Company wintered in this area as early as 1780. As representatives of these companies, they were required to maintain logs regarding their activities. As a result, the flood data obtained from the logs of the traders have proven to be of much value to the historian and now to the hydrologist.

My wife, who was born in Pembina, has made extensive historic studies of the Pembina area. Her parents were early settlers and became well-acquainted with some of the people that had settled in the area at earlier dates. They were told of the Selkirk Expedition, which settled at Pembina in 1812 but deserted the area following the devastating flood of 1826, which practically eliminated all forms of life for a distance of 10 to 15 miles back from the main stream of the Red River. Fort Daer, which was constructed under the direction of Lord Selkirk, also became a casualty as the water reportedly raised to an elevation 66.0' above its normal flow line. We have created a museum at this location.

Steamboats began to ply the waters of the Red River as early as 1859. Besides serving an important role in the field of transportation, they were of great value in performing rescue work during floods. The steamboat called the Selkirk crossed the prairies from Emerson, Manitoba, to St. Vincent, Minnesota, picking up some 600 marooned people during the flood of 1882.

Pembina has planned with the Corps of Engineers and the State Water Commission for flood protective work around our city. This would be most helpful in protecting our property during flood periods. We would certainly sleep better in our town if and when these works are constructed. However, I still am apprehensive over what happens to our farmers who live on the unprotected farmsteads throughout the valley. It is my opinion that their protection must come from the construction of dams and reservoirs in the escarpment such as the Kindred Dam. North Dakota and Minnesota both have many fine sites for reservoirs comparable in size to the Kindred Dam. To name a few, they are the Pembilier site near Walhalla, the Wild Rice, the Goose and Park in North Dakota.

I, therefore, respectfully urge the Congress of the United States to authorize and fund the Kindred Dam project so we may get a start on holding the water in all available areas so it can be detained and released on a stop and go basis. This would truly become a project that would meet with the ideas suggested by many engineers and hydrologists who have studied our problems.

TESTIMONY PRESENTED BY GERALD CROSS ON BEHALF OF THE NORTH DAKOTA CHAPTER OF THE WILDLIFE SOCIETY AND THE NORTH DAKOTA NATURAL HISTORY SOCIETY

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I am Gerald Cross, a Ph. D. Candidate at North Dakota State University majoring in Wildlife Management. I appear before you today representing the membership of the North Dakota Chapter of the Wildlife Society, a statewide, professional organization consisting of over 100 professionally trained and educated wildlife biologists. In addition. I also represent the North Dakota Natural History Society whose membership contains professional zoologists, botanists, ecologists, geologists, and laymen interested in and dedicated to preserving for our state and nation a livable and pleasing environment. There can be little doubt that within these two organizations are found some of the most highly qualified scientists in our state. As organizations, we have the advantage of expressing our views on the impact of the Kindred Dam without the governmental restraints that often times are imposed by our jobs as individuals.

These two organizations, which have never been asked by the Army Corps of Engineers for a professional evaluation of the ecological impact of the Kindred Dam on the Sheyenne Valley, are without qualification opposed to the Kindred Dam. Rather they have used as an ecological endorsement the various agencies of the U.S. Department of Interior, which by law have little or no authority to either approve or disapprove a federal water project. Equally disturbing is the fact that federal appropriations from one federal agency are redistributed to another with certain restraints-if not legal then at least economical. For instance, about 50 percent of the U.S. Geological Survey's activities in North Dakota are financed by the Corps of Engineers. Is it any wonder that the U.S. Geological Survey, as an agency, has not opposed the project due to insufficient groundwater data when most other geologists in North Dakota seriously question it?

It has been stated that U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service letters appearing in Appendix G of the Corps of Engineers' Interim Report are an endorsement of the Kindred Dam by those in favor of the project. These letters have been included in

the report in accordance with the provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1934 as amended. This Act authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to report on the anticipated effects of the project on fish and wildlife and to suggest ways and means to preserve and/or enhance these resources. This Act states: "The reporting officers in project reports of the federal agencies shall give full consideration to the report and recommendations of the Secretary of the Interior and to any report of the state agency on the wildlife aspects of such projects, and the project plan shall include such justifiable means and measures for wildlife purposes as the reporting agency finds should be adopted to obtain maximum overall project benefits." Nowhere in the Act is the Secretary of the Interior given authority to approve or disapprove. In accordance with this Act, the letters in the Interim Report only outline the fish and wildlife losses and suggest mitigation measures. They do not endorse the project.

On pages four and six of Appendix G, the U.S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife letter dated August 6, 1966 notes the loss of high quality stream fishing and the elimination of significant numbers of wildlife. A water quality pool will permanently flood about 5,500 acres of wildlife habitat and all forms of wildlife will be eliminated. In addition, 9,000 acres will be periodically flooded and wildlife populations reduced. A 9,500 acre wildlife area has been recommended by the Bureau as mitigation for these wildlife losses. Such an area is presently included in the project plans. It is therefore essential that this mitigation area be evaluated to determine if wildlife benefits do in fact exist.

