October 9, 2001
Mr. Mike Larson, President
South Dakota Wildlife Federation
210 North Madison
Pierre, SD 57501
Dear Mr Larson:
I recently received a copy of your resolution opposing the Dakota Water Resources Act of 2000. While we respect your organizations rights and views on issues, I believe you may have received misinformation concerning the Garrison Diversion project. Your resolution speaks to some actions which are not authorized and, in fact, have been specifically deauthorized in the recent legislation. (Copy attached).
On specific issues, the designated 23,700 acres of irrigation along the McClusky Canal was arrived at during a meeting in Washington, DC with the National Wildlife Federation in attendance. Most of those lands are, in fact, very difficult to irrigate and are not economical. The District has no plans to promote irrigation of these lands. The reference made to the James River feeder canal may have failed to recognize that there is no language in the DWRA which authorizes that feeder canal. It is true that we would like to see a reliable water supply for the Oakes Test Area (OTA) but, at this point, we are only able to irrigate approximately 3,000 acres. As to the 37,000 acres of irrigation on the James River, if you compare the 1986 GDU Reformulation Act with the DWRA of 2000, you will readily note that the new language specifically deleted the authorization of irrigation in the James River valley and prohibited any additional development beyond the 5,000-acre OTA. Your sister organization, the North Dakota Wildlife Federation, recognized that benefit and, as we understand it, that was part of the basis for their resolution of support, conditional upon completion of the proper environmental analysis and commitments.
As to the Sand Lake National Wildlife Refuge, let me be frank. We, the Garrison Diversion Conservancy District and the Bureau of Reclamation, have jointly signed an agreement with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) concerning the operation of the OTA, and it is our understanding that the FWS has determined that the operation of the OTA is compatible with that operation. We have committed to the agreement, which assures no impact to the refuge. We hold strong to that commitment.
Could I help you to better understand the facts of the matter by meeting with your officers or members of the committee responsible for the preparation of resolutions? I have worked closely with the North Dakota Wildlife Federation and offer you that same relationship. I have attached a copy of the final DWRA of 2000. After you have reviewed it, if you have any questions, we would gladly meet. I look forward to your response.
Sincerely,
Warren L. Jamison
Manager
WLJ/las
Enclosures