SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS
Page 1 TOP OF DOC
64–145 l
1999
H.R. 2918, DAKOTA WATER RESOURCES ACT OF 1999
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER
of the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
SEPTEMBER 30, 1999, WASHINGTON, DC
Serial No. 106–66
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-HAGE, Idaho
GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California
WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North Carolina
WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas
Page 3 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
CHRIS CANNON, Utah
KEVIN BRADY, Texas
JOHN PETERSON, Pennsylvania
RICK HILL, Montana
BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado
JIM GIBBONS, Nevada
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana
GREG WALDEN, Oregon
DON SHERWOOD, Pennsylvania
ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina
MIKE SIMPSON, Idaho
THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado
GEORGE MILLER, California
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
ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam
PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island
ADAM SMITH, Washington
CHRIS JOHN, Louisiana
DONNA MC CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands
RON KIND, Wisconsin
JAY INSLEE, Washington
GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
TOM UDALL, New Mexico
MARK UDALL, Colorado
JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York
RUSH D. HOLT, New Jersey
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-HAGE, Idaho
GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California
Page 5 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Texas
GREG WALDEN, Oregon
MIKE SIMPSOM, Idaho
CALVIN M. DOOLEY, California
GEORGE MILLER, California
PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
OWEN B. PICKETT, Virginia
ADAM SMITH, Washington
DONNA MC CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands
GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
ROBERT FABER, Staff Director/Counsel
JOSHUA JOHNSON, Professional Staff
STEVE LANICH, Minority Staff
C O N T E N T S
Hearing held Thursday, September 30, 1999
Statement of Members:
Pomeroy, Hon. Earl, a Representative at Large in Congress from the State of North Dakota
Prepared statement of
Vento, Hon. Bruce, a Representative in Congress from the State of Minnesota, prepared statement of
Page 6 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Cubin, Hon. Barbara, a Repesentative in Congress from the State of Wyoming, prepared statement of
Statement of Witnesses:
Chandler, James, Counsel, U.S. Section of the International Joint Commission
Prepared statement of
Conrad, Hon. Kent, Senator, North Dakota, U.S. Senate
Prepared statement of
Dorgan, Byron L., Senator, North Dakota, U.S. Senate
Prepared statement of
Hall, Tex,
Prepared statement of
Koland, Dave, Executive Director, North Dakota Rural Water Systems Association
Prepared statement of
Martinez, Hon. Eluid, Commissioner, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Department of the Interior
Prepared statement of
Schafer, Hon. Edward T., Governor, North Dakota
Prepared statement of
Additional material supplied:
City of Grand Forks, Grand Forks, North Dakota, prepared statement of
Wildlife Society, North Dakota Chapter, prepared statement of
Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, prepared statement of
Ventura, Jesse, Governor of Minnesota, prepared statement of
Communications submitted:
Page 7 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Furness, Bruce, Mayor, Fargo, North Dakota, prepared statement of
National Water Resources Commission, letter to Mr. Doolittle
Text of H.R. 2918
H.R. 2918, DAKOTA WATER RESOURCES ACT OF 1999
Thursday, September 30, 1999
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Water and Power,
Committee on Resources,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2 p.m., in Room 1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. John Doolittle [chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. The Subcommittee on Water and Power will come to order. We are meeting today to hear testimony concerning H.R. 2918, the Dakota Water Resources Act of 1999.
[The information follows:]
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Today's hearing covers this Act, and it is a project that has provoked thousands of hours of debate over the last several decades. It is the most expensive water project this Subcommittee has considered in the last 5 years.
In the past 2 years, while negotiations have been under way in North Dakota, I have remained neutral concerning the specific provisions of the bill. I have consistently indicated that there were some issues we wanted to see addressed, but that I remained sympathetic to the needs of the people of North Dakota.
Page 8 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Today I am glad that we have such a comprehensive turnout, representing the political leadership of the State, for it gives me an opportunity to address an important issue concerning the future of this legislation.
Over the last few months, the sponsors of this project have spent little time, frankly, working with our Subcommittee to address the issues we have raised. Some individuals interested in the advancement of this legislation have dissuaded witnesses who this Subcommittee has sought to testify concerning the legislation before us, and we have heard from several sources that it is the intent of the advocates of this bill to dismiss the concerns of this Subcommittee and have the project placed on some major end-of-the-session legislative package without separate committee and House action.
Let me just be clear and direct about this. Such an approach would be ill-advised and opposed by this Subcommittee, and I would hope that there are members on both sides of the aisle who would join me in actively opposing such a course of action, should it be undertaken.
I will be including for the record a letter from the Canadian Ambassador to the United States and testimony from the Governor of Minnesota strongly opposing the legislation in its current form. Both indicate opposition to the substance of the legislation, as well as to the lack of inclusion in the process that led to the current draft of the bill.
I would have to say, based on my own experience, that they may have some legitimate concerns. I do not feel that the current witness list represents the true range of opinions concerning this project. For instance, with the understanding that there would be other witnesses here that would address the diversity of views, the National Audubon Society agreed to withhold their testifimony to keep the length of the hearing more manageable. Although they will not present oral testimony, they will submit written testimony and do remain strongly opposed to the legislation.
Page 9 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
While there are numerous technical details requiring attention, let me mention three major issues that I believe we must address prior to taking action on this legislation.
One, the financing of the project in light of the traditional funding alternatives for Bureau of Reclamation authorizations must be adjusted. While I believe there are some legitimate concerns about how to handle expenditures for unusual portions of the project which have already been constructed, there are major portions of the proposed project that should be either reimbursable or financed through other mechanisms.
Indeed, we specifically held a hearing on this subject 2 months ago to highlight the need for developing a responsible approach, funding approach to these projects. When we look at the reality of the Federal budget, we have to realize we do not have the money there to simply start another new grant program to fund all the projects requested before this Subcommittee. For all you hear in the news about vast Federal surpluses, the reality is that we have enough money to maintain economic health and pay down a portion of our national debt.
Two, this bill as currently drafted is so complex and poorly structured that it is nearly incomprehensible. We have been provided with a strike-out-and-add version of the underlying legislation that is to be amended by the bill before us today.
Comparing that version, the bill that is before us today and the testimony of the witnesses, there are major discrepancies. For instance, there are provisions which some witnesses contend are reimbursable that are either clearly not reimbursable or that contain exemption clauses that render them likely to be nonreimbursable.
Three, a tremendous amount of the authorization is not tied to any particular development project. Much of it is simply a preauthorization for the expenditure of hundreds of millions of dollars.
With that, I would like to look forward to hearing the testimony, and I am going to recognize Mr. Dooley for his statement.
Page 10 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. DOOLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you for holding this hearing today to review H.R. 2918, the Dakota Water Resources Act of 1999.
I wish to welcome our witnesses today. It is certainly a measure of the importance of this legislation to the people of North Dakota that we have here today with us both of our Senators, as well as the congressional representative from North Dakota.
I am aware that there are serious water supply and water quality needs in North Dakota, and coming from an area in which water is in chronically short supply, I am very sympathetic to these efforts to address such concerns.
Amending the Garrison Diversion Reformulation Act of 1986 to better address these concerns, as H.R. 2918 does, may well be the most appropriate way to approach the problem. I look forward to today's hearing, during which we will hear more about this particular legislative proposal, and I also look forward to working with the chairman and my colleagues from North Dakota to achieve a longer term solution to the water supply needs of the people of North Dakota.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you.
The Chair will recognize Mr. Pomeroy, who will introduce our guests to begin.
Mr. POMEROY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for holding this hearing, and just by way of format, I would make some brief opening remarks and be joined by North Dakota's Governor, Ed Schafer, and our Senators when they get done voting and return, and then we will have a second panel in addition, with further testimony in support.
Mr. Chairman, just to quickly address a couple of the concerns you have raised, we have believed that I negotiated in the past with you the witnesses to attend today from our part, and we agreed that Garrison Diversion Conservative District would not be attending so we might keep the hearing length short and not be redundant.
Page 11 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
It certainly has not been my intention to exclude any of you from any perspective, although, further, I did not view it as my responsibility to put on the panel the project's major detractors. Obviously, I am for the project. What we have assembled for you in support of the project are the various and diverse component parts of this collaborative effort producing this vital project for North Dakota.
Similarly, we have requested that this hearing be held in July. I certainly, and the chairman has been accommodating, so I'm not saying that to carp, but in no event have I tried in any way to exclude the primacy of this Committee in considering this very important matter to North Dakota.
What is more, I have enjoyed working with your staff, Mr. Faber, who has gone over this legislation line by line, in addition to the minority staff, two of which recently came to North Dakota, Mr. Lanich and Mr. Cramer.
While visiting a farmstead in the southwestern part of the State, they were given a test, three bottles: Which is the Pepsi, which is the tap water, which is the coffee. They could not pass the test. I wonder if you can?
Let me make it short, this is the tap water. That is why this project is so very, very important.
The project, as will be explained, is a consensus plan born initially out of North Dakota's participation in the Pick-Sloan project. Per that project, we were hosts to two reservoirs resulting from dams placed on the Missouri River. A flood the size of Rhode Island visited North Dakota, and has not left. We lost over 500,000 acres of bottom land. In exchange for that, we were promised a water project. The initial version of it was a grand irrigation type project. That was obviously something not concluded, and the plan was reformulated in a 1986 Act.
Now, as we look at it, we have agreed across the political spectrum, rather than look back, let us look forward and evaluate whether this design best meets our needs in the 21st century. It does not. We have advanced this plan, which involves greater consensus than we have ever had on this important water project, including very highly credible representatives of the environmental community; in addition, at a total authorized cost of $500 million below the existing authorization.
Page 12 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The bill before you represents cost-effective, treaty-compliant, and environmentally sound water policy, and brings fair and reasonable closure to the commitment by the Federal Government to the State of North Dakota.
Allow me to introduce North Dakota's Governor, Governor Ed Schafer.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Governor Schafer.
STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD T. SCHAFER, GOVERNOR, NORTH DAKOTA
Governor SCHAFER. Thank you, Congressman Pomeroy. Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to be here today to once again testify in support of the Dakota Water Resources Act.
