<DOC>
[109 Senate Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:30279.wais]
S. Hrg. 109-712
RED RIVER VALLEY WATER SUPPLY PROJECT
=======================================================================
HEARING
before a
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
SPECIAL HEARING
AUGUST 24, 2006--FARGO, NORTH DAKOTA
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
index.html
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
30-279 PDF WASHINGTON : 2006
------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250. Mail: Stop SSOP,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi, Chairman
TED STEVENS, Alaska ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia
ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont
CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri TOM HARKIN, Iowa
MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland
CONRAD BURNS, Montana HARRY REID, Nevada
RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama HERB KOHL, Wisconsin
JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire PATTY MURRAY, Washington
ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
LARRY CRAIG, Idaho DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois
MIKE DeWINE, Ohio TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota
SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana
WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado
J. Bruce Evans, Staff Director
Terrence E. Sauvain, Minority Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies
CONRAD BURNS, Montana Chairman
TED STEVENS, Alaska BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont
ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah HARRY REID, Nevada
JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
LARRY CRAIG, Idaho BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland
WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado HERB KOHL, Wisconsin
Professional Staff
Leif Fonnesbeck
Ginny James
Rebecca Benn
Michele Gordon
Christine Heggem
Peter Kiefhaber (Minority)
Rachael Taylor (Minority)
Scott Dalzell (Minority)
Administrative Support
Darren Benjamin
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Opening statement of Senator Byron L. Dorgan..................... 1
Statement of Represenative Earl Pomeroy.......................... 2
Statement of Dennis Walakar, mayor, Fargo, North Dakota.......... 4
Statement of Dale Frink, Engineer, North Dakota State Water
Commission..................................................... 6
Statement of Dave Koland, general manager, Garrison Diversion
Conservancy District........................................... 7
Prepared statement........................................... 8
Statement of Mike Dwyer, executive director, North Dakota Water
Coalition...................................................... 10
Statement of Bruce Furness, chairman, Lake Agassiz Water
Authority...................................................... 12
Statement of Curt Kreun, city council member, Grand Forks, North
Dakota......................................................... 14
Statement of Lance Yohe, executive director, Red River Basin
Commission..................................................... 17
Prepared statement........................................... 18
RED RIVER VALLEY WATER SUPPLY PROJECT
----------
THURSDAY, AUGUST 24, 2006
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies,
Committee on Appropriations,
Fargo, ND.
The subcommittee met at 11 a.m., in the Fargo City
Commission Chambers, 200 N. 3rd Street, Fargo, ND, Senator
Byron L. Dorgan presiding.
Present: Senator Dorgan.
Also present: Congressman Pomeroy.
opening statement of senator byron l. dorgan
Senator Dorgan. Good morning. We will begin the hearing.
This is a formal hearing of the subcommittee, the Interior
Subcommittee of Appropriations of the U.S. Senate, and we are
making a formal record of this hearing and a transcript of this
hearing. I have invited my colleague, Congressman Pomeroy, who
is in Fargo this morning, to join me and be a part of the
hearing because the hearing is on the subject that is very
important to all of our State and to this entire region, as a
matter of fact.
I would like to just describe a little of the background
and then call on my colleague, Congressman Pomeroy, for a
couple of comments. Let me point out that when we passed the
Dakota Water Resources Act, that was a piece of legislation
that was authored and worked on by myself, Senator Conrad, and
Congressman Pomeroy. That became law, and there is a section in
that law that directs the Secretary and the State of North
Dakota to jointly prepare, I am quoting now, ``jointly prepare
and complete a draft environmental impact statement considering
all feasible options to meet the comprehensive water quality
and quantity needs of the Red River Valley and the options for
meeting those needs, including delivery of Missouri River water
to the Red River Valley.'' As a result of that, that's a
portion of the legislation that we wrote, understanding that
part of dealing with the broader water issues of North Dakota
is the requirement to deal with the issue in the Red River
Valley. The Red River has largely run dry in the past and will
perhaps in the future, and the question is how will the
development along the Red River from the southern part of our
State to the northern part of our State on both sides of the
river, how will that development continue to take place if you
have a short supply of water? Development is not possible
without water. It is the resource that determines whether the
development will exist or not. So section 8 of the Dakota Water
Resources Act anticipates this process of evaluating how to
connect an assured water supply to the Red River Valley. The
Bureau of Reclamation, as you know, has been working on their
requirement under section 8 doing studies. The studies have
taken much, much longer than we had hoped. I have, in fact,
held previous hearings in Fargo for the explicit purpose of
kicking and re-kicking the Bureau of Reclamation to try to get
them to meet their timelines but it is a big old agency. They
have got a lot on their plate and they tend to stretch things
out, but it is done and we now have what's called the executive
summary here in my hands of the draft environmental impact
statement, Red River Valley Water Supply Project. At long last
the Bureau of Reclamation provided a series of alternatives,
and they are alternatives that have costs attached to them,
saying here are the specific recommendations. There are eight
potential alternatives, which includes an alternative called no
action at all. Well, I think most of us would believe that is
not a very good alternative. So of the other alternatives there
have been discussions and meetings in the State by the Bureau
of Reclamation and the State and local officials to discuss
these various alternatives and what the alternatives might
cost.
There will be a Federal component of some type when the
decision is made exactly which of the alternatives we pursue,
and the purpose today is for us to evaluate what it is you want
to do. I know from discussions and reports, the preliminary
decisions about what alternative might be best for you, what
will be the responsibility for those of us in Congress and for
the Federal agencies if we pursue one of these alternatives,
that's what we hope we might understand today. Getting this
information on the record is another step in trying to move
towards completion of our goal to get water to the Red River
when that water is needed.
There will be an amended version of the environmental
impact statement with another public comment period of 45 days,
and the final EIS is to be published by December 2006. The BOR
says that they intend to hold to that date. So there are a lot
of issues that attach to this. This is in some ways
controversial, in other ways difficult, likely to face legal
challenges, funding challenges. It is not easy to do what all
of us would like to see done, but doing things that aren't easy
is--if all that we ever did in life were the easy things, we
would hardly ever breathe hard. Doing things that aren't easy
sometimes is critically important. You have to find a way to
make it happen and that's what we're intending to do.
Let me call on my colleague, Congressman Pomeroy, who, as I
indicated, has been an integral part of all of this, and
whatever we do at the Federal level will be responsible on the
House side for making it work and making it happen. So,
Congressman Pomeroy, thank you for joining us today.
statement of representative earl pomeroy
Mr. Pomeroy. Thank you, Senator.
It is a rare privilege for a House Member to participate in
a Senate hearing, so I appreciate very much your allowing me to
participate, and I want to note for the hearing the attendance
of Governor William Guy. Forty-six years ago Governor Guy was
elected to office, a young farmer from Casselton, North Dakota.
During the 12 years that he served as the leader of our State,
prudent statewide development of water resources was one of the
clear enduring priorities of the Guy administration. Having his
ongoing interest in his private life long after his
governorship ended has really been a resource to our entire
State. Forty-six years from now you will be talking about water
because water and North Dakota are critically linked. What will
happen to the future of our State depends upon how we will be
able to sustain the water needs of growth.
I think that this hearing, Senator, could not be more
timely. We have so often referenced the water experiences of
the 1930s in making the case for bringing water west to east--
bringing water supply to the Red River Valley. This summer we
have an incredible drought that we have experienced. The water
utilization restrictions we have seen in the Fargo community
are a much more recent demonstration of what's at stake for
eastern North Dakota in all of this. We have a dimension of
growth unimaginable just a few years ago. Of course, the water
needs to sustain it are more intense than ever. But the water
availability and assurance is as uncertain as ever, as
indicated by utilization restrictions as we have seen this
summer. So I am interested in hearing from our experts in terms
of water resource management, especially about the concerns
that they had to manage through this summer and what's before
them that--without an extraordinary response--might impair
everything we have now come to know and enjoy about development
of the Red River Valley.
Thank you, Senator.
Senator Dorgan. Congressman Pomeroy, thank you very much.
Let me echo--I was go to introduce Bill Guy, but Bill Guy's
service to our State had a lot to do with water, water policy,
and I really appreciate seeing him here. He did spawn a
generation of public service by others, including myself, much
to the chagrin of some perhaps, I think we have been grappling
with these water issues for a long, long time and origin of
much of the intellectual bedrock for this has come back in the
1960s and with Bill's work, so thank you for being here, Bill
Guy. Thanks to all of you who have come.
We will accept testimony, written testimony, by anyone who
wishes to submit written testimony for 15 days after this
hearing, and it will become a part of the permanent hearing
record for the entire subcommittee of the Senate.
