October 18, 2001
Mr. Mark Hove
Minnesota Chapter of the American Fisheries Society
1824 Tatum Street
Falcon Heights, MN 55113
Dear Mr. Hove:
Your May 21, 2001, letter to North Dakota Governor John Hoeven made some recommendations, which I would like to address. To begin with, it appears your information on the Garrison Diversion project is incomplete.
In your first recommendation, you state that within basin options should be considered. We have, in fact, been studying in-basin options, to provide water to the Red River Valley for a number of years. In addition, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires that all options or alternatives, both in-basin and out-of-basin, be considered. Representatives of Manitoba, Minnesota and Missouri are involved in that process and will continue to be asked for their input. Additionally, Dr. William Franzin has represented the North Central Division of the AFS on the Red River Valley Water Supply Study Review Team. Your particular organization is also welcome to participate and assist in preparing the Red River Valley report and environmental impact statement. Your organization's knowledge could provide valuable input to the process and assist us in the preparation of the final product.
Your second recommendation pertains to providing passageways in association with new or improved dams. Some of our alternatives may include storage facilities, and we will consider an analysis of fish passageways on facilities that might alter the normal passage of fish.
Recommendation three discusses the Devils Lake project, which was removed as a feature of the Garrison Diversion project in the Dakota Water Resources Act of 2000. You may wish to provide your comments relative to that project to the Corps of Engineers.
Last, but most importantly, your final recommendation states that Canada should agree to any interbasin water diversions. The treaty establishes an important criterion and that is that neither country will take any action which will cause "pollution resulting in harm or injury of health or property on the other". To date, the Canadian position and, in fact, the Minnesota position, seems to be based on very low (almost incalculable) risk of injury and, in some cases, the argument presented is on the "principle" of transbasin diversions rather than the actual potential for injury as stated in the Treaty.
Under these circumstances, we have a dilemma. The dilemma is to find a basis for constructive dialogue. We feel strongly that the water supply needs of our citizens must be met. If ruling out one of the most promising alternatives from consideration (transbasin diversion) is the premise for such a discussion, we think that violates the tenants of the Treaty as well as falls short of the full consideration of all reasonable options as required by federal environmental law.
I welcome hearing more from you on this subject and discussing it directly with you as appropriate.
Sincerely,
Warren L. Jamison
Manager