Garrison diversion North Dakota's Mammoth irrigation project is one of 18 water projects in the nation to come under Administration scrutiny. The Carter Administration is dubious of the projects worth and has ordered it re-evaluated that re-evaluation came in the form of a day-long hearing held March 22nd in Jamestown North Dakota. The hearing originally slated to be held in Washington DC was moved to Jamestown at the request of the state Secretary of interior Cecil Andrus presided at the review hearing at the request of North Dakota. Governor. Arthur length are the review team members were Vince Sullivan program development and budget blue. Merle and Joe Marino both attorneys from the solicitor's office, old us fish and wildlife service more dreamer Bureau of Indian Affairs and Ed Leland division of planning Bureau of Reclamation team director was Bob Lane of the government operations committee on water projects review.The hearing Drew almost 2,000 audience members in over 30 Witnesses the testimony amounts to small amount in the paper. All but a few of North Dakota's 150 legislators were in the audience and this program will attempt to summarize the review hearing and the arguments surrounding the 250000 acre 565 million-dollar irrigation project since this may be the last debate on Garrison. The fate of the project should be known by late summer or early fall. It is important to know something of the history of the project for it is in a large part that history which makes many North dakotans most adamant about finishing Garrison diversion. In 1944, the federal government passed a flood control act which led to the development of the Missouri River diversion system that system was primarily developed for flood control and hydroelectric generation the damn development necessary for flood control cause North Dakota to lose several thousand acres of Farmland North Dakota governor Arthur link and his testimony before the review panel talked about North Dakota sacrifice and what the state hope to receive in return. It is part of the larger Missouri River Basin project one of the vital multi-purpose Water Resource projects in the New Deal era. You should also remember that the project authorized in 1965 represented a massive cup back in acreage for roughly one-quarter of the project contemplated by the original master plan for irrigation in this region. I mentioned that to emphasize the fact that we have made major compromises already. Bear in mind moreover that it took significant trade-offs by the affected states to make the Missouri River Basin project a reality North Dakota. For example sacrifice to the region Psalm 566000 Acres of fertile bottom land which was inundated by the main stem dams on the Missouri River in return for this sacrifice. We were assured in 1944 that a major compensatory Reclamation project would be built to irrigate over a million Acres of our Farmland The Garrison diversion unit is of course that project in 1965 that promise was quartered to 250,000 Acres. We are told by some that we should get nothing. the critics apparently forget that there are historical legal and moral commitments to this state and its people from the Congress indeed from the United States at Large. We signed a contract with the United States to carry out this project in 1966. Both parties the United States and North Dakota made explicit their commitment to the completion of the Garrison unit North Dakota governor in the state of North Dakota obviously feels it has an historic right to the Missouri water stored in Lake Sakakawea that Lake in the western reaches of North Dakota would provide the water through a series of dams and canals to irrigate acreage in North Central and Eastern, North Dakota. Opposition to the project comes from several sources environmental groups for damage to Prairie Wetlands and Wildlife. The Canadian government is concerned about pollution of Two Rivers which flow in both countries. They are the source in the west and the red in the East and individual landowners claimed they were mistreated or cheated when the Bureau of Reclamation acquired land for Garrison's canals and reservoirs. The environmental concerns are largely represented in a lawsuit filed by the national Audubon Society in Washington DC the Minnesota Pollution Control agency, by the way has intervene on the side of the Audubon Society in that suit. That's cause North Dakota legislators quite a bit of concern over North, Dakota and Minnesota relations. Minnesota is a major purchaser of power produced Garrison Dam the state buys more power from Garrison in North Dakota has need for North Dakota legislators are unhappy about a neighboring state accruing benefits from Garrison Works while at the same time siding with the lawsuit which could deny North dakotans what they perceived to be there, right use of the store in Missouri River water. Regarding the Canadian objections. The international Joint Commission is currently studying the project and what potential damage it might do to Canadian Waters. The preliminary report issued a few months ago indicates the ijc will recommend several million dollars and revisions to be made to the project before it be allowed to continue. The final ijc report is due in June. One spokesman for environmental concerns is Richard Madsen assistant Regional representative for the national Audubon Society. Manson has long been a fool of Garrison and although there are others who speak against the project on environmental grounds. Most agree. Madson is the most articulate and reasoned the original goals of the Garrison diversion project that of helping the small farmer providing Municipal and Industrial water for cities and towns and the provision of water for recreation and Fish and Wildlife are commendable and are not opposed per se by our society in the polarized atmosphere surrounding the Garrison issue in North Dakota. Anybody raising questions about the project is immediately stereotype buy some project promoters as being against helping Farmers suffering from drought or being against providing water to cities that foresee a future need The national Audubon Society does not oppose the original goals of the Garrison diversion unit. We are very opposed to the project as it is now being developed however for two basic reason we do not believe that the Garrison project as it is