I am going to call on the following folks for opening
presentations and then we will have questions. I am going to
call on the mayor first, Mayor Dennis Walakar, Fargo, North
Dakota, and then I will call on Dale Frink, the State engineer
of the State Water Commission, then followed by Dave Koland,
general manager of the Garrison Conservancy District, Mike
Dwyer, executive director of North Dakota Water Coalition, and
then Bruce Furness, chairman, Lake Agassiz Water Authority and
former mayor, of course, of Fargo, and Grand Forks city council
member, Curt Kreun. So Curt is down at the end. Let me thank
the mayor for allowing us to use your city council chambers and
congratulate Fargo's new mayor and welcome him to the world
of--well, I shouldn't say that--he has been involved in water
problems for a long, long time as well, but welcome to the
hearing, and Mr. Mayor, thank you very much. Why don't you
provide us your testimony?
STATEMENT OF DENNIS WALAKAR, MAYOR, FARGO, NORTH DAKOTA
Mayor Walakar. Good morning. I am Fargo Mayor Dennis
Walakar. It is my pleasure to welcome the U.S. Senator Byron
Dorgan and the U.S. States Representative Earl Pomeroy to the
Red River Valley.
Since the 1800s the Red River has been the lifeline to our
city by serving as a primary water supply, providing means of
barge and steam boat transportation for pioneers and fulfilling
various recreational needs. The Red River continues to serve as
our primary water supply. It is critical to sustain this
current and for the future economy of the city of Fargo and
basically for the future of the State of North Dakota.
Our history shows the droughts in the valley can lead to
serious water shortages. Add to that the growing population of
our area and the potential for problems multiply. You can see
on the first slide there of our earlier part of the city, and,
you know, that's why we're here. I mean we are here because the
railroad came through here and the Red River was our water
supply and so forth. That's not the way it is today, but that's
the way it was in the early settlement of our city.
The city of Fargo has experienced steady growth for the
last 50 years. A fairly consistent population growth of 2
percent per year has occurred with accelerated growth starting
in the 1970s and continuing through the year 2000. To plan for
future needs several population projection studies have been
completed over the past few years and each utilizing different
assumptions and methodologies. Such efforts resulted in
projected populations ranging from 165,000 as a low to 240,000
to 243,000 as a high by the year 2050. Regardless of method or
result, it is certain the city will continue to grow and it is
Fargo's intent to be prepared for the associated increase for
the demand of water through participation in the Red River
Valley Water Supply Project.
On a nationwide basis, residents of North Dakota use water
much like their demographically similar neighbors. North
Dakotans use considerably less than those in many other States
because we try to conserve water. However, historical analysis
of the water demand data suggests the residents of the Red
River Valley recognize the value of water as a natural resource
and use water in a very efficient manner.
With an increase in population for the city of Fargo, the
demand for water is anticipated to increase accordingly. Since
1995 the city has been working with U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
to address Fargo's future water needs. Based on the range of
population projections, methodology utilized by the Bureau of
Reclamation to estimate future water needs during a drought the
city of Fargo could potentially need 30,000 to 45,000 acre feet
of water per year.
Existing and future industrial water demands are a critical
component of the economy of the Red River Valley and were
considered in the Red River Valley Water Supply Project. To
address the issue, the North Dakota State University Department
of Agri-Business and Economics was retained by the Bureau of
Reclamation to complete an Industrial Water Needs Assessment.
Industrial water production methodology and approach involved a
review of historical crop productions and industrial water
usage rates. Consideration of economic development scenarios
and evaluation of factors attracting supply-oriented
agricultural processing industries to the Red River Valley. The
results of the study indicated that industrial needs attributed
to the agricultural economy could increase to 35,000 acre feet
per year, and up to 13,000 acre feet of additional water per
year is estimated to be needed in the Fargo by the year 2050.
Occurrence of severe low flow conditions in the Red River
Valley at Fargo is chronic. Flows in the Red River at Fargo are
highly variable by looking at this approach here. That is the
history basically of the flows of the Red River here in Fargo.
This year was extremely unusual. Most of us had estimated that
we were not going to have a serious flood after a wet fall and
a wet spring and we still didn't feel we were going to have a
major flood, and we did, and that can happen basically as the
winds of the weather.
Between 1932 and 1940, according to a report that our
Director of Public Works had done in 1940, there were 800 days
when the Red River ceased to flow. That's an average of 100
days per year between 1932 and 1940. During that time Fargo's
population was 32,580. If that happened today we have 94,000
residents as we speak.
The occurrence of a significant drought is not a future
concern. It is a concern today. If a drought of similar
duration and magnitude as that of the 1930s happened in the
present day, the city of Fargo would experience a water supply
shortage during each year of the drought without a reliable and
sustainable, supplemental water supply. The city of Fargo will
be forced to suffer socioeconomic consequences associated with
an inadequate supply of water.
The impact of a drought would be devastating to the city of
Fargo. Hydraulic modeling efforts completed by the Bureau of
Reclamation indicate that the water supply shortages
experienced by the city of Fargo would overwhelm our efforts to
reduce water use through the city's recently adopted Drought
Management Plan. According to 2005, water demands in a 1930s
drought scenario is estimated that half the municipal, rural,
and industrial demand in the Red River Valley would be unmet on
a worst month basis. As would be expected, a vast portion of
this shortage is identified for Fargo, meaning the extent of
the local shortages would be magnified significantly. The grim
water shortage projections need to be addressed through the
implementation of a reliable Red River Water Supply Project
alternative.
Fargo fully supports the construction of a pipeline from
the Garrison Diversion Unit to Lake Ashtabula to deliver water
via the Sheyenne. This is the least expensive option and the
one that affords us the most flexibility.
What are the next steps in this process? We must determine
local costs, how to finance the project. Then we can make a
final commitment to the pipeline. After that we will work with
the Lake Agassiz Water Authority to develop an operational
plan. We will also continue to work with other metropolitan
communities on strategies for treating and distributing the
water the pipeline would supply.
The drought conditions we experienced this summer have
magnified the significance of this project. After we had water
here in the Valley, probably more than anything could use for
years and years and years, but right now after a wet fall, a
wet spring we haven't had--we are about 5 inches below normal
right now.
It is my hope we can move forward in the near future with
this plan to provide our water supply needs.
Thank you for the opportunity to present our concerns. I
would be happy to answer any questions you have. We have staff
present here to address the technical matters.
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Mayor, thank you very much. We
appreciate those thoughts.
I would like to next call on Dale Frink who is the State
engineer of the State Water Commission. Dale.
STATEMENT OF DALE FRINK, ENGINEER, NORTH DAKOTA STATE
WATER COMMISSION
Mr. Frink. Thank you.
Senator Dorgan, Congressman Pomeroy, former Governor Bill
Guy, Governor Guy was governor when I started with the Water
Commission, so that's--I have been around a long time, so
welcome.
I am Dale Frink. I am the North Dakota State engineer with
the North Dakota State Water Commission, and thank you for the
opportunity to testify today.
Development of the environmental impact statement for the
Red River Valley Water Supply Project is in its fifth year and
that is a long time, but one of the things that I have noticed
over these 5 years is a change in people's attitude and how
people understand the need for the project. You know, initially
I heard things like, well, the water--the project just isn't
needed. We don't need the water. But I think as more and more
studies have gone on, that has changed and, you know, kind of
the next step we took, well, you don't--you're not going to
need the water if you adjust and control growth. Of course, I
am not sure if that's ever--you know, how that is going to
happen. But even more recently I think it gets into what the
mayor was just talking about. We're short of water even with
the existing populations. If you get into a 1930s drought,
we're short of water even today. I think that is at least
partially responsible for some of the more recent statements in
that people are now calling for the allocation of the waters of
the Red River. I see Lance Yohe is here of the Red River Basin
Committee, and that is one of the things we're looking at. You
know, the bottom line there is if you have jurisdictions in
North Dakota, Minnesota, and Manitoba and everybody, you know,
in a dry period wants their share but, you know, the important
thing there is if you get into a 1930s drought and you divide
zero by three, you end up with three goose eggs, and we need
something better than that.
So today we're here to talk about some of the involvement
of the Federal Government as the way I see it. If you look at
all the alternatives that have been addressed in the EIS, all
of them are very, very costly. To get a supplemental water
supply for Fargo and the Red River Valley is costly, and it is
going to take a tremendous involvement from the local level. It
is going to take involvement from the State level and it is
going to take involvement from the Federal level. I note
specifically today in terms of the Federal, you know, the first
thing that comes to mind is the Dakota Water Resources Act
includes $200 million for the Red River Valley Water Supply
Project, but that is reimbursable, which means basically it is
a loan that has to be repaid by the user. I think that is going
to play a very important role in this project, but the project
does need a grant. You know, I think you could get grant
possibly by converting the reimbursable to non-reimbursable,
and Dave Koland and Mike Dwyer are going to talk about this a
little later, you know, we have been talking about maybe we can
provide or allocate some of the State's MR&I dollars to the Red
River Valley Project. So they are going to go into that in a
little more detail, I believe. But at some point we need some
Federal grant into this project to make it go.
