Manitoba Water Stewardship
Potential Transboundary Water Projects
Garrison Diversion Project Proposals
Background
Since the Garrison dam on the Missouri River in North Dakota was completed in the mid-1950s (creating a huge reservoir known as Lake Sakakawea/Lake Audubon) there have been a variety of proposed irrigation projects and water distribution proposals for municipal, rural and industrial uses. The initial Garrison diversion project proposed the large-scale transfer of Missouri River water into the Hudson Bay drainage basin for irrigation purposes, using the Snake Creek Pumping Station to move water (up to 2000 cfs) from the reservoir via the 74 mile long McClusky Canal over the continental divide to link with the 44 mile long New Rockford Canal in the James River Valley. Several major Garrison features were constructed prior to the investigation by the International Joint Commission (1977) which determined that using Missouri River water for irrigation in the Hudson Bay drainage basin should not be allowed. In addition the IJC expressed concerns over the negative environmental impacts which could occur, for example, from the transfer of non-native species between basins and the introduction of invasive species, fish disease and pathogens.
Dakota Water Resources Act of 2000
The Dakota Water Resources Act of 2000 replaced the Garrison Diversion Reformulation Act of 1986. The Garrison Diversion Reformulation Act represented a delicate compromise between US stakeholders and included consideration of previous International Joint Commission work on the potential problems associated with diverting water from the Missouri River basin to the Hudson Bay basin. The Dakota Water Resources Act now makes it easier to move water from the Missouri River basin to the Hudson Bay basin.
The Dakota Water Resources Act:
- assumes that treatment of Missouri River water will make diversion into the Hudson Bay basin acceptable. There is no scientific consensus on the level of treatment required to prevent biota transfer, nor are there biological standards;
- potentially authorizes the interbasin transfer of large volumes of water to meet in-stream flow needs and to augment ground water aquifers. Moreover, the Dakota Water Resources Act requires that the Garrison Diversion principle supply works be maintained - these are capable of transferring water up to a rate of 2000 cubic feet per second (cfs).
Northwest Area Water Supply Project
The Northwest Area Water Supply Project (NAWS) is a proposal to transfer pre-treated Missouri River water across the continental divide to the city of Minot in the Hudson Bay basin. The Missouri River water would then be treated to drinking water standards and be distributed to a number of communities in the Hudson Bay basin in western North Dakota.
The NAWS project was authorized by the Garrison Reformulation Act of 1986 and again by the Dakota Water Resources Act of 2000.
This would be the first time for such an interbasin transfer between these basins and could become a precedent for future large-scale water transfers under study by North Dakota. Manitoba and Canada oppose this project due to the potential transfer of harmful biota and pathogens from the Missouri River basin to the Hudson Bay basin. The minimal level of pre-treatment being proposed within the Missouri River basin will not ensure adequate biota inactivation nor removal of Missouri River biota currently not present in the Hudson Bay basin.
The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation prepared an Environmental Assessment of the NAWS project under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). In early June 2001, the U.S. State Department formally handed over to Canada the NAWS Final Environmental Assessment (EA) and the Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI).
Canada and Manitoba objected to the Bureau's conclusion that impacts were either insignificant or could be mitigated and maintained that under NEPA, a comprehensive Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) should have been prepared rather than the cursory Environmental Assessment (EA).
After exhausting all administrative and diplomatic avenues, Manitoba launched a legal challenge of the NAWS project in October 2002 that called for the carrying out of a full Environmental Impact Statement under the National Environmental Policy Act.
On February 3, 2005, Judge Collyer of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled in favor of Manitoba's case that the United States Bureau of Reclamation did not satisfactorily assess the risks and consequences of foreign biota transfer due to the NAWS project. Further, the court set aside the Bureau's Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact and ordered the Bureau to undertake new work on the risks of biota transfer associated with the NAWS project.
The NAWS project would be the first Garrison Diversion Project to move water from the Missouri River basin to the Hudson Bay basin. The ruling by Judge Collyer represents a landmark decision in the consideration of invasive species in projects that propose to divert water from one basin to another.
Text of February 3, 2005 Ruling in PDF format (183 KB)
On March 6, 2006 the Bureau of Reclamation published a notice indicating that it now intends to carry out a comprehensive Environmental Impact Statement for the NAWS project, under the U. S. National Environmental Policy Act. This is the outcome that Manitoba sought in its court case.
The Bureau of Reclamation provided an opportunity for interested parties to comment on the scoping of the proposed Environmental Impact Statement. Manitoba provided significant comments that were grouped under the main headings of Project Purpose and Need, Project Legal Setting, Consideration of Alternatives, Geographic Scope, and Assessment of Environmental Consequences.
The next step in this process is the preparation by the Bureau of Reclamation of a draft Environmental Impact Statement, which would then be released to the public for comment. It is anticipated that the draft Environmental Impact Statement will be released in the spring of 2007.
