Minnesota and North Dakota differ on possible Red River pollution from the Garrison Diversion irrigation project. Minnesota has threatened a lawsuit and moratium of the project?s construction, in effect killing the project. North Dakota suggests the experiences of similar river projects around the country may provide adequate data to prevent a moratorium, but Minnesota is concerned these may not be applicable to this project. North Dakota Attorney General Allen Olson and Minnesota Pollution Control Agency director Peter Gove met to discuss concerns of each state about the project. The meeting ended without a real solution. The concern for Minnesota is that North Dakota may curtail electricty it supplies to Minnesota if Minnesota blocks this project. There?s a concern this issue might build an Iron Curtain between the states. Political considerations rather than legal may end up resolving the issue. When an upcoming Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is issued in the next year MPCA will evaluate the situation and make a decision on whether to go forward with legal action.
Transcripts
text | pdf |
DENNIS HAMILTON: The two men were brought together by Fargo Mayor Richard Hentges in an effort to air the issues of conflict. Minnesota's main concern with Garrison is that the return flows as a result of irrigation will eventually accrue to the Red River, the border between Minnesota and North Dakota. It's felt by the MPCA that sufficient evidence has not yet been presented to prove that the river will not be polluted beyond standards and violate Minnesota law. Thus, Minnesota has threatened litigation if administrative means cannot resolve the differences between the states.
One solution posed by North Dakota Attorney General Olson was that Minnesota could accept return flow data from other parts of the country, where projects similar to Garrison are in the works, and that that data might be sufficient in an interim sense to avoid Minnesota's forcing a moratorium on Garrison construction Attorney General Olson and MPC director Peter Gove discussed that possibility.
ATTORNEY GENERAL OLSON: Peter, when you mention a legal chorus, of course, to me that immediately implies moratorium on the project. My question to you is, would the experience of sprinkler-type irrigations, overhead as Senator Sillers has called it, in other areas of the country as to return flows, and if that were positive in the sense of a very limited effect on the Red in other areas of the country, would this be sufficient for the agency, or you as its executive director, to at least not insist upon a moratorium in any litigation?
PETER GOVE: Difficult for me to answer.
ATTORNEY GENERAL OLSON: You can't answer that at this point.
PETER GOVE: It's technically legal, but we cannot depend on projections done on another reach of another river and another area of the country generally.
ATTORNEY GENERAL OLSON: Even though the statistics would be similar.
PETER GOVE: So I can't answer that precisely because I don't know exactly what you're posing. We'd have to look at it. But I think you are correct. The major legal tool we would be using is violations of the National Environmental Policy Act. And our approach would be that until the impacts of the project are determined, the project should not go forward. Now, there perhaps could be other legal theories to follow other approaches, but without my legal counsel here, I would hesitate to--
ATTORNEY GENERAL OLSON: I understand that. And I don't wish to-- I don't wish to discuss legal matters in that sense because you don't have the benefit of counsel to advise you on a response or whatever.
PETER GOVE: Told me to be quiet on that anyway.
ATTORNEY GENERAL OLSON: My concern is, and if it's an opinion that I have that I can't substantiate with any facts whatsoever, but my feeling is that a moratorium on the project, as I've expressed to you, means that the project in effect means that the project is dead and we may end up with a Florida barge canal in the middle of North Dakota.
DENNIS HAMILTON: North Dakota Attorney General Allen Olson and Minnesota Pollution Control director Peter Gove discussing a possible solution to alleviating Minnesota's objections to the continuance of the Garrison Diversion irrigation project. The meeting ended with no real solutions. Attorney General Olson stated that the main result of the meeting was that Gove and he had gotten to know one another and had been able to air the areas of disagreement.
A concern for Minnesota is that North Dakota is an important energy resource, and to force a moratorium on the Garrison project might compel North Dakota to take action on curtailing the electrical energy it provides to Minnesota. The party spoke of Garrison being intertwined with economic and energy concerns, and both agreed that litigation had to be the last possible alternative. However, MPCA director Gove made it clear that steps toward litigation would continue during administrative discussions until an agreement was either reached or became futile.
There is a concern that this dispute might build an Iron Curtain between the states, so political considerations rather than legal may end up resolving the issue, thus avoiding a clash between North Dakota and Minnesota. This is the first real threat to the Garrison project. There have been other objections, but this is the closest Garrison has come to going to court and having a moratorium placed upon it, in essence killing the project.
Gove says that a decision on whether to pursue the litigation will come after MPCA has had a chance to evaluate an upcoming environmental impact statement and the report of the International Joint Commission that will discuss ramifications that will accrue to Canada as a result of Garrison. That report will probably be available next year sometime. At that time, MPCA will make its decision regarding possible legal action against the Garrison Diversion irrigation project. I'm Dennis Hamilton in Fargo.