The second requirement from the Federal Government involves
water treatment and the Dakota Water Resources Act does make
treatment for biota transfer a Federal responsibility. So that
is something that we're going to have to work on. You know, the
cost for biota treatment, no matter what type of treatment, it
is going to be costly but it is something that we have to work
on. We continue to work with the Bureau of Reclamation and the
Environmental Protection Agency on biota treatment, not only
for this project but for the NAWS project in north central
North Dakota. While there, there are many inter-basin transfer
projects throughout the United States, and I am not aware of
any of them that provide water treatment. Most of them are just
raw water treatments from one major basin to another. You know,
we are proudly getting to the point right now where it just--it
just makes environmental sense to provide the biota treatment
and to set a precedence in regard to this.
I think in this project it is important that we develop or
come up with a biota treatment process that is affordable,
reasonable, and provides the safeguards necessary.
We have made considerable progress in the last 5 years, and
I congratulate all of you that have worked so diligently in
getting us to where we're at. I am confident that the need that
we have been talking about and I have been talking about and
the mayor has been talking about, that need is going to be the
driving force behind this, and I think because of that, we
will--our dream for adequate water supplies for the Red River
Valley will become a realty.
So thank you.
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Frink, thank you very much.
Next we will hear from Dave Koland, general manager of the
Garrison Diversion Conservancy District.
STATEMENT OF DAVE KOLAND, GENERAL MANAGER, GARRISON
DIVERSION CONSERVANCY DISTRICT
Mr. Koland. Mr. Chairman, I commend you for holding this
meeting in North Dakota. The importance of providing a reliable
water supply for the Red River Valley is only magnified by the
drought that has descended on our State this summer.
Under the very best of conditions it will be at least 6
years before we can provide a supplemental water supply for the
Red River Valley. So the next steps are critical to facilitate
the timely construction of the Red River Valley Water Supply
Project.
I will summarize my written testimony that I submitted, but
I want to make a point before I get into those summaries that
the Dakota Water Resources Act said that the selection will be
made by the Secretary, in consultation and coordination with
the State of North Dakota, in coordination with affected local
communities. Throughout this process, North Dakota has strived
to include water systems up and down the Red River Valley in
this process. The affected communities, we have had a process
that we have worked through in the State to arrive at the
preferred alternative selection that started at the local level
and then proceeded to be endorsed as we moved up until the
governor finally submitting to the Secretary North Dakota's
preferred selection.
The next step for the Department of the Interior is to
submit a report to Congress that outlines a detailed
description of the proposed features of the project, a summary
of the major issues in the environmental impact statement and
the likely effects, if any, on Missouri River States and
Minnesota and how the features will comply with the Boundary
Waters Treaty of 1909.
Congressional authorization is needed for any project
feature that would provide water from the Missouri River or its
tributaries to the Sheyenne River water supply and release
facility. Congressional appropriations, as Dale has pointed
out, are needed for the construction of the water treatment and
related facilities that are attributed to meeting the
requirements of the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909.
We will need congressional appropriations for the $200
million that's indexed that's authorized in the Dakota Water
Resources Act for the Red River Valley Water Supply Project.
North Dakota needs to enter into a cooperative agreement
with the Secretary to construct the feature or features
authorized by the legislation and execute a master repayment
contract with the Secretary and a water service agreement with
the Lake Agassiz Water Authority. The State will need a
financial plan to provide funding for one-third of the project
costs.
prepared statement
Garrison Diversion remains committed to working with our
partners at the Federal, State, and local level to find the
best solutions for the citizens of North Dakota while
respecting all of our neighbors.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dave Koland
My name is Dave Koland, General Manager of the Garrison Diversion
Conservancy District (Garrison Diversion). I live in Carrington, North
Dakota, where Garrison Diversion has its headquarters. The mission of
Garrison Diversion is to provide a reliable, high quality water supply
for the benefit of North Dakota. Over 77 percent of our state's
residents live within the boundaries of the 28 member counties that
comprise Garrison Diversion. Garrison Diversion represents the State of
North Dakota as the joint lead with the Bureau of Reclamation on the
preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) [DWRA Section
8(c)] for the Red River Valley Water Supply Project [Section 8(a)].
Mr. Chairman, I would like to commend you for holding this hearing
in North Dakota. The importance of providing a reliable water supply
for the Red River Valley is only magnified by the drought that has
descended on our state this summer. Under the very best of conditions,
it will be at least six years before we will be able to provide a
supplemental water supply to the Red River Valley.
The next steps are critical to facilitate the timely construction
of the Red River Valley Water Supply Project.
Upon completion of the EIS, the Dakota Water Resources Act of 2000
(DWRA) addresses the process for the selection of an alternative. Four
reports are required to be delivered to Congress if the Secretary
selects a project feature that provides water from the Missouri River
or its tributaries to the Sheyenne River water supply and release
facility [Section 8(e)].
Section 8(d)(1) provides that after reviewing the Final Report on
Red River Valley Water Needs & Options [Section 8(b)] and the
Environmental Impact Statement, the Secretary, in consultation and
coordination with the State of North Dakota in coordination with
affected local communities, shall select 1 or more project features
described in subsection (a) [Red River Valley Water Supply Project]
that will meet the comprehensive water quality and quantity needs of
the Red River Valley.
The ``affected local communities'' are represented by the Lake
Agassiz Water Authority, and the State of North is represented by
Garrison Diversion in the preparation of the EIS for the Red River
Valley Water Supply Project.
The Lake Agassiz Water Authority is governed by a board of ten
locally elected officials representing five cities and five water
districts in the Red River Valley. These five cities are Fargo, Grand
Forks, Grafton, Valley City, North Dakota and Moorhead, Minnesota. The
five water districts are Cass Rural Water, Grand Forks-Traill Water,
North Valley Water, Agassiz Water Users, and Southeast Water Users.
The Draft Environmental Impact Statement identified North Dakota's
Preferred Alternative as the Garrison Diversion Unit (GDU) Import to
Sheyenne River Alternative. The state identified this alternative
because it provides the water needed to sustain the region, as well as
benefits to the natural environment without any significant negative
impacts.
The state's preferred alternative selection process included 20
meetings of the Lake Agassiz Water Authority Technical Advisory
Committee before they recommended, on October 4, 2005, the selection of
the GDU Import to Sheyenne River Alternative to the Lake Agassiz Water
Authority board of directors. The Lake Agassiz Water Authority board
voted unanimously on October 4, 2005, to select the alternative as
their preferred alternative.
The Public Relations/Red River Valley Committee of the Garrison
Diversion Conservancy District recommended the alternative to the
Garrison Diversion board of directors on October 4, 2005. The Garrison
Diversion board of directors voted unanimously on October 7, 2005, to
select the alternative as their preferred alternative.
The North Dakota State Water Commission voted unanimously on
November 1, 2005, to endorse the GDU Import to Sheyenne River
Alternative as the state's preferred alternative. North Dakota Governor
John Hoeven conveyed the state's selection to Secretary of the Interior
Gale A. Norton on November 1, 2005.
Additional guidance is provided in Section 8(a)(3)(A) if the
Secretary selects a project feature under this section that would
provide water from the Missouri River or its tributaries to the
Sheyenne River water supply and release facility or from the Missouri
River or its tributaries to such other conveyance facility as the
Secretary selects under this section. No later than 90 days after the
completion of the final environmental impact statement, the Secretary
shall transmit to Congress a comprehensive report which provides:
--A detailed description of the proposed project feature;
--A summary of major issues addressed in the environmental impact
statement;
--Likely effects, if any, on other States bordering the Missouri
River and on the State of Minnesota; and
--A description of how the project feature complies with the
requirements of section 1(h)(1) of this Act (relating to the
Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909).
Section 8(a)(3)(B) further provides that no project feature or
features that would provide water from the Missouri River or its
tributaries to the Sheyenne River water supply and release facility or
from the Missouri River or its tributaries to such other conveyance
facility as the Secretary selects under this section shall be
constructed unless such feature is specifically authorized by an Act of
Congress approved subsequent to the Secretary's transmittal of the
above reports. If the Secretary selects a feature or features using
only in-basin sources of water to meet the water needs of the Red River
Valley identified in the Report on the Red River Valley Water Needs and
Options, such features are authorized without further Act of Congress.
The Act of Congress referred to in this subparagraph must be an
authorization bill, and shall not be a bill making appropriations.
Section 8(a)(3)(C) states that the Secretary may not commence
construction on the feature until a master repayment contract or water
service agreement consistent with this Act between the Secretary and
the appropriate non-Federal entity has been executed.