presently outlined in under construction will actually bring about many of the benefits that North dakotans have sincerely expected for decades and we believe that the information now available would indicate that the costs of this project I'd only in terms of tax dollars, but also in terms of human and natural resources are going to be much higher than just about anybody anticipated at the time of project authorization. It is for that reason that the national Audubon Society stands in full support of the decision by President Carter to withhold funding for fiscal year 1978 pending the review of your commission here today secretary and rest my father owned and operated a family farm of less than 300 acres. And I can remember working our Fields with him from about as far back as I can. Remember. I watched round occasionally burn our crops and adversely affect our income at someone offered us federally subsidized irrigation. Drain dry years. I suspect we would have listened very attentively at first but had they further explained that our farm would be benefited at the expense of destroying all or part of a neighbor's Farm in order to bring us the water then I don't think my father would have taken it for I don't know how we would have looked our neighbors in the eye. Is there land was destroyed for our projected benefit and yet that mister secretary is the basic principle of a Garrison diversion unit. The most of the state's politicians don't want to admit it through Garrison. We propose to benefit some Farmland by destroying other Farmland is the Gunnison unit is no authorized it will bring irrigation water to 250,000 acres of land most of which is being Farm now through Dryland agriculture irrigation will increase production on those two hundred and fifty thousand acres, but in terms of saving the state from drought it should be remembered and placed in the record that those two hundred and fifty thousand acres represent six counts of 1% of the agricultural land in North Dakota leaving the other ninety-nine percent exposed to the ravages of drought whether or not the project is built for all project purposes, including canals reservoirs and mitigation The Garrison diversion unit will involve The Taking of a total of 220000 Acres of Most of which is presently in agricultural use, what does this mean in terms of landowners according to information furnish to some members of the North Dakota State Legislature November of 1976. Approximately 1,300 farmers are expected utilize irrigation provided by the project information furnished us five other Bureau does not specifically State how many farmers will lose land for the project but does state in the January 74 impact statement Section 5 page one that approximately 5000 Parcels of land will be acquired for project purposes information pertaining to the very real cost of this project is seldom provided to the people of North Dakota. However for the major source of information on Garrison foremost North Dakota's is the Garrison diversion Conservancy District, which issue is a continuing Avalanches news releases paid for with a tax levy collected in 25 comedies reiterated with support by most of the state's media and nearly all of its paw. Stations designed to carry the impression that Garrison is at least as good as motherhood the flag and apple pie combined given little attention by the state's media, however, and virtually no attention by its politicians is the fact that the Bureau of Reclamation in spite of a 10-year 100 million + dollar construction to Commitment of the Garrison project has yet not released Port development plans and quote in final impact statement form for 3/4 of the project area such a situation allows the bureau to keep a large proportion of the state's residents believing that they will eventually benefit from the project. But at the same time keeping those who will lose land to Garrison from determining that fight for as long as possible the bureau county with such tactics continue construction under an umbrella of General project support while having to take on concerned landowners one project section at a time continuing them to delay final development plans for areas of future project construction and land acquisition secretary Andres. Policy may be conducive to project construction at the national Audubon Society does not believe it is fair to the people of North Dakota or of this nation be they proponents or open until this project is Garrison is as good as the Bureau of Reclamation claims, then why can't we see the development plans for the full project now who are the 1300 farmers will irrigate with the project and who are the owners of the 5000 Parcels of land that eventually will be taken for this project. The department of the Interior has spend 100 million dollars on Garrison ran a huge canal through to North Dakota County separate roads and underground aquifers cause considerable hardship for a number of farm families raised serious and justifiable objections for my neighbors in Canada and yet after all that However, sincere promotional intentions, we still do not have development plans and final impact statement form for 3/4 of this project Richard Madsen assistant Regional representative for the national Audubon Society the development plans. He spoke of may or may not exist following is testimony Madsen was asked by secretary Andrews if he knew of the existence of such plans Madsen said, he did not and that he was hoping the secretary could ascertain their existence and if they did not exist to seek their formulation and released as soon as possible, Myron just is Commissioner of Agriculture in North Dakota. He's long been a supporter of the Garrison diversion unit and says that if completed the project will irrigate croplands in 25 North Dakota is 52 counties one criticism leveled at the project which you have heard put forth by Madsen is that Garrison is taking just about as many acres out of production as it will irrigate AG commissioner just took issue with that in his testimony before the Review Committee. Although the initial irrigated cropland. It will certainly be a stabilizing Force for for age and Crop Production over a wide area. I think that you're certainly need to look at at the this Bureau of Reclamation project for modifications. Listen to the criticism as I know you will and I am frankly as