where, in the short term, we could come up with additional funds.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Let me jump in and ask, I notice in this emergency supplemental that's moving through the Congress now, there's an amount of money for Devil's Lake. I don't know how that relates to—does that solve the problem for Devil's Lake or not?
Page 42 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. DORSO. Well, we have to have a State share for that, too, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. So, you're saying that when you meet that State share, you think you wouldn't be able to go much above the 25 percent?
Mr. DORSO. Mr. Chairman, in the short term, I don't believe we would be able to.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you.
Governor, what has been the nature of your discussion with the Government of Manitoba and other governmental officials on the Garrison issue?
Governor EDWARD SCHAFER. Well, I obviously have met several times with the premier, especially of Manitoba. We've had technical exchanges with some of their folks up there as well through our Water Commission, and there are ongoing discussions. Certainly, they understand our problems, are interested in our needs. I found it interesting that the premier, Premier Filman, from Manitoba, is an engineer. And he said, ''Normally, I look at, as an engineer, I look at ways at how you solve problems. If you have a barrier, how do you get through them?'' However, he told me directly that he is unalterably opposed this project. I think this project is emotional there. I think there are political considerations in Canada that just won't allow us to be able to deal with this. It just seems to me that even though that we can show it to be technically safe, that it will not have risk to the Canadians and to our friends and neighbors, the Manitobans. I just think that we will never get them to support this project, and it's going to be necessary for the U.S. State Department to just say, you know, ''You will comply with the Boundary Water Treaties Act.'' We're committed to it. I don't think we're ever going to convince them that we can do it, but I guarantee that our State will make sure we meet the requirements at the border of the Boundary Water Treaties Act.
If I might go back to your previous question, as far as what we've been able to do, the State has already, in the current projects, committed funds in the range from 25 to 35 percent. I mean we're putting our share of dollars in as needed, but as Representative Dorso mentioned, we have such huge needs for water projects in our State, including the flood problems in the Red River Valley. I know it seems strange to talk about flood problems——
Page 43 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
[Laughter.]
[continuing] in for Red River Valley when we're talking about moving water over there, but those are the up and down cycles of water, and certainly the needs are there. And our State has shown the willingness to contribute our fair share.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Coming from California, I can fully appreciate how you can be faced with both drought and flooding in the same year.
I'd also like to recognize the presence—acknowledge the presence of the Senate majority leader, so we have everybody; that's impressive. Welcome.
Well, Mr. Farr has joined us. Did you wish to address questions to the witnesses?
Mr. FARR. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you having this hearing.
It's ironic that two Californians, both from northern California who have all the water, are sitting here. Usually we're battling with our colleagues in southern California who want our water.
[Laughter.]
So we're very sympathetic to the needs. As I just read the quick summary of it—and I want to thank Congressman Pomeroy for coming into my office and briefing me on this issue—I was very sympathetic to your needs.
But looking over here, is there really—is the cost of this, as it adds up to be about $725 million? Is the analysis here—the overview, is that the additional $300 million for the municipal, rural, and industrial water for the MR&I under the 1986 reformulation, an additional $200 million for the tribal MR&I, authorization of $200 million to meet the Red Valley water needs, and adding $25 million to the existing Wetlands Trust for broadened purposes, and then some offsets, reducing the authorized irrigation from 130,000 acres to 70,000 acres, and provide protection for the Western Area Power Administration's rate payers. What is the bottom line need?
Page 44 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, if I might.
Mr. Farr, it's about a $770 million tag and the three principal components of it. Three hundred million dollars State MR&I, the conversion of this project from primarily an irrigation project to primarily a municipal water supply project, and that's the $300 million figure. All right, in addition, as was recognized at the time of the 1986 reauthorization, the water needs on our Indian reservations are enormous, and once more the equity claim in particular of two of the four tribes that have literally been split apart by this reservoir are very significant. It's $200 million to the Native American MR&I needs. Two hundred million dollars as the third central feature of this project, Congressman Farr, relating to the transport of water from the reservoir in the west to the population in the east.
