Garrison Diversion updates legislators on Red River Valley Water Supply: 18 miles built, federal funding push continues

Duane de Kray, general manager of the Garrison Diversion Conservancy District, briefed the Natural Resources and Energy Committee on Jan. 22 about construction progress and federal funding needs for the Red River Valley Water Supply Project (RRVWSP), a regional pipeline and treatment plan designed to deliver Missouri River water to Central and Eastern North Dakota.

Project purpose and context: De Kray reviewed the project’s history and purpose: the Red River project is intended as a long‑term emergency and supplemental water supply to support municipal, industrial and agricultural needs in eastern North Dakota and to underpin economic development. He noted the project was originally conceived to address a long history of dry periods—“in a 30‑style drought, the Red River … had 0 flow for five months,” he said—and to provide a dependable supply for cities and industrial users.

Scope, status and technical details presented: De Kray told the committee the project design includes a 72‑inch (6‑foot) spiral‑welded steel pipeline about 125 miles long and a treatment plant sized to deliver up to 165 cubic feet per second, with minimum cover over the pipe of about 7 feet where constructed across irrigated farmland. As presented, the slide deck listed a total program cost of approximately $1,260,000,000 (speaker‑presented figure). De Kray said 18 miles of pipeline had been placed in the ground, multiple construction contracts were underway in the Carrington area, and the authority planned additional contracts in the coming construction season. He described specific completed and ongoing contracts (5b, 5c and 5d were discussed) and presented photographs of trenching and restoration work.

Funding, the MR&I program and federal requests: De Kray explained that the Garrison Diversion Conservancy District is funded in part by one mill levied across member counties for general operations, and that many program costs are reimbursed or reimbursable by federal partners when work is performed on federal facilities. De Kray said the MR&I (Missouri River and Tributaries/Red River Mitigation and Restoration?) fund—created to compensate the state for prior federal decisions—was indexed to $200 million in earlier authorizations and that the program’s balance would be exhausted in 2025 absent additional federal appropriations. The district has a federal funding request in Congress; De Kray said the authority had sought roughly $454,000,000 in federal funds (presentation figure) and that Senator Hoeven was leading the effort. He said earlier committee progress had cleared some committee action but that at least two senators from other states raised objections; De Kray described the effort as continuing.

State appropriations and schedule: De Kray said the Legislature had provided $180,000,000 in the last biennium with local cost shares and that the state is following a multi‑biennium spend plan for a 10‑year build if the Legislature approves the requested amounts in future budgets. He noted the governor’s proposed budget included an amount the presenter quoted (discussants referred to a $172,000,000 figure in the governor’s recommendation) and said the district would seek $221,000,000 for the next phase under the ten‑year plan (presenter used the shorthand “2/21” for the next request; see clarifying details). He warned the committee that construction delays raise costs because of inflation and that slower legislative action would increase the total price.

Landowner, recreation and operations notes: De Kray described the project’s cooperative operations with local counties and the Department of Water Resources, listed recreation grants funded by the district (more than $9 million awarded historically), and noted that some irrigation development is already occurring on portions of the canal; the presenter said canal irrigation currently supports about 8,000 irrigated acres and that the canal had been underutilized for decades when the Bureau of Reclamation previously limited service to one‑year contracts.

Legal and river use context: De Kray traced the project’s federal history back to the Flood Control (Pick‑Sloan) Act of 1944 and North Dakota’s 1965 Garrison Diversion Act; he said the district worked to get a record of decision allowing the project to use existing canal infrastructure rather than a higher‑lift river intake, saving an estimated $300,000,000 in construction costs and lowering operational lifts and annual costs.

Ending and next steps: De Kray told lawmakers the district would continue construction where funding allowed and urged support for both continued state appropriations and federal funding. He asked for policy direction on whether certain intake infrastructure should be used for economic development or held as system redundancy; no formal legislative decision was taken at the hearing.