a farmer and as Commissioner of Agriculture complement many of the people who have criticized the project because I think it's going to make it a far better project. I think that we really need to look at. Add Waze to modify. The kinds of people who can I get access to this water? I certainly think there needs to be canalside irrigation because we now have the technology to provide for that and that vastly increases the cost-benefit in a treats those farmers in the area in the areas like Sheridan and Wells County and Eddy County much better, which I think we need to do in the technology is here to provide for that irrigation intensive vs. Extensive agriculture production also offers farming opportunities to many more people semi-arid non-irrigated wheat Farms are ideal for large-scale farming but are devastating to rural communities which depend on people rather than large four-wheel drive tractors. Irrigation development with an assured supply of water is an opportunity for us to offer opportunity for more intensive farming as well as extensive farming. And in this project are you we find that most of our farmers will have a combination of both extensive and intensive irrigated farming but the Intensive provide the opportunity for an assured food supply on a much smaller acreage. This diversion of water is an insurance policy for those in irrigation increases not only for our Farmers but also for the world's food supply which we have seen recently be to be extremely vulnerable to rain falling temperatures not only here but around the world. Yesterday I called the Pentagon are through Congressman Andrews office. We called the Pentagon to find out what a B-1 bomber a Triton submarine class and I want to share that with you for the cost of for B1 bombers and that includes training and spare parts and some maintenance or half of a tribe or about 3/4 of a trident submarine. We can take the Missouri water to where it is needed now and certainly will be in the future. It will be used used to produce billions of tons of food to provide habitat for wildlife process agricultural products provide Municipal Water provide Recreation distributed population and most of all reduce some of the devastating effects of golf on our people North Dakota egg commissioner Myron, just Canadian objections to the Garrison project report 4th bionic Remer a spokesman for the Manitoba environmental Council grammar pointed out that he did not speak for the government of Manitoba by the concerns. He raises are those being investigated by the international Joint Commission began his statement by saying that the Garrison diversion project will constitute a violation of the 1909 Boundary Waters treaty. He explained in the words of the co-chairman of the international Joint Commission. Mr. Maxwell Cohen states that thou shalt not covet Thy Neighbor This position of our government is not without basis Mister secretary. It has its foundation in the basic conclusion of the international Garrison diversion study board that has confirmed many of the fear is that many manitobans have had for some time. Now this board of international repute and which included many members of the United States Bureau of Reclamation the very people constructing this project were talking about concluded that manitobans particularly farmers and already disadvantaged native people and fishermen have much much to lose and nothing to gain in spite of the beneficial aspects to Manitoba that the project promoters are futilely attempting to be still in the area of water quality substantial impacts are expected on the Souris Assiniboine and red rivers in terms of increases of total dissolved solids sulfates and hardness sodium phosphorus and nitrate resulting from Garrison return clothes on the series alone. Dissolved oxygen levels are expected to increase from 0 to at least 3 mg per liter. Secondly water quality quantity at full development. The mean annual flows on the Souris River will increase about 48% This does not account for the fact that new information confirmed by the United States fish and wildlife service shows that illegal drainage of 2800 wetlands in the late summer and fall of 1976 will result in about ten Thousand Acre feet of water being delivered to the Souris River this spring this fact alone. Mister secretary will change flooding predictions for Manitoba as reported by the study board. Thirdly. The area of biological impacts alterations in North Dakota duck habitat caused by the construction and operation of the project will result in an average annual loss of 35500 ducks to Manitoba. Substantial reductions in the population of the important commercial and sport fish are predicted as a result of the project water conveyance system causing the transfer of foreign fish species into Canadian Waters because our Chad you would a chub and rainbow smelt have the highest potential for adverse impact on Native fish populations for Lake Winnipeg. The best estimate indicates a 50% reduction in the population of Lake Whitefish walleye and sauger resulting in a possible 100% loss of harvest impacts on the Fisheries of Lake Manitoba Lake winnipegosis, another Downstream Waters and other affected Fisheries are also expected to be large the introduction of to identify fish diseases and one fish parasite may add to the adverse impact on Native fish. Increases in Black Fly populations on the Souris River maybe experience and the Caddis fly in the mayfly species may become established on the Red River near the waterways these insects may cause undesirable effects of poultry and on human beings LJ productor production lastly in the Souris River may increase two to three fold as a result of added Garrison diversion return flow nutrients the increases in the Assiniboine River alone, maybe 50% these increases may cause additional water treatment problems. These impacts Mister secretary site at directly from the study board report clearly illustrate that article 4 of the 1909 to 1909 Boundary Waters treaty will be violated if the project proceeds as presently authorized at the same time. We as the Garrison Conservancy District feel that there are a number of deficiencies and emissions and present assessment efforts, but for different reasons some examples of the deficiencies that we find with present assessment our first lie, neither the board nor any of its