I promised I will be brief. I will try not to duplicate the testimony. But I do have a couple of important points on this legislation and what it means to our State of North Dakota.
This Dakota Water Resources Act unlocks North Dakota's future. It is an indispensable element for water supply, for economic development, for agriculture, recreation, tourism, and wildlife enhancements in our State.
Why, I suppose you ask, are we looking for this project? I think we can point to the fact that North Dakota suffers from a lack of an adequate water supply of good quality water for drinking, and in many places we have an insufficient quantity of water to meet the needs of our communities.
I think the solution to this challenge is the delivery of water from the Missouri River throughout the State, particularly to the Red River Valley, which is on the easternmost part of North Dakota. In fact, it encompasses the eastern third of our State.
The drafters of the Act have asked everyone with interest in this legislation in our State to participate in developing an acceptable project for all interests involved. In fact, I find it very interesting that in a bipartisan approach, we have the congressional delegation, the Governor's administration, a unanimous resolution in the legislature on both sides, our wildlife, our environmental interests, and everybody is on board in North Dakota for this project.
Page 13 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In that effort, I would also like to introduce our majority leader of the House of Representatives, Representative John Dorso, he is here with us today, who generated this unanimous resolution from our legislature. John is over here. Thanks for being with us, John.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. We welcome you, Mr. Dorso. You and I have met before on an earlier occasion, at last year's hearing, where you voiced strong support for the project.
Governor SCHAFER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
We have tried to engineer this project to meet the needs and to address the concerns that people have had with this project. We have scaled down what was originally a multi-billion dollar federally-funded irrigation project, and that has disappeared into a management program for really the municipal, rural, and industrial water needs of our State.
The new approach emphasizes supplying water to small communities, rural residents, Indian reservations, and cities that are in desperate need of quality, affordable, and reliable water supplies.
This bill enhances the wildlife and natural resources. It requires strict compliance with all environmental laws and the Boundary Waters Treaties Act of 1909 between the United States and Canada. Acting responsible and as good neighbors to the peoples of Canada and Minnesota has always been a priority to the supporters of this legislation.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your comments about including witnesses and other interested parties in this process, but I can tell you from my conversations with the ambassador in Canada, my conversations with the premier of Manitoba about this issue, whose province, obviously, would be affected, they have mentioned to me directly that they are unalterably opposed to this program. They are not interested in debate. They are not interested in facts or changes or new technology. This is just opposition, pure and simple. They will not move, as much as we have tried.
Page 14 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I also had a chance to read the testimony and comments of Governor Jesse Ventura. I take exception to the things he said. I know he is a new Governor, and I certainly do not want to get into the wrestling ring with him over this, but really, these are pulled out of an old file from 10 and 15 years ago. They totally disregard the commitments that have been made in this new legislation. They totally disregard the new technologies of biota transfer with a buried pipeline and the opportunity to treat that water within drinking water standards as it moves across the Continental Divide.
I appreciate the comments, but these are old and totally disregard what is going on today.
The opponents of the legislation really have four major concerns. They say we must guarantee and prove beyond any doubt that harm will not occur to another water supply. Of course, that is impossible. Nobody can guarantee beyond a shadow of a doubt. But what we do guarantee is that we will comply with all regulations, all laws that are established by the Boundary Waters Treaties Act. We have two safeguards in the legislation, the compliance to the 1909 Boundary Waters Treaties Act will be determined prior to construction, and the Secretary of Interior, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Environmental Protection Agency, must certify compliance before construction of any interbasin transfer system.
I think the second concern is biotic transfer. As I mentioned, this is a big issue, but there has been for more than a decade an ongoing potential impact study going on by the interbasin biotic transfer study program. It is a cooperative program by the Universities of Manitoba and North Dakota. No credible scientific evidence has been found to identify specific foreign biota or any threat to these particular water resources. To be thorough, this Act does address those undocumented concerns by agreeing to deliver this by a buried pipeline of treated water that will result in a 99.99 percent removal of any virus. That is an extraordinary and unprecedented precaution.
Page 15 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Third, some believe this is some kind of a back door approach to divert Missouri River water into another problem area that we have there of Devil's Lake. As you are also aware of that project, Devil's Lake has risen 25 feet in the last 6 years. We are trying to desperately decrease that, not increase it with diverting water in there, I can assure you.
The issues of flood control in an inlet intake, which are some peoples' concerns, are totally separated not only physically but by law.
Fourth, there are some concerns about diversion causing harm to downstream Missouri States. I am not sure how that happens, but the diversion of the Missouri River water to the Red River-Red River Valley for this Act is less than 1 percent of the river flow.
Now that I have outlined quickly here what this Act does not do, let me tell you quickly what it does do. It supplies—the total remaining water needs in our State are about $600 million. That was for more than 520,000 people that are affected in 144 water systems.
This gets us moving in that direction. The water supply and water treatment needs also of the Indian reservations within North Dakota are addressed in this bill with $200 million authorized towards those needs.
Finally, the State of North Dakota stands ready to contribute the non-Federal share for the State MR&I program.
I want to ask you quickly to support this legislation for three reasons. The legislation is a bipartisan effort, and has broad-based support across the State of North Dakota. As I mentioned, the congressional delegation, the Governor's administration, the wildlife and environmental groups, and unanimous action by the legislature in our State deems that we move forward with this legislation.
Congressman Pomeroy mentioned it is economically sound, environmentally proper, and it tends to solve some problems of water issues of high-quality affordable water in areas of our State.
Page 16 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
This Act I think is a reasonable solution from the Federal perspective. We have reduced the acres of irrigation. We know that is a problem with you. Although our MR&I needs total more than $600 million, we have agreed to provide $100 million to up front projects and also to reimburse $200 million for the delivery of water to the river.
The people of North Dakota are willing to pay our 50 percent share of identified MR&I needs. The Dakota Water Resources Act will deliver the promises made to our citizens in 1944 to bring a final and reasonable conclusion to this long and often controversial history of the Garrison diversion project.
Finally, let me mention one more issue. I am very proud of the opportunity or the issue that we have put together, the partnership we have put together with the Natural Resources Trust Fund. We have established a great working partnership with the Federal Government and State government on this issue.
We have funded, with our State funds, our portion and share. It has gone to restore wildlife and wetlands areas. I am pleased that this trust fund will also continue in the new legislation.
The Dakota Water Resources Act has laid out a plan for continued consultation. Legitimate concerns should be and will be addressed. No one should be allowed to hold up the conclusion of this project simply because they have outdated philosophies on using surplus Missouri River water, or they have some outdated technology mentality; of meeting legitimate needs of the State of North Dakota.
Mr. Chairman, I have submitted more testimony than that in writing. I appreciate the opportunity to be with you today. We would be glad to answer any questions that you may have.
[The prepared statement of Governor Schafer follows:]
STATEMENT OF EDWARD T. SCHAFER
Page 17 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Chairinan 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.
Much of the day-to-day living that goes on in North Dakota, Minnesota, Manitoba and Saskatchewan takes place without giving much consideration to borders created by governments. The natural resources that move between the borders are the people's to manage, not only for the well being of any one individual or group, but for the well being of everyone living on the prairie, for the land, water and wildlife itself . . . for today and the future.
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.
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 drafters of the Dakota Water Resources Act realize this responsibility, have asked others to participate in the process of finding an acceptable project for all interests involved and have scaled down what was originally a multi-billion dollar, federally funded irrigation project into a management program for municipal, rural and industrial water needs. The new approach emphasizes supplying water to small communities, rural residents, Indian reservations, and cities that are in desperate need of a quality, affordable and reliable water supply. At the same time, the bill enhances wildlife and natural resources and requires strict compliance with environmental laws and the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909 between the United States and Canada.
Page 18 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Acting responsibly, as good neighbors to the people and governments of Canada and Minnesota has always been a priority among the sponsors of the Garrison Diversion legislation. While attempting to do so in every way possible, we cannot lose sight of our ultimate purpose . . . to deliver on the promise of a dependable water supply system that meets the needs of the people who live and work within the Red River Basin. That being the most-important priority, the very real needs of these people should not allow uncontested veto powers by Minnesota or Canada. We can no longer delay project completion because of philosophical differences or unwarranted criticism.
The water supply needs of the Red River Valley are being evaluated for 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. 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.
The argument opponents have raised is that the Act should be able to guarantee or prove beyond any doubt that harm will not occur to another water supply. That is, of course, impossible. What we can guarantee is that we will comply with all the regulations and laws established by the Boundary Waters Treaty. In fact, the Dakota Water Resources Act requires that compliance with the 1909 Boundary Waters Treaty be determined prior to construction. The Act also requires the Secretary of Interior, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the EPA, to certify compliance before construction of any interbasin conveyance system. This recent change in the DWRA language was made to accommodate Canadian concerns, and adopted by the sponsors of the bill.
The issue of trans-basin biota transfer has plagued the project for years. For more than a decade, these potential trans-basin biota transfer impacts have been studied by the Interbasin Biota Transfer Study Program, a co-operative venture of Universities in Manitoba and North Dakota. The series of studies conducted by teams of scientists from both the United States and Canada have attempted to identify foreign biota and the future environmental impact they might have on Red River Basin water. No credible scientific evidence has been found to identify specific foreign biota or any threat to these particular water resources. Although these conclusions do not totally dismiss the chances that such biota does exist, and that it may be potentially harmful, no specific cause for alarm has been documented.
Page 19 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The sponsors of the Dakota Water Resources Act of 1999 have even gone so far as to address the undocumented concerns by agreeing to treat water delivered by a buried pipeline to the Red River Valley in eastern North Dakota. In fact, treatment levels for this water would equal disinfection standards for drinking water and result in a 99.99% removal of viruses—an extraordinary and unprecedented precaution—especially when you consider the fact that a number of interbasin water diversion projects in the Western United States have been completed without disinfection.
