ESTIMATED USE OF WATER IN THE UNITED STATES IN 1980

SOUTH DAKOTA IRRIGATION DEVELOPMENT

Senator ABDNOR. I am also incorporating into the record a table showing the Dakotas have received less than 2 percent of the irrigation development promised us when we gave up over a million acres, under the Pick-Sloan Missouri basin program, to provide flood control for downstream States. Again I would like to make that chart a part of the record. [The chart follows:]

Senator ABDNOR. I just hope this background information puts into proper perspective the funding requests you are making here today. Certainly, the attention we have received in the past is far less than was promised and far less than given to other States. And if I have anything to say about it, that is going to change.

ATEMENT OF WARREN R. NEUFELD, SECRETARY, SOUTH DAKOTA STATE DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND NATURAL RESOURCES

(Bob)

. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, my name is Warren R. feld, Secretary of the South Dakota Department of Water and Natural Sources. It is a pleasure to present testimony today regarding South Dakota er development activities and provide you with a report on the progress we e made since my last appearance before you in April, 1983.

lready have an adequate supply of good quality water the Missouri River we must develop the delivery systems necessary to obtain the potential fits associated with this renewable natural resource. These delivery ems will provide a relatively small amount of supplemental water to sustain crops and stabilize our agricultural economy. In addition, we want to ver better quality water to our citizens who are currently dependent on d water supplies which often exceed basic drinking water standards. We are everthing reasonably possible to help ourselves, but there is a legitimate for the federal government in this endeavor.

spoken on several occasions about the federal commitment to South Dakota junction with the Pick-Sloan program, established by the 1944 Flood

1 Act. As host for four of the Pick-Sloan mainstem dams on the Missouri South Dakota has lost over 820 square miles of valuable land due to ion caused by those dams. Although the Pick-Sloan program included a ent to assist South Dakota in securing the irrigation necessary to combat periods and to compensate us for the inundated lands, we are still for the federal government to fulfill this commitment.

state level, we have established a major water development program and ected all available state resources toward developing our priority

We have created a special state water development fund to provide ce for water project feasibility studies and for construction. We have a state water plan that realistically identifies our needs, priorities, ty to accomplish our development objectives.

ade great progress towards accomplishing our water development
3. With the federal construction authorization obtained last year, we
to proceed with the Belle Fourche rehabilitation project. We have
a feasibility report on the Lake Andes-Wagner irrigation project and
to proceed with pre-construction work. Very shortly, the planning
the CENDAK irrigation project will be done. We are also in the
conducting the Garrison Extension multi-purpose water supply study,
ve that project ready for construction authorization in the near
expect to distribute over $5 million this year to support several
and wastewater projects throughout the state, and will make another
available on a loan basis to some of our major water projects.

continue this progress, we need to leverage our limited financial
We need to combine federal funds with state funds, local funds and
s. The state is encouraged by the recent letter from President
nator Paul Laxalt on national water project financing. We are eager
✓ partnership with the federal government and with non-federal
fund water projects, based on a recognition of past federal
and on the ability of project sponsors to provide project financing.
factor, however, that is really even more important than all of the
ts. It is more important than the federal obligation to the
fort of the state to establish our priorities, and the willingness
o share in the cost of building water projects. It is the human
d manifested by the initiative and effort of the local people who
and fought hard to obtain adequate quantities of good quality
ve their productivity and their livelihoods.

ocal project sponsors have raised considerable funds to support
ter projects. In the case of Lake Andes-Wagner, for example, the
hers have raised $1.3 million to conduct a feasibility study and

Specifically, let me say that when Commissioner Broadbent appeared before this committee a few weeks ago, he agreed to try to find some additional funding to try to keep the WEB project closer to schedule. It may be too much to hope for enough to keep the project fully on schedule, but it is my hope the project will not be allowed to fall more than a year behind.

Second, I am pleased to note the State is advancing funds to get work underway on the Belle Fourche irrigation rehabilitation project. I understand the Bureau is receptive to working with the State to advance this work, and I trust this committee will be supportive of any agreement worked out in that regard.

Third, it is my understanding the feasibility report on the CENDAK project is nearing completion and that the Bureau is ready to move for ward aggressively on the advance planning at the level of $1.9 million in fiscal year 1985.