committees have fully appraised the impact of losses of marsh Birds some geese and did not quantify losses of all birds to Saskatchewan, Alberta and Mexico. Where are the opinion when fully assess these losses May violate the migratory bird convention Act of 1919. Secondly neither the water quality committee. And nor the board assess the impact of increased use of pesticides in North Dakota as a result of the project the resulting effects on aquatic habitats and the impact on the use of water in Manitoba. We concur with the biology committee report which concludes the best management practices by Garrison. Irrigators will not necessarily alleviate this concern for the more we have no insurance that best management practices will ever be implemented. Thirdly, no for quantification of fish diseases as they may affect Manitoba water bodies has been or in fact can be made for the more the study board nor any of its committees have accounted for items such as retraining or relocating commercial fisherman loss of fish equipment or the provision of new jobs for fish marketing and transporting Personnel nor have they accounted for costs involved in you and intensified management of lakes Winnipeg Manitoba Fisheries, which will be necessary. Once the project becomes operationally fourthly Mister secretary treaty Indians have received only cursory attention in the assessment and no efforts have been made to assess adverse environmental impact against Indian Land claims. And lastly. We do not concur with the board's recommendation regarding the implementation of a fish screen to prevent the introduction of biota and fish rather we concur with the provincial contention that fish screening devices are not 100% effective and. Manito. I should not be used as an experimental test Brown to measure its effectiveness. Mister secretary these points leads us to believe that the impact of the unquantified effect alone will be of equal or greater magnitude than some of the Quantified impact. We further believe that some of the unquantified effects cannot be mitigated or ameliorated there for only two options remain for consideration either a complete cessation on those project features that affect Canada or the consideration of compensation. We have always maintained that compensation for damages incurred is not an acceptable solution our review of the study board report strengthens are resolving this matter. We are aware of that product modifications recommended by the study board could reduce or eliminate the need for compensation in many areas. However, we are doubtful as many of these recommendations could or would be implemented if the project proceeded as as presently authorized moreover. We are not convinced the many of them would work as well as the study board concludes. They would there is also that class of impacts which will occur regardless of project modifications proposed many of these are the unquantifiable effects. I have previously discussed. How could any compensation strategy be fair and Equitable when at best only a part of the likely damages could be compensated even for many of those impacts which we can quantify. How do we realistically assign a dollar value to them? We may be able to arrive at a strategy for compensating the citizens of service for the cost of a new water treatment plant or the fisherman of Lake Winnipeg for the loss of commercial Fish Production. But how do we compensate the citizens of Soros for a river? That is no longer attractive. How do we compensate the fisherman of Lake Winnipeg for the loss of Lifestyle for which there may be no good alternative available. These are real people were talking about mr. Chairman Justice those North Dakota farmers who are supposed to receive arrogation benefits from this project people in many cases very much similar to the people of North Dakota separated only by an artificial line on the map. We often find the long-term effects of projects. Like this are not fully realize they're discovered for decades and we wondered if compensation would ever be made retroactive Mister Secretary of few weeks ago the six-year controversy surrounding the Garrison diversion project came to a full boil in the Carter Administration announced that the moratorium would exist on the Lone Tree Reservoir portion of the diversion until differences with Canada over the project. We're resolved. It also announced that the federal budget for the coming fiscal year with contain no funds for the project pending. It's review by you and your panel these actions of the president are supported in full by the Manitoba environmental Council. They represent the strongest support yet for efforts beginning. Manitoba in 1973 to obtain a construction moratorium on the Garrison project. We believe that most North dakotans and manitobans whatever their individual opinion of Garrison diversion would agree today that the project is indeed at a Crossroads from a local beginning that it was either largely ridiculed or ignored in North Dakota calls for a moratorium as well to a national and international chorus included in this chorus are our own prime minister Our House of Commons the department of external Affairs your president 156 members of the United States House of Representatives, the United States House Government operations committee the Council on Environmental Quality and the Environmental Protection Agency Mister secretary and panel members the people of Manitoba now turn to you for an equitable resolution of this controversy, which is faster for eight long years since the initiation of the protest. The decision you now must make as an important one. It will not only affect the livelihood in the quality of life of many already disadvantaged manitobans, but it would also set precedents for other similar Water Resource projects plaguing the 49th parallel an inequitable resolution of this project by you may undermined our combined ability to effectively guard against the appropriation of one nation's rights by another a such we said here today and respectfully request that you recommend an immediate and permanent cessation of funding on all project features that will affect Canada in light of the fact that the study board's findings have proven an impending violation of article 4 of The Boundary Waters treating in light of the fact that proposed mitigation measures will not