Concerns have also been raised about the state's effort at flood control at Devils Lake, which some suggest is a back door approach to divert Missouri River water to Devils Lake. The proposed Devils Lake outlet cannot be operated to divert Missouri River water into Devils Lake. The lake has risen 25 feet in the last 6 years and the Federal agencies involved in finding a solution, understand that the goal is to decrease rather than increase the water levels in Devils Lake. These issues of flood control and an inlet are totally separated physically, as well as by law. 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. 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.
Further concerns about diversion causing harm to downstream Missouri states is unfounded. Diversion of Missouri River water to the Red River Valley for the Dakota Water Resources Act is less than 1 percent of the river. If 200 cfs is diverted daily for nine months from the Missouri River into the Red River Valley, only 108-thousand acre-feet of the annual total of 95-million acre-feet of water that flows by Herman, Missouri would be diverted. That's less than 0.2 percent of volume.
Page 20 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
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 water supply needs are for more than 520,000 people in 144 water systems including community and rural needs. In preparation for passage of this legislation, the State of North Dakota has established the means for contributing the non-Federal share of the state MR&I program.
The water supply and water treatment needs of the Indian reservations within North Dakota are also addressed in the bill with $200 million authorized towards those needs. The North Dakota citizens who are tribal members, deserve to have their exceptional needs addressed. This legislation includes an MR&I component, that makes great strides towards meeting the needs of our Native American citizens.
The Dakota Water Resources Act has laid out a plan for continued consultation, but the limit needs to be realized. Legitimate concerns should and will be addressed, but no one should be allowed to hold up completion of this project simply because they have an outdated philosophy on using surplus Missouri River water to meet the legitimate needs of the State of North Dakota.
This bill is supported by Republicans as well as Democrats across North Dakota. In 1994 we began a process in the state to bring together all interests to forge an agreement regarding Garrison. We have struggled for years until all interests within the state have reached an agreement that is embodied in this legislation. It is supported by the Democrats and Republicans in the North Dakota Legislature, by the Democrats in our congressional delegation, by the Republican in the Governor's office, and by diverse groups of people ranging from farm organizations to education associations. This legislation is truly a bi-partisan effort at finding agreement on an enormously important piece of legislation that has languished for a decade waiting for completion. It is an economically and environmentally sound plan that attempts to solve some of the water issues and help provide high quality, affordable water to areas of need across the state.
Page 21 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. 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.
The Dakota Water Resources Act will bring to a reasonable and final conclusion, the long and sometimes controversial history of Garrison. 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 and as well to the growth of the nation. 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.
Thank you.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you, Governor.
I will recognize Senator Kent Conrad for his testimony. Welcome.
Page 22 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
STATEMENT OF HON. KENT CONRAD, SENATOR, NORTH DAKOTA, U.S. SENATE
Senator CONRAD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
If I could just start by saying that I respect the jurisdiction of this Committee, Mr. Chairman, and I don't know what the legislative process, how it will unfold, but I have great respect for the jurisdiction of this Committee.
I have great respect for the chairman of this Committee. We are going to do everything we can to be responsive to the concerns of this Committee. I want to say that up front and very clearly.
Mr. Chairman, this bill, as the Governor describes, enjoys incredibly broad support in the State of North Dakota. This is truly bipartisan. Every water group in North Dakota supports this, every affected city supports this. The major business organizations in our State support it. The North Dakota rural electrics support it. Every water users group support it. So I think this has broad support in the State of North Dakota, including, and I want to emphasize this, the major environmental groups of North Dakota.
The reason we have had such a breakthrough since our last hearing, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, is because we have altered this project dramatically. This is not the old Garrison project. This is a new project that is taxpayer-friendly, that is environmentally sensitive, and that makes sense for the water needs of North Dakota.
So I hope we won't look at this project through the lens of the old project, because we have dramatically changed it in negotiations with members on this side, on the Senate side, and the administration. That is what has led the administration to endorse this project.
Mr. Chairman, the need, I think, is really very clear. This is a sample of water from the Leonard Jacobs residence in Reeder, North Dakota. It looks like coffee or iced tea, but I can tell you, it is a lot less drinkable than that. This is a problem we have all over North Dakota.
Page 23 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Chairman, this chart shows the comparison of the typical water supply for rural North Dakotans, that jar on the right. The jar on the left represents water that is delivered via pipeline: clean, healthy water. That is why we need this project, Mr. Chairman. We need it desperately.
This chart shows a young child bathing in the typical water we see in southwestern North Dakota and northwestern North Dakota. Can you imagine putting your child in that kind of water for a bath? But that happens every night in hundreds and thousands of households across North Dakota. We need your help. We need your help to change that.
Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, we also need to be able to deliver water to eastern North Dakota, because in the past we have seen repeatedly that the Red River has become so dry you could walk across it without getting your shoes wet. This is 1910. The Red River was virtually dry then. It happened also in the thirties. We can fairly anticipate it is going to happen again. That is why this project is so important.
Let me just say what this bill contains. It contains $200 million for statewide municipal, rural, and industrial water projects, $200 million for tribal MR&I.
I might say that tribal water supplies in many cases are even worse than what I have shown here. There is $200 million to deliver water to the Red River Valley, $25 million for an expanded natural resources trust, and $6.5 million for recreation projects. This represents, in negotiations with the administration, a $140 million reduction from the legislation as introduced, and it represents a $600 million reduction from the cost of the currently-authorized project. That is why we believe this is taxpayer-friendly.
As I have indicated, we also enjoy the support of the environmental organizations in North Dakota, because we have made it environmentally sensitive.
We have also made this project treaty-compliant. I know some of you have heard from our neighbors to the north. As the Governor has indicated, we have no intention to violate the Boundary Waters Treaty. We intend to comply with it, because we know we can.
Page 24 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, I hope very much that you will work on this legislation, suggest to us how it could be improved, but help us move it forward, because it is needed. It is broadly supported in North Dakota, and I believe it deserves your support.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the Committee.
[The prepared statement of Senator Conrad follows:]
STATEMENT OF HON. KENT CONRAD, A SENATOR IN THE CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MORTH DAKOTA
INTRODUCTION
Mr. Chairman, thank you for providing me the opportunity to testify in strong support of the Dakota Water Resources Act of 1999. I appreciate your willingness to hold this hearing—the second in 2 years on this bill—and hope to be able to demonstrate the significant progress we have made on this legislation in recent months.
I am especially pleased that this bill enjoys incredibly broad support. As you heard last year, and as you will hear today, the bill has the unanimous support of the bipartisan elected leadership of the State of North Dakota. It is supported by North Dakota water users and North Dakota conservation organizations—groups that have historically disagreed on water policy in our state. The bill is supported by the Greater North Dakota Association (our chamber of commerce) and the North Dakota Education Association. Mr. Chairman, this bill enjoys the broadest support of any piece of legislation affecting my state that I have worked on in my two terms in the Senate.
Additionally, we are extremely pleased that the bill is supported by the Administration. After more than a year of discussions, covering more than 60 issues, last spring we reached agreement on this bill. In reaching that agreement, we reduced the cost of the legislation by $140 million, strengthened environmental provisions in the bill, and provided additional assurances to our Canadian neighbors.
Page 25 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The bill before the Committee is not our grand-daddy's Garrison project. The bill enjoys the support of North Dakota and the Administration because it is a fiscally-sound, environmentally-sensitive, and Treaty-compliant plan to complete the Garrison Diversion project. We believe the bill deserves the support of this Committee, and we are ready to work hard with you to garner your support.
THE NEED
On the verge of the 21st century, North Dakota still faces significant water development needs to meet the basic water demands of our citizens and to ensure a bright economic future for our state. North Dakota is a semi-arid state that historically has suffered from insufficient water supplies as well as water quality problems.
These charts show the dramatic need for water development in North Dakota.
This chart shows a sample of the poor quality water directly from the tap of some of our residents. This water sample on the left is well water from a farmstead in southwest North Dakota. It is as dark as weak coffee, but not nearly as fit to drink. The water sample on the right in the chart shows water delivered by the Southwest Pipeline Project, which is clear and clean and fit to drink. Only through the funds provided by the cost-shared Garrison MR&I program could this clean water have become a reality.
I recently attended a ''turning on the tap'' ceremony in Hettinger, North Dakota sponsored by the Southwest Pipeline project. The Southwest Pipeline project is one of North Dakota's true success stories, bringing more than 900 million gallons of water annually to more than 28,000 homes and businesses across Southwest North Dakota.
The dedication event represented the completion of another phase of the project to bring water to the Hettinger and Reeder areas in Adams County North Dakota. You should have seen the elation in people's faces as clean, clear water flowed from the faucet. For the first time in their lives, people in the area do not need to haul water several times a month and the project means white clothes will come out of the wash white, not grey.
Page 26 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
This next chart shows a picture of a baby bathing in dirty water from southwestern North Dakota. It is the same kind of water shown in the first picture, and is as unfit to bathe in as it would be to drink. This is what we need to change in North Dakota.
We also must meet the water needs of the Red River Valley.
The next chart shows Red River nearly dry in Fargo in 1910. While we all remember the flooding of 1997, we must also remember that the Red River has been nearly dry on many occasions. At times you could walk across the river without getting your feet wet. This picture illustrates the times the river has been nearly dry, leaving the communities up and down the Red River Valley without a reliable source of water.
THE BILL
As I said at the beginning of my statement, the Dakota Water Resources Act is not our grand-daddy's Garrison project. It represents a new vision to address the 21st Century water needs of my state. The bill before the Committee today reflects the realistic contemporary water needs of the State, and represents a realistic settlement to the long-standing commitment made to our state when we agreed to host a permanent 500,000-acre flood.
Fundamentally our bill proposes to further reduce irrigation in exchange for additional MR&I development, and also proposes innovative ways to meet the other purposes of the project.
Our bill includes:
f $200 million for statewide MR&I projects;
f $200 million for Tribal MR&I projects;
f $200 million for a Red River Valley Water project;
Page 27 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
f $25 million for an expanded Natural Resources Trust;
f $6.5 million for recreation projects;
f Requires the state to pay for existing features at the time and to the extent those features are actually used;
f About 70,000 acres of irrigation, and a prohibition on irrigation development in the Hudson Bay drainage basin;
f Requires compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act and the Boundary Waters Treaty with Canada; and
f Encourages the State to establish a water conservation program using funds from the bill.