And so those are the three most significant features of this project. And then there are some other issues; the Wetlands Trust and the Four Bears Bridge allowing this particular tribe at Fort Berthold to have a workable transportation artery over the reservoir itself.
Mr. FARR. Can you segment that? Is that where you can get $200 million for the project for the pipeline and then work on the formulas in subsequent years, because those don't all come due at the same time, or do they?
Mr. POMEROY. Well, the $200 million is reimbursable on that water, west to east, so there would be an income stream coming back repaying that obligation to the Federal Government.
Mr. FARR. OK. Well, I'll be on the Appropriations Committee next year, so I'll be looking forward to working with you.
Mr. POMEROY. You know, as was said, actually you missed our presentations, and this is a big price tag, but we have put this project together. It's a comprehensive project for our State's water needs and represents the quo and the quid pro quo the State entered into at the time we got flooded with a reservoir that's literally the size of the State of Rhode Island.
Page 45 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We are the host to the flood, but we have yet to get the optimal plan in place that gives us a fair use of the water from that reservoir. And so, that's why this is as it is, and we haven't asked the Federal Government, ''Well, fund this little leg; fund that little leg.'' We put it together in a comprehensive package that would represent the culminating of the Federal Government's response to North Dakota for the building of the dam on the Missouri River and the flood that resulted in Lake Sakakawea.
Mr. FARR. It's too bad you couldn't have that pipeline reach Los Angeles. You'd sell it in a quick minute.
[Laughter.]
Mr. DOOLITTLE. I'd like to thank our witnesses' extraordinary appearance by the officials of North Dakota. We certainly know you are committed to this project, and we thank you for taking the time to be here.
We may have additional questions we'll wish to address, and we'll do that in writing, and we'll hold the record open for your responses.
And with that, we thank you for being here. We'll excuse——
Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, as this panel breaks up, I would have two requests for the record. We held a couple of hearings in the State of North Dakota, one in Fargo and one in Minot, to illicit responses from and to allow the general public in the State to show what they thought of this particular plan. We would like to introduce the testimony from those two hearings, one held in Fargo on February 14, 1998, one held in Minot, August 11, 1998, into the record.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. We'd be pleased to, without objection, include that in the record.
[The information referred to may be found at end of hearing.]
Page 46 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. POMEROY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And finally, we'd like to add to the records a letter from Robert Griffin, Brigadier General U.S. Army, division engineer with the Army Corps of Engineers, basically assessing the impact on downstream flows from the proposed project.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. And we'll include that as well, without objection.
[The information referred to may be found at end of hearing.]
Mr. POMEROY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. FARR. And I think for the record, I've—and I'm still new to this place—but I have never seen a more distinguished panel in the entire political leadership; House, Senate, and Governor are sitting at one table from any one State. I don't think any other State could do that, and I compliment you on your ability to bring it all together.
Mr. POMEROY. Thank you.
Governor EDWARD SCHAFER. Thank you.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. As the witnesses are leaving, let me invite the members of panel one to come forward.
Any objections to Mr. Pomeroy joining us at the desk? Being none, he is invited.
Let me ask, please, the members of panel one if you will rise and raise your right hand.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Let the record reflect that each answered in the affirmative. We appreciate your being here, and we will begin with our Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation, Mr. Martinez.
Page 47 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
STATEMENT OF ELUID MARTINEZ, COMMISSIONER, U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION, DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR, WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee, I have submitted by written testimony for the record, and if appropriate, I'd like to summarize my statement.
I'd like to start off by extending my appreciation to the North Dakota delegation, the Governor's office, State legislative leaders, their State engineer, and the Conservancy district with working with reclamation over the past year to try to address some of the outstanding issues and the concerns of the administration.
While we have not been able to adequately address all those issues, we are a lot closer today than we were 6 months ago in trying to resolve the administration's concerns with this, including a meeting I had last week with the delegation. I'm optimistic that additional progress can and will be made.