necessarily prevent all harm to Manitoba in light of the fact that the promises that your country has given to Canada in light of the fact of the already straining relationship between our two countries over this issue in light of the faith and trust. We have enjoyed so long together and lastly Mister secretary in light of the fact that compensation for damages incurred is not an acceptable alternative for manitobans to Witnesses testifying for proponents North Dakota, Senator Milton young and attorney general Alan Olson discount the Canadian objections Senator young says the problems with Canada can be overcome. He says that acting Commissioner of reclamation d d Anderson has assured him that the problems with Canada can be alleviated Senator young ads that meeting Canadian objections may require some Revision in the project and some additional cost but says that would be far better than throwing down the drain over 170 $1000000 already spent on Garrison Senator young to the letter from President Carter with reference to the Garrison diversion project and the 80 another project. I would like to call from Phase 2 of that letter code one project appeared to be in violation of international treaty on Nintendo has recently asked. I believe there's actually information of reclamation Anderson does that I had differences with Kendrick can be resolved that people are going to believe that the Joint Commission between Canada and the United States was established for possession of this purpose of resolving water boundary disputes between the Twin Cities project for at least a year and a half and many other differences between Canada and the United States resembled to the Garrison diversity irrigation project from Saskatchewan, Denver, Montana the state of Montana. Shimmer x x has that been raised by Montana people with reference to huge coal-burning generating plants located very near the border excessive Lucia the resulting from these huge cold burning during thing North Dakota, Senator Milton young North Dakota's attorney general Alan Olson objected to Canadian concerns on legal grounds. He says the 1909 Boundary Waters treaty between the US and Canada should have no bearing on Garrison's future the state wishes to speak to the objections raised by some Canadians based on an alleged prospective violation by The Garrison diversion unit of The Boundary Waters Treaty of 99. What is North Dakota's position in this regard that Article 2 of the treaty guarantees the right of this state to divert water for the use of its citizens that the Garrison diversion unit as presently conceived does not and will not violate provisions of the Boundary Waters treaty and therefore any alleged perspective violation of his treaty should not be used as a basis for discontinuing the project by this review panel any differences between the two nations in this regard. It should be settled through diplomatic negotiations as contemplated by the terms of the treaty. The Garrison diversion unit is a legitimate exercise of the power reserved to the state in the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1992 use and divert water and its territory in order to be found in violation of the prohibition against pollution in article 4 of the treaty. It must be shown that the water flowing from the project into Canada is so degraded as to be considered considered polluted under the generally accepted standards of international law. What is meant by the term pollution in the international Arena has not been definitively expressed. It should be noted. However that both by the terms of the treaty and under general principles of international law. Each Nation retains the right to use Rivers found within their territory as a natural resource and since general principles of international locked also provide that a downstream country cannot expect water to enter their territory in a pristine state it follows that a certain amount of pollution or adverse environmental effect in a country is to be expected from activities in a neighboring country. And I digress a moment. I have the that applies to Canada as well as United States. Keeping these general principles in mind. It is important in the context of the present hearing by this administrative review panel to stress again that the treaty provides its own remedies. The state also wishes to stress that any potential threats of pollution must be balanced with and considered in light of state and federal water quality standards and actual and potential enforcement of those standards by the state of North Dakota given the terms of The Boundary Waters treaty administrative discontinuance of the Garrison diversion unit based on current allegations of possible future violations of that treaty would definitely not be a result which was contemplated by the drafters of the treaty nor by Congress when it ratified the treaty to make such action would to take such action would an effect Advocate any right to use or develop resources near the international boundary between the two countries in any situation where a boundary or trans-boundary water might be affected. This is not a viable solution from the perspective of either country. Review panel should therefore did not use the Boundary Waters treaty issue as a basis to discontinue the project since to do so would in effect change the terms of the original treaty by allowing it to infringe upon the sovereignty of the state of North Dakota and of the United States in a manner not contemplated by the drafters. Nearby Congress North Dakota attorney general Alan Wilson. Once again, Canada's primary objections to Garrison result from fears that Canadian Waters would be polluted by irrigation runoff into rivers. They are the service which runs from Canada into North Dakota and back into Canada and the Red River. Another Broken an argument for Garrison diversion is that it would stabilize economies and cities throughout the state. The argument is that with a constant water supply Sherrard cities, which depend on agriculture will Thrive many of those cities. Also look to Garrison to supplement their Municipal Water Supplies. Although many cities have asked for Garrison water and that is not yet part of the project representing North Dakota cities at the review hearing was Fargo mayor Richard henches as well as a more assured Municipal Water Supply and