Potential Organisms of Concern in the Missouri River
|
Red River Valley Water Supply Project
The Dakota Water Resources Act of 2000 calls for a study of long-term water needs for eastern North Dakota including identification of alternatives to meet those needs. The Act requires that at least one of the alternatives include the interbasin transfer of water from the Missouri River. The Bureau of Reclamation in partnership with the Garrison Diversion Conservancy District, which is representing the State of North Dakota, has launched the Red River Valley Water Supply Study.
The Bureau of Reclamation has released the report, Draft Report on Red River Valley Water Needs and Options. This report outlines seven options for supplying water to the Red River valley in North Dakota. Four of these options involve importation of water from the Missouri River basin into the Hudson Bay basin. Only one of these four importation options provides for pre-treatment of the Missouri River water to acceptable biota control standards, prior to transport into the Hudson Bay basin.
Manitoba has reviewed this report and provided comments to the Bureau of Reclamation. Manitoba is of the opinion that there are a number of deficiencies with the water demand scenarios presented that may overestimate future water needs, and may be used to justify one of the interbasin water transfer options. Manitoba also has serious concerns that the level of pre-treatment proposed for three of the Missouri River interbasin transfer supply options will not satisfactorily eliminate the risk of biota transfer into the Hudson Bay basin. A list of potential biota of concern in the Missouri River appears to the right.
A number of groups in North Dakota have endorsed one of the options involving importation of Missouri River water into the Hudson Bay basin as the preferred option to supply water to the Red River valley in North Dakota. These groups include the North Dakota State Water Commission, Lake Agassiz Water Authority and the Garrison Diversion Conservancy District. This preferred option does not provide for adequate treatment of Missouri River water, prior to transport into the Hudson Bay basin.
In November, 2005 the Bureau of Reclamation released the Final Report on Red River Valley Water Needs and Options. It does not appear that Manitoba's comments were taken into account in the preparation of this report.
A draft Environmental Impact Statement for this project was released on December 30, 2005. Manitoba has reviewed this draft Environmental Impact Statement and provided detailed comments to the Bureau of Reclamation in coordination with other interested agencies including the government of Canada.
Manitoba's review has indicated that selection of either of the in-basin options proposed in the Red River Valley Water Supply project as the preferred alternative would pose little risk to the province's environment. These two options are consistent with sustainable water management principles that respect natural systems and that employ a combination of water management techniques including water conservation. If an out of basin alternative is eventually chosen as the preferred option, water from the Missouri River should be treated to a level acceptable to Manitoba in order to remove and inactivate foreign biota prior to transfer across the basin divide to the Hudson Bay basin.
Three of the water supply alternatives identified involve importation of partially treated Missouri River water into the Hudson Bay basin, with the potential to transfer harmful biota to the Red River system. Manitoba's review strongly suggests that the range of treatment options proposed for these three inter-basin transfer alternatives will not effectively and reliably provide an adequate level of treatment for the Missouri River water.
The inter-basin transfer supply options proposed in the Red River Valley Water Supply project are similar in many respects to the original Garrison Diversion Project. The original Garrison project was referred to the International Joint Commission for review in 1975. After a thorough investigation, the International Joint Commission made the following key recommendation to governments in 1977:
"That, if and when the Governments of Canada and the United States agree that methods have been proven that will eliminate the risk of biota transfer, or if the question of biota transfer is agreed to be no longer a matter of concern, then the construction of that portion of the Garrison Diversion Unit which would affect waters flowing into Canada may be undertaken provided the following conditions are met:
- Any agreed modifications or other measures required to resolve the interbasin transfer issue are incorporated into the project."
Issues surrounding biota transfer are even more of a concern now than in 1977. The issue of invasive species is recognized as one of the most formidable environmental challenges facing governments in North America. An Executive Order on Invasive Species was issued by the President of the United States in early 1999, highlighting the serious nature of the issue and providing direction for preventive and coordinated actions. Both the United States and Canada are working cooperatively in many areas to control invasive species through ballast water programs, sharing of scientific information, and regional cooperation to implement the US Aquatic Nuisance Species Act. Economic losses from invasive species can be staggering. A 1999 U.S. study estimates damages and losses caused by invading foreign species adding up to more than $138 billion per year. Zebra mussels cause damage in the U.S. that is estimated at $3 billion annually. The mussels have not yet invaded the Hudson Bay drainage area, but an impact of similar magnitude can be expected should zebra mussels make their way into the Hudson Bay basin.
Even though the Garrison Diversion Project has evolved over the years, the International Joint Commission's recommendation of 1977 is just as appropriate and meaningful now in 2006 as it was in 1977.
As contemplated by the International Joint Commission in 1977, Manitoba believes that if one of the Missouri River basin transfer alternatives is ultimately selected as the preferred alternative, modifications to "resolve the interbasin transfer issue" need to be incorporated into the project, and agreement must be reached on the level of treatment to be implemented prior to diversion. No such agreement has been reached. If agreement cannot be reached, it is Manitoba's position that this matter should once again be referred to the International Joint Commission for assessment. Manitoba would abide by whatever recommendations the International Joint Commission may make in this matter.
The supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement was released to the public for review and comment on January 31, 2007. This document identifies the import of Missouri River water into the Sheyenne River as the preferred alternative of the Bureau of Reclamation and the Garrison Conservancy District.