There is still some concerns that need to be addressed, and if I may, I'll divert from my prepared statement. We have the issue of the concern by Canada about water quality. I view that as a technical issue and a political issue. I think from a technical prospective, these issues can be addressed.
The other issue that my testimony addresses is a question of tieing the Wetlands Trust funding to development or to the progress of development on the Red River Valley initiative. The administration believes they should be decoupled and stand on their own merits.
I'd like to, if at all possible, try to help you, Mr. Chairman, and the Committee with some of the questions that you raised and try to place this in some kind of a perspective. And my figures might be a little bit off, and if so, I'll correct the record. But it's my understanding that in 1965, under Public Law 98–108, where Congress sort of adopted or fashioned a project that involved 250,000 acres of irrigated land. It was at that process at that time that the amount of money necessary to construct that project was about $2.2 billion, 1965.
Page 48 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In 1986, by the time this project had sort of been reformulated, Public Law 99–294, was looking at a total project cost of about $1.5 billion with no indexing involved. In other words, no escalation for increases in price of construction. And, to date, out of that $1.5 billion, $800 million has been authorized, and the Bureau of Reclamation has, through this year, gotten appropriations of about $614 million.
The current proposal before you now, as proposed by this legislation, is about $1.6 billion and does not include index cost. In other words, that price will escalate based on the time it takes to construct and the indexing of those costs, so I think from all——
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Commissioner, just to clarify, you said that it will escalate?
Mr. MARTINEZ. Yes. The $1.6 does not include indexing costs.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Right.
Mr. MARTINEZ. So it would escalate. So I think the argument could be made that it's sort of a wash in terms of the total number of Federal dollars that were contemplated to be committed sometime in 1986 versus the current proposal.
Within this $1.6 billion that the project sponsors are seeking, is an increase of about a billion dollars to fund, in essence, a $200 million part of the project for bringing water into the Red River Valley. Now as I understand, this would be reimbursable with interest, paid back to the Federal Treasury, but it is my understanding that the payments would not occur until such time as the project would be put in operation.
There's a $300 million increase in the non-Indian MR&I, or municipal, rural, and industrial portion of this project. That $300 million represents a 75 percent cost share of the Federal Government of what I assume to be a $400 million project. The administration has concerns about the 75 percent cost share. It's longstanding policy at the Bureau of Reclamation that these kind of projects, that the project sponsor fund 100 percent, reimbursable with interest, with these kind of projects.
Page 49 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Now I fully understand that the Committee is aware that there is, within the Garrison project right now, $200 million which has been authorized for similar projects that are being funded with a 75 percent cost share by the Federal Government.
Mr. Chairman, if I may, I might want to exceed——
Mr. DOOLITTLE. You just take the time you need, Mr. Martinez.
Mr. MARTINEZ. OK.
So, and I think the administration is committed to that $200 million, so we're talking about an additional $300 million. And the question is, whether that should be a 75 percent Federal cost share to the extent that that cost share reduced that $300 million requirement would come down, bringing down the total cost of the project.
There's a $200 million portion for Indian municipal, rural, and industrial water supply. And I understand that would only meet 80 percent of the Indian needs in the State. The administration supports that. I believe that the Indian community needs to have their needs addressed. But we are concerned about the operation and maintenance, perpetual costs associated with that project.
The Bureau of Reclamation, as Commissioner, I'm concerned about the $40 million in this proposal for the Four Bears Bridge. Now I understand the need, and I don't question the need, for the bridge, but given the fact that the Bureau of Reclamation's budget has been decreased and continues to be in a decreasing mode for the last few years, I would find it difficult to be able to seek the appropriation for $40 million for a bridge when I have competing needs, as you know, toward reclamation efforts westwide.
So I think from my perspective, Mr. Chairman, assuming you get past the water quality issue with Canada and some of the environmental concerns, it's really a question of funding and where the money is going to come from if Congress sees fit to move this project forward.