we believe the time has come to the birthday force of the Missouri River that used to lay cities to waste to using those forces to maintaining and building cities Fargo is is the largest city in North Dakota City, which has a strange that steady growth rate and why we have a relatively diverse economy. We depend depend tremendously upon Agriculture and All In All Phases in Supply manufacturer. And food processing both urban and rural need a safe. Sure supply of water. Some Industries have discovered that plants can be operated just as successfully in a rural area as the highly congested and complex metropolitan areas it no longer serves the national interest. If it ever did to drive the people out of World areas into the cities a recent. A recent study on Urban problems concluded that the viability of Rural America will be extremely important to the solution of many social and environmental problems, which plagued our metropolitan areas. However, rural areas such as North Dakota cannot assist in the solution to these problems without an assurance supply of water. What I've said so far has up to just one thing water but not just water. It must be in a shirt supply of water to me that means water for the Missouri River. That is the only water that's available in sufficient quantity to give the word a shirt Supply any meeting at all in Fargo. We're looking to do aquifers for emergency Solutions, but we have no information that we can depend on these for long-range Solutions. In fact, we roll. Lasting over a hundred thousand dollars for a prospect of maybe finally one well as provide about 10% of our normal daily Supply that's short-term solution as you may know we depend on the Red River for 100% of our normal water needs. You may also be aware that in Fargo the Red River Reach 0 flow this past fall. It also stopped flowing in 1970 and during the thirties every year there were periods of of no flow if it had not been Power Rangers made over 25 years ago for reserves in the Bald Hill Dam in the construction of Cheyenne diversion Fargo would be out of business today while those reserves will last us for a little over a year in Norway considering drought Cycles can that be considered an assurance Supply? I'm not here today in support of a Garrison diversion is a way out of our current problem. I'm here all over to underscore our need for an assurance of water water supply for our long-range future needs without it. We can no longer expect me from investment to take place in Fargo. If if we're generally assumed today at Supply would not be forthcoming. You could expect the falling off investment to take place quite quickly. So alongside of the out migration of people you may anticipate a corresponding acceleration in the out migration of a capital was chairman with the secretary members of this distinguished panel. I say let us do what has to be done. But let us proceed with the construction of the Garrison diversion project. I'm told the human body and they last about two days without water. I doubt the cities to last much longer. Thank you again for this opportunity Fargo mayor Richard hensch has the concerns expressed by which to choose in his testimony were Amplified by Vernon Fahey Fahey is North Dakota State engineer and his testimony before the review panel. He elaborated on the Municipal Water Supply potential of Garrison diversion. That part of our stage which is to be served by the Garrison diversion unit. There are in excess of a 100,000 residents whose Water Supplies are obtained from surface water sources from the forestry or their tributaries previously mentioned the 1976 drought demonstrated the vulnerability of the surface Supply system. The city of Fargo population 55,000 considered recirculation retention and treatment of its sewage effluent but managed to avoid this alternative by using water impounded in the Cheyenne Basin and diverted to the city. By the way. This diverted water may not be available for Fargo in the coming years because of claims by other cities the city of Mayville population 2000 phone just reservoir on a tributary to the red a dangerously low levels last fall but survived by maintaining a limited Supply from a rural water system in discussing need we should also consider the need for adequate flows to maintain water quality standards in our screen. Local conditions result in hundreds of miles and stream reaches and what's the water conditions can best be described as being septic Burn by livestock and all but impossible to treat for human consumption are people that had to live with the problems caused by draw but always they have envisioned the time when water diverted from the great Missouri would be available to increase the productivity of the land and to stabilize the floors and the rivers would serve the needs of so many these are not unreasonable expectations after all the citizens of this state as a sacrifice much for the downstream States will have flood protection power supplies recreational opportunities on a stabilized flow in the Missouri River North Dakota State engineering firm in Fahey both the North Dakota Farm Bureau and Farmers Union organizations favorite completion of the Garrison unit. It's their contention that it's a Rite of North dakotans as outlined earlier in this report. Testifying for the North Dakota Farmers Union was President Stanley more. He spoke of the need for Garrison in the responsibility of taking care of landowners who are being affected by the building of Garrison's canals and reservoirs as a supporter of Missouri River Diversion. The North Dakota Farmers Union has failed a concurrent responsibility to be involved and to provide avenues for corrective action to those individuals in areas affected by the project. However, these an issue initiatives to improve the Project's development and to alleviate various problems that have been encountered do not listen our support for the objectives of diverting Missouri river waters to areas of need within our state. The responsibility for corrective measure is not simply a burden on North Dakota citizen. It is a national responsibility that must be carried out by the agencies designated by the Congress and the administration. North Dakota should have should not have to bear the burdens of the consequences of failures of responsible federal government agencies more importantly, we