Section 8(d)(2) provides that if the Secretary selects only in-
basin sources of water, not later that 180 days after the record of
decision has been executed, the Secretary shall enter into a
cooperative agreement with the State of North Dakota to construct the
feature or features selected. If the Secretary selects an option that
would require a further Act of Congress, not later than 180 days after
the date of enactment of legislation the Secretary shall enter into a
cooperative agreement with the State of North Dakota to construct the
feature or features authorized by that legislation.
Section 1(h)(1) provides that prior to construction of any water
systems authorized under this Act to deliver Missouri River water into
the Hudson Bay basin, the Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary
of State and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency,
must determine that adequate treatment can be provided to meet the
requirements of the Treaty between the United States and Great Britain
relating to Boundary Waters between the United States and Canada.
Section 1(h)(2) states that all costs of construction, operation,
maintenance, and replacement of water treatment and related facilities
authorized by this Act and attributable to meeting the requirements of
the treaty shall be nonreimbursable.
In summary:
The Secretary of Interior in consultation and coordination with
North Dakota shall select one or more project features to meet the
comprehensive water quality and quantity needs of the Red River Valley
and then report to Congress within 90 days after completion of the
Final EIS:
1. A detailed description of the proposed feature,
2. A summary of major issues in the EIS,
3. Likely effects, if any, on Missouri River states and Minnesota,
and
4. How the feature complies with the Boundary Waters Treaty of
1909.
Congressional authorization is needed for any project feature that
would provide water from the Missouri River or its tributaries to the
Sheyenne River water supply and release facility. Congressional
appropriations for the construction of the water treatment and related
facilities that is attributable to meeting the requirements of the
Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909. Congressional appropriations of the
$200 million (indexed) authorized in the DWRA for the Red River Valley
Water Supply Project.
North Dakota needs to enter into a cooperative agreement with the
Secretary to construct the feature or features authorized by the
legislation and execute a master repayment contract with the Secretary
and a water service agreement with Lake Agassiz Water Authority. The
state will need a financial plan to provide funding for one third of
the project cost.
Garrison Diversion remains committed to working with our partners
at the federal, state, and local level to find the best solutions for
the citizens of North Dakota while respecting all our neighbors.
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Koland, thank you very much.
Mike Dwyer, executive director of the North Dakota Water
Coalition. Mike.
STATEMENT OF MIKE DWYER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NORTH
DAKOTA WATER COALITION
Mr. Dwyer. Senator Dorgan, I also would like to thank you
for holding this field hearing on really North Dakota's most
critical water issue.
I, too, had the privilege of working with Governor Guy on
water issues, and I have always considered myself one of the
younger people working in water in North Dakota and still do,
but Bill said you're looking a little older. But we were
reminiscing about our disappointments in the 1984 Garrison
Diversion Unit Commission but also about the dream that some
day water might be delivered to eastern North Dakota.
I represent, as you indicated, I am the executive vice
president of the North Dakota Water Users, but I am also
representing the North Dakota Water Coalition, which consists
of about 30 organizations statewide who are committed to water
development in North Dakota. Through the water coalition we are
able to provide a united front for North Dakota's water
community for water, water supply, and our water needs. The
water coalition is unanimously and vigorously in support of the
Red River Valley Water Supply Project and providing for each of
North Dakota's water needs through this project.
The subject matter that I will address here is the issue of
funding. I would like to thank the congressional delegation for
the support that you provided to North Dakota through the
Federal Government for the infrastructure that we've had. We
have a unique circumstance in our State where major
infrastructure has all come together at the same time. We have
had the Grand Forks Flood Control Project, Devils Lake,
Southwest Pipeline, NAWS, Missouri River irrigation, and they
have all come through through circumstances of nature and other
issues at the same time. We thank you for the support that the
delegation has provided, that the Federal Government has
provided because we are nearing completion of the Grand Forks
Flood Control Project. Southwest Pipeline is nearing completion
of the original phase, about $70 million of the original $200
million State MR&I program were allocated to the Southwest
Pipeline to provide water to over 3,000 homes, rural homes in
western North Dakota plus 24 or 25 cities, including the city
of Dickinson. It's interesting to note that normally the
Southwest Pipeline delivers about 120 million gallons of water
a month, and this summer it is delivering about 180 million
gallons a month. So it is quite a remarkable note of the need
for good, quality water.
Anyway, we have serious funding issues in that the 2000
Dakota Water Resources Act provided $200 million for State
MR&I, $200 million for Indian MR&I, and $200 million for the
Red River Valley Water Supply Project. At that time we felt
that the timing would be fairly decent in that we would be well
along the way for providing the funding for the $200 million
State MR&I and $200 million Indian MR&I so that when the Red
River Valley Supply Water Supply Project came on line, those
things would, as I said, we would be well under way with those
things and then we would be able to provide a significant
amount of revenues to the Red River Valley Water Supply
Project; however, if you look at the funding that North Dakota
has received for MR&I, rural water, from 2004 to 2007, it has
been about $10 million a year. That $10 million, it is $10 to
$12 million a year, and that $10 to $12 million is split 50/50
with the Indian MR&I and the State MR&I program. Now, the
Garrison appropriation has been larger, but some of that has to
go for maintaining the canals and some other operation and
maintenance that is required for the Garrison project. So about
$10 to $12 million is allocated for Indian and State MR&I, and
we do have serious needs. The NAWS project, the Southwest
Pipeline, rural water systems, the central, south central,
Indian MR&I, as I said, the circumstances of nature and drought
and other things have brought all of these critical
infrastructure together at the same time. Because of the
shortage of Federal revenues in this area, the State has
advanced about $17 million for NAWS and other projects just so
those projects could be moving forward.
The Garrison Diversion Conservancy District provided for
fiscal year 2007 needs in the amount of $36 million for State
and Indian MR&I without the Red River Valley Water Supply
Project being part of that. So you can see if the Red River
Valley Water Supply Project comes on line, construction of this
project is able to move forward, as Dave Koland said, the
soonest we could provide water would be 6 years, but a lot of
that, of course, depends on funding. But if the Red River
Valley Water Supply Project comes on line, in addition to the
$36 million for the State MR&I and the Indian MR&I, which those
projects are critical needs and they have to continue to move
forward, we can't fund the Red River Valley Water Supply
Project and then provide zero funding for those other critical
needs. So when the Red River Valley Water Supply Project comes
on line, there is going to have to be funding somewhere in the
neighborhood of $50 million a year for the MR&I, Red River
Valley, Indian MR&I components. It is such a critical issue
because if we're able to get through the steps of congressional
approval of a preferred alternative and authorization, then
that funding will have to be there in order for us to provide
the water supply.
As I said, in the shortage of funding there is a lot of
reasons, and certainly by bringing this up is not to affix
blame anywhere. It is just to say that in the future, the
delegation, the President, the Governor and others are going to
have to work together to make sure that we have adequate
funding to complete our agreement providing a water supply to
eastern North Dakota.
Senator, thank you very much.
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Dwyer, thank you very much. We
appreciate you being here.
Former mayor Bruce Furness who is chairman of Lake Agassiz
Water Authority. Bruce.
STATEMENT OF BRUCE FURNESS, CHAIRMAN, LAKE AGASSIZ
WATER AUTHORITY
Mr. Furness. Thank you. Good morning.
Senator Dorgan, thank you for having this hearing here in
North Dakota. Congressman Pomeroy, thank you for being part of
it, and I want to acknowledge also Senator Conrad and all three
of you as a delegation for all of your support on this issue
over a long, long period of time.
I would also like to acknowledge Bill Guy, who when I first
got involved with water about 12 years ago gave me some very
valuable historical perspectives from his point of view as to
what had occurred. I want to acknowledge Mayor Lindgren is
here. He, of course, had been involved in water for many, many
years as well. A lot of us have been working a long time to
make this happen.
I am here today representing the Lake Agassiz Water
Authority. Dave Koland used the term, ``affected local
communities''. That is Lake Agassiz Authority. That's us. We
are the local part of this. Our motto, our slogan or vision,
maybe you could call it is planning today for tomorrow's water.
So what we want to have accomplished is have water when we need
it. We are concerned about both the quantity of water as well
as the quality of water.
Lake Agassiz Water Authority is represented of or consists
of 13 eastern North Dakota counties plus three cities in
Minnesota along the Red River Valley. The area includes 27
water districts and, of course, lots of towns and cities. We
have a board of directors of 10 people, 4 represented by North
Dakota Cities, 1 from Moorhead and 5 represented from the water
districts. Our purpose is to purchase water from Garrison
Diversion and, second, to distribute that water to the end
consumer.