The bill will result in a project that will cost about $600 million less than the currently-authorized project would cost the government to fully construct.
THE PROCESS
We have engaged in an unprecedented and cooperative process. The six years of effort have included discussions with interested North Dakotans representing every interest, with the Federal agencies, and with National and North Dakota environmental organizations. In February, 1997, we held a marathon 10 hour negotiating session with environmental interests. That meeting resulted in an agreement on 12 principles that would guide our legislative proposal. The bill before the Committee remains true to the agreement we reached with the conservation organizations more than two years ago, and we are extremely pleased that the North Dakota Wildlife Society and the North Dakota Chapter of the Wildlife Federation support the bill.
The result is a product that has nearly unanimous support of leaders in North Dakota. This bill has the support of the bipartisan elected leadership of North Dakota from every level of government—Federal, state, tribal, and local. It has the support of water interests; business leaders; ND conservation organizations; large and small cities; agriculture; rural electric co-ops; even the ND Education Association.
Page 28 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
CONCLUSION
Mr. Chairman, this legislation represents a fiscally-sound, environmentally-sensitive, Treaty-compliant approach to completing the Garrison project. The bill will help meet the contemporary water needs of our state while enhancing our natural resources. I hope this represents the final chapter in the history of this project, and urge the Committee to join us in supporting passage of this bill.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you. Our next witness will be Senator Byron Dorgan.
STATEMENT OF BYRON L. DORGAN, SENATOR, NORTH DAKOTA, U.S. SENATE
Senator DORGAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much. I am a member of the authorizing committee in the Senate as well on this issue, and we have just recently voted this bill out of the Senate committee. It is now going to be going to the Senate floor at some point.
We did that because this bill makes good sense. There has been a great deal of work done. A Republican Governor, a Democratic congressional delegation, a bipartisan group of leaders of the State House and the State Senate have all agreed on this project and the changes and the alterations that have been necessary to advance to this piece of legislation.
It is not just officials, however, it is a representative group of North Dakotans, representing a wide range of interests, including environmental groups, who have joined us and work with us. This is almost unprecedented in our State. All of us agree that this represents the best approach, a sound approach to respond to the needs of our State.
Page 29 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I want to talk just for a moment about what this is and what it is not, because that is very important to understand.
First of all, this project is not some historical accident, and it is not the result of some thick slather of pork that someone attached to some bill 40 years ago. It is not that. This project is the second half of a contract that the Federal Government made with the people of the State of North Dakota. That contract says we will have two parts. In both the Federal Government initiated it and signed it and the people of North Dakota agreed to it. The contract was to say, we want to harness the Missouri River, and we want you in North Dakota to have a permanent flood forever the size of the State of Rhode Island, right smack in the middle of your State.
Fellow citizens of North Dakota, the Federal Government said, if you will allow a permanent flood to visit your State forever, we will give you something in return. We pledge to that you by contract will have an opportunity to move the water behind that permanent flood, now called a reservoir, around your State. You will then be able to address the issue of the Red River running dry and a wide range of other serious water quality problems in North Dakota.
That was the bargain. We did not come hat in hand asking anybody for anything, and never have. The bargain was, take the flood, keep the flood forever, and we promise you we will provide water development benefits as a result.
We got the flood. We invite all of you to come and see it. There is good fishing, good recreation. There are some benefits to it, but nonetheless, it is a permanent flood in the middle of our State. Moreover, we have not yet received the full flower of develpoment benefits promised us by the Federal Government to move this water around our State and have the other capabilities that are necessary for our future.
Our State, of all the western reclamation States, is the one that has been left behind. We come to you today with a final revision of this project, saying that this is what is necessary for the Federal Government to do to keep its bargain with the people of North Dakota.
Page 30 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Senator Conrad indicated this proposal reduces the authorized project by over $600 million. These changes that are proposed will reaffirm the decision-making of the Secretary of Interior on key issues. Some were worried that the decision-making on whether the Red River Valley needs, for example, would exclusively go to North Dakota. That will not be the case. This bill addresses forthrightly and completely the concerns of Canada. Those who say different are wrong. This bill addresses those Canadian concerns completely.
Further, the bill deauthorizes the Lonetree feature to which Canada had previously objected and on which it demanded consultation. This deauthorizes it and converts it into a wildlife enhancement area.
This bill, fourth, strengthens environmental protection, and does so by incorporating specific recommendations of the North Dakota wildlife and conservation groups. This bill creates a project that does not destroy wetlands, it preserves wetlands. In short, this bill is very important for the future of our State.
If we speak about this with some passion and some impatience, I expect you will understand why. Fifty years, 30 years, 20 years, at some point the Federal Government must keep its bargain with the people of North Dakota. It can do so by passing a piece of legislation that has broad bipartisan support, makes good common sense, reduces by over $1 billion according to Administration testimony the authorized project that now exists, and enhances the ecomomy and assists the people of our region of America in a manner that was envisioned 50 years ago when the dual promise for flood control and other development was made.
[The prepared statement of Senator Dorgan follows:]
STATEMENT OF HON. BYRON L. DORGAN, A SENATOR IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA
Mr. CHAIRMAN:
I welcome the opportunity to testify today in support of the Dakota Water Resources Act (H.R. 2918) introduced by Representative Pomeroy. Senator Conrad and I have introduced S. 623 which, as amended, is identical to the House bill.
Page 31 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Let me say a few words about the Dakota Water Resources Act. Senator Conrad, Rep. Pomeroy, and I have worked with North Dakota Governor Edward Schafer and the statewide elected leaders of North Dakota to develop a bipartisan consensus in support of this bill. The bill is widely supported by tribal and local governments as well as North Dakota wildlife, water user, and business groups.
With amendments adopted in the Senate Energy Committee mark-up last week, it is now supported by the Clinton Administration as well. So we have achieved some very strong support for this critical legislation.
This is a water development bill that I am proud to sponsor. It reduces Federal costs, meets environmental and international obligations, and very importantly, fulfills the Federal promise to address North Dakota's contemporary water needs. This bill meets the Federal obligation to compensate North Dakota for farm lands lost to a Federal flood control project. It cannot be judged as just another rural water bill. It is much more.
The Federal Commitment to North Dakota
Over fifty years ago, the Federal Government began building a series of mainstream dams on the Missouri River to provide flood protection, dependable river navigation, and inexpensive hydro power—primarily for the benefit of states in the Lower Missouri Basin. These problems became acute when flooding during WWII disrupted the transport of war supplies and spawned disaster relief needs in a budget already overstretched.
When North Dakota allowed the Garrison Dam and Reservoir to be built in the state (along with the added impact in North Dakota created by the Oahe Reservoir in South Dakota), it agreed to host permanent floods that inundated 500,000 acres of prime farm land and the Indian communities on two reservations. The state and Tribes agreed to this arrangement in exchange for a promise that the Federal Government would replace the loss of these economic and social assets with a major water development project, the Garrison Diversion Unit.
Page 32 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
But 50 years later, the project is less than half done.
We were promised a major water and irrigation project. It was designed to help meet the agricultural needs of a semi-arid state that gets only 15-17 inches of rainfall per year. We originally expected the funding to provide for the irrigation of over a million acres of land, most of it in areas much less productive than the land lost to the Garrison Reservoir. The Federal Government eventually started a scaled-down version of the project, with 250,000 acres of irrigation. In response to criticisms that the project was too costly and too environmentally disruptive, a Federal commission proposed a major revision in 1984 and made recommendations on how to meet North Dakota's contemporary water needs.
In 1986, I renegotiated the project with the Reagan Administration, the then-House Interior Committee, and national environmental groups. These talks resulted in the Garrison Diversion Reformulation Act of 1986. The law implemented the Garrison Commission's findings and recommendations and included a 130,000 acre irrigation project for the state and Tribes, the promise of Missouri River water to augment water supplies in the Red River Valley, an installment on municipal, rural, and industrial (MR&I) water for communities across the state, initial water systems for the Standing Rock, Fort Berthold, and Ft. Totten Indian reservations and a range of activities to enhance wildlife and habitat.
The Completion of the Promised Project
The Dakota Water Resources Act would scale back this project even more. It reduces federally authorized irrigation from 130,000 to 70,000 acres and eliminates funding for irrigation development. This will reduce project costs and target limited funds in the bill to high priority irrigation and MR&I water development.
The bill does provide $630 million in new resources to complete the major MR&I delivery systems for the four Indian tribes and the state's water supply network, and includes a process for choosing the best way to address the Red River Valley's water needs. It also makes wildlife conservation a project purpose, expands the Wetlands Trust into a more robust Natural Resources Trust, and funds a few priority recreation projects.
Page 33 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The State has worked with the Bureau of Reclamation to resolve several concerns about the bill in a series of negotiations and discussions over the past months. The revisions reduce costs, meet tough environmental standards, strengthen compliance with an international border agreement, and reaffirm the role of the Secretary of the Interior in decision-making.
Mr. Chairman, permit me to outline the modifications made over several months:
1. Retain the cost share of 25 percent for MR&I projects, along with a credit for cost share contributions exceeding that amount. This, in place of a 15 percent cost share.
2. Reimburse the Federal Government for the share of the capacity of the main stem delivery features which are used by the state. This, instead of writing off these features.
3. Index MR&I and Red River features only from the date of enactment, not since 1986.
4. Expressly bar any irrigation in the Hudson Bay Basin.
5. Give the Secretary of the Interior the authority to select the Red River Valley Water Supply feature and determine the feasibility of any newly authorized irrigation areas in the scaled-back package.
6. Extend the Environmental Impact Studies period.
7. Require that, prior to construction of any Red River Valley delivery features, the Secretary of the Interior, in consultation with the Secretary of State, and the EPA Administrator, must determine that the project complies with the Boundary Waters Treaty.