believe that the failures of the federal bureaucracy bureaucracy should not jeopardize the historic commitment of this nation to the people of North Dakota there for the North Dakota Farmers Union views to study recommendations made this past year by the house government operations committee and recent preliminary report of the international Joint Commission as positive opportunities for removing the obstacles that jeopardize the project. Well, these current problems May justify reappraisal of certain aspects of Garrison diversion and may require administrative and procedural changes and even design and structure changes, then incorporate technological advances and remedies that the concerns that are of the concerns expressed by Canada and others they do not justify any reduction in the federal government's destroyed commitment to our state. We are convinced that through proper implementation that the objectives of the Missouri River diversion can be achieved on a systematic basis and that the problems encountered in its development can be soft on currently president of the North Dakota Farmers Union Stanley more his concern for Farmers being compensated for land lost to the project is shared by most supporters of Garrison diversion, but it should not be assumed that all Farmers favor continued development one farmer who does not support for the work is Albert. Klein is a farmer near Turtle Lake in Central North Dakota and reasons for opposing further funding for the Garrison diversion project is the ever more harmful effects this project as having on North Dakota's family farmers. For the past several years. I have watched huge draglines construct a massive mcclusky Canal the first major canal associated with the diversion project. In place of this canal most of which is being constructed to a productive Farmland is over 10 stories deep with a right away up to a half a mile wide. I have seen the looks of angra Sexton faces on the Neighbors in the path of construction. There is no way this hardship can be measured in dollars and cents. Some Farmers have owned and cared for this land since it was Homestead they care for the land and its production as God intended with our children's future in mind. My neighbors and I do not understand why 220000 acres of land must be taken for features of the Garrison diversion project just to irrigate 250000 Acres. All of which is already productively we are further concern over these sacrifices are productive land needed to build a project especially when you consider that the Garrison diversion project will cause a net loss of 8148 Acres of cropland and 39174 Acres of grassland. We did not know of any federal irrigation project lean nation in the nation, which will result in such a net loss of productive land. We Believe such a project despise common sense and good stewardship and the cries have fallen on deaf ears in our state legislature and Congress the land is our livelihood here in North Dakota it always will be sure the city Folk sometimes forget this but even they are reminded and humbled that finally Our Lives depend upon a six-inch layer of topsoil and the fact that it rains I believe the Lord holds title to all land and we have no right to abuse or destroy us the Earth is the Lord's. Yes, we can and do change the land use but people's lives are always affected when we do with this Garrison diversion contrary to the exalted claims is creating no new land the large stop making land sometime ago. It is reclaiming. No desert Land North Dakota does not have any deserts. We have all good productive productive land. The lamb Lawson North Dakota over the past 30 years in North Dakota is around or close to a million Acres mostly drawn or flooded due to water development project. The people on a million acres are gone or are or on welfare, and those left a high taxes and then we wonder why. And then the attempt to bring some sense of meaning into the shattered lives of the dispossessed this some people call progress. Progress is no longer an appropriate goal in itself. We need to consider the effects of progress. We need to put peace freedom and human dignity ahead of our development Asteria. We need to consider what we are doing and why I also believe that all men have an obligation to be good stewards of the land God gave us and I believe that each man must carefully evaluate the effects of his actions not only on his own property. But also the neighbors we are being victimized by the actions of the Bureau of Reclamation that acquiring good productive land for a project that cannot stand on its own merits without the promotional arm of the Garrison Conservancy district and their tax support of money to lobby for them. This project would have collapsed a long time ago this project for planning and Engineering be justified without the existence of this Federal agency. The contribution of the Midwest to the nation and ultimately to the world is that we are the Bread Basket if this project and other similar to it are carried off. only those only those who have wisdom 4-cycle courage to speak against the self-perpetuating and see of our government can save us and future generation for marring and destroying our planet Earth. In conclusion, I would just like to say that I have been a Farmers Union number all of my life. I was born into a Farmers Union family and I was glad to hear that the North Dakota Farmers Union was submitting their statement along with policy in action, which was adopted of the last Farmers Union convention. However, I feel that there are few things. That should be brought out when Farmers Union reaffirmed its support for Garrison diversion. There were a lot of GIF or ends connected with a part of those who don't stick relations were laws and regulations covering the activities activities of the Bureau of Reclamation Federal fish and wildlife service. The Army Corps of Engineers must be strengthened and fully I'm forced to protect the rights of landowners tenants of farm operators and to ensure that such project will bring about the invasion benefits the burden of proof in the need for eminent domain proceedings an acquisition of land for such a project must be firmly placed on the agency requiring the lab. All Court expenses including attorneys and appraisers fees must be borne by the constructing agency in condemnation proceedings. When