We have talked a little bit of the studies. I would like to
summarize those. The Needs and Options Report that Senator
Dorgan talked about actually unequivocally determined that
there is a need and that need is substantial. They also talked
about the analysis of the seven options, plus the do nothing
option. That was an important part of this whole process is to
do that analysis, but it has been done. It is completed, and it
speaks for itself.
Environmental impact is ongoing but the results to date
show an insignificant impact on the environment on any of the
solutions and, in particular, the solution that is the
preferred option. The preferred option, as Mayor Walakar
indicated, was the Garrison Diversion import to the Sheyenne
River. The need for that has been identified. It is the least
costly process. It has the least environmental impact, and was
selected by the Lake Agassiz Water Authority as its preferred
option on October 4 of last year.
It was endorsed by the Garrison--or also selected as the
unit by Garrison Diversion as a unit representing the State of
North Dakota 3 days later and has been endorsed by the State
Water Commission. So all that has happened.
What is next? Well, the next option or the--one of the next
things to do is to get the preferred option selected by the
Department of the Interior and LAWA would certainly encourage
and hope that they come up with the same alternative that the
State and local users have selected.
Once that is done there are still some other hurdles. There
are Canadian concerns obviously. There are Minnesota concerns.
There are downstream State concerns. We have a pricing
conundrum of the situation where the price of the water is
going to determine the participation of people using the water.
At the same time the participation of the people using the
water is going to depend on the price, so it is sort of a
chicken and egg thing that we are currently working through
right now at LAWA. Mr. Dwyer mentioned the funding issue. In
simple terms what we're hoping for is a funding formula that is
one-third local, one-third State, and one-third Federal. As Mr.
Frink mentioned, the Federal portion would be wonderful if we
could somehow make that a grant as opposed to being reimbursed.
What I would like to leave you with are three mental
images. The first if you think of the outline of the State of
North Dakota and then think of that outline representing the
amount of water that the Missouri River contributes to the
State of North Dakota and its blue in color, that blue color
would fill that entire outline up of the State of North Dakota
except for 4 percent. That little corner down here in southeast
North Dakota would be white. That's how much water the Missouri
has in it, how much relative to the rest of the water in the
State, 96 percent of the water, surface water, in the State of
North Dakota is in the Missouri River. So it just makes sense
to us local people that that's where we would go to get the
water.
The other thing is, and I have used this before, if you
think of all the water in the Missouri River as being
represented by a pail of water, a gallon of water, what we're
talking about taking out of that pail is less than half a
thimble full. Actually it is .02 percent of the water in the
Missouri is what we're talking about taking out. So we think
perhaps the downstream States' concerns are not too serious.
The other point I would make, the other image I would make
is that the city of Kansas City, Missouri, is called the city
of Fountains, and they use in their fountains more water from
the Missouri River than we're talking about taking out to use
for consumable use in the Red River Valley.
Over the past 12 years of my involvement in the water, I
have become convinced that this project can happen. I am
concerned that this project must happen for North Dakota to
continue to grow, and I at this point am confident that the
project will happen. We have all heard the affirism what the
mind of man can conceive and believe, it can achieve.
The promise of water to eastern North Dakota was conceived
60 years ago. The promise is believed now by a lot of the
people in this room, and this promise needs to be achieved in
the near future. I hope I don't have to wait another 12 years
to see this come to fruition.
Thank you once again for this opportunity. I don't have
this in a pro's form, but I can certainly provide you with this
outline if you would like that.
Thank you.
Senator Dorgan. Thank you very much, Bruce. We appreciate
you being here.
Finally, a city council member from Grand Forks, Curt
Kreun, is here with you. Thank you for coming down.
STATEMENT OF CURT KREUN, CITY COUNCIL MEMBER, GRAND
FORKS, NORTH DAKOTA
Mr. Kreun. Thank you for the opportunity, Senator Dorgan
and Congressman Pomeroy and also Governor Guy. I didn't have
ability or time to work with any projects but I did go to
school with his son. I don't know if that counts for anything
or not, at Mayville. But anyway, my name is Curt Kreun and I am
the Ward 7 council person from the city of Grand Forks. I also
do chair the Safety and Service Committee there, and I am a
member of the Lake Agassiz Water Authority, representing the
city of Grand Forks. I would like to thank you for the
opportunity to testify on behalf of the city of Grand Forks
because this is a very important project to us as well.
Even before I was elected to the city council in Grand
Forks, I had a strong interest in water. One of the businesses
I did own was a water supply business that delivered water to
people with inadequate water availability. I know firsthand how
difficult and expensive it can be to provide good, quality
water in quantities sufficient to meet the community needs. I
have also seen the impact upon businesses and individuals when
those needs cannot be met. Partially because of those
interests, I agreed to represent the city of Grand Forks on the
Lake Agassiz Water Authority. I have heard the reports from
professionals about the climatic swings we can expect from the
Dakotas. It isn't a question if there is going to be a drought.
The question is when will the drought occur and how severe will
it be?
The technical details of population projections, future
water demands, historic river flows, and projected shortages
for Grand Forks are contained in the needs and option reports
and the draft environmental impact statement prepared for this
project. I would request that this document or these documents
be incorporated into my testimony by reference.
Senator Dorgan. Without objection they will be
incorporated.
[Note: The Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Red
River Valley Water Supply Project and other documents are
available at http://www.rrvwsp.com.]
Mr. Kreun. Thank you.
Grand Forks is perhaps a bit more fortunate than our
neighbors to the south because of the greater drainage
upstream. We have fewer periods of low flow or no flow in the
Red River; however, the studies have shown that there will be
times where there will be no flow in the Red River or the Red
Lake River. If there is no water in the rivers there is no
water for us to process and to distribute to our customers in
Grand Forks. Grand Forks is a regional hub for a variety of
services. Altru Clinic and Hospital is a regional supplier for
health care. The Columbia Mall and myriad of other retail
stores provide the material needs for the area. Grand Forks is
a hub for regional agricultural processing. Simplot provides
value added products for the potatoes. This is not only a large
employer at the processing plant but it is critical to potato
growing industry which supports numerous family farms in the
area. Similarly, Crystal Sugar in East Grand Forks supports and
adds value to our processing of sugar beets as well. Grand
Forks customers also include State facilities such as the
University of North Dakota, the Dakota Mill and Elevator. A
water shortage in Grand Forks would have direct statewide and
Federal impact. We deliver water to Federal facilities such as
the Grand Forks Air Force Base and regional border patrol
offices. All of these facilities provide invaluable services
and employment throughout northeastern North Dakota and
northwestern Minnesota.
As you can see, impacts to the water supply for Grand Forks
has impacts far beyond the actual city limits of Grand Forks.
All of the facilities noted above rely on a clean, dependable
supply of water. What would happen were there to be no flow
from the rivers to process through our water treatment plant,
this question has weighed heavily on my mind, as well as the
minds of our local leaders. It is obvious to us that the answer
to the question lies in a regional solution. Independent
actions by individual communities would prove detrimental to
the local agricultural community, not to mention being too
costly and likely too late.
We are grateful at the Federal level we have people like
Senator Dorgan who recognize the potential for problems and has
taken action. The Red River Valley Water Supply legislation
makes the possibility of a regional solution a reality. We have
found what we think is the best solution available, which is
the Garrison Diversion Unit import to the Sheyenne River
alternative, say that 10 times real fast each time. This
alternative would provide a reliable source of water to meet
the needs of the valley. One of the issues with this
alternative is that it is an inter-basin transfer of water. We
do not feel that this type of transfer would be an impediment
to moving forward. There are numerous examples throughout the
United States and Canada of inter-basin water transfers. Water
technology is available to treat source water to a reasonable
degree in order to address harmful biota.
Are there still outstanding questions? Yes, there are.
These issues are being worked on through the environmental
impact statement. For instance, we recognize that during the
drought of the Red River will become affluent dominated. For
Grand Forks that raises questions as to the quality of water
that will be available for treatment. We may find that
downstream users need to include water treatment plan upgrades
as a part of the overall project. Those types of issues will
need to be worked out as part of the project details. However,
we're confident that there are reasonable solutions to this
issue and others that may arise during the project development.
Of the alternatives reviewed, the Garrison Diversion Unit
import to the Sheyenne provides the best combination of low
cost, high environmental benefits, and reasonable operating
parameters. We need to remember that this solution does not
provide the level of service of many major water projects. This
project does not provide a continuous source of water
treatment, nor will it provide water to the tap of the end
users. Costs will likely dictate that this project will only
provide the minimum level of water service necessary for
community survival.
During a drought, Grand Forks will lose a lot of the robust
recreational opportunities that the river provides. You will no
longer see the record 20- and 30-pound catfish pulled out of
the Red River that we just had at our popular fishing
tournament. During the drought we will have not have the water
availability for lawns and gardens. No longer will we see the
abundance of the flower beds to improve the look and feel of
our community. The quality of life in Grand Forks and
throughout the Valley will not be at a level to which we are
accustomed to today.
