News

• Home
• Maps
• Contact

Thank you for taking time to come to North Dakota and to gather information on the Dakota Water Resources Act and the Garrison Diversion Project. I certainly welcome you and wish for you a very pleasant experience regardless of the outcome. As I pondered my remarks today, I wondered what I could possibly say that would cause you to take a different road than the one you have traveled for so long. As someone said to me not so long ago, it is almost as if the opposition is for sentimental reasons. Please don't take that as a slam, but as a light-hearted recognition that Garrison and the Federation have a lot of history. I intend also to recognize that whether or not we answer every question, counter every assertion, or accept every suggestion, if there is not the will to resolve the issues and work together, there will never be a different relationship than the one we now have.

On behalf of the Garrison Diversion Conservancy District, I am offering you the olive branch of peace and ask that we pledge to work hard to resolve the issues that divide us. If there is the will in the soul of the National Wildlife Federation, I know that the District stands ready to join in the effort. We believe that people need to be informed on important issues and work hard to find ways to conserve the wildlife and the natural resources of North Dakota so that we can have a healthy and sustainable future. Our hope is that you will feel the same way and set aside whatever political and historic differences that may exist so that we can work together toward that goal.

HISTORY

Perhaps, for some of you, an abbreviated review of the history of the project would be helpful. At least you will get the benefit of our perspective on the history. I will be brief. The project was first authorized in 1965 as a large irrigation project. Construction began and the project struggled though a number of issues, technical, legal and political, during the late 60s and throughout the 70s. In 1984 a special commission was formed to study the project and recommend modifications. The result of the Commissions work was the development of legislation to enact their recommendations. That legislation was adopted in 1986 and was known as the Garrison Diversion Unit Reformulation Act of 1986.

The National Wildlife Federation supported the 1986 Reformulation Act, and as a result of that Act, the project was forever changed. Natural resources were certainly protected and in my opinion, enhanced. To be sure, the District did not happily sign on to the effort to pass the 86 legislation, but eventually did join in support of the legislation and defended the Act once it was passed into law. It is my view that the supporters of the bill knew it was not a perfect piece of legislation. As the dollar amounts were inserted into the legislation, the studies to support those numbers had not yet been done. For example, the amount of money provided to solve the water supply problems on the Indian reservations was little more than $20 million. Subsequently, the studies to support a realistic number were completed. The result was a recognition that the solution would require another $200 million plus. A similar situation existed for the non-Indian municipal, rural and industrial program.

In addition, the State and District have long had serious concerns about the viability of the Sykeston Canal, which was functionally authorized in the 86 Act. We believed that it would create social and environmental impacts that were unnecessary. As the study of the Sykeston Canal proceeded, the District concluded that a buried pipeline offered a far better alternative. As a result, the District began advocating the use of buried pipelines rather than canals and reservoirs.

Nevertheless, Lonetree Reservoir remained authorized in the 86 Act and was subject to consultation with the Canadian interests before it could be built. A determination of compliance with the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909 was required before delivery of water into the Hudson Bay basin could occur. The District felt that deauthorizing the Lonetree Reservoir and providing that no facilities could be constructed before a determination of compliance with the treaty was a better approach and provided a greater degree of protection to the Canadian interests.

As a result of these factors and others, we began working on legislation to amend the 86 Act. An early effort known as the collaborative effort was started. While the District was excluded from the process at the request of the conservation community, we did stand in support of the effort and were disappointed when it fell apart.

Following the breakdown of the collaborative process, the District began shopping various drafts of potential legislation around the state and seeking input and support on a piece that could be supported by the major interests. Senator Conrad led an effort to achieve consensus with the National Wildlife Federation, the National Audubon Society and the ND Wildlife Society. The legislation eventually introduced was based on the principles agreed to during a meeting with the Federation, the National Audubon Society and the ND Wildlife Society. Again, the District was excluded from the discussions at the request of the conservation community.

