|
By Blake Nicholson
Bismarck, North Dakota (AP) 5-08
Parts of northwestern North Dakota have been waiting more than 20 years for a pipeline that will bring a stable supply of Missouri River water. It has run into opposition from north of the border, where Canadian officials are calling for an expensive treatment system, and from the south, where the state of Missouri says it could harm an already dry river basin.
The Northwest Area Water Supply Project was first authorized by Congress in 1986 and has been under construction since 2002. A more extensive environmental study was ordered by a federal judge as the result of an October 2002 lawsuit filed in Washington, D.C., by the province of Manitoba. Construction unrelated to treatment of the pipeline water can continue with the judge’s permission, but the project cannot be finished until the treatment question is resolved.
The federal Bureau of Reclamation is not expected to make a final decision until late fall on the best of four water treatment alternatives, spokeswoman Patience Hurley said. The agency needs time to study 41 statements submitted during a public comment period that ended in late March on the draft environmental study of the project.
A review of those statements by The Associated Press shows they range from North Dakotans’ views that the project will not harm other watersheds to demands from Missouri and a wildlife group that the bureau throw out the draft and start over.
“The Missouri basin is already significantly depleted . ..and it is challenging enough trying to address these in-basin water quantity problems,” wrote Doyle Childers, director of the state’s Department of Natural Resources. “To further add to this burden by creating the first transfer of water into the Hudson Bay drainage is not only unsustainable, it is irresponsible.”
Residents and city officials in northwestern North Dakota are urging the bureau to select the least expensive treatment option. The federal government will be responsible for the entire cost of whatever treatment method is chosen, but there is no guarantee of funding for the more expensive options.
“Our citizens need and want the water,” wrote the mayors of several towns. “It is not a question of this system being a backup system for our community. It is an essential need for us and it will provide good, clean, potable water for our citizens.”
Preliminary findings of the environmental study said the NAWS project poses little risk to Canadian waters under any of the four treatment options.
Dale Frink, the state engineer for the North Dakota Water Commission, said organisms in the Missouri River Basin already exist in the Hudson Bay Basin, except for one organism that has not been found in North Dakota. He also said the transfer of unwanted organisms between basins can happen in many other ways, particularly through international shipping.
“The (bureau study) concludes the risk of transferring invasive species through the NAWS project, regardless of what type of treatment, is lower than the risk of invasive species moving through other pathways,” he said.
Kim Perry Butler, an official with Canada’s Foreign Affairs and International Trade, wrote that Canada remains worried about any transfer of water between basins and endorses “other less disruptive alternatives, such as demand management and water conservation.”
Canada also says the NAWS project should be viewed along with other North Dakota water projects, including a flood relief outlet for Devils Lake that drains water into the north-flowing Red River, and a proposal to divert Missouri River water to the Red River Valley.
“The pressing issue of biota transfer into Canadian waters on all of these projects raises the prospect of significant and irreversible harm to Canada,” Butler said.
The estimated construction costs of the four options for treating the Missouri River water from NAWS before it is distributed to homes and businesses range from $8.1 million to $90 million, with annual operating and maintenance costs ranging from $232,000 to $2.1 million.
The treatment option preferred by the Manitoba government, which would include more advanced water filters, would cost an estimated $73 million, with operation and maintenance costing about $1.8 million annually.
Two Indian tribes along the Missouri River – the Standing Rock Sioux and the Three Affiliated Tribes – do not outright oppose NAWS but worry about its effect on their water rights.
“The Standing Rock Sioux tribe ... relies exclusively on the Missouri River for its water,” Tribal Chairman Ron His Horse Is Thunder said. “Any depletion of water upstream is of concern to us.”
Kent Lokkesmoe, a director in Minnesota’s Department of Natural Resources, said unwanted water species could be sent into the Hudson Bay drainage area not only from NAWS but also from the proposed Red River project. A part of the Hudson Bay drainage area is in Minnesota.
“It has been shown that invasive species can spread rapidly over a wide geographic area,” Lokkesmoe said.
The Maddock-based Peterson Coulee Outlet Association, which also has opposed the Devils Lake outlet, said it is “simply inconceivable” that construction has been allowed on NAWS before a “full-blown” environmental study is done and alternatives such as ground water aquifers are considered.
“A choice of an out of basin water supply (the Missouri River) will only invite costly and lengthy lawsuits, which the good people of the great state of North Dakota should not be forced to endure,” said Thelma Paulson, president of the association.
The National Wildlife Federation also faulted the draft environmental study for not considering alternatives to diverting Missouri River water. The group called for a whole new draft.
Missouri Attorney General Jay Nixon echoed that call. “Any reasonable observer, including a court, will recognize that an inter-basin transfer cannot be justified for this project,” he wrote.
But Dave Glatt, director of the state Health Department’s environmental health section, said it would be better to spend the money needed for advanced water treatment on such things as education and surveillance, given the higher risk of the transfer of invasive water species through other pathways.
“There is no better time than now to interject common sense ... to this issue,” he said.
|
NEWS SECTION 
Quote this article on your site
Comment on this Article
