Bureau has also complied with the State water right laws in connection with the control and use of waters on other congressionally authorized reclamation projects in the State of North Dakota. c. In South Dakota, section 61.0106 of the South Dakota Code, as amended in 1955, validates all vested rights which are defined in section 61.0102 (7) (c) as "The right to take and use water for beneficial purposes where a riparian owner is engaged in the construction of works for the actual application of water to a beneficial use at the time of the passage of this chapter (March 2, 1955), provided such works shall be completed and water is actually applied for such use within a reasonable time thereafter." On March 2, 1955, the United States was a principal riparian owner on the Missouri River and the mainstem reservoirs of the Missouri River Basin Project, with their appurtenant power generating facilities, were under construction, so that the Government's right to the use of the Missouri River waters now enjoys State validation. 8. Question. How many acre-feet of water are contracted or under option at each reservoir of the main stem? For what purposes-agriculture, industrial, and other has the water been reserved? Answer. Contracts for mainstem water have been signed on three units of the Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program. The Fort Clark Unit, with headquarters in Stanton, North Dakota, contains 1,929 irrigable acres. About 2,200 acre-feet of water are diverted annually. Construction is underway on the initial stages of the multipurpose Garrison Diversion and Oahe Units. Water use on these units will be for irrigation, municipal and industrial, fish and wildlife, and recreation. The water supply for the initial stage Garrison Diversion Unit in North Dakota will be pumped from Lake Sakakawea and will total about 871,000 acre-feet of water per year. The initial stage Oahe Unit in South Dakota will draw about 444,000 acre-feet from the Oahe Reservoir. 9. Question. Is either Department aware of situations whereby municipal or industrial options for water are precluding other area uses such as irrigation? If so, where? Answer. No. 10. Question. Has either Department formulated a policy of reserving available water on the main stem for future uses, thereby discouraging present demands or other potential uses? Answer. Only to the extent authorized by the Flood Control Act of 1944 establishing the Missouri River Basin Project, now the Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program. Reservations have been made for future irrigation units of the PickSloan Missouri Basin Program. The industrial water availability study discussed earlier fully recognizes existing uses of water for legitimate diversions and those uses approved and authorized by the Congress. 11. Question. What is the nature and status of pending litigation to adjudicate Indian water rights in the Missouri Basin? Please provide for the record a list of pending litigation involving Federal agencies. Answer. We are not aware of any pending litigation to adjudicate Indian water rights in the portion of the Basin covered by the Memorandum of Understanding the main stem of the Missouri River. 12. Question. Have you established procedures for evaluating and choosing among conflicting uses of Missouri Basin water? If so, what are they? Answer. The O'Mahoney-Millikin Amendment to the Flood Control Act of 1944 (58 Stat. 887; 33 U.S.C. 701-1(b)) provides that, west of the 98th meridian, the use of water for navigation shall be only such as does not conflict with any beneficial use for domestic, municipal, stock water, irrigation, mining, or industrial purposes. Current projections of water use indicate that there should not be any conflict among consumptive water users served from the mainstem reservoirs. 13. Question. What priority do you assign to development of additional generating capacity at existing dams on the main stem of the Missouri? Do you foresee any reduction in hydropower potential, or any further delays in its development because of industrial water sales? Answer. We consider hydropower as having high priority. We believe that the interim water marketing quantity of 1 million acre-feet, which is about 5 percent of the historical flows at Sioux City, Iowa, is insignificant from the standpoint of evaluating additional generating capacity at existing dams on the main stem of the Missouri River. We see no reduction in hydropower peaking potential nor any delay for the development of needed hydropeaking capability because of the industrial water marketing program. It is our understanding that all planned additions of generating capacity at the existing dams on the main stem of the Missouri would be peaking power. There would be little or no increased energy production from the addition of this generating capacity. 