Judge halts Missouri River water project in ND

In this 2005 file photo, Molstad Excavating of Grand Forks works on laying a pipeline south of Max, N.D., for the Northwest Area Water Supply project. A federal judge halted further pipeline construction on the water project March 1, 2013, further delaying a nearly three-decade effort to bring Missouri River water to people in the northwestern part of the state.

In this 2005 file photo, Molstad Excavating of Grand Forks works on laying a pipeline south of Max, N.D., for the Northwest Area Water Supply project. A federal judge halted further pipeline construction on the water project March 1, 2013, further delaying a nearly three-decade effort to bring Missouri River water to people in the northwestern part of the state. Photo by The Associated Press.

BISMARCK, N.D. (AP) — Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon applauded a federal judge’s decision to halt pipeline construction on a North Dakota project.

The long-delayed project is designed to supply growing northwestern North Dakota communities with water from the Missouri River, but the judge’s order a week ago is prompting project leaders to begin exploring another potential water source.

U.S. District Judge Rosemary Collyer in Washington, D.C., ruled March 1 that all pipeline construction on the Northwest Area Water Supply project must stop pending the outcome of a federal study of its potential impact on Canada and Missouri. The project manager expects the study to be finished next year.

“The Court’s duty ... is to ensure that a no-go option receives the complete consideration it requires without undue influence from North Dakota’s impatience,” Collyer said in her ruling dated March 1.

Missouri and Manitoba, the Canadian province which borders North Dakota, are suing to stop the project, which Congress authorized in 1986.

Manitoba sued in 2002, when construction began, over concerns about the pipeline’s possible transfer of harmful bacteria or other agents from the Missouri River Basin to the Hudson Bay Basin.

Missouri, which sued in 2009, fears the pipeline would deplete one of its key sources of water. The Missouri River provides water to 3 million Missouri residents and is vital to the state’s shipping and agriculture industries.

In his statement Friday, Nixon said: “The Missouri River is a major avenue for farmers and producers in the Show-Me State to get their goods to market, and I applaud the court’s correct ruling to protect this vital waterway.”

In a January court filing, Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster argued: “Missouri’s concern over cumulative depletions is heightened by this year’s severe drought in the Missouri River basin and the likelihood of future years of drought.”

When Manitoba sued, Collyer ordered another, more thorough, environmental review of the project, which led to the creation of a water treatment plan approved by the federal Bureau of Reclamation in 2009.

In the meantime, the judge allowed construction to continue as long as it was not related to water treatment.

Missouri then sued, saying the environmental study didn’t consider the project’s impact on downstream Missouri River water supplies.

Collyer, who combined the two lawsuits, last week ordered all pipeline construction to stop until the Bureau of Reclamation can study all aspects of the project’s potential impact. She only allowed upgrades being made to the city of Minot’s water treatment plant to continue.

Tim Freije, who is overseeing the project for North Dakota’s State Water Commission, said state and federal officials have begun exploring using aquifers fed by the Souris River as the project’s potential water source, even though the state would rather tap the Missouri River because it is more plentiful and has better quality water.

“We basically just decided we would go back to Square One, look at all scenarios,” he said.

Freije acknowledged that using the aquifers might be a way to satisfy both the concerns of Missouri and those of Manitoba, since the Missouri River would not be tapped and the Souris River already is a part of the Hudson Bay watershed.

However, “there are a lot more unknowns with that option than there is with the Missouri,” Freije said.

Bob Watson of the News Tribune staff contributed information used in this story.

Comments

Use the comment form below to begin a discussion about this content.

Please review our Policies and Procedures before registering or commenting

News Tribune - comments