The point is, in other words, this water supply project
represents basic needs to minimize direct economic impacts and
has little or no provision for wants. Even though the water
supply is a critical issue, much of the population of Grand
Forks is still concerned with too much water, as was brought
out before, and not too little. This spring we saw the fifth
highest flood in recent history. As a community we are still
focused on the completion of our flood control project. This
means support will be highly dependent on cost to consumers. To
a large degree this will be looked at as an insurance policy.
How much is the consumer willing and able to pay for insurance?
Remembering that we are also asking our citizens to pay a part
of the flood control project for the next 20 years, which adds
up to about $80 million out of our residents. The answers to
these questions will need to be addressed through community
debate; however, it is clear that the Federal participation
contained in the Red River Valley Water Supply legislation is
critical to making a regional solution a reality.
In Grand Forks we are supportive of the Lake Agassiz Water
Financing Project, which includes participation of local,
State, and Federal governments. As a council person, I hear
concerns every day about the cost of taxes and services. Many
people are on a fixed income, struggle to meet expenses. Any
model that can minimize costs to our local populus and industry
will be beneficial.
In summary we support the process of the regional water
supply solution. We support the State preferred alternative and
we support the concepts of the cost sharing solution.
I would like to thank Senator Dorgan and Congressman
Pomeroy again for having this hearing in Fargo and in North
Dakota and appreciate the opportunity to testify. If there is
any questions, I would be glad to answer them.
Senator Dorgan. Thank you very much. We appreciate that.
Finally, I am going to call on Lance Yohe of the Red River
Basin Commission to describe a letter they have sent to Dennis
Breitzman, Bureau of Reclamation, just briefly, and then I am
going to ask a series of questions and ask Congressman Pomeroy
to inquire as well.
STATEMENT OF LANCE YOHE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, RED RIVER
BASIN COMMISSION
Mr. Yohe. Senator Dorgan, Congressman Pomeroy, former
Governor Guy, panel members, thank you for the opportunity to
share some things that we think are important from not only the
local perspective in North Dakota but also the larger basin
perspective, including Manitoba and Minnesota. South Dakota
really doesn't get too involved in this issue because of the
head waters down there.
When we look at this from a basin perspective it becomes
evident that this is not just a North Dakota concern. It's a
concern all over the basin, and the issue of too much water in
the spring and a drought now that we have experienced this year
is going on everywhere in the basin. Southern Manitoba has as
much water supply problems as eastern North Dakota does. So
when we looked at that from a basin perspective we realized
that drought for the future is there. Some kind of drought will
be there. How long it will last, what the need will be, those
are the unanswerables and the study the Bureau of Reclamation
is working on with the C district will help address some of
those concerns in terms of helping us understand that. But what
we do about that and how we get there, that's the question.
From our perspective, the sooner we do it, the better. Time is
of the essence because this drought could go on next year, the
year after. Could be another 1930's drought or it could be a
century's long drought like this region experienced back in the
1100s. We don't know, but we know we need to address the
future. We need to look at what we can do, and with that in
mind we have sent a letter, which you have a copy of, that has
two points to it. One is that drought is not just an issue that
focuses on one area alone. It is something we need to look at
together as a basin and we need to look ahead as a basin. So
we're working with the group of technical advisors from each of
the jurisdictions now to look at that to see if there is
something that we can look at for the future to prepare for a
drought where we could look at this resource and figure out
what we're going to need, where it is going to be needed, and
how we're going to deal with it. That strategy for basin-wide
look at it from a drought planning perspective we think is
important because particularly related to the differences in
water laws between the jurisdictions. Dale Frink made reference
to it. We have got nothing but conflict ahead of us if we don't
get ahead of this curve. We have got to figure out how we are
going to deal with this. Talking now, the only consensus
agreement now, it will certainly be a lot better for us than
having conflict and legal challenges later. Again, time is of
the essence and that will just slow the process down.
The second point we're concerned about is downstream
interest and has been made references of several times here.
What are the downstream interests exactly? What are people
really concerned about? It has been made reference to water
quality, biota, the things that are in there, and the need to
do something about that. I think everybody is starting to
realize something needs to move forward on that. The question
is how far do we have to go? Where is the line on the
treatment? What is the cost going to be? What kind of a
precedent does it set? Those are important questions. If we can
get some kind of consensus and agreement on that on that and
where the line is and we can define the costs, then we're in a
position to have everybody working on this together, the
cooperation across the boundaries that will make this happen
and allow us to get it done in a timely fashion, so we think
that is important. We're working on that. If we can get that
before the record of decision we will provide that to Bureau of
Reclamation C District and hopefully that will become part of
the process in deciding a final solution.
Thank you.
Senator Dorgan. Thank you very much. We will include your
statement as part of the formal hearing record and the letter
of the Commission to Dennis Breitzman, the Bureau of
Reclamation.
[The information follows:]
Prepared Statement of Lance Yohe
Senator Dorgan, Congressman Pomeroy, members of the panel and those
in attendance, I appreciate the opportunity to present today and bring
the water supply issue into focus from a broader (Red River) basin-wide
perspective.
Background.--The Red River Basin Commission (RRBC) is a registered
501(C)(3) tax-exempt organization in the United States and a registered
Charity in Canada. The forty-one (41) board of directors are
representatives of local, state, provincial, and tribal governments and
citizens in Manitoba, Canada and Minnesota, North Dakota and South
Dakota in the United States.
The Vision of RRBC is a Red River Basin where residents,
organizations and governments work together to achieve basin wide
commitment to comprehensive integrated watershed stewardship and
management.
The Mission of RRBC is to develop a Red River Basin integrated
natural resources framework plan, to achieve commitment to implement
the framework plan, and to work toward a unified voice for the Red
River Basin.
Statement.--Water supply in the Red River Basin is Goal #10 in the
Red River Basin (RRB) Natural Resource Framework Plan (NRFP). The goal
reads: Ensure the appropriate use and sustainability of the Basin's
surface and ground water. There are three objectives identified to meet
this goal: a basin wide strategy to meet current and projected water
supply needs; water supply emergency management plans for
contamination, drought, and flooding; and to develop an understanding
of the approaches and differences in minimum in-stream flow criteria.
The RRBC and others are working to achieve these objectives to meet
this basin goal.
The RRBC in reviewing the Draft EIS for the Water Supply Project
underway by the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) and the Dakota Water
Resource District highlighted the following:
--In basin solutions fit best with the basin NRFP goals.
--The RRBC is working with the jurisdictions of Manitoba, Minnesota,
North Dakota, and South Dakota to determine what the downstream
concerns would be if an out of basin supply option is the
preferred alternative in the current water supply project. This
information, when identified, will be provided to see if these
concerns could be addressed in the final recommendations.
--The RRBC is also exploring with the jurisdictions what basin wide
drought planning might include and if there is a desire to
explore a basin wide drought plan. This plan could include
needs and strategies to meet those needs, as well as a basin
strategy to utilize water in an extended drought without an
adequate supply to meet all needs.
The RRBC letter to the BOR is attached for reference.
There is a growing consensus from around the basin that water
supply is one of the major problems that we will face in the future.
North Dakota is concerned enough to embark on a multi-year project to
bring more water to the North Dakota portion of the Red River Basin.
Minnesota is concerned enough to include major cities along the Red
River in the North Dakota Study and to begin looking at the supply
issue for the other portions of Minnesota in the Red River Basin.
Southern Manitoba is concerned enough to have a current project
exploring expansion of their water co-op network to forested lands many
kilometers east of the Red River. And Winnipeg is concerned enough to
explore safeguarding and protecting its usually stable supply of water.
Everyone is concerned. Everyone anticipates a need in the future that
will stress current supplies and practices. How we approach these
anticipated needs together as we look to the future will determine if
there is conflict or harmony. The RRB-NRFP identifies the need to use a
basin wide approach in seeking solutions to the land and water problems
in the Red River Basin. Water supply is one of those problems where a
basin wide approach would go a long way in addressing everyone's needs
and maximizing resources. RRBC will continue to build consensus toward
a basin wide approach to address the water supply issue.
Thank you, for the opportunity to present the RRBC basin wide
approach.
______
Red River Basin Commission,
410-283 Bannatyne Ave.,
Winnipeg, MB R3B 3B2, February 9, 2006.
Dennis Breitzman,
Area Manager, Bureau of Reclamation, Dakotas Area Office, P.O. Box
1017, Bismarck, ND.
The Red River Basin Commission (RRBC) is a non-profit international
organization that operates in Canada and the United States in the
Province of Manitoba and the States of Minnesota, North Dakota, and
South Dakota. The RRBC 41 member board represents local, provincial,
state, and tribal leaders in the area as well as ex-officio
representation from federal agencies and legislators at all levels.