8. Reduce the project costs by $140 million by cutting $100 million in MR&I and $40 million for the Four Bears Bridge.
Page 34 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
9. Set cost-sharing on operations and maintenance.
Revision that Pass Muster
Taken together with prior provisions, these changes achieve four purposes. First, they reduce total project costs by over $500 million—by limiting indexing; by defining specific state responsibility for repayment of existing features instead of blanket debt forgiveness; by de-authorizing such major irrigation features as the Lonetree Dam and Reservoir, James River Feeder Canal, and Sykeston Canal; and by retaining current law with respect to MR&I cost-sharing and repayment for Red River supply features. The state will also contribute about $435 million through repayments and cost-sharing.
Second, the changes affirm the decision-making authority of the Secretary of the Interior on key issues. The Secretary would consult with the state of North Dakota on the plan to meet the water needs of the Red River Valley but make the final selection of the plan that works best and certifies compliance with the Boundary Waters Treaty. The Secretary also negotiates cooperative agreements with the state on other aspects of the project. These arrangements protect the Federal interest while assuring that North Dakota is a partner in a project so closely linked to its destiny.
Third, the bill forthrightly addresses concerns of Canada. The U.S. and Canada have a mutual responsibility to abide by the Boundary Waters Treaty and other environmental conventions. The Dakota Water Resources Act states in the purpose that the United States must comply strictly with the Treaty. It further bars any irrigation in the Hudson Bay drainage with water diverted from the Missouri River, thus curtailing biota transfer between basins. Again, the Secretary of the Interior would choose the Red River Valley water supply plan, but if that choice entails diversion of Missouri River water, then it must be fully treated with state-of-the-art purification and screening to ensure treaty compliance.
Page 35 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Further, the bill de-authorizes the Lonetree features to which Canada previously objected and on which it demanded consultations. However, Canada will have a robust opportunity to comment and consult on the project as the State Department reviews possible Red River Valley projects and Environmental Impact Statements are prepared. Since Canada supported the 1986 Garrison Reformulation Act, it boggles my mind to see how it might oppose a bill that dramatically strengthens the safeguards for our northern neighbor.
Fourth, the revised bill strengthens environmental protection and does so by incorporating the specific recommendations of North Dakota wildlife and conservation groups. It lengthens the periods for completing the Environmental Impact Statements. It also protects the Sheyenne Lake National Wildlife Refuge. Moreover, it preserves the role of the Secretary of the Interior on compliance matters and drops the provision that called for a study of bank stabilization on the Missouri River.
This bill is environmentally sound. It does not destroy wetlands, it preserves them. It preserves grasslands and riparian habitat, too. It was not dreamed up by a water development group. It was drafted with the input of tribal and community leaders, local and national environmental groups, the bipartisan leadership of the state, and the Bureau of Reclamation and Office of Management and Budget. It reflects a balanced approach to water resource development that applies the principles of conservation while offering the hope of economic development.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the opportunity to testify and I would be glad to answer any questions.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you. Mr. Pomeroy, you are recognized to close.
Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, with your leave I will go at the end of the next panel, with about 2 minutes of closing.
Page 36 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Is that what you would like to do?
Mr. POMEROY. Yes, I would.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Okay. Do members have questions of our distinguished witnesses?
We thank you for coming. Again, I have never seen a State that has this high a level of political representation for a project, so for the second time in about a year, you have manifested that focus. It is impressive, and we thank you for coming to share your views with us.
Senator CONRAD. We want to thank the chairman and thank the members of your Committee for your attention to this matter. We very much appreciate it.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you.
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to sit in the hearing. I have an opening statement and I wanted to make it part of the record.
Obviously, we have, as was stated, the Governor submitted his statement. I appreciate him putting that in the record. I would observe that we don't have a full complement of witnesses, and I am pleased to hear that you are going to accept and expect statements for the record from others that are interested.
My major issue and questions that we have to be resolved, and I don't know that I will be able to stay throughout the course of the hearing, as I have a conference on the banking bill at 3, but I will try to follow this and work with the sponsors and with the Subcommittee as they move forward on this, on the deliberation of this, because we are interested, obviously, in Minnesota beyond just the statements from the Governor, which, as I agree, they are dealing in some cases with questions that have been answered in this legislation, but it has been a moving target for some time.
So I will submit, with your permission, Mr. Chairman, this, and thank you for accommodating my participation in today's hearing.
Page 37 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you. We are pleased to have you here. Without objection, your statements will be made part of the record.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Vento follows:]
STATEMENT OF HON. BRUCE VENTO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA
Thank you Chairman Doolittle and Ranking Member Dooley for permitting me to sit with the Committee during part of this hearing. The Garrison Diversion Project has been of great concern to the state of Minnesota for many years. I appreciate the opportunity to express some thoughts on this matter and hope that Members of this Committee will take these concerns into consideration. The Garrison Diversion Project has been in development for over forty years. To say the least, this is a complicated matter that stands to affect a great many people, various states, and even our neighbors to the north, Canada. I would also like to note that today's witness list does not appear to represent a full cross section of all opinions regarding this project. I have heard several concerns regarding this project expressed to me by the Canadian Embassy and national environmental and taxpayer groups. I hope that at a later date, we may be able to hear their concerns, so we may gain a better understanding of this project or at least, as the chairman has stated, that they will submit statements for the record.
I first became better aware of the Garrison Diversion Project during its reauthorization in 1985. The net result of 1985 legislation yielded the Garrison Diversion Reformulation Act of 1986. The project, which originally was agricultural in nature and was designed to provide a statewide network of irrigation ditches to North Dakota's farmers, metamorphosed into a project designed to provide clean, safe and reliable drinking water to the state's residents. The legislation which comes before us today has gone a step further, and virtually eliminates all irrigation plans. It now focuses almost entirely on supplying potable water to the residents of North Dakota.
Because of North Dakota's lithology, its residents have some of the poorest quality water in the nation. In many cases, their water supply must flow through lignite coal veins. The end result is poor quality water that is unacceptable for the citizens of North Dakota to drink. The health and welfare of our nation's citizens should always come first and I am glad to see that North Dakota's delegation has been amenable to changing the nature of their project to one that focuses solely on safe drinking water.
Page 38 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
It is my understanding that this project will have funds distributed to the town of Fargo, to various communities within the state, and to the State's four Indian Reservations for the development and construction of safe drinking water supplies. My reason for concem with regard to this project is the ecological factor associated with connecting the town of Fargo and other communities which lie in the Hudson River Basin to a water supply system that pulls its water from the Missouri Basin. In essence, this legislation will divert water from Lake Sakakawea which is fed by the Missouri River, through a series of pipelines and canals to the Sheyenne River. The Sheyenne River in turn empties into the Red River which North Dakota and Minnesota share as a border.
The interbasin transfer of water raises a serious question as to the water quality of the Red River and to the biota that may be transferred. The legislation currently requires North Dakota to ''consult'' with the Secretaries of the Interior and State and with the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency before any interbasin water transfer occurs. I am concerned that the legislation requires North Dakota to consult only with the appropriate executive agencies. I understand that language may be offered to strengthen the consultation requirement to one that requires their approval. Although this certainly helps to address the environmental issues associated with interbasin transfers of water, I believe more needs to be done.
Specifically, I am concerned that inadequate consideration has been given to the threat of introducing exotic species into the Hudson Bay watershed and that the interbasin transfer of water may adversely affect the water quality of the Red River. In a recent issue of The Economist, I was surprised to learn that managing invasive species in North America will collectively cost $124 billion. This policy risks the chance of increasing this dollar figure. I find it puzzling for Congress to mandate treatment before identification of what is being treated.
Page 39 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Red River currently boasts one the nation's best catfish fisheries. The use of protective screens and aeration, for example, certainly will not provide foolproof safeguards against water contamination by microbes. What happens if transferring Missouri River water to the Red River introduces a whirling disease-like microbe that could decimate the Red River's catfish population?
The eight states and one province that surround the Great Lakes have a compact that provides prior notice and consultation for transfers of water out of the basin. The governors of each state, recognizing the importance of a healthy lake system, require unanimous approval of all parties before any water may be removed. Although no water is being taken out of the Great Lakes watershed, it is important that North Dakota consult with those states, or at least, Minnesota because this project will inevitably add foreign water to a watershed that empties into the Great Lakes.
There is also the issue of water quality. Although the Garrison Diversion rroject does not include the construction of a Devil's Lake inlet or outlet, the State of Minnesota is still concerned that water may eventually flow out of it and into the Red River. The Devil's Lake is a cyclical body of water that self regulates through periods of natural recharge and evaporation. Because of its evaporative nature, the water is saline. If this water enters the Red River, it could disrupt the quality of the river's water.
The Garrison Diversion Project has long been a debated activity and project. As the Committee proceeds in its consideration of the Garrison project, I ask that it consider all of the issues surrounding it. The climate in North Dakota and in the western part of Minnesota can be harsh to both the people that live there and its fauna and flora. It is important for man to understand the confines in which he lives. In modern times of sensitivity to man's effect on the environment, we should not allow two watersheds that have been geologically unconnected for millennia to become connected before we identify all possible impacts that may occur. I hope that North Dakota and Minnesota may work cooperatively in the future on this matter. It is important that we provide a safe supply of potable water to the people of North Dakota, but in doing so, we must address the environmental concerns that will result from the construction of this project.
Page 40 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. DOOLITTLE. I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Pomeroy be permitted to join us here on our panel.
Without objection, so ordered. Please come up, if you would like, or you can remain there.
Mr. POMEROY. I think I will sit this second panel down here, if you don't mind, because I will wrap up following this, as we have gone through our witnesses.
Then, again, with your leave, and I appreciate it, I will come on up and sit with you all.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Let me invite the members of this panel to come forward. We have four, I believe.
If you gentlemen would remain standing and raise your right hands.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Let the record show each answered in the affirmative. We welcome you, gentlemen. We try to live within the 5-minute rule here. There is a timer down there that gives you an indication. We won't cut anybody off in mid-sentence, but try to use it as a guide.
With that, we will welcome our Commissioner of Reclamation, Eluid Martinez. Commissioner.
STATEMENT OF HON. ELUID MARTINEZ, COMMISSIONER, U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. MARTINEZ. Good afternoon. I was going to ask which one is the Pepsi so I could take a drink out of it.
Page 41 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to provide the Administration's testimony on the Dakota Water Resources Act of 1999. My written statement has been submitted for the hearing record, and if appropriate, I will summarize that statement.