Page 50 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We will continue to work with the Committee and the project's sponsors to try to find ways to reduce the Federal expenditure on this project by reductions in the Federal OM&R expenses as well as the total project outlay.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my comments.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Martinez may be found at end of hearing.]
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you.
Our next witness will be the Honorable Bruce Furness, Mayor of the city of Fargo, in North Dakota.
Mayor Furness.
STATEMENT HON. BRUCE FURNESS, MAYOR, FARGO, NORTH DAKOTA
Mayor FURNESS. Chairman Doolittle, Congressman Farr, Congressman Pomeroy, thank you for the opportunity to be with you today.
I do represent the city of Fargo, but, in addition, today I'm representing the Eastern Dakota Water Users group and the North Dakota League of Cities, which just this past Saturday, the North Dakota League of Cities, 361 cities, approved a resolution of support for the Dakota Water Resources Act which I'd like to have entered into the record if I may.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information referred to may be found at end of hearing.]
Mayor FURNESS. Fargo is located right on the edge of North Dakota on the Red River. It is the largest city in North Dakota and with Moorhead, Minnesota, right across the river, represents about 165,000 people in population. We have enjoyed a growth rate of about 2 percent over the last 15 to 20 years and see that continuing in the near future. In fact, we think it's actually accelerating at this point. This is one of the reasons why we're concerned about the quantity of water available. And from a statewide prospective, nearly 40 percent of the State's population live in the six counties that border the Red River.
Page 51 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I am going to paraphrase my report, but I would like to read two parts of this. And the first is a summary of the problem characterized by a report from our consultant, Black & Veatch, when we designed our new water plant. They say that, ''The city of Fargo has rights to two water sources for treatment and subsequent supply to its citizens for potable use: the Red River of the North and the Cheyenne River. Unfortunately, both sources are of poor quality and, even taken together, they do not offer a reliable quantity of water to meet Fargo's present and certainly the future water needs. The diversion of Missouri River water to Fargo by way of Garrison Dam would provide a long-term lifeline for the community.'' That's their conclusion.
We are concerned about the quantity of water. You've seen the pictures of some of the drought situations, and I want to also describe to you a commentary, I guess, by former Governor William Guy of Fargo. ''If you were to look at the Red River near the water plant in the 1930's, you would wonder how they ever made the water fit to drink. The searing hot drought hung over heavily the Upper Midwest through the entire decade of the 1930's. The Geological Survey records say that the murky Red River ceased to flow at Fargo for a period in every year of that decade. The driest year was 1936 when the Red River stopped flowing for 166 continuous days. Cars were not washed. Lawns went unsprinkled. There was talk of returning the Fargo Sewage Plant discharge to the river above the city water intake for reuse. Moorhead, across the river, was drawing all of its water from wells east of the city, and their tap water tasted good. With a population of around 25,000 at that time, Fargo's water situation was desperate. Today—'' and I'm still quoting Governor Guy—''both Fargo and Moorhead draw their water from the Red River, while their combined population has increased five fold from the dry 1930's. Industries not even dreamed of 65 years ago now use copious amounts of Red River water. It is easy to understand why the Garrison Diversion project to bring Missouri River water east to the Red River Valley has been on the minds of thinking people for more than 50 years.'' and that's the end of his quote.
Page 52 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We are concerned about low flow quantities as well. There has been a study performed in the past that suggested that a seven cubic feet per second minimum flow in the Red River is sufficient, and that is totally unacceptable. You won't be able to see this chart——
[Laughter.]
I can hardly see the chart from here. So I'll just have to describe it to you. But it is a chart; I think it was in the packet of information that was sent to you. It's a chart of annual 7-day duration low flows in the Red River from 1900 to the present time. And what it shows is—what it takes is 7-day periods, 1-week periods, and finds the lowest of those for the given year, and that's what is recorded on the chart.