Recently, RRBC has completed a Red River Basin (RRB) Natural
Resources Framework Plan (NRFP). The NRFP is enclosed with this letter.
This NRFP has 13 basin wide goals of which water supply is #10.
Goal #10 is: Ensure the appropriate use and sustainability of the
Basin's surface and ground water.
The 2 Objectives under this Goal are:
--Objective 10.1: Develop a basin-wide strategy to meet current and
projected water supply needs.
--Objective 10.2: Develop water supply emergency management plans for
contamination, drought and flooding.
Each goal has objectives and an action agenda that reflect actions
by others and RRBC that address the Goals and Objectives. The BOR's
water supply study relates in part to Objective 10.1 in NRFP.
In addition to the NRFP, RRBC has underlying Guiding Principles.
The Guiding Principles are also enclosed with the letter. The basic
theme of the Guiding Principles is to work on problems in the basin
together and do no harm to others as solutions are implemented.
Additionally, the guiding principles identify that ``Conservation is a
primary consideration in meeting water supply needs identified in the
basin.''
At recent Plan Management Committee meetings, the DEIS was
discussed. As part of the discussion RRBC members presented
jurisdictional and personal concerns and identified matters that
require further work and consideration. RRBC has encourages the members
who provided these comments to evaluate them against the DEIS and to
provide comments, as necessary to the BOR. RRBC encourages the BOR to
give due consideration to these comments.
RRBC recognizes that there are water supply needs in Eastern North
Dakota and Western Minnesota, and also Southern Manitoba. We also
recognize that each jurisdiction has the responsibility to address its
legitimate and reasonable water supply needs.
RRBC considers in-basin options the most consistent with its
Guiding Principles and NRFP goals and objectives. If out-of-basin
options are the only reasonable means possible to address the
identified needs, then any alternative must adequately protect
downstream interests.
RRBC is in the process of developing a strategy to address
Objective 10.2 in the NRFP: to facilitate the development of a basin
drought plan. In addition RRBC will facilitate discussion between the
jurisdictions to address the concerns of downstream interests, such as
the identification of what adequate treatment would be in the event
that an out-of-basin alternative is selected. RRBC is working to
complete these two initiatives before the ROD. RRBC asks that the BOR
consider input from these two initiatives in determining its
recommendation on a preferred water supply option and finalizing its
ROD, if the information is provided before the ROD is finalized.
The RRBC would invite the BOR, the Garrison Conservancy District,
and other interested parties to participate in these two initiatives.
Sincerely,
Dan Wilkens,
Chair of RRBC.
Lance Yohe,
Executive Director, RRBC.
Senator Dorgan. We thank all of you for being here and
presenting some information. The first question, I guess, I
would ask is perhaps of Dale and the mayor and others. The
option that the State has selected, and the option I believe
all of you have suggested as the preferred option, an agreement
that you have reached almost by unanimous consent? Or are there
others who believe there should have been other options
selected?
Mr. Koland. Senator Dorgan, in my written testimony I
outlined the procedure that we went through, starting with the
Technical Advisory Committee of the Lake Agassiz Water
Authority. That committee made a recommendation to the Lake
Agassiz Water Authority, and the Garrison Diversion had a
committee that was monitoring all the meetings that were going
on with the Lake Agassiz Water Authority called the Public
Relations and Red River Valley Committee. That committee made a
recommendation to the Garrison Diversion Board. Then the State
Water Commission, we held special briefings for the State Water
Commission. We kept them up to date as we were going through
the process. The point I am getting to to answer your question
is that every vote at each of those committees and each of
those boards was a unanimous vote. Now, that's not to say that
we did not seriously discuss other ways of getting water to the
Red River Valley because there are other ways; for instance,
putting water in the James River and then bringing it over to
the Red River is a way. But the Dakota Water Resources Act,
when that deal was struck, specifically eliminated in our
viewpoint the option of putting water in the James River. So
the other options, there are other options that we could look
at, would require us to go back and ask Congress for
authorization to implement those type of options. That was just
one of the options. There are the various pipeline versions. I
would say that within each of these organizations there are
people that lean toward the pipeline. I know a number of the
water districts would favor what we call the replacement
option, to provide a replacement water supply to every water
system in the Red River Valley. We looked at that because we
wanted to know what that would cost. It's billions of dollars.
It just simply, yes, we would like to do it, but it is simply
not affordable for the water users or for the State or for the
Federal Government, for that matter, to pursue that option. So
yes, we considered many different options and I would say that
if you ask any number of people that, well, here is my favorite
if someone else will pay for it, but it got down to which
option could we meet the needs of the Valley and do the least
amount of environmental impact to our system.
Senator Dorgan. What is the condition of McClusky Canal at
this point?
Mr. Koland. The McClusky Canal has been maintained under
contract with the Bureau of Reclamation. We use it to deliver
water. We have water contracts with some of the Federal
agencies to deliver water for wildlife management areas. So in
my opinion it is in very good condition. There is some work in
one of the regions of the canal that will have to be addressed.
There are slides in some of the areas and that will have to be
addressed. If that's the option that is selected, we will then
take a look at what it will to correct those.
Senator Dorgan. One of more of you mentioned a new
authorization is needed by the Congress if, in fact, the choice
of moving Missouri River water to eastern North Dakota is made,
and if that selection is determined to be the case, then the
Congress will have to pass a new authorization. You also
pointed out correctly that the $200 million is reimbursable.
You would like it to be nonreimbursable. Let me ask the
question. Anticipating that we certainly would be working on
those issues, what if, in fact, the $200 million continued to
be reimbursable, what does that do to the cost of water
delivered to the Red River Valley from the Missouri River?
Mr. Koland. It is somewhat problematic to answer it
specifically because it depends on how the repayment contract
would be negotiated, but a typical repayment contract calls
that repayment is based on the amount of water that you use. So
theoretically, viewing it that way, that you would not be
making payments until you had to call on the supplemental water
source. Typically those are over a 40-year period and typically
also extended so that it is a 80-year repayment period. So
while it is reimbursable, typically it can be negotiated to
what would be favorable terms for the water users.
Senator Dorgan. One of the things that exists in government
and perhaps in all of our lives is it is much easier to respond
to a crisis because you can see it, feel it, there is an
urgency to it, and so it is always a circumstance where it is
easier to respond to a crisis than it is to respond earlier on
to prevent a crisis. I ask the question, you know, the folks in
the communities and the Red River Valley who will pay for this
or pay for some of this project at least, what kind of opinion
exists in the communities with respect to the need for this,
the support for it and the urgency of it? Perhaps Mayor Walakar
and Mayor Furness might answer and Curt as well. What is your
sense of what the people are saying?
Mayor Walakar. Well, after going through the wet period
that we have gone through for the last 10 years or more, this
was kind of a shock to our people. If you look at the crops and
so forth in the Red River Valley, they look pretty good. Why do
they look good? Because of our soil and so forth. I think small
grains did fairly well and we did get a little bit of rain for
the row crops. But we get a lot of calls at the office about
the water restrictions and so forth, and there is a concern.
All you have to do is--we have five dams on the Red River that
the city maintains and we have restructured three of them and
we are going to try and restructure the other two that provide
reservoirs and so forth in case we go into a drought, but that
is just a short-term process. I think the time is right, to
answer your question about the reimbursable $200 million, I
think that would be difficult because the process of, you know,
I like the formula of one-third, one-third, one-third. I think
that makes the most sense. As far as reimbursing that over 80
years, I guess I don't have to worry about that, but the
process gets to be that if we are going to be partners, that
seems like to be a very good scenario to fund the project when
you look at the project when you were talking originally it was
$800 million to $1 billion. That's an awful lot of money. Even
$600 million is an awful lot of money, but to me this
alternative that we have in the process is very respectable. I
think it is something that can be sold, but what people get
down to really, Byron, is what is it going to cost me? What is
going to be on our water bill on a monthly basis to provide
that? The people came forward in the city of Fargo with a sales
tax because it was a good deal. I mean it was a good process
for us to fund flood protection and things like that and
infrastructure, but it is going to be interesting. This would
be the year to continue forward as far as I am concerned
because water has not been a real serious problem here since
1989.
Senator Dorgan. Bruce Furness.
Mr. Furness. I think the average person has not thought
much about this. Maybe now this year with the start of
potentially a drought they are more concerned, but they really
won't get concerned until they turn the tap and nothing comes
out. We have always said, and we haven't really sampled this in
any way, but if we could deliver water to the citizens of
Fargo, assure them that they would have this additional water,
supplemental water supply, for something in the area of $10 a
month additional, that that would be a sellable thing to the
citizens. I have presented that at various times when I have
spoken at service clubs and things like that and gotten a
positive response, but it is certainly not any kind of
scientific study that was made of this. But we think if we can
get it down less than that it would be better, but that's sort
of what we--you know, $100 a year we think people would view as
the insurance payment to assure that they have water.