14. Question. In order to evaluate the potential demand for agricultural water in the Missouri River Basin, list projects (including potential demands) for which: Qa. Feasibility level studies are underway (with the projected study completion date): Qb. Feasibility studies have been completed (identifying those projects found feasible): Qc. Feasibility studies are proposed or are being reappraised for the following units which involve diversions of water from the mainstream reservoirs. Ac. 15. Question. List also those projects which have been authorized and the respective stage of completion. Answer. Authorized units under construction for irrigation purposes within the Upper Basin are those shown in 14Ab. Of those, Garrison Diversion Unit has been under construction since 1968, and first deliveries of water are expected in 1978, with completion of service facilities in 1987. Oahe Unit construction has barely started, and first water deliveries are scheduled for 1982. Completion is expected in 1994. Enclosure. INDUSTRIAL WATER REQUESTS RECEIVED BY BUREAU OF RECLAMATION JUNE 18, 1975 1 Request from HFC Co., Inc., which was acquired by Sun Oil Co. 2 Application under name of Michigan Wisconsin Pipe Line Co., recent correspondence also includes the name "ANG Coal Gasification Co." INDUSTRIAL WATER REQUESTS RECEIVED BY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, JUNE 15, 1975 500 Securities Bldg., P.O. Box Jan. 25, 1974 Fort Peck... 50,000 Coal Tenneco Coal. development. 50,000 Unspecified. do Sakakawea P.O. Box 2511, Houston, Tex... Feb. 1, 19741...do. Basin Electric Power Cooper- Suite 624, Provident Life Bldg. ... ative. 316 North Fifth St., Bis- Potashnick Construction, Inc.. P.O. Box 190, Highway 74, Feb. 8, 1974 Fort Peck Kansas-Nebraska Natural Gas I. H. Garms & Sons Co... Chevron Oil Co.................... Dreyer Bros. Co... Cape Girardeau, Mo. 300 North St. Joseph Ave., P.O. Box 190, Cape Girardeau, 1700 Broadway, P.O. Box 599, Gulf Mineral Resources Co.... 1780 South Bellaire St., Den 9,000 Powerplant cooling. 50,000 Coal development. Shell Oil Co.................. 2 Shell Plaza, P.O. Box 2099, Chevron Oil Co.... 1700 Broadway, P.O. Box 599, Total (Fort Peck, 372, 529,000 000; Sakakawea, 32,000; Oahe, 125,- 1 Sept. 1, 1974 rights transferred to Intake Water Co. 2 Subsidy of Burlington Northern. Attorneys for Dreyer Bros. Co. 4 June 27, 1974 water right application was for only 67,000 acre-feet, 35,000 for irrigation, 9,000 for production of ammonia, 8,000 for methanol-methyl fuel, and 15,000 for synthetic diesel fuel. & Unspecified. MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR AND THE SECRETARY OF THE ARMY This Memorandum of Understanding is entered into this 24th day of February, 1975, between the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of the Army in order to expedite the use of water for energy development in the Missouri River Basin. The terms hereof apply only to the six main stem reservoirs of the Corps of Engineers on the Missouri River. 1. The Secretary of the Interior shall determine the amounts of water available from the capacity provided in the main stem reservoirs for irrigation and for the probable extent of future irrigation and shall also determine the extent and for what duration such amounts of water will not be needed for irrigation and for the probable extent of future irrigation. 2. The Secretary of the Army shall determine how much of the water determined by the Secretary of the Interior to be excess to present irrigation needs can be made available for industrial uses. 3. The parties hereby agree that the Secretary of the Interior may, pursuant to applicable authorities, both on his own behalf and as agent for the Secretary of the Army, contract for the marketing of water for industrial uses and incidental purposes related thereto from the six main stem reservoirs as will not be needed for irrigation for a given period and as will not interfere with the operation of the reservoirs for flood control; provided, however, that a. The Secretary of the Army shall retain all operational and managerial control over said reservoirs ; b. Contracts for the marketing of such water shall be executed under the terms of this agreement with full compliance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act; c. No contract for the marketing of such water shall be executed but on such terms and conditions as are mutually agreeable to the parties hereto; and d. To the extent such contracts would reduce the quantity of power generated, no contract may be executed unless it has been determined jointly by the parties to this agreement that the proposed marketing for industrial purposes is a beneficial use of the water which should take precedence over hydroelectric power generation. 