Significant benefits now exist from wildlife populations found in the valley without the project. Assuming that the 9,500 acre wildlife area would completely replace all wildlife losses resulting from the project, benefits to wildlife will be zero. Wildlife benefits without the project must be subtracted from wildlife benefits with the project. It is that simple. But, this kind of calculation is not found in the Interim Report.

Will the 9,500 acre wildlife management area replace wildlife losses due to the project? Acreages calculated from the map in the Interim Report of the 9,500 acre wildlife management show that about 1,359 acres are below the elevation of the water quality pool and will be permanently flooded and cannot be considered either as replacement or enhancement. Approximately 5,542 acres of the 9,500 acre wildlife area are within the flood pool. This area will be periodically flooded and will be marginal for wildlife and almost impossible to manage. Again, no replacement or enhancement can be claimed. This leaves only 2,599 acres of the proposed 9,500 acre wildlife area permanently above water and it exists withou: the project. These acreages, under the most intensive form of management could not ecologically replace the bottomland hardwoods and their associated shrub species as wildlife habitat just because the Corps wishes it.

Two points are clear relative to wildlife benefits in the proposed Kindred Dam project. One, even if the 9,500 acre wildlife management area would replace all wildlife losses due to the project, there would be no wildlife benefits-only the status quo. Secondly, if wildlife benefits are assigned and used in computing a benefit cost ratio, then the production of wildlife on the 9,500 acre wildlife management area must in reality be greater than it is without the project. Even then, it would be necessary to subtract those wildlife benefits which now exis from those occurring as a result of the 9,500 acre wildlife area. Only the difference between those two values represents actual benefits.

As pointed out earlier, 5,500 acres of wildlife habitat would be completely eliminated and another 9,000 acres seriously affected due to periodic flooding. In reality, only 2,599 acres of the proposed 9,500 acre mitigation area will not be subject to flooding, either permanently or periodically, and this will be inferior to the high quality habitat which will be lost. Stated simply, about 75 percent of the land to be used for mitigation of wildlife losses is the same land that is being flooded and to be mitigated for. Such an approach, if used in our private section, would be considered illegal, immoral, and criminal.

Several other points concern us as professional resource managers. It has been stated both at public meetings and privately that the frequency of flooding along the Sheyenne has increased due to drainage of wetlands. We agree with this conclusion. In fact, the capacity of wetlands to retain spring runoff and thereby not contribute to downstream flow is acknowledged by the Corps in the Interim Report-we commend them for this. But, as is typical of agencies with a narrow view of natural resource management and a single purpose objective, the Corps does not mention that as a part of the solution to downstream flooding a tota watershed management program including a restriction on drainage. Rather, they

talk about flood proofing buildings, etc. In this case the Corps is guilty of the human failing of traditionally treating the symptons instead of the cause.

Other agencies of the federal government and our state government are equally guilty of such short-sighted views. Our State Water Commission, which has so vigorously supported and promoted this project, has been and still is actively engaged in promoting wetland drainage in North Dakota. As an example of their lack of responsibility in this area, North Dakota Water Laws, Section 61-01-22 requires any landowner to obtain a permit from our State Water Commission prior to drainage of wetlands. Even though hundreds of thousands of acres of natural wetlands have been drained both privately and with federal assistance, we are unaware of any permits issued, requested, or required. Instead, several Water Commission engineers devote full time promoting drainage. In fact, North Dakota law provides that the state can pay 40 percent of the costs for such projects. We find it difficult to believe that our Water Commission, as now operated, has the interest of the people in mind when they recommend the Kindred Dam while promoting wholesale drainage, which in turn also destroys a vital wildlife

resource.

Also contributing to flooding problems in North Dakota on a grand scale is the U.S. Soil Conservation Service of the Department of Agriculture. Through costshared drainage to private landowners over 30 years, they have effectively destroyed one of North Dakota's most valuable resources-wetlands. Although assistance to the private landowner, on an individual basis, has been restricted by various laws, for the last 10 years drainage continues under the guise of watershed management with P.L. 566, the Small Watershed and Flood Prevention Act. No longer conducted under the philosophy of the enabling legislation, this program presents one of the greatest threats to increased flooding and destruction of wildlife resources yet conceived. Present practices are dominated by straightening and deepening natural channels for rushing the water more rapidly out of the watershed. These channels then provide excellent outlets for draining natural wetlands which increase the flooding problems.