In the view of the District, the DWRA, while not perfect, is an improvement on the legislation passed and supported in 1986. For example, I have already referred to the language associated with the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909, which we believe strengthened the protections provided to Canada. In addition, as a result of serious discussions with Missouri and Minnesota Senators, the legislation was amended to provide even further protection against a violation of the Treaty and a more inclusive process for determining the best way to deal with the water supply problems of the Red River Valley. The amendment provided for a separate study to be conducted on the water quality and quantity needs of the Red River Valley and an Environmental Impact Statement be prepared. Further, if the Secretary of Interior, after completion of the study and environmental analysis, determined that a transbasin diversion of water would be necessary, the Congress would need to provide a separate approval before it could go forward.

The District is dedicated to supporting a full and fair analysis of all reasonable alternative ways of meeting the water needs of the Red River Valley. In that regard, we have taken two steps. The first is that the Board of Directors formally adopted a resolution declaring its position on the importance of objectivity in preparing the study. A copy of the resolution is available on our website, garrisondiv.org or directly from my office upon request. I happen to have a few extra copies with me today.

In addition, the Board has authorized me to enter into a cost share agreement for the studies and environmental analysis. That proposal is on the table and under consideration by the Bureau at the present time.

COST

I know that the overall cost of the project is a matter of concern to you. If this were a single purpose, narrowly defined regional project, I might agree with you. And if it were a project in the planning stages where one could move parts around and reconfigure the project to find an optimum paper plan, I would agree with you. However, the reality is that it is neither. This project has over 35 years of construction history. Was some of that money spent on facilities that are no longer a viable part of the optimum project? The answer is yes. Have we tried to make the best of the situation and minimize the remaining cost? The answer to that question is also, yes.

The project attempts to provide solutions to water problems all across the State. It includes water problems in the dry southwest and northwest, as well as the central and eastern portions of the State. The project includes water problems on the four Indian Reservations in the State. It includes flood control, wildlife enhancement, recreation, irrigation and municipal, rural and industrial water supply programs. Comparing the cost of this project with statewide water programs of similar magnitude you will find that Garrison might even be a bargain compared to some. According to the Commissioner of Reclamation Eluid Martinez in testimony before the Senate committee, the project cost of the Garrison Project envisioned in the 1986 legislation is reduced by the amendments contained in the DWRA.

When the Garrison Commission was struggling in 1984 with the task of proposing modifications to the project, they recognized that modifying a project in midstream would be expensive and would not meet the traditional planning evaluation criteria. That is still true today, but we think the project has been made more effective and somewhat less costly than the project they wrestled with at that time.

IRRIGATION

Much has been suggested about the potential for irrigation to occur under the Garrison Diversion legislation. First, let's be clear that no irrigation can occur in either the Hudson Bay drainage basin or the James River drainage basin. Facilities to provide for bringing water into the James River basin for irrigation were removed from the list of authorized projects, and irrigation in the James River basin was specifically prohibited except for the Oakes Test Area.

Irrigation remains as an authorized purpose of the Act, to be sure, and for very practical reasons. First, and foremost, is probably the fact that some irrigation is already occurring, and the authority to deal with its future requires that it remain as an authorized purpose. I am referring to the 5,000-acre Oakes Test Area. It is ironic that over 10,000 acres of existing irrigation was actually lost due to the construction of the Garrison Dam and Reservoir, and the actual irrigation occurring in the Oakes area is approximately 3,500 acres, thus, the Project's net impact on irrigation in North Dakota has been the loss of over 5,000 acres.

You have undoubtedly heard us say that funding for the development of irrigation systems was removed from the Act, and that is the case. We do not believe the Bureau of Reclamation program is the best vehicle for the development of the type of irrigation that appears to be in the future of the State. Irrigation of the future will likely be on the marginal lands that would have been classified as unsuitable for irrigation because of soil types and topography. It will likely be in small portions and feature high value crops in rotation. This is best developed under private and public partnerships.

The State Water Commission is supporting small irrigation projects in the northwestern part of the State. Those projects are seeking only access to the federal power that is available to authorized irrigation projects under the Pick Sloan Program. Access to this power is critical to them as the lift from the Missouri River is up to 200 ft and very costly without this power. The remaining project costs for these projects will be covered by funding from the State Water Commission and private financing. The potential for large tracts of irrigation and the traditional drainage systems is, as a practical matter, not very high at all and is simply not authorized in the DWRA.

