Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Irrigation Study topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lawmakers hear proposal for a state-funded study on irrigation potential and economic impacts
Summary
House Bill 1531 would appropriate $75,000 for a contracted study assessing expanded irrigation, subsurface drainage, and economic losses tied to unrealized Pick-Sloan projects; supporters said the data is needed for federal and state investment decisions, while opponents warned about limited water supply and drought risk.
Representative Cindy Schreiberbeck presented House Bill 1531, a request for a $75,000 appropriation to the agriculture commissioner to contract a consultant to study opportunities and economic impacts related to irrigation expansion and water conveyance across North Dakota.
"Data is necessary to continue advocating for irrigation and water conveyance for production agriculture in North Dakota," Representative Schreiberbeck said, noting the amended bill exempts the commissioner from state purchasing practices when contracting for the study. The study language as drafted directs analysis of potential benefits of increased irrigation, improved water conveyance, ramifications of failing to construct and implement infrastructure originally contemplated under the Pick-Sloan Flood Control Act of 1944, and comparisons between irrigated and non-irrigated land and between subsurface water management and non-use.
Dani Quisel, executive director of the North Dakota Irrigation Association, and Steve Hansen, chair of the association and an irrigator from Dickey County, testified in support and urged the committee to quantify the statewide economic impacts and potential returns on investment for state or federal infrastructure dollars.
Steve Hansen highlighted historical context: when the Garrison/Oahe dams were completed, 584,000 acres were inundated and federal planning had envisioned roughly 1,000,000 acres of irrigation that were not fully developed. "Having that information would be helpful as we look at future development of these practices and state investment in that development," Hansen told the committee.
Zachary Cassidy of Dakota Resource Council testified in opposition, urging a "do not pass" position. Cassidy said the bill, as written, appears to assume abundant water and does not sufficiently account for limited supply or the state's recent drought experience.
Andrew Nygren of the Department of Water Resources provided neutral technical background and cited prior and ongoing studies the department can make available, including inventories of irrigation potential, subsurface drainage reports and assessments of managed aquifer recharge. He told members the department maintains an expanding observation-well network and could support data compilation for the study.
Committee members asked clarifying questions about scope and barriers to irrigation, and whether the proposed study would be statewide. Representative Schreiberbeck and supporters said the study would examine statewide potential, target areas where soils and water sources align and help inform future funding and policy requests. No committee vote was taken at the hearing.