The Corps Report states that there will be significant flooding along the Sheyenne in the West Fargo area from the Maple River, even with the Kindred Dam. Yet the Soil Conservation Service is planning such a project on the Upper Maple River which will provide an outlet for over 6,000 permanent marshes. Can the flooding be anything but greater after the Maple is converted into a massive drainage ditch all in the name of watershed management. The Soil Conservation Service stated in the Interim Report that two P.L. 566 projects in the Sheyenne basin will provide little flood protection on the main stem of the Sheyenne. We ask "Why won't an SCS flood control project on the Maple River (one of the largest tributaries of the Sheyenne) reduce flooding on the Sheyenne?” Why?—because the project is drainage, not flood control!

The Kindred Dam represents much more than the destruction of the unique, wooded Sheyenne River valley. It represents philosophy, abandonment, and methods of solving problems that is turning North Dakota and this nation into a bleak, uninspiring, rectangular landscape that is repulsive to human beings. If this project is approved, rather than Congress giving stern, forthright direction to our federal agencies to solve these problems with an ecological approach, then the future is in question. We urge the members of this committee to disapprove the Kindred Dam and start our nation on a road to sane solutions.

I wish to thank the members of this committee for the opportunity to present the views of the North Dakota Chapter of the Wildlife Society and the North Dakota Natural History Society.

STATEMENT OF R. L. DUSHINSKE, MINOT, N. DAK., EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, NORTH DAKOTA WATER USERS ASSOCIATION

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, this statement is being filed by Russell L. Dushinske, Executive Vice President of the North Dakota Water Users Association, a voluntary, non-profit, non-taxing organization of over 2,300 progressive-minded citizens, who are united to "actively foster, promote and support the orderly execution of any program or project for the development, management and beneficial use of land and water resources in North Dakota. I am a member of the North Dakota State Water Commission. I have also served as President of the North Dakota Wildlife Federation.

45-781-70- -37

At the last annual convention, December 11, 1969, the Association by resolution, went on record endorsing, approving and supporting preliminary plans of the Corps of Engineers for construction of a dam on the lower Sheyenne River, about three miles south and two and a half miles west of the City of Kindred, North Dakota, for flood protection in the remainder of the Sheyenne River Valley and in the Red River Valley.

The resolution cited the uncontrolled drainage area of approximately 3,014 square miles below Baldhill Dam as a substantial contributor to severe flooding at and below Kindred and Southwest Fargo, which areas are now without adequate flood protection. Also emphasized was the need to make provisions for meeting the municipal water requirements of Southwest Fargo and augmenting the water supply for Fargo and the fast-growing suburban industrial and residential area between the two communities.

The resolution urged that the US. Army Engineering District, St. Paul, Minnesota, prosecute the remaining investigative work and studies with all possible speed and vigor to the end that final plans may be developed and submitted to affected interests and entities concerned and for processing through regular channels, leading to authorization and construction at the earliest possible time. In addition, the North Dakota Water Users Association believes features have been incorporated in the preliminary plans for Kindred Dam which will greatly enhance the recreation values to a wide area, will be valuable in improving water qualities and make a major contribution to the overall flood prevention program in the Red River Valley by controlling the flow of one of the main tributaries.

The North Dakota Water Users Association respectfully urges early action by your Committee and the Congress to advance the Kindred Dam project into the construction stage.

STATEMENT OF DALE H. GLOVER, NORTH DAKOTA STATE WATER COMMISSION

Mr. Chairman and committee members, I, Dale H. Glover, am a professional engineer licensed in the State of North Dakota. For the past twenty years, I have been engaged in hydrology work. For twelve years, I was employed by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation on hydrologic investigations in connection with the development of plans for the Garrison Diversion Project and for eight years have been employed by the North Dakota State Water Commission on hydrology studies for small storage projects.

Baldhill Dam was constructed by the Corps of Engineers, U.S. Army, in 1949. It is situated at mile 270 on the Sheyenne River or about 16 miles upstream from Valley City, North Dakota. The dam and reservoir were constructed primarily for the control of floods along reaches of the Sheyenne River below the dam and to alleviate low-water conditions in the lower reaches of the Sheyenne River and in the Red River of the North.

Damaging floods have occurred on the Sheyenne River in years 1882, 1897, 1907, 1916, 1947, 1948, 1950, 1952, 1962, 1965, 1966 and 1969. There are no records available for floods that occurred prior to 1882 and only newspaper accounts of that flood. The flood of 1882 was the highest for which there is definite information and the flow at the site of Baldhill Dam was estimated as 5,500 feet per second. Downstream from Kindred, North Dakota, thousands of acres were inundated by floodwaters of the Sheyenne River and those of the Red River, Wild Rice River and Maple River.

The 1897 flood was estimated to have a flow of 4,200 cfs at the site of Baldhill Dam. In this flood the whole Red River floodplain and lower Sheyenne River were inundated, completely submerging banks of the Sheyenne River. Below Kindred more than 100,000 acres were flooded. This flood, like that of 1882, was due to the converging flows from several streams.