Senator Dorgan. Curt, what is your assessment of the Grand
Forks citizenry?
Mr. Kreun. Actually our residents haven't given it a lot of
thought at this point. We have been trying to bring up the
awareness of the studies that have shown that we will have a
problem. We have had some media coverage that has been very
positive. The residents then have responded from the media
coverage to indicate, yes, we should be looking at this. It
does become an issue of how long do we pay the insurance policy
before we see the benefit? I guess that is kind of what I
stated in there. They view it as an insurance policy, but it is
definitely an insurance policy that I think most people when
they look at this in depth will see that it is worthwhile as an
insurance policy because there will be a point in time, as I
stated, it is not if we have a drought, it is just when and how
severe. So we have to bring that forward as a governmental body
to indicate how this will be affecting their amount of money
that they would pay for the insurance policy. But it is slowly
taking hold right now. It was very difficult in the beginning
to bring this forward but it is starting to take hold right now
in Grand Forks to understand because of the dry conditions that
we've had in Fargo and the western part of the State. So it is
coming.
Senator Dorgan. All right. I am going to call on
Congressman Pomeroy to inquire, but I did want to mention we
have another former I see in the audience, Jon Lindgren, Jon
welcome. Thank you for being here.
Congressman Pomeroy.
Mr. Pomeroy. I think it is very interesting as you talk
about public awareness about the drought. I mean the searing
water events we have had are floods. I am still shaking my
head, hearing Denny Walakar talking about not enough water. You
know, it's a distinct turn of events although a lot more of a
focus this year certainly.
I want to ask Mike a question. I was very interested to see
that Southwest water supply demand is up by 50 percent over
normal. How is that obviously related to drought? What is
causing the additional draw on that water?
Mr. Dwyer. It is the drought of the summer. Obviously south
of Interstate 94 is a very intense dry period, you know. You
know, north of the interstate, you know, we have got some
rainfall, but in the southwest part of the State it has been
extremely dry, so it is attributed to the drought.
Mr. Pomeroy. Would we have had municipal water shortages
potentially without Southwest water supply with the summer we
have had?
Mr. Dwyer. Absolutely. If you remember early back in the
1980s when the Southwest Pipeline was first authorized,
Dickinson was out of water and they were recycling their lagoon
water for water back then. So Dickinson and a whole number of
the other communities would not have had water.
Mr. Pomeroy. Dale, you want to elaborate on that?
Mr. Frink. The Southwest Pipeline started to pump water in
1991 and that winter, if that pipeline wouldn't have been
completed at that time Dickinson would have been out of water
in that winter and they would have been out of water
essentially for 2 years. So, yes, Southwest Pipeline made a
very huge impact right out of the chute.
Mr. Pomeroy. We in North Dakota talk about the critical
link between a pipeline for water supply assurance versus the
prospect of literally running out of water. We have got living,
breathing examples of this in North Dakota.
Mr. Frink. Yes, we do.
Mr. Pomeroy. Lance, you mentioned consensus many times. As
I look at your board, Manitoba is represented in equal numbers.
Is there a developing consensus on need? That we're not just
faking it? We're not just wanting some Cadillac water deal--
that we face the prospect of not having water for Fargo? I
guess, as you have mentioned, that there would also be
participation by southern Manitoba as well as cities from
Minnesota that are part of the commission. Is there developing
consensus on need?
Mr. Yohe. Congressman, yes, I believe there is, and we have
talked about that at our board meeting, and there is a general
feeling that we're in a period where we really need to take a
look at that. The difference has become how great the need is
and how we address that need, but the need issue, there seems
to be consensus it is there. Southern Manitoba right now all
the way from the border to Winnipeg is looking all over
southern Manitoba for a new source of water because they are to
the point where they feel they can't rely on the Red River
because there is nothing in place. So up in that area it is
certainly there.
Mr. Pomeroy. You know, once there is a developed consensus
on need or a spoken consensus on need then there are other ways
to continue the debate. Cost is a very effective way to kill a
project without saying you are out to kill a project. I have
seen it done many times. Mike, I thought your testimony was
interesting in terms of the kind of dollars we're going to have
to put behind this so the financials work. If you don't get the
financials to work, none of it works. Would you care to
elaborate a little more on that point?
Mr. Dwyer. Well, you know, we certainly need to recognize
whether the $200 million Federal component is grant or loan, it
still has to be provided. So the $50 to $60 million a year is
going to be essential in order to be able to move this project
forward. I also might add that there is a State MR&I component
of $200 million and it may well be that North Dakota will
allocate a share of that to this project. I suspect it will. So
those Federal dollars are going to have to be forthcoming in
order for us to move this project.
Mr. Pomeroy. Federal dollars required depends on design of
the project. Is the $50 to $60 million estimate based upon the
consensus alternative that has been supported?
Mr. Dwyer. That is based on just a general $600 million
project with $200 million being local, $200 million being
State, and $200 million being Federal. So if we change that and
went to a $1.2 billion project, obviously those numbers are way
different, but it is based on the $600 million amount.
Mr. Pomeroy. I think that that's an important point. In
terms of talking about design, let's talk about design. Let's
look with an open mind at the alternatives, but in the end
let's understand that a $100 million a year funding requirement
is unlikely to be committed by the Federal Government at this
point in time and that a design that takes you to that dollar
figure is essentially a nonstarter. So you can talk about how
it is not going to happen which is the same as opposing it
outright. I think that we're going to have to reflect long and
hard at what appears to be thorough work done by you all in
evaluating the alternatives and arriving at the preferred one
that you did. Some are suggesting you jumped the gun a little,
you moved up prematurely, picking one alternative when the
Corps is still mulling around. If we're to get this thing on
track there are finite options. There are a finite number of
options. You have done some due diligence in looking at them. I
think you have brought us some very good work.
Thank you. That is the end of my questions, Senator.
Senator Dorgan. I want to--first of all, let me say Valerie
Gravseth is here in the back with Senator Mark Dayton. Valerie,
where are you? Thank you. Your being here reminds us again that
while we are on the North Dakota side and talking about
principally our North Dakota cities, this issue relates to our
region. I think, Lance, your comments are certainly correct
about that.
Congressman Pomeroy raised the issue of funding. All of us
are committed, very committed to doing what is necessary to
authorize what we decide to do here, to try to find ways to
provide whatever funding is achievable. Obviously the fiscal
policy in our country has deteriorated substantially, and in
this oncoming year the increase in Federal indebtedness, not
what is advertised in news on what the Federal deficit will be
but the increase in indebtedness in the coming fiscal year will
be about $600 billion. That's just for the budget debt. The
trade debt will be about $750 billion at least. So we have a
pretty grim financial picture with respect to budget policy,
and I think, as Congressman Pomeroy I think is correct, it is
not as easy as it would have been perhaps a decade or two
decades ago to achieve all the funding that is necessary. But
we have a commitment here in Federal legislation. This entire
commitment, including this issue is a part of the bargain that
was struck going back to the Pick-Sloan plan, and as a result
of that and modifications of that along the way there is a plan
that includes benefits to North Dakota, including resolving the
issue of a water supply, an assured water supply on the eastern
side of our State. It is our responsibility, all of us, to make
sure that that commitment is kept. So, you know, I pledged, my
colleagues, Senator Conrad and Congressman Pomeroy, pledged to
do all we can to try to realize this dream of not being held
hostage to a river that runs dry some day. That would have
dramatic consequences for our largest metropolitan area in this
region, and many other areas as well up and down the river. We
have folks here from Pembina and other areas. The consequences
are very significant for a pretty substantial part of our
population.
I would also like to say, as we conclude today, that there
are perhaps those with other viewpoints that wish to express
them as we move forward, and we will accept as a part of the
formal record any and all additional viewpoints that wish to be
submitted by individuals or groups and that will become a part
of the record. The development of a record here is very
important. I specifically asked that we begin to develop a
record in the Appropriations Committee because it is--while we
don't have authorization issues, it is also the case that the
Appropriations Committee will at some point be required to take
a look at this, and I want the record to have been developed on
it as well, and that is the purpose of calling today's hearing.
I know that a number of you have driven a long ways today to
come with--to be part of this as well and we appreciate that.
[The information follows:]
<GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
CONCLUSION OF HEARING
Senator Dorgan. With that, Congressman Pomeroy, thank you
for being a part of this. I thank all of you for being here and
thanks to the witnesses who testified. The hearing record will
remain open for 15 days for those who wish to submit additional
testimony. This hearing is concluded.
[Whereupon, at 12:25 p.m., Thursday, August 24, the hearing
was concluded, and the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene
subject to the call of the Chair.]
-