used to help pay for irrigation. feasible, economically. Corollary irrigation projects would be less North Dakota stands to benefit in three primary ways from Garrison Dam. They are through the flood protection it will afford, the electric power it will make available, and the water it will store for irrigation. Anything which would deprive the State of a fair measure of these benefits without returning other gains to offset them should be resisted. That is what the proposed reduction would do. North Dakotans interested in the most beneficial development of this greatest of North Dakota's water resources should notify their Senators and Representatives in Washington now of their concern, so that an irreparably damaging mistake is not made just because the State was not awake to its welfare. [The Minot (N. Dak.) Daily News, February 16, 1954] REA CO-OPS GIVE SUPPORT TO 1850 GARRISON POOL With the Garrison Dam pool level fight nearing the showdown stage in Washington, REA cooperatives in North Dakota are throwing their support to the higher pool level. R. G. Harens, Bismarck, secretary of the North Dakota Association of Rural Electric Cooperatives, told the News today that about half of the State's 21 power-distribution cooperatives have sent telegrams to North Dakota's congressional delegation in support of the 1,850 level for the Garrison pool. There have been none in opposition to the 1,850 level, Harens said, who added that the boards of directors of other REA cooperatives have not yet had meetings to take a stand on the issue. REA cooperatives are interested in the issue, he pointed out, because of the loss of power that would result if the reservoir was operated at a lower level. Williston-area interests are leading a fight for a 1,838 operating level of the pool. The State association of REA cooperatives has taken no stand on the question, Harens said, preferring the action to be taken by each cooperative in the light of its own interests. Subject: Pool level for Garrison Dam. Congressman KRUEGER, House of Representatives, Washington, D. O. FEBRUARY 16, 1954. DEAR MR. KRUEGER: At our last board of directors meeting we discussed the two different proposed pool levels for the Garrison Dam. It was the consensus of opinion of the whole board that as representatives of 1,500 farm families in McLean County, we are going on record in favor of the 1,850-foot pool level. We feel that in this area the benefits of the higher pool level more than outweigh the extra expense involved. Very truly yours, MCLEAN ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC., RED RIVER OF NORTH Mr. KRUEGER. The first witness is Mayor Oscar Lunseth, of Grand Forks, representing Governor Brunsdale, of North Dakota. Mr. Lunseth is a member of the State water-conservation committee. Mr. HAND. We shall be happy to hear from you, sir. Mr. LUNSETH. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Oscar Lunseth. My home is in Grand Forks, N. Dak., where I am the mayor. Today, however, I have the honor of representing the Honorable Normal Brunsdale, Governor of North Dakota, and the North Dakota State Water Conservation Commission, of which I am also a member. The commission is the official State agency having authority and jurisdiction over the water resources of our State, and Governor Brunsdale is the chairman thereof. I am here in support of the budget estimates for flood-control projects in North Dakota. GARRISON DAM AND RESERVOIR The first item I wish to mention is that for the Garrison Dam and Reservoir on the Missouri River. The January budget recommended by the President carried an item of $27,500,000 for this project for fiscal year 1955. We realize this is a large amount of money, but considering the magnitude of the project, the budget estimate does not loom so large. If the budget estimate is granted, project construction can be 81 percent complete in another year. Because of a high level of appropriations since construction was first initiated, the construction is well up to schedule. It is hoped that the estimate for next year will be approved without reduction so that construction progress can continue according to schedule. Closure of the river was effected in June 1953. Water is beginning to collect in the huge reservoir. Work on the powerplant and appurtenant features should be prosecuted with all possible speed in order that the structure will be in readiness for the production of energy as soon as sufficient water therefor has been impounded. RED RIVER OF THE NORTH The Flood Control Act of 1948 authorized a comprehensive plan for the improvement of the Red River of the North Drainage Basin, Minnesota-North Dakota, as recommended in House Document No. 185, 81st Congress, 1st session. This plan includes several projects