H.R. 2918 would alter the Garrison unit of the Pick-Sloan Basin program as currently authorized to increase the funding authorization levels for State and Indian tribal, municipal, rural, and industrial water supplies.
If I may, I will deviate a little from my prepared statement and try to set this in some context for the Committee. In the figures I have, they do not necessarily track with some of the testimony, but at least here is the information I have.
The reformulation of this project in '86 by Congress set in place the construction of a project that, if completed, would require Federal expenditures in the amount of $2.4 billion. The Bureau of Reclamation has requested in this budget between $27 and $30 million each year to move along the lines of constructing this project as currently authorized.
The reformulation today that is being requested, based on figures I have, would bring the cost down to $1.4 billion. So we have almost $1 billion less that is being requested to complete the project that is being contemplated versus completing the project authorized in 1986.
Out of the $1.4 billion that is being requested to complete the project, as is being presented to you today, $613 million has already been spent to date. So what remains is an $800 million future commitment.
Now, what this bill really requests is an increase of $600 million to fund municipal, rural, and industrial water systems in the State of North Dakota. Out of that $600 million, $200 million is to fund Indian projects, with no reimbursement to the Federal Government; $200 million to be used to fund municipal and rural and industrial water systems in the Red River Valley, if the studies indicate that those projects are both necessary and feasible.
Page 42 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
If those $200 million are used, they will be repaid to the Federal Government by the State of North Dakota 100 percent with interest. The remaining $200 million is an increase to the State of North Dakota in terms of a grant by the Federal Government to match the 75 percent Federal share to 25 percent State share for MR&I projects.
The reason I go into this is I know your concern as to how these projects get funded. There is $200 million grant at 75 percent, $200 million to be repaid back with interest, and $200 million to go to the tribes under our trust responsibility, nonrepayment.
What else would this bill do? It requires that a study be done of water needs in the Red River Valley to determine, first of all, if there is a need, and if these projects are justifiable. It also deauthorizes the project features associated with almost 75,000 acres of non-Indian irrigation that will be deauthorized by this project, and it increases by $25 million the amount of money to be put into a trust fund to address natural resources and fish and wildlife issues.
As I understand, the '86 Act set up a wetland trust fund to address wetlands, and required 10 percent of the money in that trust fund to be matched by the State. This bill increases it by $25 million, and expands the scope of issues that can be addressed by the fund. In other words, the old fund was only for wetlands. This is for wildlife restoration and so forth.
So in a summary, this is what this legislation does. This will contain concerns with respect to certain issues.
The Administration has been working with the project sponsors and the State of North Dakota over the last couple of years to come to closure to the point where we now are of the opinion that the administration supports this legislation, even though we continue to make minor adjustments and continue to have a dialogue with the project sponsors.
The remaining areas of concern are addressed in that portion of my written testimony which addresses outstanding concerns.
Page 43 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Chairman, that just generally summarizes my testimony. I will be glad to answer any questions you might have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Martinez follows:]
STATEMENT OF ELUID MARTINEZ
My name is Eluid Martinez. I am Commissioner of the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. I am pleased to provide the Administration's testimony on H.R. 2918, the Dakota Water Resources Act of 1999.
Mr. Chairman, H.R. 2918 would alter the Garrison Diversion Unit of the Pick Sloan Missouri Basin Program as currently authorized to increase the funding authorization levels for State and Indian tribal, municipal, rural, and industrial water supplies, to meet current and future water quantity and quality needs of the Red River Valley, to deauthorize certain project features and irrigation service areas, to enhance natural resources and fish and wildlife habitat, and for other purposes.
First, I would like to express my appreciation to the North Dakota delegation for their continued willingness to work with the Bureau of Reclamation and the Administration on these important matters. In the past several years, a great deal of progress has been made on a number of longstanding and extremely difficult issues. The delegation, as well as the North Dakota Governor's office, State legislative leaders, the State Engineer, the Conservancy District and others have worked hard along with the Administration, Reclamation and other stakeholders to find solutions.
Since the bill was introduced, the Administration has had many hours of discussions with the North Dakota delegation working to address the significant issues that are associated with this legislation. We believe we have reached agreement on nearly all of these issues and we appreciate 4
the willingness of Mr. Pomeroy and the delegation to include them in this
Page 44 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
legislation. The Administration looks forward to supporting this legislation assuming we can resolve the very few remaining issues currently under discussion.
Background
Mr. Chairman, the Garrison Diversion Unit (GDU) has had a long history. I will not go into great detail, but there are several things that are important to note in order to provide context for consideration of this legislation and for the issues associated with it.
The Garrison Diversion Unit in North Dakota is part of the Pick Sloan Missouri Basin Program (PSMBP), which was originally authorized as part of the Flood Control Act of 1944. Originally known as the Missouri-Souris project, the authorization envisioned irrigation development of 1,275,000 acres in the state of North Dakota.
In 1957, the Bureau of Reclamation completed the feasibility report on the Garrison Unit of the PSMBP. In that report, submitted to Congress, Reclamation recommended the development of 1,007,000 acres of irrigation and in 1965, Public Law 98-108 authorized construction of 250,000 acres as the initial stage of the project.
Over the ensuing years, it became increasingly evident that the level of development envisioned in the 1965 Act raised environmental and economic concerns. Concerns were also raised that the Act might result in violations of the International Boundary Water Treaty of 1909 with Canada. Consequently, in 1984, Public Law. 98-360 directed the Secretary of the Interior to appoint a commission to examine the water supply needs in North Dakota and to make recommendations on how to reformulate the project.
In December 1984, the Commission issued its final report, which included the following major recommendations: (1) Reduce irrigation development to 130,940 acres, of which none would be located in the Hudsons Bay Drainage and 17,580 of which would be developed on two Indian Reservations that were most impacted by the initial development; (2) Develop Municipal, Rural and Industrial (MR&I) water service for as many as 130 towns and rural areas, and three Reservations in the State; (3) Develop a water treatment facility to provide MR&I water to Fargo and Grand Forks; (4) Mitigate impacts to fish and wildlife, and (5) Develop recreational sites.
Page 45 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In 1986, Congress passed the Garrison Diversion Unit Reformulation Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-294), which generally authorized the recommendations of the GDU Commission's final report.
In 1990, The Department of the Interior's Office of the Inspector General completed a review (OIG Report 90-49) of the financial issues associated with the project. The report stated that the ''operating costs assigned to irrigators will exceed their ability to pay because the project as reformulated does not appear to be financially feasible.'' In other words, it concluded that the farmers would be unable to pay their estimated operations and maintenance (O&M) costs as is required under Reclamation law. This fact led to the Inspector General's conclusion that the irrigation component of the Garrison Diversion Unit was economically infeasible.
In response to the OIG Report, Secretary Lujan appointed a GDU Task Group to evaluate and make recommendations on how to proceed with this project, given the findings of the OIG report. In October 1990, the GDU Task Group Report recommended termination of Federal funding for the development and construction of non-Indian irrigation facilities and for the principal supply works, but recommended continuation of the MR&I program. Since that time, the recommendations of this Task Group have been the basis for the policies of both the Bush and Clinton Administrations with respect to this Project, and has guided subsequent budget requests.
In 1993, in an attempt to develop a consensus solution to meeting the contemporary water needs of the State, the North Dakota Water Management Collaborative Process was initiated whereby all interested stakeholders were convened.
In 1995, after the initiation of several studies, and a great deal of hard work by the parties, the Collaborative Process was terminated without reaching a consensus on how GDU should be completed to best meet the contemporary water resource needs of the State. However, Reclamation continued to work towards completion of the studies it had agreed to undertake.
Page 46 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In 1998, the delegation introduced a revised and reformulated Dakota Water Resources Act that altered the Garrison Diversion Unit of the Pick Sloan Missouri Basin Program as authorized in 1986 to increase the funding authorization levels for State and Indian tribal, municipal, rural, and industrial water supplies, to meet current and future water quantity and quality needs of the Red River Valley, to deauthorize certain project features and irrigation service areas, to enhance natural resources and fish and wildlife habitat, and for other purposes.
In summary, Mr. Chairman, the Pick Sloan Missouri Basin Program, of which the Garrison Diversion Unit is an integral part, when conceived foresaw a comprehensive system of flood control, navigation improvement, irrigation, municipal and industrial (M&I) water supplies, and hydroelectric power generation for ten states. That plan envisioned 213 multi-purpose projects providing over 1.1 million kilowatts of power and irrigation of more than 5 million acres.
Since that time, changes in both the national economy and priorities, combined with the development of refined analytical tools and criteria have resulted in a significantly different project than was originally planned. Six dams have been constructed on the mainstem of the Missouri River, and numerous multi-purpose projects on the tributaries have been completed. Flood control and navigation benefits are greater than anticipated with navigation benefits estimated to be about $17.7 million per year. Power development has exceeded expectations with an installed plant capacity of 220 percent of original estimates and hydropower sales averaging $200 million annually. Benefits from recreational development have also exceeded the original plan. Irrigation development, on the other hand, has fallen well short of original goals with less than 600,000 (11 percent) of the planned 5.3 million acres having been developed.
Issues Where We Have Reached Agreement
Since H.R. 1137 was introduced in March 1999, the Administration and the delegation have met many times and have made significant progress in resolving the Administration's serious concerns about the proposal. The following describes the modification that were made in H.R. 2918 to resolve outstanding issues mentioned in past Administration testimony on the Dakota Water Resources Act:
Page 47 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
f MR&I Facilily Funding: The Administration recognizes that additional need exists for good quality water for domestic and other purposes in a large portion of the State. The Administration supports the bill's proposed $200 million authorization of MR&I funding for Indian communities, and the proposed $200 million loan at the project's original authorization interest rate for construction of facilities in the Red River Valley. In addition, the Administration supports extending the current grant authorization to address other State-wide MR&I needs by an additional $200 million, a reduction of $100,000,000 from the previous proposal, with a 25 percent local cost-sharing.
