×

ND looks to protect Missouri River interests

Jill Schramm/MDN Ken Royse, right, program manager for the Missouri River Joint Board, addresses a question at a public meeting on Missouri River issues Tuesday in Minot City Hall. Other panelists are Jason Sorenson, far left, Utilities director for the City of Minot, and Clay Carufel, engineer with the North Dakota Department of Water Resources.

Protecting North Dakota’s water interests in the Missouri River from downstream and western states will be critical in coming years.

That was the message several elected officials and members of the public heard Tuesday at a public meeting held by the Missouri River Joint Board as part of its “Educate. Advocate. Engage” initiative. The initiative is designed to educate residents and policy makers and ensure their voices are heard in how the river system is managed.

“The Missouri River is our greatest natural asset because it’s our most reliable and plentiful source of fresh water. It accounts for over 95 percent of the riverine flow in our state,” said Clay Carufel, an engineer with the North Dakota Department of Water Resources.

“The river is very important to our future prosperity as a state,” he added. “But there are threats to the way that we use the river and will use it in the future, and I’ll categorize those threats as outside groups and environmental threats.”

Outside threats come from cities and states to the south and west that want the water and from the federal government, he said. The federal government takes a national interest, which means its focus is on benefiting the greatest number of people, or the large urban areas, he explained.

“Any federal government report or projects needs to be reviewed to make sure they are taking into account North Dakota’s interest as well,” he said.

He also spoke of environmental issues such as erosion and sediment damage, which impact the value of the river and potentially could lead to flooding in North Dakota. Another environmental threat is the loss of cottonwoods along the river because the river no longer shifts course to take out older trees and allow younger ones to flourish, he said.

“If we lost these cottonwood trees, it might mean that we lose more of our animal species around the river. This could impact recreation for us – hunting, fishing opportunities – and it could also reduce the aesthetic appearance of the river,” Carufel said.

Carufel said the Department of Water Resources is protecting the state’s stake in the river in various ways. The state is pushing back on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ plan for fixing structural problems at the Snake Creek embankment, about eight miles northeast of the Garrison Dam, because the plan has implications for the state’s water supply and irrigation.

The department also is protecting the state’s interests by developing irrigation and municipal and rural water supplies, including regional water supply systems such as the Northwest Area Water Supply project in northwestern North Dakota, Carufel said.

Jason Sorenson, Utilities director for the City of Minot, discussed NAWS, which the city is supporting with its own water supply until an intake structure at Snake Creek can be completed to bring a better water supply to the region. The city temporarily is providing water to several communities, Minot Air Force Base and three rural water districts.

Sorenson said NAWS could begin receiving Missouri River water in mid-2025. However, he estimated Minot’s city sales tax for NAWS may need to be in place for another four years to finish funding NAWS.

Also within North Dakota, there has been interest in bringing Missouri River water to the southeastern part of the state.

Ken Royse, program manager for the Missouri River Joint Water Board, said North Dakota has not benefited from the river to the extent downstream states have. North Dakota gave up 584,000 acres of land as part of the Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program in 1944, which was prompted by a need for flood control. In total, 1.6 million acres were taken from Montana and the Dakotas, Royse said.

The downstream states of Nebraska, Iowa, Kansas and Missouri didn’t see those losses, although they contribute more of the river flow, he said. North Dakota contributes 6,600 cubic feet per second to a total flow of 63,000 cfs.

Kenny Rogers, Maxbass, who has served on various water boards, raised concern about how water demand might be met for large dairies proposed in eastern North Dakota and asked about North Dakota’s standing if a Missouri River compact is developed to set water allocations for states.

Carufel said if a water compact is developed, the best case scenario is North Dakota would keep the volume of its tributary water that flows into the Missouri River.

“If you’ve got a formula,” Royse said, “we’re going to have a problem because we can’t show the need. Iowa, Misssouri and Kansas – and Nebraska with irrigation – they’ll show a lot greater need. So, I think we have to be a little careful of how we proceed as a state if we want to go down the road of compacting. It’s one thing to get our water out that we put in, and if that’s the formula, which I doubt the downstream states would agree to. It’s another thing to get our water out based on need because then we come up short.”

Royse said both the upstream and downstream states have coalitions to advocate for their interests. The Upper Missouri Water Association consists of Montana, Wyoming and the Dakotas.

Starting at $2.99/week.

Subscribe Today