Statement of Maryanne Bach

Bureau of Reclamation Great Plains Regional Director

U.S. Department of the Interior

before the

Subcommittee on Water and Power,

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

United States Senate

on Red River Valley Water Needs

Fargo, North Dakota

December 9, 2002

The Dakota Water Resources Act of 2000 (DWRA) was signed into law on December 21, 2000 as Public Law 106-554. DWRA amended the 1965 authorization of the Garrison Diversion Unit (Public Law 89-108), the 1986 Garrison Diversion Unit Reformulation Act (Public Law 99-294), and the Reclamation Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992 (Public Law 102-575).

DWRA requires the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a comprehensive study of the water quality and quantity needs of the Red River Valley in North Dakota and possible options for meeting those needs. DWRA further requires that not later than 1 year after the date of enactment the Secretary and the State of North Dakota shall jointly prepare a draft environmental impact statement concerning 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 the delivery of Missouri River water to the Red River Valley. Should the draft EIS not be completed within 1 year following enactment, DWRA requires that the Secretary report to Congress on the status of the EIS including an estimated date of completion.

Reclamation=s involvement with a water supply for the Red River Valley began with the passage of the Garrison Diversion Unit Reformulation Act of 1986. The Reformulation Act authorized a Sheyenne River water supply and release feature (including a water treatment plant) capable of delivering 100 cubic feet per second of water for the cities of Fargo and Grand Forks and surrounding communities.

In 1993, the North Dakota Water Management Collaborative Process was initiated. This process was an effort by a number of stakeholders to examine the contemporary water needs of North Dakota, including needs in the Red River Valley. Reclamation was assigned the task of doing an appraisal level study of both long-term needs in the valley and options for meeting those needs. Although the collaborative process was terminated in 1994, Reclamation completed the appraisal-level Red River Valley studies in 2000.

As a follow-up to the appraisal studies, in June 2000, Reclamation, the North Dakota State Water Commission, and the Garrison Diversion Conservancy District signed a Memorandum of Understanding to organize and complete more detailed feasibility level studies. While study tasks were not undertaken, a management team and two stakeholder teams (Technical Team and Study Review Team) were organized and study planning was initiated.

Following passage of DWRA, significant concerns about the decision-making process, public involvement, and the existing Memorandum of Understanding signed in June of 2000 and based on the authority provided by the 1986 Reformulation Act, were brought to our attention-- primarily by national environmental organizations. In response to these concerns and the new direction provided by DWRA, the decision was made to terminate the original MOU and replace it with an agreement which would establish North Dakota as a joint lead for preparation of the EIS, as required by DWRA.

The Bureau of Reclamation is diligently working to implement all aspects of DWRA in as timely a manner as possible. We are making progress on the Red River Valley studies and EIS, although admittedly not within the 1-year of enactment time frame established by DWRA. During the time that has passed since DWRA was enacted, much of the work related to the Red River Valley studies and EIS has been focused on defining and negotiating the roles and responsibilities of Reclamation and the State of North Dakota in the joint preparation of the EIS. This process was further complicated by the necessity of having to resolve differences in interpretation of DWRA.

Since DWRA requires the draft EIS to be prepared jointly with the State of North Dakota some deliberation was required on the part of the State to determine which agency would act as the lead for the State. The State subsequently decided that agency would be the Garrison Diversion Conservancy District.

That decision process was followed by a significant effort to negotiate a memorandum of understanding which defined the scope of the partnership and the general roles and responsibilities of each party. The negotiation centered on differing interpretations of portions of the DWRA. The respective roles and responsibilities and overall scope of the partnership have now been agreed to and are contained in a revised Memorandum of Understanding which was signed on November 6, 2002, a copy of which is attached to this testimony for the record.

In addition to the MOU, operating principles have been negotiated and documented. These operating principles define the roles and responsibilities of each party, as well as the organization and process for completing the EIS. Two cooperative agreements are also being negotiated with the State, one for general implementation of DWRA, and one specifically for the Red River Valley studies and EIS. The cooperative agreements will allow Reclamation to transfer funds to the State for their participation. These agreements should be ready for signature in the very near future.

Since the draft EIS was not completed within 1 year following passage of DWRA, a status report was submitted to Congress by the Commissioner of Reclamation on November 22, 2002. The report projects a completion date of December 2005.

The time line for completion of the draft EIS is based in large part on requirements in DWRA relating to the comprehensive study of water quality and quantity needs of the Red River Valley and options for meeting those needs including diverting water from the Missouri River to the Red River Valley Basin. That study is to be documented in a Needs and Options Report. Since the options developed in the study will likely be the alternatives analyzed in the draft EIS, it is necessary that the studies be done in advance of, or at least on a parallel time frame, with the EIS.

Reclamation has prepared detailed plans of study and Needs and Options Report operating principles which describe the study process, organization, and public involvement required by DWRA, including 120-day review of the draft Needs and Options report by potentially affected states and federal agencies.

The plans of study, which were developed with input from the State and other stakeholders, are the basis for the timeline. The timeline is based upon a number of critical activities that must be completed. These are:

$ update water needs assessment due to unexpected population increases in key municipalities such as Fargo and develop a range of future industrial water needs scenarios;

$ refine surface water hydrology model to include tributaries to the Red River;

$ evaluate all reasonable water supply options including additional aquifers in North Dakota and in-basin water sources in Minnesota that were not previously investigated at an appraisal level;

$ design feasibility-level alternatives to be analyzed in the EIS;

$ consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on the Endangered Species Act;

$ analyze impacts from the potential transfer of biota, including parasites and pathogens, between the Missouri River Basin and the Hudson Bay Basin and assessment of risks;

$ study potential cumulative environmental impacts to the Missouri River from past, present, and foreseeable future withdrawals;

$ conduct the Needs and Options studies in an open and public process that solicits input from gubernatorial designees from states that may be affected and from federal agencies; and

$ prepare the draft EIS with the State of North Dakota in an open, public process.

As directed by DWRA, the options for providing a water supply to the Red River Valley of North Dakota include many complex and controversial analyses and consultations. The issues will involve concerns about biota transfer between the Missouri River and Hudson Bay basins requiring consultation with the Secretary of State and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency; consideration of cumulative impacts on the future water supplies in the Missouri River Basin; and feasibility level studies for the alternatives considered requiring field data collection in an environment with a limited field season.

While the time consuming negotiation and documentation processes that I have described may appear to be a lack of progress, we believe the clear definition of the partnerships and roles and responsibilities that has taken place will ultimately save time in the overall effort and result in a better product.

That concludes my statement. I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.