Fourth, I understand there is agreement with our North Dakota colleagues to expedite the South Dakota water deliveries study to assess and prepare for authorization of irrigation and flood control features along the James River in South Dakota in conjunction with the Garrison unit, which the State of South Dakota fully supports in light of its potential benefits for our State as well as the commitments made under the Pick-Sloan Missouri basin program.

Last, but certainly not least, I would like to mention the Lake AndesWagner project because I'm told the Bureau has high hopes it will be their next new project construction start. I just hope they are right, and I will be doing whatever I can to support the local project sponsors.

Again, for the record, South Dakota has not fared well in the water development appropriations acts of the past. I am here to see that we do better in the future, and I would like to see these improvements begin here today with the requests these witnesses will be putting forth. Mr. Secretary, I didn't mean to steal all your thunder, but I just had to say that for the record. I might say there are other people from South Dakota that are here to support you in your request today. Mr. Neufeld.

STATEMENT OF WARREN R. NEUFELD, SECRETARY, SOUTH DAKOTA STATE DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND NATURAL RESOURCES

Mr. NEUFELD. Thank you very much, Senator.

My name is Bob Neufeld and I am secretary of the South Dakota Department of Water and Natural Resources.

I suppose I could conclude my testimony right now, Senator, after the remarks you just gave, but I would like to explain some items about the positions of South Dakota with respect to this year's water appropriation bill.

Before I do that I would like to point out that in the audience here from South Dakota is Mr. Dave Housechild from the CENDAK Water Development Corp.; Mr. Jim Lewis and Mr. Robert Duxbury. Mr. Lewis and Mr. Duxbury are on the CENDAK Conservancy Subistrict board of directors so I am sure they share that support.

Senator ABDNOR. We are very pleased for their coming all the way to Washington. I might point out there are in the audience a considerable number of other South Dakotans I know.

Mr. NEUFELD. I know some of them, too, but I am not sure they are connected with any water projects that I am aware of.

Also appearing here in Washington this week, Mr. Chairman, were Ted Spaulding, Patrick Sieh, Manager Tom Knutson, Mrs. Zastrow for the South Dakota Water and Natural Resources, and Chuck Boynton and Carol Reed for the West Brown Irrigation District. They had to leave today but they were here to continue our cooperative efforts to deliver the benefits to Garrison. We testified on behalf of the North Dakota people on Monday.

With respect to our position on this year's budget request by the administration, I am going to leave comments on WEB to Mr. Kurle; he is much more capable of doing that than I am.

Mr. Chairman, we would like to see the line item for the Garrison extension of the South Dakota water delivery study increased by up to $2 million total. We believe that we need to move right into advanced planning and we will have the initial planning report done sometime by the end of this year and we need to have funds for fiscal year 1985 in order to continue on with the advanced planning to ensure that if this is going to be developed it is coordinated with the Garrison project of North Dakota.

We are in the same position with WEB. We are asking that a total of $1.2 million be appropriated to advance planning and reconstruction design work. We need to keep moving rapidly on these projects.

With respect to the Belle Fourche irrigation project, Mr. Chairman, we are asking that where the administration provided zero, we are asking for a total amount of $1 million. This was reauthorized late last year and too late to be included in the administration's budget. If the appropriation is not made, construction on the project will be delayed by 2 years. Now that this authorization has been obtained, the Belle Fourche sponsors are providing $700,000 in non-Federal funds to initiate first-year rehabilitation work this summer.

GREGORY PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT, SOUTH DAKOTA

With respect to the Gregory County pumped storage facility, we are asking that the administration's request of $2.4 million be reduced to $1 million, the reason being that the only work that needs to be done at this present time on the project is the geological testing. The data that is generated there will be good for all time. We need to move on and that $1 million is sufficient. We do not need to design turbines, we do not need to work on financing, we do not need to work on marketing. With the new cost-sharing proposals that are being talked about in your bill and its counterpart in the House we have yet to reach an agreement between preference power customers and the investor-owned utilities for this project. We have to have both of them involved to justify its existence. So at this point we would like to see the funding reduced for