on the main stem and many on the tributaries in both States. All of the proposed works are almost entirely for flood protection. Those on the main stem would be in the cities of Grand Forks, Fargo, and Wahpeton, N. Dak., and in the cities of East Grand Forks, Moorhead, and Breckenridge, Minn. On the North Dakota tributaries, flood-protection works are proposed on the Sheyenne, Rush, and Maple Rivers. The President's budget recommended an item of $375,000 for fiscal year 1955 for projects in the Red River of the North Basin. Some of this would be used for carrying forward construction on the flood control works in my own city of Grand Forks, for constructing flood control works on the Rush River, and for planning work on the Sheyenne River, all in North Dakota. The city of Grand Forks has completed all procedure in connection with assurances of local cooperation, now approved by the Secretary of the Army. This involved the obligation by the city of $205,000. Bids for constructing the project will be opened the 25th of this month, and it is hoped that the project can be completed during the next 2 years so that we can soon look forward to the time when this section of our community will no longer suffer great losses when spring breakup comes. Local interests are now in the process of furnishing assurances of cooperation on connection with the improvement proposed on the Rush River. This may already have been completed and the way cleared for undertaking this relatively small improvement. The budget estimate for the basin also includes a small item for planning on the Sheyenne and Maple Rivers in Cass County, which I feel is needed. There is an additional item needed for this area. In 1944, plans for flood control on the Pembina River was authorized in House Document 565, 78th Congress, 2d session. A year later Congress directed that these be reviewed. To date, almost 9 years later, the review report has not been completed. Farmers are continuing to suffer large crop losses from floods and nothing is being done about it. The Corps of Engineers says it will take about $23,000 to complete the additional studies and review report. I ask that these funds be provided for this important work. I greatly appreciate the courtesy of you gentlemen in giving us this opportunity to be heard. I would like to insert several items into the record if I may. Thank you. (The matters referred to follow :) OSCAR LUNSETH, Jefferson Hotel, Washington, D. C.: BISMARCK, N. DAK., February 23, 1954. Please present on my behalf to Appropriation committees of Congress for insertion in hearings the material supplied by Garrison District Corps of Engineers relative to height of pool, acreages, production of power, and other pertinent information in connection with the Garrison Dam and Reservoir project. On June 23, 1953, the North Dakota Water Conservation Commission passed a resolution reaffirming its position on the maximum pool level of 1,850 feet for the Garrison Reservoir provided adequate facilities protecting the irrigation projects and the city of Williston are constructed. NORMAN BRUNSDALE, Governor and Chairman, North Dakota Water Conservation Commission. STATEMENT CONCERNING MEETINGS HELD AT WILLISTON, N. DAK., ON THE QUESTION OF THE GARRISON RESERVOIR LEVEL HELD ON NOVEMBER 9 AND JANUARY 14, SUBMITTED BY GOVERNOR NORMAN BRUNSDALE The following were present: Members of State Water Conservation Commission: Hon. Norman Brunsdale, Governor and ex-officio chairman; Curtis Olson, vice chairman, member from Valley City; Oscar Lunseth, member from Grank Forks; Math Dahl, member from Bismarck, commissioner of agriculture and labor; Einar H. Dahl, member from Watford City; J. J. Walsh, secretary and chief engineer, State engineer. Others present at the meeting from Williston and vicinity: William Davidson, president of First National Bank and rancher, Williston; Leonard Green, director of the Lewis and Clark project, Williston; Tom Kelly, representing the BufordTrenton irrigation project; Walter Burke, attorney and farmer on the Lewis and Clark project, Williston; Harry Polk, editor of the Williston paper, Williston; Mr. Lee, member of the city commission, Williston; Bruce Johnson, district manger, United States Bureau of Reclamation, Bismarck. The intention of this meeting was to get the point of view of the interested people at Williston and submit the views to the Corps of Engineers at a meeting to be held later. Mr. Walter Burke, representing the interested parties at Williston, stated that they oppose the maximum reservoir level of the Garrison Dam at 1,850 feet and were also opposed to the construction of levees or dikes on the irrigation projects and on the Williston side of the river. After considerable discussion they agreed that the dikes