During the flood of 1948, the flow at the site of Baldhill Dam was estimated as about 5,000 cfs. There was extensive flooding of farmlands in Cass County due to overtapping of emergency dikes.

During the flooding on the Sheyenne River in 1950, the highest flow of record, 7,830 cfs was observed a Cooperstown, North Dakota, which is 37 miles upstream from Baldhill Dam. Flooding in the reaches below Baldhill Dam was much reduced due to the fact that the dam had just been completed in the fall of 1949 and at the beginning of the 1950 flooding, which occurred in April, the Baldhill Reservoir was standing practically empty. It was therefore able to withhold about 71,000 acre-feet of water which otherwise would have passed into lower reaches

of the river. The flooding in April was succeeded by another flood in May and it was necessary to release flows up to 3,150 cfs from the Baldhill reservoir. In lower reaches of the river, the flood stages persisted for about two months. The seeding of farmlands was much delayed on that account.

In all those floods on the lower Sheyenne River, which occurred after 1950, the operation of the Baldhill Dam and reservoir had definite effects which must be recognized. Before discussing the beneficial effects which were realized, it seems pertinent to discuss some of the physical aspects of the dam and reservoir.

Baldhill reservoir receives the runoff from 1988 square miles of contributing area and has a net storage volume of 69,500 acre-feet at the normal pool elevation of 1,266.0 feet. This amounts to a storage of only 35 acre-feet per square mile, or an average runoff depth of 0.66 inches. This is not much storage when it is realized that a one-hour rainfall of about 2.5 inches occurs with an average frequency of once in 50 years, and a two-hour rainfall of about 2.5 inches occurs with an average frequency of once in 25 years. These frequencies apply to the locality of Baldhill Dam. Of course, not all of the precipitation runs off, as major portions of it may infiltrate into the ground or be lost in evaporation, depending upon the prior condition of the ground. It would not be unusual for as much as 25 percent to run off and the volume would then be sufficient to fill the reservoir to the normal level even if the reservoir were empty to begin with. In actual operation, the reservoir pool is maintained at fairly high levels during summer and fall months, but is drawn down to a low level about March 1, in anticipation of storing the spring runoff from snowmelt. The operation is based partly on forecasts of the expected runoff and of the expected channel conditions downstream from the dam. Because of the relatively small storage capacity available, the success of operation of the reservoir is highly dependent on the accuracy of the forecaster and more will be said of this in the following paragraphs.

It was stated that the capacity of the reservoir is 69,500 acre-feet up to the normal pool level. This condition is attained when the outlet gates, which are 15 feet high, are closed and the water is standing one foot below the top of the gates. The one foot is a safety factor to prevent waves and possibly ice from going over the tops of the gates and doing damage to the gates. The discharge from the reservoir is regulated by raising the gates by various amounts and allowing the water to flow under the gates. They were designed to be operated in this manner.

The foregoing introduces the concept of surcharge storage. It is stated that the maximum capacity of Baldhill reservoir is 116,500 acre-feet when the pool is at the maximum, or surcharge elevation. The surcharge storage is acquired in this manner: as the gates are raised to allow water to be discharge beneath them, as the existing situation may require, the tops of the gates are then also raised and additional water may be impounded in the reservoir. The limit of such induced surcharge would be reached when the surcharge water surface is 7.2 feet above the normal pool elevation and total storage would be 116,500 acre-feet. A higher surcharge could not be allowed because at that time, the water surface would be only 5.3 feet below the crest of the earthen portion of the dam and there would be serious risk of destruction by wave action. If a total storage of 116,500 acrefeet were attained it would represent a runoff of only 1.10 inches from the contributing portions of the drainage area. However, to attain this surcharge storage, the gates would have to be opened to allow a discharge of 43,100 cfs to pass downstream. Needless to say, such a discharge would create major catastrophies at localities such as Valley City and Lisbon where flood stages are reached with flows of about 3,500 cfs.

Even a surcharge storage to elevation 1268, or two feet above normal pool, and with a total storage of 83,000 acre-feet, can only be acquired by simultaneously permitting a discharge of 6,000 cfs and this is much too great for Valley City and Lisbon without extensive local protection works.

Thus, the utilization of the surcharge storage in any significant amount cannot even be considered because of the unacceptable discharges that would accompany such use. It is to be hoped that a need to use surcharge storage will not arise.

Because of its small storage of only 0.65 inches of runoff and because of its distance from West Fargo, the operation of the reservoir to secure the greatest benefit must be based on forecasts of the runoff conditions. A period of nine days is required for water released from the reservoir to reach West Fargo. Because of the rapidity with which runoff situations can change, due to occurrence of large amounts of precipitation, or due to unexpected large temperature changes and their effects on the melting snow, the forecasts on situations that will exist