So you can see that there's a green line toward the bottom of that chart. That represents the current capacity or the current average daily use of our water plant in Fargo, 12 million gallons a day. And when the blue line goes below that green line, that means there's insufficient water to handle that average usage of water. So it doesn't happen too often. You can see in the 1930's that there is no blue line there. That's when we had that zero flow. You can see in the 1970's there was some, but of recent years it has been fairly good.
The next line above that is a black line and it represents the capacity of our new water plant at 30 million gallons per day, which we just invested $60 million in, and the line above that, the kind of dark blue line, horizontal line, represents our future capacity. The plant was designed to be expanded to 45 million gallons per day. If you look at that line, the 45 million gallon line across, and then look below that for all of the blue trend lines, those would be situations where in the past there would not have been enough water to run that plant at capacity. So we think we didn't enter into that investment of $60 million lightly. We have that capacity now, and we'd like to have the water available for that as well.
The obvious source of that kind of water is the Missouri River water; 96 percent of the usable surface water in North Dakota is in the Missouri River, and it makes sense, we think, to transport that east. And as was pointed out before, the 100 cubic feet per second that would go potentially to eastern North Dakota is about 1 percent of the entire water flowing through the State in the Missouri River.
Page 53 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And I had a graphic description which didn't get here, but if you were to take a pail of water that represents the water in the Missouri River going through Garrison and down out of the State, the amount that would be diverted into the eastern part of the State would be represented by just a single thimble of water.
We are also concerned about quality, and I'll let the written report deal with that. And we are also concerned about conservation, which we are doing in our community now and will continue to do and enhance that.
The last point I would like to make is my last paragraph in the written statement. Although impossible to predict with any certainty, it is believed that the Red River Valley has adequate water supply for the next 10 to 15 years. Should drought conditions occur, however, that estimate may be reduced 3 to 5 years. Consequently, little time remains to resolve these concerns. Activity must begin now to address the many issues relating to water quantity and quality. And I urge your favorable consideration of this critical legislation.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Furness may be found at end of hearing.]
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you.
Now our witness will be Mr. Russell D. Mason, Sr., chairman of Three Affiliated Tribes, in North Dakota.
Mr. Mason.
STATEMENT OF RUSSELL MASON, SR., CHAIRMAN, THREE AFFILIATED TRIBES, NORTH DAKOTA
Mr. MASON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the Subcommittee, Congressman Farr, and our good friend Congressman Earl Pomeroy. I want to thank you for the opportunity to present testimony today concerning H.R. 3012, the Dakota Water Resources Act.
Page 54 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I am Chairman Russell Mason of the Three Affiliated Tribes of the Bandan, Hidatsa, and Arikara Nations. Also, accompanying me is Chairwoman Mira Pearson of the Spirit Lake Nation, who is sitting in the audience here.
I'd like to share with you a little bit about the Three Affiliated Tribes. As you may recall, the Three Affiliated Tribes greeted Lewis and Clark in the early 19th century as they made their expedition up the Missouri River and over to the Pacific coast. And if it wasn't for the Three Affiliated Tribes, I don't think he would have survived his first winter. And also, I don't know if he would have been able to find his way if it hadn't been for a guide that was one of our women from the tribes up there, and that was Sakakawea who provided a guide as well as an interpreter.
But also, in sitting here and listening to the testimony and having testified at a number of hearings and on the Senate side, the Three Affiliated Tribes were one of the tribes that signed the 1851 Fort Laramie Treaty, at the time when we were given over 11 million acres.
Since that time, lands were taken by Executive Order, by congressional actions, and the last land grab—and if you were to look at the map of the Garrison Reservoir—is that the Three Affiliated Tribes gave the most and sacrificed the most. About 69 percent of the land needed for that dam belonged to the Three Affiliated Tribes. We occupied that valley; 99 percent of our people lived in that valley, and I grew up there. I can never go back, and I can never say, ''This is where I was born.'' like any one of you can go back wherever you were born.