4. The Secretary of the Interior shall have the lead agency responsibility for compliance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act. 5. This Memorandum of Understanding shall terminate at the end of two years. Contracts executed pursuant to this Memorandum of Understanding shall not be affected by such termination. During the term hereof, the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of the Army shall further cooperate in developing a long-range marketing program for municipal and industrial water. ROGERS C. B. MORTON, Senator ABOUREZK. Senator Metcalf, do you have a statement? Senator METCALF. No; I don't, but I appreciate the opportunity to appear with your committee, however, and I look forward to the hearings in Montana and South Dakota, too. Senator ABOUREZK. The first witness scheduled is Hon. Richard Kneip, Governor of the State of South Dakota, and Governor Kneip is not here, I am told, this morning. Vern Butler, the water commissioner of South Dakota, is here to represent him; is that right? Secretary BUTLER. That's right. Senator ABOUREZK. Welcome to the subcommittee. STATEMENT OF SECRETARY VERN BUTLER, DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, ON BEHALF OF HON. RICHARD KNEIP, GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA Secretary BUTLER. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, I am Vern W. Butler. I am secretary of the South Dakota Department of Natural Resources Development. I am here today on behalf of Gov. Richard F. Kneip. Governor Kneip intended to be here, and a last minute press of business prohibited him from coming to Washington today, so with your permission, I would like to give his statement for the record, and I believe copies have been made available to the clerk. This is Governor Kneip's statement. I hereby submit to you this statement expressing extreme reservations about the current memorandum of understanding between the Departments of Army and Interior regarding marketing of water for industrial uses from the six main stem Missouri River reservoirs. I would like to explain my concerns and doubts about the memorandum. Further, I hope to explain why this important and complex issue of allocation and use of the Missouri River water is of such concern and interest to the State of South Dakota. South Dakota's concern: Inasmuch as four of the main stem Missouri River dams are located in South Dakota and some 32 million acre-feet of storage are behind these dams, the State is vitally concerned with the management and use of this water. I am told that at the 1970 level of depletions, some 21.8 million acrefeet of water annually flows through the State. This is a tremendous volume of water for a dry State such as South Dakota. The management and future use of this great resource will directly affect each and every person in South Dakota. The people of my State, as throughout the upper Missouri River basin, are very sensitive to any moves that may affect the development and use of water from the Missouri River. Thus, we are quite concerned upon learning of unilateral moves on the part of administrative departments in the executive branch of the Federal Government to significantly control and manage the use of Missouri River water without consulting the States or requesting congressional authorization. Prior acts: In order to understand our concern, one must recall some of the prior actions on the part of the Federal Government and State government concerning development of the Missouri River. In the early 1940's, Congress directed the Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation to prepare comprehensive plans for the development of water and related resources in the Missouri River basin. Out of this planning came what is known as the Pick-Sloan Missouri basin program. The basic plans for the main stem reservoirs and for the use of water for irrigation, for power generation, for downstream navigation, and to reduce downstream floods was authorized in the 1944 Flood Control Act. Anyone who has studied the records in developing the 1944 Flood Control Act recognizes the extreme conflicts between upstream and downstream States. In addition, there existed an extreme conflict between States' interests and Federal interest as was defined at that time. As a result of these conflicts, the Congress drafted special sections into the 1944 Flood Control Act that provided protection for the use of water for future beneficial consumptive use to those States lying wholly or partly west of the 98th meridian. This would include South Dakota. The western Governors and legislative leaders at that time were quite insistent upon retaining the right to use and control water in accordance with State interest and rights. These early leaders were farsighted enough to recognize that the future of many of the States of the Missouri River basin would depend upon the beneficial use of water. That same dependence exists today, and even more so. In 1944, the major consumptive use was anticipated to be irrigation. As the main stem reservoirs were constructed throughout the 1950's and early 1960's, agriculture production increased at such a rate that crop surpluses became the norm. As a result, irrigation as was promised to the upstream States in the 1944 Flood Control Act was not pursued as virogously as anticipated. It is my opinion that now and in the next few years the agriculture crunch will hit this Nation as it has hit other parts of the world. Increasing agricultural production, in my State as throughout much of the upper Missouri River basin, will occur in large part through increased irrigation. At the same time the need for increased energy production has hit the Nation. |