Missouri River water dispute escalates over provision in congressional bill

By GRANT COURSEY Bismarck Tribune

North Dakota’s longstanding dispute with Missouri over water usage from the Missouri River has a new front: a section of a congressional bill that threatens to limit states’ ability to divert water from the river.

Section 119 of the 2026 Water Resources Development Act would prohibit water from being diverted or exported from the Missouri River or any of its tributaries for use outside Missouri River states unless approved by all the governors of those states.

North Dakota Gov. Kelly Armstrong and North Dakota’s U.S. Rep. Julie Fedorchak said the section would essentially give nine other governors veto power over North Dakota water projects involving the Missouri River.

Armstrong told the Tribune: “Requiring consensus of all of the governors under every circumstance is a really good way to get nothing done ever.”

“Having to prove that every cubic millimeter of water that we divert from the Missouri River doesn’t ever leave the state seems like a burden that I’m not comfortable putting on North Dakota ag producers and our water resources guys,” he continued later.

Armstrong led a joint letter signed by the governors of Colorado, Montana, South Dakota, Utah and Wyoming opposing the section.

The letter was sent Sept. 28 to the chairmen and ranking members of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.

Missouri Department of Natural Resources Director Jake Buxton told the Tribune that Armstrong’s letter emphasizes why Section 119 is “critically” needed.

“Given what we see happening in the Colorado River, the joint letter organized by North Dakota should make the blood run cold of anyone who uses water released from the Missouri River reservoirs, including power plants, the public that relies on municipal drinking water, and navigators on the Missouri and Mississippi rivers,” Buxton said.

“The water in the Missouri River is not for sale to solve the water problems of other Western basins.”

Fedorchak, one of only nine representatives to vote against the bill Sept. 16 in the House, said the added section even prevents the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers from studying a proposed water project without the consent of Missouri River state governors.

“That is an unacceptable infringement on our established water rights and a big — and unnecessary — hurdle for North Dakota communities planning for their future,” Fedorchak said.

She told the Tribune her office had worked with fellow Upper Missouri Basin representatives and senators to resolve the issue in committee before the bill came to the House floor, but she ultimately chose to vote no because the provision remained. She said she is working with North Dakota’s U.S. senators to remove it.

The 2026 Water Resources Development Act came out of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, chaired by Missouri Rep. Sam Graves.

North Dakota’s two U.S. senators said the language requiring the governors’ consensus is not in the Senate version of the bill.

“I intend to keep it that way as we negotiate the final bill,” said U.S. Sen. Kevin Cramer, R-N.D. “Diluting a state’s water rights by making North Dakota’s decisions subservient to the whims of others is illegal. States would be well within their right to sue over the provision and they would win. Rather than drifting toward fraught legal precedent, Section 119 should be scrapped so we can keep the Water Resources Development Act’s passage on time.”

U.S. Sen. John Hoeven, R-N.D., said the Senate’s version of the bill was approved by committee in July.

“We are working to protect North Dakota’s water rights and ensure the final legislation does not include any policies that attempt to limit our state’s ability to utilize the river’s water,” Hoeven said.

Armstrong said he has concerns that a liberal interpretation of the bill’s language could mean downriver states could challenge nearly any North Dakota water diversion project, including the state’s project to divert Missouri River water to the Red River Valley to help with agriculture, an ongoing project the state has put hundreds of millions of dollars into.

“I don’t know how it would apply to projects that already existed. I hope I never have to find out,” Armstrong said.

Decades-long water war

He said the bill is part of a larger fight between upstream and downstream Missouri River states that has been going on as long as he has been in politics.

“I don’t necessarily think we’re always on an equal playing field under current law,” Armstrong said. “I’m sure not tipping the scale to my friends in the southern states any more.”

The two states have argued for decades over the proper usage of the Missouri River. North Dakota is concerned about retaining its authority to pull enough water out of the river for agricultural and drinking water needs, as well as keeping reservoirs full for recreation. Missouri is concerned upstream withdrawals threaten steady river flow downstream, affecting its use for barge shipping, farming and municipal needs.

Earlier this year, dueling opinion editorials were published in the Tribune by North Dakota and Missouri state officials over North Dakota’s plans to divert water to the Red River Valley and whether the project sets a precedent for removing water from the Missouri River Basin. Missouri argues it does set a precedent that could be damaging to downriver states. North Dakota argues the project does not pull enough water out of the basin to make a significant impact on the river’s flow, and that it has a legal right to engage in the project.

Armstrong said the ongoing conflict has flared up because of low water levels caused by a near-nationwide drought. He said the state’s projections for water levels next year are even lower than this year for Lake Sakakawea.

“We have a tremendous recreation economy, agriculture economy, long-term diversion projects, Red River Valley water supply projects, that are all very, very important to a lot of North Dakotans, and I’m not interested in Missouri weighing in on those,” Armstrong said. “They don’t have autonomy over how we make decisions up here.”