It caused social disorganization that we're still recovering from. It disorganized our clanship systems, our medicine societies, and caused havoc. It took some of our most fertile lands from us.
What I want to say that, today—and I think that Congressman Farr identifies with this—we're one of the few States that has a solid working relationship with not only our congressional delegation, but also with our Governor, with our State legislatures, and our friendship goes across partisan lines. And I think many States could follow this example.
Page 55 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I want to say, clearly, that the Three Affiliated Tribes strongly supports the Dakota Water Resources Act and urges its immediate passage. And, I would like to show—everyone has their water bottles here, but I brought mine, too. But this is the water that we get from most of the wells in North Dakota. Someone just brought this to me. They said this was from the Committee coffee shop——
[Laughter.]
[continuing] which really isn't very far off from these other colors. In fact, my mother is 86 years old, and she lives out in the country. Her water was darker than this. We shut her well down, otherwise, I would have brought a sample. We have to haul her water. And so, without laboring—and I think that my good friends have given all of the information that is needed—is that we need this.
But also we were promised many things in the same manner that we were promised many things in our treaties. We were promised the replacement of a hospital; we have never received that.
We were promised a bridge, and that bridge that spans the Missouri River that we were talking about, Four Bears Bridge, is not an Indian bridge; it's a North Dakota bridge, and it has a lot to do with the commerce in western North Dakota. You have farmers and rangers that live on each side of the river who farm on the other side of the river. That needs to be replaced. Those spans for those bridges were taken from bridges that were constructed in the 1930's, and it is one of the most dangerous bridges in the country. And as Senator Conrad had mentioned is that one only needs to drive, not only on a Saturday night but anytime of the day, to see how dangerous that bridge is.
I would have several remaining issues that I hope this Committee could address, at a minimum in the final committee report of H.R. 3012.
One, is that we would ask that the language be in the final committee report recognizing the reserved water rights of the Three Affiliated Tribes to water from the Missouri River and its tributaries that are within the Fort Berthold known as Winters doctrine rights.
Page 56 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Two, we would also request that authority be provided for Federal funding of additional irrigation sites for the Three Affiliated Tribes, should they prove feasible other than those already authorized.
Finally, we would ask that the final Committee report accompany the bill include language that states that this bill fulfills some of the goals set forth in the Garrison Unit Joint Tribal Advisory Committee report, dated May 23, 1986. I have attached a copy of that report to my original copy of my written testimony and would ask that this be included in the record of this hearing.
As I mentioned, we were promised many things when we lost our homelands almost 50 years ago. And as Senator Dorgan said on the floor of the Senate when the Senate version of this bill was introduced, ''We expect the Federal Government this time to keep their promise.''
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Mason may be found at end of hearing.]
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you.
Our next witness will be Ms. Michelle McCormack, of Southwest Water Authority, in North Dakota.
Ms. McCormack.
STATEMENT OF MICHELLE McCORMACK, SOUTHWEST WATER AUTHORITY, NORTH DAKOTA
Ms. MCCORMACK. Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, my name is Michelle McCormack, and I have been a resident of southwest North Dakota for the past 17 years.
I am one of the many people in North Dakota that has benefited from the partially completed Southwest Pipeline project. I support the passage of legislation on the completion of Garrison Diversion because I know firsthand, the social, economic, and personal hardships of having poor water.
Page 57 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
My first home in southwest North Dakota had clear water, but it was ''hard enough to walk on'' according to the water tester. It was high in sodium and high in iron. It left rust stains on our clothes and it left stains and deposits on fixtures. It was so invasive that lifetime faucets had to be replaced every 7 years. Water pipes and shower heads filled up with hard lime deposits, so the water pressure was reduced, and eventually plumbing would leak and have to be replaced.
My husband and I built a house 10 years ago on a building site with an existing well. The well water was light brown, the color of tea, and it was soft, but it was very limited. When the cattle were drinking there was no water in the house.