The fears expressed that inclusion of groundwater recharge as an authorized purpose of the project will lead to a massive irrigation program that circumvents the intent of the legislation is simply not reality or practical. The soils of the Valley are not conducive to very significant recharge, and even if small areas are found to actually be practical, it would not be used to expand on existing irrigation. Groundwater recharge has a greater potential in other areas of the State, but the actual amount and practicalness of the practice remains to be evaluated.

It is ironic to note that since the time when the potential irrigation impacts to Canada were highlighted and given as a reason to prohibit irrigation in the Hudson Bay drainage, irrigation in Manitoba actually prospered. According to Canadian reports, the amount of irrigation nearly doubled in Manitoba from 1988 to 1998.

INTERBASIN TRANSFERS

I have already discussed some of the provisions included in the DWRA to address the biota transfer concerns. The belief we hold is that, if a transbasin proposal is forwarded to Congress as the best alternative way or in combination with other alternatives, it will include all the protections necessary to assure that whatever risks remain will be insignificant. In 1977 an International Joint Commission (IJC) study projected that 50% of the commercial fishery in Canada might be lost through the introduction of foreign biota. Ironically, the projection was based on the assumption that the major foreign biota to be concerned about was the rainbow smelt. Subsequent studies determined that the rainbow smelt had already transferred into the waters, but the projected losses have not occurred.

My own prospective on this issue is that the number of existing transbasin diversions that already exist have taken away the argument that this would be precedent setting. In fact, the precedent that is being set by the Project is the use of extraordinary treatment processes to prevent the transfer of unwanted biota. For example, in the case of the Northwest Area Water Supply project, which would transfer water from the Missouri River system to the Souris River (a tributary of the Assiniboine River in the Hudson Bay drainage) near Minot, North Dakota, extensive treatment processes are planned. First, the waters would be treated to the disinfection standard for drinking water and then further treated by the application of UV.

I believe we are fussing over a relatively low risk proposition, while the bigger risks go unattended. Our efforts might better be focused on understanding the existing pathways for harmful transbasin diversions that occur. We should be trying to establish a better monitoring system, improved management programs and continue to examine prevention technologies. These are the roads less traveled, and it is to everyone's detriment that we have become obsessed with the impacts of Garrison, while not paying the kind of attention we should to the potentially more significant areas. Perhaps you can take a look at that proposition and find ways to work on the issue together.

WILDLIFE PROGRAMS

The programs advanced by the 1986 Act and enhanced by the DWRA are an impressive combination of effective weapons to protect and nurture the natural resources of the State. By the account of national and international experts in the field, the mitigation and enhancement program associated with the Project is a positive model invoking feelings of envy for many.

The mitigation program is more than concurrent, it is 149% of concurrency based on biological equivalency. Enhancement features have been added which have yet to be fully realized. A 33,000-acre Lonetree Wildlife Management Area and a 5,000-acre Kraft Slough refuge are two examples.

A Wetlands Trust, established and funded at approximately $12 million, was expanded to $37 million and expanded in scope to become a Natural Resources Trust. In addition, the DWRA provided $6.5 million for recreation on a 50% matching basis. The District and the Bureau are looking at ways to combine these resources and do further enhancement of the existing Project lands to fit into a statewide nature-based experiential tourism agenda.

SUMMARY CONCLUSION

I have attempted to hit some of the highlights of the Garrison Project in a way that would be meaningful to your concerns. This project has so many facets to it, and the future is ours to nurture and grow so that we conserve our resources. We must start with education and careful examination of alternative futures. We are going through a self-examination process at the District with this in mind. For example, we are attempting to play a meaningful role in looking at ways to protect and develop the natural resources represented in the project features. We are looking at the potential for giving more people the opportunity to experience and learn about the prairie by providing carefully planned access to information programs at Lonetree. We have worked with the Bureau of Reclamation and the ND Game and Fish Department in this effort and hope to find opportunities to share resources and knowledge with the Audubon Society, Ducks Unlimited and others.

We think the Project is different in major ways from the one traditionally opposed by most conservation groups. We have enjoyed working with the ND Wildlife Society and the ND Wildlife Federation. It is our hope we can enlarge that group and build better working relationships with many others. We think that will be good for everyone.

Thank you for listening.