• This combination of authorizations would provide a total of $600 million in new Federal funding authority to address priority needs within the State for quality water in a way that addresses continuing Federal budget constraints. We also believe it is important that this package of programs includes repayment of funding provided for Red River Valley facilities. This repayment reflects the Administration's long-standing policy that in the case of non-Indian rural water supply system development, non-Federal interests should repay 100 percent of allocated project construction costs with interest.
f Operation and Maintenance: Consistent with long-standing cost-allocation procedures, the State would pay: (1) a pro-rata share of OM&R on existing principal supply works, including associated mitigation, based on a percentage of capacity used; (2) 100 percent of OM&R on all new facilities with the exception of facilities required to meet treaty obligations or to comply with Reclamation law; and (3) all energy costs with the same exceptions.
f Irrigation Development: The development of 28,000 acres of undesignated irrigation ''not located in the Hudson's Bay, Devils Lake or James River drainage basins'' would be required to meet an economic feasibility test with respect to national economic development benefitsz—thereby holding this project to the same standard as other Federal projects.
Page 48 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
f International Treaty Compliance: Before any construction is undertaken on any part of the system capable of moving water into the Hudson Bay basin, the Secretary of the Interior, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, must determine that adequate steps have been taken to meet requirements of the U.S.-Canada Boundary Waters Treaty. This will ensure that the United States' obligation under the Boundary Waters Treaty is carried out. However, the Administration would like the adopted technical changes that we have submitted to make the bill more consistent with treaty obligations.
f Four Bears Bridge: Reconstruction of Four Bears Bridge would not be accomplished through the Bureau of Reclamation.
f Red River Valley Water Needs Assessment Studies: Completion of a report by the Secretary of the Interior and the State of North Dakota on the comprehensive water quality and quantity needs of the Red River Valley and options for meeting those needs, including delivery of Missouri River water to the Red River Valley, would include consultations with the Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Department of State, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and other interested and affected entities, including the states of South Dakota, Iowa, Missouri, Minnesota, and the appropriate Federally recognized Indian tribes.
f Status of MR&I Grant Funds: All MR&I grant funds, including accrued interest, would be managed as ''Federal'' for the purposes of compliance with Federal laws such as NEPA and the National Historic Preservation Act.
f Completion of the Principal Supply Works: Completing and maintaining the principal supply works identified in the 1984 Garrison Diversion Unit Commission Final Report would not be a requirement of law, but would be one of the alternatives to be reviewed to meet the comprehensive water quality and quantity needs of the Red River Valley and the options for meeting those needs.
f Natural Resources Trust: There would be no linkage between contributions to the Trust and the Red River Valley Water Supply Project.
Page 49 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Outstanding Concerns:
With respect to the Natural Resources Trust, however, the Administration remains concerned about the proposed elimination of the state and local contribution to the Trust that was established by the 1986 Act. This would give the State no financial stake in the Trust Fund and would reduce our efforts to make this into a partnership.
Furthermore, in addition to the technical changes for international treaty compliance, there are technical amendments requested by the Treasury Department relating to calculation of the interest rates for capital costs and relating to oversight of the Natural Resources Trust which we request be included in H.R. 2918.
We also note that H.R. 2918, as currently drafted, may affect revenues and therefore, may effect the Pay-As-You Go provisions of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1980.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to reiterate my appreciation to the North Dakota delegation and others for working with the Administration to address the significant issues that are associated with this legislation. A great deal of hard work has taken place and significant progress has been made. I would like to continue that effort to work with the project sponsors and supporters as well as the opponents to try to find a solution to what has become a long standing and difficult issue.
That concludes my statement, I would be happy to answer any questions.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Thank you.
Our next witness is Mr. Tex Hall. Mr. Hall is Chairman of Three Affiliated Tribes, the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation.
Page 50 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Hall.
STATEMENT OF TEX HALL
Mr. HALL. Thank you, Chairman Doolittle and members of the Subcommittee, and Congressman Pomeroy from our State of North Dakota. I really appreciate being given the opportunity to present testimony on behalf of the Dakota Water Resources Act, H.R. 2918.
Just briefly, Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, my tribe is home of the Mandan, Hidatsa, and Arikara tribes. We are known for the homeland of Sakakawea. Our tribe wintered Lewis and Clark in 1804 when they came up the river. She served as a young Indian guide to the expedition, and without her assistance, it would not have been successful for the route to the Pacific Northwest.
The reason I say those things is that the two most probably devastating acts to my people were the smallpox epidemic shortly after that, with the steamboats coming in after Sakakawea helped lead the way to the trade routes in 1837, which almost decimated the thousands of Mandans to only 400.
Then the second most devastating act was the flooding of our homelands. As our Governor and members of our congressional delegation had mentioned, it was over 500,000 acres that was lost. We lost 156,000 acres. Our tribal business council at that time went on resolution to not support the flooding of our homeland because it was our capital of Elba Woods.
When the government did eventually say, you have no choice, we are going to flood you to make way for this dam, they made many promises to us. One was a new hospital, a new school, and a rural water system. We don't have any of those things yet today, and it has been since 1944, members of the Subcommittee.
We do have some efforts that are being made with our economic development packages, but I can speak for my tribe, and I cannot speak for all of the other tribes of North Dakota, but I was with the other tribes yesterday, and they have all endorsed the Dakota Water Resources Act unanimously for the $200 million for the Indian tribes for the four reservations in North Dakota. They have unanimously supported that.
Page 51 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
First, I want to say clearly, on behalf of the Three Affiliated Tribes, we strongly support H.R. 2918 and urge its immediate passage. We also are understanding of some of the concerns, Mr. Chairman, that you had raised earlier. But we feel that those concerns I think can be worked out. Our tribe and the other tribes of North Dakota should not be held up.
They mentioned one of those bottles of water earlier. As a matter of fact, as the chairman of my tribe and probably one of the more fortunate members of my tribe economically, I took a shower in one of those colored bottles of water this morning, so I, too, have to haul my water, as well as many of the elderly people and many of the patients that are on dialysis.
We literally, in every community, and we have six communities on Fort Berthold, and we literally have to have pickup trucks and small ton trucks, so we put cistern tanks in a lot of those homes because the water was simply like that. Some of our well water, we have high sodium, which leads to hypertension and heart attacks. We also have—which is double the standard, the regular standards on Fort Berthold. We are also 12 times higher than the national average for diabetes.
We feel that these things did not occur before the flood, so we are still living with this devastating piece of legislation that flooded our capital and our homelands.
Mr. Chairman, we see opportunity here today, and we testified on the Senate side earlier this year. We are very pleased that it is in this Committee, in this Subcommittee here today. Again, I know there are particular problems that have been mentioned, but I feel it has been a bipartisan effort within our State of North Dakota, and as well as there is unanimous support of our tribe. I just came from home this morning and all the people and the membership of the Fort Berthold are all urging the passage of this Act.
Finally, the new millenium is coming upon us. I just feel that members of my Nation should not have to drink and bathe daily in water such as this. I think it is the Federal Government's commitment, that when they flooded us, they said, we promise we will rebuild and replace what we took from you.
Page 52 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
My tribe made the ultimate sacrifice for the 156,000 acres to be flooded. We hope and urge the support of the Subcommittee for the immediate passage of the Dakota Water Resources Act. We thank you for the testimony today. I stand to answer any questions that you may have.
[The perpared statement of Mr. Hall follows:]
STATEMENT OF TEX HALL, CHAIRMAN, THREE AFFILIATED TRIBES
Chairman Doolittle, Members of the Subcommittee:
Thank you for the opportunity to present testimony today concerning H.R. 2918, the ''Dakota Water Resources Act of 1999.'' The Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation are the Mandan, Hidatsa and Arikara Nations. We also testified last year in support of a similar bill presented to the 105th Congress, and our testimony today is not very different from the information we provided earlier. However, our needs for the water systems to be authorized by H.R. 2918 only become greater as our population continues to increase.
We strongly support H.R. 2918 and urge its passage, as it provides long promised and much needed funding for our municipal, rural and industrial water needs, as well as needed funds for a new bridge over Lake Sakakawea, to replace a bridge whose center spans have not been maintained and which are more than 60 years old.
Further, we again want to thank our Congressional delegation, Governor, Ed Schafer, and the many others who have worked on this legislation for their continued recognition of our needs in this legislation, and their willingness to consider our views. We look forward to working with them to seek passage of this vital legislation.
Background
As you may recall, the Three Affiliated Tribes, along with a remarkable young Indian woman, Sakakawea, greeted Lewis and Clark in the early 19th century as they made their expedition of discovery up the Missouri River and over to the Pacific coast. Even prior to Lewis and Clark, our Tribes had lived together peacefully for hundreds of years along the Missouri River. The Mandan particularly were agricultural, and tended corn and other crops.
Page 53 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
As we, like all other Indian people, were forced to live on reservations in the late 1800's, we were able to retain a spot along the Missouri River where we could maintain to a considerable degree a self-sufficient life style, tending to our crops and livestock on the rich botton-lands along the river. Few of our members were ever on welfare. Our reservation, which straddles the Missouri River, has been approximately 1,500 square miles in size since the late 1880's, although since 1910 almost one-half of the reservation has been owned by non-Indians and more than 15 percent of the area is now covered by the water of the Lake Sakakawea reservoir behind Garrison Dam.
Despite our protests, our Council resolutions, our delegations to Washington and our tears, our way of life and the lives of our Tribal members were turned upside down when the Garrison Dam was completed in the early 1950's. Over 156,000 acres of our best agricultural lands were taken from us for the creation of Lake Sakakawea behind the dam, and the land taken from us represented 69 percent of the land needed for the reservoir. By October 1, 1952, most of our Tribal members were forced from their homes because of the ''great flood,'' as many of our elders call the formation of the reservoir. Our once close-knit communities, separated only by a river, which was then connected near Elbowwoods by a bridge, were now split apart and separated by as much as 120 miles. Our rich farmland and self-sufficient lifestyle were gone forever.
Before the dam was completed, in addition to the inadequate compensation we received for our lands, we were promised many things by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, whose generals came and listened to our protests and our descriptions of what we would lose if the dam was built. Among other things, we were promised new infrastructure to allow us to rebuild our communities, including a new hospital, which was never built; community buildings, only now being completed, partly with Tribal funds; and a rural water system, using some of the water from the lake for which we had sacrificed our way of life.