That well began to fail after a few years. Because of the soils in our area, wells often fail, filling in with a light silt. We added filters, attempted to clear the water through the use of settling tanks, and finally we had to accept the fact that we needed a new well. At a cost of $12 a foot, we dug until we had spent over $6,000. And we found water—abundant, soft, potable, safe for cattle, but dark brown. We had the choice of digging deeper, hoping to find better water; however, there was no guarantee that it would be there. Or we could live with the brown water that we had and wait for the pipeline to come.
That brown water stained everything. One washing would turn a white dishtowel grey. Even dark clothes were dulled and dingy. My children learned to dry their hair after a shower; if they did not, their damp hair would stain the collars of their white t-shirt.
The picture you see here of the baby in the bathtub is my son. When he was five, he asked me if there was a rule that only motels and grandmas got to have white sheets. We bought dark towels, dark linens, and very little white clothing. We had to haul all our white laundry to the nearest laundromat, a 30-mile trip one way.
It took full strength toilet bowl cleaner to remove dried stains from sinks, showers, and fixtures. We distilled all the water we used for cooking and drinking and cleaning. The water had tested safe for human use, but boiling pasta or potatoes in that water was unappetizing at best. Our distiller ran 24 hours a day.
Page 58 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
It wasn't pretty and we endured it because we had to. Our family and friends hated to visit or stay overnight, and the kids' friends didn't like to see it. So there was a social cost and a high economic cost to distill, and haul laundry, and a long-term cost to the house plumbing and fixtures.
Our friends and our neighbors, they all have stories like this. They tell stories of faucets that erode away every 5 years; garbage disposal blades eaten by the water; stains, costs, frustrations, and hard work over a resource that most Americans take as a given part of their life.
I've been lucky; I am one of the people who benefited greatly from the Southwest Pipeline project. There are others.
Don and Sarah Froehlich from Belfield were about to sell their dairy cattle operation before the pipeline arrived at their farm. High levels of sulfate contaminated their water causing Don to be sick with flu-like symptoms for over a month. In addition, the water caused a bad taste in the milk and cheese their cattle produced.
Douglas Candee from Dickinson has expanded his buffalo herd to over 200 head which he attributes to the abundant, dependable water he receives from the Southwest Pipeline project.
Joe and Mag Kathrein, of New England, have struggled constantly with water in the past, hauling water twice a day to their cattle herd 20 miles round trip. Now they enjoy quality water in abundance.
Bernice Jahner, of Hettinger, appreciates the health benefits she receives from Southwest Pipeline water. For the past 5 years, she has been doctoring for ulcers on her legs, taking whirlpool baths twice a day. After using pipeline water for just 1 month, her doctors were amazed at her improvement.
The North Dakota State Water Commission has currently identified 524 projects that are necessary for water development in the State with an approximate cost of $1.8 billion. One hundred twenty-four of these projects are targeted specifically for the next biennium, at a total cost of $362 million. Several large projects, such as flood control for Grand Forks and Devil's Lake and the Maple River Dam are included in this cost.
Page 59 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I can personally say the cost of a pipeline water bill every month is a bargain, compared to what we paid to make our water usable. Pipeline water is better for our health, affordable, less work, and a real blessing to all of us in an area where wells are not reliable.
I have some supporting documents that I ask be made part of the record.
Thank you for the opportunity to share my experience.
[The prepared statement of Ms. McCormack may be found at end of hearing.]
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you, and the documents that you and I think Mr. Mason referred to will be admitted, without objection.
[The information referred may be found at end of hearing.]
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Our final witness in this panel is a former staff director of this Subcommittee in a previous life and is the former Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation, and now is senior vice-president for Public Policy of the National Audubon Society, Mr. Dan Beard.
Mr. Beard, welcome.
STATEMENT OF DAN BEARD, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, PUBLIC POLICY, NATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY, WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. BEARD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's nice to be back.
I appreciate the opportuni