should be built if a flood approaching 1,850 should take place sometime in the future at intervals of 10 to 15 years. They would not oppose a normal operating reservoir level of 1,840 feet if the space above 1,840 to 1,850 were reserved for emergency floods or any floods provided the water was drawn down as expeditiously and efficiently as possible down to the 1,840-foot level after such floods, and provided such higher level would occur only once in 10 to 15 years. If floods approaching 1,850 feet were limited to 10- to 15-year periods they would favor giving flowage easements on lands between the 1,840- and 1,850-foot level instead of selling such land. The question resolved itself into how often would the 1,850-foot level be reached based on past history and the probable size of future floods. It was agreed to contact the Corps of Engineers at Omaha and present the Williston proposition to them. Accordingly, later on a meeting was arranged for that purpose with Gen. W. E. Potter. JANARY 14 MEETING On January 14, 1954, a meeting was held at Williston, N. Dak. Gen. W. E. Potter, division engineer of Omaha, Nebr., Col. H. L. Hille, district engineer of the Garrison District, others from the Corps of Engineers, and Math Dahl, Einar H. Dahl, and Gov. Norman Brunsdale of the North Dakota Water Conservation Commission were present. Representatives from Williston and Williams County, about 30 in number, appeared on behalf of the Williams County Commission, the Williston City Commission, the Chamber of Commerce of Williston, the Buford-Trenton, and the Lewis and Clark Irrigation Districts and interested landowners. After a detailed explanation by Gen. W. E. Potter of costs and benefits of the 1,850 versus the 1,840 maximum reservoir level illustrated by charts, discussion concerned itself with the Williston people's point of view as presented principally by William Davidson and Attorney Walter Burke. The Williston people objected to the use of pumps in the connection with dikes or levees proposed for the Buford-Trenton and Lewis and Clark irrigation projects and the city of Williston. They would not oppose a maximum 1,850-foot operating level providing that level would not be permitted except at 10-year intervals or more. General Potter and others with hin submitted charts of past years on which floods back to the year 1898 were projected on an 1,840-foot level. These charts show that levels above 1,840 feet would have occurred as often as every 3 or 4 years excepting the dry years of the thirties. These charts seem to indicate that a flood approaching the 1,850-foot level would occur oftener than once in 10 years. After considerable discussion spokesmen for the Williston delegation proposed that they would not oppose the 1,850-foot level if and when water would be needed for irrigation to the east of the Garrison Reservoir. However, they seem to be insistent that no pumps should be installed in connection with a levee system. They were not concerned with the loss of revenue that may entail because of the lower level and which the Corps of Engineers from the findings of the Bureau of Reclamation estimated would be $865,000 per year. The question of allocating power income from the Garrison Dam to the cost of irrigation was not entered into. The effect of this proposition is that the maximum operating level would be 1,840 feet until such time as water would be needed for irrigation to the east of the Garrison Reservoir when they agreed it could go to a maximum of 1,850 feet to take care of flood waters at intermittent periods as often as they would occur provided that the water was released for power production and irrigation or retained temporarily for flood protection below the Garrison Dam. In all events the level would be drawn down to 1,840 feet as soon as possible and would not exceed that level in the spring of any year prior to any floods that may take place. Substantially, the above may be presented to committees of Congress by spokesmen or representatives from Williston. MEMO FOR RECORD JANUARY 15, 1954. Effect of an 1,840 maximum normal operating pool on costs and benefits of the Garrison project: 1. The following is a revised version of a similar memorandum prepared January 9, 1954. It contains somewhat more refined estimates of benefits which would be lost due to a reduction of the maximum normal operating pool for Garrison Reservoir to elevation 1.840 than the January 3 memorandum. Estimates of cost savings are still somewhat rough. General conclusions remain unchanged. 