if the landowner goes to court The increased cost incurred by local and state governments units as a result of such projects should be yoga project. We oppose the acquisition or condemnation of land for any purpose by any federal agency until and Acquisitions policies are revised to fully reflect the actual Financial loss to reach individual affected and we are similar legislation to implemented on the state level. We deplore the actions and oppose those policies and actions of federal agencies in the matter of flood control water management and irrigation development that are placed hardship, unaffected citizens and ignored their rights such actions have created problems mistrust and lack of Direction implementing development. That could be a vital importance to this day. Such project must be implemented in a manner which will benefit the long-term future and stability of the family farm agriculture continuing development has provided a strong indication that insufficient planning and expediency and implementing The Garrison diversion project by the agency is responsible for its development and now jeopardize important facets of the project and perhaps the project itself. Words with serious questions related to landowner treatment groundwater studies Canadian authorization and pipeline feasibility studies we looked into but thank you again for the opportunity to be able to do you have a question? You have a question. Where is your barn presently located? How large is the farm? My father would consist of with land that are wrapped in own approximately 2,000 acres. It is a family farm operate the farm. What are you presently growing on that form? A girl weight and Cattle? In what proportions of land used mostly wheat and is your land potentially irritable as part of this project. However, it is not in the proposed plan. So therefore and if we did good water it would be on a surplus basis only. And also we would have to build we were told us by The Bureau Reclamation and we would have to build their own turn out in the canal which they told us would consist of possibly from 7000 to 12 solve. We would have to build them pay for him and then turn them over to a Reclamation for their management. What would you estimate is the relative cost to you capital and operating cost of farming the dry land as opposed to farming the irrigated land. If you were aside from the cost of turnout understand use mention that what kind of equipment do you need that you don't have now and what? Kind of cost would you incur I could see their irrigation would be the would take a lot more money to operate a lot more fertilizer. You need different type of Machinery. You would have to change your way of farming would be more labor-intensive 5 +. there's just no justification for The lamb that they went through the year, they went through my Canal approve the yield on it and made 43.1 bushels per acre. I don't believe you can improve on that with irrigation or anything else. This is dryland farming Albert Klein the farmer near Turtle Lake North Dakota. He was one of over 30 witnesses to testify before the water projects Review Committee the committee headed by a Secretary of the Interior Cecil Andrews heard the pro and con arguments March 22nd in Jamestown, North Dakota. Garrison is one of 18 water projects being reviewed Garrison diversion is now 20% complete whether it will receive further funding will be determined quite soon secretary and is expected to report the President Carter April 8th, and it's assumed that Carter's recommendations will be forwarded to Congress by mid-month the international Joint Commission report studying. The effects of Garrison on Canadian Waters will be presented to the state department in June. There are three possible forms of action the first just to refund Garrison to complete the project as originally conceived the second is to approve funding contingent on certain changes in Project design and the final possibility is that Garrison will receive no further funding and the project will be scrapped. Most observers feel the project will receive for their funding but there is also considerable sentiment that the project will be substantially changed to accommodate dissatisfaction among the environmentalists. The Canadian send individual landowners Garrison is an extremely emotional issue with North Dakota controversy surrounding the project threatens to dampen relations with both Canada. And Minnesota person is a pet project of most politicians in North Dakota and the legislature has appropriated several thousand dollars to sue the federal government should funding be withdrawn. The future of Garrison will be known soon. This is Dennis Hamilton proclaiming Garrison diversion as payment in lieu of land lost in North Dakota for the pics lawn reservoirs in the state. As residential developer Canal area. We are concerned with the amounts of land which we must now sacrifice. In addition to collect on this supposed debt operations are the panel of three Mayors for the project and three Mayors against the project and in all of North Dakota. They couldn't find three Mayors against the project promoters of the project. If you stop it, you kill it any project that cannot stand up under close inspection does not deserve to continue nearly all of the Power generated at Garrison Dam serves out-of-state customers. The first math which might be called the myth of the Jolly Green Giant is at the Garrison diversion unit will protect North Dakota from the ravages of drawl and thereby stabilize. The state's economy. It is Ludacris, of course to suggest a project affecting only 16% of the state's agricultural land is going to have any substantial impact on the effects of golf or that's going to stabilize the state's economy the state legislature 91 has continuously and consistently favor the development of water diversion projects in North Dakota, Missouri River diversion has been suggested since 1923 and the support for the project has been continuous since 1955 The Carter Administration is following the Democratic process. There has been and will not be any impoundment of any monies if necessary. We will go to the Congress of the United States for any deferrals will make recommendations to them the Democratic process will Ben function and the end result of that project is what the administration follow