Between 1944 and 1965, soil surveys and studies were performed to assess the feasibility of irrigating the 1.2 million acres originally planned for North Dakota. The studies indicated that the soil in northwestern North Dakota was not suitable for irrigation according to federal irrigation standards. Drainage problems caused by the unusually high density of glacial subsoil were a primary factor. As a result, the Bureau of Reclamation revised the diversion plan proposing instead to take water from the Garrison Dam and reservoir to irrigate other lands to the east. With the new name “Garrison Diversion,” the Bureau of Reclamation 1957 feasibility study on the redesigned project recommended irrigation of 1,007,000 acres and other water development in central and eastern North Dakota.

Garrison Diversion Unit

Because of changes to the original plan and the language in the 1964 appropriations act requiring specific reauthorization for all units of the Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program, the Bureau of Reclamation returned to Congress for reauthorization. During the process of reauthorization, supporters of the project pointed to the many benefits for North Dakota and the need to compensate the state for land inundated by the construction of the Garrison Dam and reservoir. On August 5, 1965, Congress addressed concerns of the project—the high cost, conflict with federal farm policies and the small amount of money to be repaid by water users—by enacting legislation for the Garrison Diversion Unit (GDU). The primary focus of the plan was to include municipal and industrial water, fish and wildlife development, recreation and flood control along with irrigation of 250,000 acres. Between 1968 and 1984, construction and preparatory activities progressed on many features.

Garrison Diversion Unit Commission

As construction advanced on the Garrison Diversion Unit throughout the ‘70s and ‘80s, it became increasingly apparent that major issues, such as environmental concerns, the acquisition of lands, economics of irrigation and Canadian concerns about water flowing from the Missouri River Basin into the Hudson Bay Basin, would require reformulation of the project if it were to be completed. In 1984, construction was halted and a high-level commission was appointed by the Secretary of Interior to study and recommend a change in direction.

The GDU Commission, in its final report issued December 20, 1984, recommended development of a GDU significantly different from the project described in the 1957 feasibility report and the project authorized in 1965.

The major recommendations were:

• • Irrigation of 130,940 acres of land, none of which drains to the Hudson Bay. Of these, 17,580 acres would be located on the Indian reservations of Fort Berthold and Standing Rock.
  • A grant program of $200 million to facilitate municipal, rural and industrial (MR&I) water service for as many as 130 towns and cities, rural areas and three Indian reservations.
  • A water treatment facility to treat Missouri River water that would be transferred into the Hudson Bay drainage via the Sheyenne River and then the Red River. This would provide MR&I water for Fargo, Grand Forks, other cities and rural systems. The cost of building and operating the treatment plant was declared non-reimbursable.
  • Mitigation of wildlife impacts on a new basin with specific wildlife features authorized beyond the mitigation requirements.
  • Recreation development on a 50/50 cost-share basis.
  • The cost of the commission plan was estimated at a total of $1.12 billion in capital costs, including expenditures to date, and $15.8 million in annual operation, maintenance and replacement costs. The proposed elimination of Lonetree Dam and Reservoir and replacement with the Sykeston Canal was of major concern to the state of North Dakota and Garrison Diversion Conservancy District. Lonetree was the project’s principal regulating reservoir; without it, future expansion was limited. Lonetree Dam and Reservoir remained authorized features of the commission plan and construction funds could only be requested after a finding of need by the Secretary and satisfactory consultation with the government of Canada.