2. Because construction of the Garrison project has reached an advanced stage on the basis of an 1,850 maximum normal operating pool, only small savings in project costs could be realized if this level were permanently lowered to eleva tion 1,840 at this time. No savings could be made on the dam itself and its appurtenances. A comparatively small saving, about $25,000, would result from a reduction in land which still must be acquired for the reservoir. This represents a reduction of $26,000 in annual charges. The only significant reduction in project costs would result from the reduced size of the works needed to provide protection at the head of the reservoir in the vicinity of Williston. Protective works would not be needed for initial simple backwater effects, but after a few years of aggradation protective works, costing $5,600,000 would be necessary for Williston, and Lewis and Clark Irrigation District. The attendant costs, including interest, amortization, and operation and maintenance amount to $299,000. The corresponding values for protective works needed for 1,850 operation are $12,493,000, first cost and $641,000, annual costs. Reduction in first cost of the protective works for 1,840 operation would be $6,893,000, and, in annual costs, $342,000. Gross reduction in project first cost (including lands) would be $,618,000, and in project annual costs $368,000. 3. Total Garrison project cost for the 1,840 operating level would be $282,236,000 (initial power installation) rather than the present estimate of $289,$54,000 for the 1,850 operating level. Cost per acre-foot of reservoir storage to the 1,840 level (gross storage 19,400,000 acre-feet) would be $14.60. The 3,600,000 acre-feet of storage between elevations 1,840 and 1,850 could, in effect, be secured for the increased cost of lands and protective works at the head of the reservoir, or the $7,618,000, noted in the previous paragraph. The cost per acre-foot of this storage would be $2.11, or about one-seventh of the unit cost of the storage below the 1,840 level. It is considered highly desirable that this low-cost storage be utilized, particularly since replacement storage would probably cost even more than the $14.60 per acre-foot cited for the Garrison project below the 1,840 level. 4. Garrison project benefits would be decreased by lowering the maximum normal operating pool to elevation 1,840 by the amounts described below: (a) Power at Garrison.-A very substantial loss in energy and dependable capacity would result at the Garrison powerplant, because of the reduced head and also because of the reduced storage. This is estimated to amount to $865,000 annually. (b) Power at downstream dams.-The reduced storage at Garrison would result in less complete river-flow regulation, with the result that water would be less effectively used at the powerplants at downstream dams. This would result in a loss in annual benefits amounting to $240,000. (c) Diversion into central and western North Dakota.-The power required for diversion of water from Garrison Reservoir to central and eastern North Dakota for irrigation and other purposes would be materially increased because of the increased height to which the water must be pumped. (The probability of development of a diversion from Garrison Reservoir appears to be greatly enhanced by the favorable report of the Bureau of Reclamation, dated February 1953.) This value of this power, based on the latest USBR estimate of water needs, amounts to $154,000 a year. (d) Flood protection at the head of Garrison Reservoir.-The protective works for the 1,840 operating level would extend over a shorter reach of river than the works proposed for the 1,850 operating pool, and accordingly some reduction in protection from the natural flood hazard now existing would result. This reduction is estimated to be $17,000 per year. (e) Downstream regulation.-The reduction in reservoir capacity, which would attend lowering of the maximum normal operating pool (3,600,000 acre-feet) would constitute a reduction in the amount of water which could be held over for release for multiple purposes during periods of deficient river flow. This would reduce the capability of the reservoir to improve low water flows, and would accordingly result in a material loss in downstream navigation, water supply, and pollution abatement benefits. The average annual loss in these benefits is estimated to be $330,000. In the event of a drought, however, the loss in benefits could be many times this average value. (f) Siltation of reservoir.-The loss of reservoir storage capacity would substantially reduce the useful life of the reservoir, and its total capacity for holding back the silt load of the river from the downstream reservoirs. At the present rate of sediment transport in the river, the loss of reservoir storage capacity for an 1,840 operating level is equivalent to about 75 years' reduction in useful life of the reservoir. The economic value of this reduction has not been evaluated. |