Page 54 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Fifty years later that rural water system is still only partly constructed. In just the past four years, several of our communities, which are generally a few miles from the lake, have been provided with adequate water from Lake Sakakawea. But the current system does not yet begin to serve our real needs, as specified below in more detail.
In 1985, after nearly 33 years, and much lobbying in Washington and in our state capital, the U.S. Secretary of Interior established a committee to make recommendations for just compensation to the Three Affiliated Tribes and the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe for their losses. The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe had suffered also, like the Three Affiliated Tribes, following the construction of the Oahe Dam near Ft. Pierre, South Dakota. This Committee was called the Garrison Unit Joint Tribal Advisory Committee (GUJTAC, or ''UTAC''), which issued its final report on May 23, 1986. A copy of this Committee Report, which we commonly refer to as the ''JTAC'' report has been provided to our Congressional delegation in the past and to this Committee when we have testified previously, and I request that the Report be made a part of the record of this hearing, as it provides substantive justification for some of the components of H.R. 2918 that directly affect us.
Partly as a consequence of the JTAC report, some of the needs for rural infrastructure of the Three Affiliated Tribes and the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe were included in the Garrison Unit Reformulation Act of 1986, Public Law 99-294. These included partial funds for a municipal, rural and industrial water system (MRI), shared between the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and the Three Affifiated Tribes, and authorization for irrigation projects. The understanding of Congress when the Garrison Unit Reformulation Act was passed is that Congress knew the funds were insufficient, and expected a full report of the actual needs of the Fort Berthold Reservation at some later date. That later date has arrived.
While the irrigation projects authorized for the Three Affiliated Tribes were never funded, we did receive a part of the $20 million which was eventually appropriated over the next 11 years, funds which have ''owed some of our MRI water system needs to be satisfied. A summary of our current water needs is included in this written testimony.
Page 55 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Navigation
Principal Benefits of H.R. 2918 for the Three Affiliated Tribes and northwest North Dakota
Now, in 1999, the State of North Dakota is back before Congress seeking further authority to complete what has been known as the Garrison Diversion Project. The state rightfully states that it has been waiting more than 50 years for the completion of this project. We too, have been waiting for more than 50 years for the infrastructure promised to us as a result of the completion of the Garrison Dam, and are asking for what was promised us before our homes were flooded and our land taken.
This bill has three features which are of tremendous importance to the Three Affiliated Tribes and for all of northwest North Dakota, including our MRI water system needs and continued authorization for approximately 15,000 acres of irrigation projects which were meant to replace lost agricultural lands. These are discussed in more detail below.
1. Municipal, rural and industrial water needs (MRI)
H.R. 2918 provides that the four tribes in North Dakota share in a total authorization for MRI water needs of $200 million. The amounts needed by each tribe, and as agreed to by the Tribal governments, are specifically stated in the bill, so that there need be no guess work afterwards about how much each tribe should receive. The share for the Three Affiliated Tribes is $70 million, contained in Section 10 of the bill.
As required by the Committee Report on the Garrison Unit Reformulation Act, Public Law 99-294, we have documented our water needs to Congress and have provided detailed studies of these needs to our Congressional delegation. We would ask that the Committee recognize those reports in its final Committee report language concerning the bill.
Page 56 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We believe that the figure of $70 million will be sufficient for our water system needs, if provided over time and indexed for inflation as currently allowed by law. The funds authorized, once appropriated, will provide, among other things, much needed usable drinking water that will contribute greatly to the health, economic and environmental needs, of approximately 10,000 residents of the reservation, including non-Indian and Indians alike. The system, as designed, will be able to become part of a larger regional water system that will have an impact far beyond the Fort Berthold Reservation.
At present, our ground water supply over most of the reservation is very poor. Dissolved solids, salts and other minerals often makes available water unusable for cooking, washing, drinking, and even home gardening. As an example of the danger of the poor water, sodium concentrations of more than double normal standards, often present in reservation well water, can aggravate hypertension, a common affliction on the Reservation.
Even more of a problem are homes that have no local water source at all. Close to the end of the 20th century, we still have many families who must haul in their water from some outside source, often many miles away. In addition to the obvious inconvenience, this causes an undue risk of water borne diseases. Also, the many private wells on the reservation are simply undependable, often with low flows, and generally provide poor quality water, as well.
Further documentation of the problems we face was published in the September, 1998 issue of the magazine North Dakota Water, a publication produced for North Dakota water users. The sub-title of the article is called ''Reservations lack access to quality water systems.'' The article says, among other things: ''There is a tremendous need for rural water fines,'' which applies both the Fort Berthold Reservation and the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation, and it documents the plight of a young family on our reservation which has to constantly haul water, as well as the sorry condition of our New Town water treatment plant. New Town is the largest town on the reservation, with both a large Indian and non-Indian population. We would ask that a copy of the article be made a part of the official record of this hearing.
Page 57 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
As we all can appreciate with the Garrison Diversion Project, the lack of good water systems at present blocks effective economic development in most of our reservation districts, which we call ''segments.'' Unemployment is still a large problem on our reservation, even with the modest success of our casino, Mandaree Enterprises, the Northrup Grumman plant in New Town and other Tribal enterprises we are still developing. The 1990 census pegged our average per capita income at $4,849, one-third of the national average.
Now, we are faced with welfare reform requirements of meeting national goals for work participation rates within a specified timetable over several years. This means that economic development must be of the highest priority for our reservation. And, as we all know, economic development requires good water. Projects that are possible users of good water include a feed lot, meat processing plant, fiber board plant and ethanol plant, as well as further development of recreational areas along the shore of Lake Sakakawea, new housing development, expansion of various tribal facilities, and so forth.
At the same time as water systems are developed and water use is increased on the reservation, we must also be mindful of environmental concerns, such as wastewater disposal. We know that a successful MRI program will not only address water distribution needs, but also wastewater disposal needs.
The major components of the needed MRI projects are as follows, segment by segment:
1. Mandaree: (west side of reservation, west of lake) In Mandaree, the water distribution system needs to be expanded and the existing system improved. Mandaree already has an adequate water treatment plant and water intake.
2. White Shield: (southeast corner of reservation, north of lake) In White Shield, again, the water distribution system needs to be expanded. A new water treatment plant has just been completed, but the water intake was completed in 1991.
Page 58 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
3. Twin Buttes: (south side of reservation, south of lake) While Twin Buttes already has a water intake and water treatment plant. While both facilities have been recently upgraded, the water distribution system needs to be expanded for economic expansion to take place. For reference, Twin Buttes is 120 miles from New Town.
4. Four Bears: (northwest corner of reservation, west of lake) The Four Bears area has a water intake and a recently completed water treatment plant, but the distribution system needs expansion.
5. New Town: (also northwest part of reservation, east of lake) New Town, the largest community on the reservation, has no water intake system from the lake which is less than a mile from the center of town, the best and closest supply of fresh water. While the aquifer under New Town supplying the city's wells is a relatively good source of water, when the lake is low, the aquifer is low and water quality declines. Thus, New Town needs a water intake system and improvements to its water treatment plant, as well as an expanded distribution system.
6. Parshall: (northeast part of reservation, east of lake) Parshall, also called Lucky Mound, has a water intake from the lake, which isn't always working. Further, the water intake is not deep enough in the lake, and doesn't function at all when the lake is low. Parshall needs a new water intake, improved water treatment plant and an expanded distribution system.
I want to emphasize that we need prompt action on supplying our needs, because we are no longer receiving MR&I funds from the previous authorization in the 1986 Garrison Reformulation Act. It is also important to note that each of the newly expanded distribution systems will allow for future expansion, both within and outside of the reservation areas, thus benefiting everyone in the area. These are just a few of the principal elements of the MRI projects we were promised more than 45 years ago.
2. Irrigation:
Page 59 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In addition, I want to urge this Committee to retain the authorization for irrigation on the Fort Berthold reservation contained in H.R. 2918. As noted above, we lost 156,000 acres of land, much of it prime bottom land as a result of Garrison Dam, and the $63 million irrigation dollars authorized in the Garrison Unit Reformulation Act of 1986 were to be used to help us recover some of that good farm land. Our studies show that irrigation is feasible in the Lucky Mound—White Shield areas.
We do continue to have several remaining concerns about the legislation:
Reserved water rights, We would ask that language be included in the final Committee report on this legislation that would recognize the reserved water rights of the Three Affiliated Tribes to water from the Missouri River and its tributaries that are within the Fort Berthold Reservation, known as Winters doctrine rights, and that it be made clear in the final Committee report that this legislation, including the part of it which allows for diversion of water from the Missouri River, does not in any way diminish or compromise those rights. This was a fundamental consideration of the JTAC Report, attached. Our water rights as a Tribe are no less important than those expressed as a stated purpose of H.R. 2918: ''to preserve any existing rights of the State of North Dakota to use water from the Missouri River.''
Irrigation. We would also request that consideration be given to expand our authority for irrigation acres, should such additional acres prove feasible. As mentioned above, our best agricultural lands were taken from us. We are hopeful that in the future, some additional lands can be successfully irrigated and added back to our agricultural land base.
JTAC Report Finally, we would ask that in the final Committee report accompanying the bill, language be included that states that this legislation fulfills some of the goals set forth in the Garrison Unit Joint Tribal Advisory Committee Report, dated May 23, 1986, as attached. Such language simply recognizes what the bill actually does, and helps explain why portions of this legislation are dealing with the needs of the North Dakota tribes.
Page 60 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We also want to note that this bill is now substantially different than it was when originally introduced in the last Congress. Money for the replacement of Four Bears Bridge across the Missouri River, and within the Fort Berthold Reservation, has been deleted, $43 million, and other methods of financing the Four Bears Bridge, which is badly in need of replacement and which is the only bridge for a distance of 200 miles along the river, are being considered outside of this piece of legislation. The Four Bears Bridge, inadequate when constructed is just another example of infrastructure needs of the Three Affiliated Tribes that have not y