Manitoba provided detailed comments to the Bureau of Reclamation on the supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement. In these comments Manitoba indicated that its preferred alternative for a water supply for the Red River valley is still one of the in-basin options as these are risk free with regard to the transfer of invasive species. Manitoba also noted that the preferred alternative identified in the supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement includes a level of water treatment that would meet treatment goals previously set by Manitoba.
The Needs and Options Study and the draft Environmental Impact Statement can be accessed through the following link: http://www.usbr.gov/gp/dkao/.
Regional map - drainage basins and Garrison features
View a high resolution version of this map (PDF - 1.5 MB)
Devils Lake Outlet
Devils Lake is within a land locked or "closed basin" that only receives water from rainfall and snowfall and normally only loses water through evaporation. Consequently, lake levels normally fluctuate from high water to low water as the region goes through minor climate shifts. The record for the past 10,000 years indicates that Devils Lake has been dry as many times as the water levels have been high. Because Devils Lake is land locked its water quality is worse than in nearby lakes and rivers including the Red River.
In 1992 water levels in Devils Lake were thought to be too low so North Dakota began to pursue options to transfer large volumes of water to the lake from the Missouri River. However, by 1999 water levels in Devils Lake had risen considerably and North Dakota began pursuing options to construct an outlet from the lake to the nearby Sheyenne River. Although the United States Army Corps of Engineers completed an Environmental Impact Statement that identified a preferred option for a Devils Lake outlet, North Dakota rejected this proposal as being too expensive and decided to proceed with construction of its own outlet proposal.
Manitoba and Canada have consistently called for a reference on the Devils Lake issue to the International Joint Commission. Manitoba also joined with the People to Save the Sheyenne River and the Peterson Coulee Outlet Association to launch legal action to halt the project.
Since 1999, Manitoba has strongly opposed the State of North Dakota Devils Lake outlet project due to the lack of environmental safeguards in the proposed design and the negative impacts the project could have on the province's ecosystem. Of critical concern to Manitoba was the possible link between the Garrison diversion and the stabilization of water levels in Devils Lake. It is well known that water level stabilization in Devils Lake was one of the original goals of Garrison.
The State of North Dakota Devils Lake outlet was completed in 2005. In August, 2005 the Canadian and American federal governments, with input from Manitoba, Minnesota and North Dakota, reached an agreement that allowed for North Dakota to operate the outlet after putting in place additional environmental safeguards for the protection of downstream jurisdictions. Prior to operation, North Dakota constructed a temporary gravel filter to reduce the likelihood of foreign biota being transferred out of Devils Lake. The agreement provides for Canada and the United States to design and construct a more advanced filtration system and/or disinfection system for the outlet. The design of this system will be based on the results of ongoing monitoring and risk assessment of Devils Lake biota.
The results from this monitoring indicate that none of the twelve invasive species known to be of concern elsewhere were found in Devils Lake. However, the testing did reveal biota of potential concern present in Devils Lake that have not been previously found in Lake Winnipeg. These include four types of blue-green algae that are capable of producing toxins and three fish parasites. Two of the fish parasites had previously been found in Devils Lake while the third was discovered during this study. Reports on this monitoring can be accessed through the following links: Manitoba Devils Lake Biota Survey (PDF), and Council on Environmental Quality Fish Pathogens and Biota Survey (PDF).
Manitoba has long had concerns that a Devils Lake outlet was only the first phase of a larger project to stabilize the lake by building an inlet from the Missouri River. As part of the agreement between the Canadian and American federal governments North Dakota affirmed that it does not have such a current intention or prospective proposal and the United States federal government affirmed that it is prohibited by federal law from expending funds towards construction of such an inlet.
Technical experts from Canada and the United States have agreed on performance standards for an advanced filter. It was also agreed to hire a consultant to design an advanced filter that would consist of filtration followed by ultraviolet disinfection. Work is on-going on the development of the advanced filter design.
The International Joint Commission's Red River Board has developed a monitoring and testing program for Devils Lake and areas downstream including the Red River and Lake Winnipeg. Sampling for this monitoring program was carried out in the fall of 2006. Analysis of data and report writing will occur during the fall and winter with a report expected by the end of March 2007.
The North Dakota Department of Health has recently approved modifications to the Devils Lake outlet discharge permit. These changes were requested by the State Water Commission and remove some of the restrictions on sulfate levels in the Sheyenne River and operating times for the outlet. Manitoba had opposed these modifications and does not believe that North Dakota provided sufficient new evidence to support a relaxing of the environmental standards that governed the Devils Lake outlet.
Manitoba joined with People to Save the Sheyenne River, the Peterson Coulee Outlet Association, and the National Wildlife Federation to launch a legal challenge of the decision by the North Dakota Department of Health to modify the outlet operating permit. The North Dakota District Court recently released its ruling on Manitoba’s appeal of the Devils Lake permit modifications. The Court ruled in favor of North Dakota and allowed the permit modifications to remain in place. Manitoba has appealed this District Court ruling to the North Dakota Supreme Court. It is anticipated that the Supreme Court will hear this case in late August or early September.
