• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

The pipeline

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
http://www.nemontel.net/~dprw/participation.html



Local Participation

An ongoing effort to educate the city councils and bring them on board started in August of 1998. The cities were asked for a $5 per water meter commitment. All the towns in the service area have paid this committment fee. Presently 12 of the below listed communities have signed 40-year agreements to accept the project's water.



DPRWA Communities with Public Water Systems

City


Number of Services

Antelope


30

Bainville


78

Cherry Creek RW


58

Culbertson


395

Flaxville


62

Froid


135

Glasgow


1560

Medicine Lake


174

Nashua


162

Opheim


75

Outlook


50

Plentywood


919

Scobey


630

St. Marie


190

Westby


102



DPRWA Rural Participation

A rural membership drive asking for $100 good-intent fee started in mid-December 1998. Of the 1,500 potential rural users, over 1,100 users have paid this intention fee.


Project Costs and Funding Sources

Construction costs for both projects will total $193 million (1998 dollars) with Dry Prairie's cost being $68 million and the Reservation's portion being $125 million. Federal legislation states the Reservation portion will be 100% funded and DPRWA's portion will be 76% funded. The remaining 24% will come from state and local sources. The local portion will come from hook-up fees and the sale of bonds.

Dry Prairie's annual cost of operation, maintenance, and debt service is established at $2.1 million once the system is completed. Operation and maintenance costs on the reservation are 100% covered by federal funds. In the Dry Prairie system the monthly water bill is estimated at $40.00 per month for the average residential connection. This estimate is based on the cost of operation, maintenance and debt service, and is comparable to other regional systems.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
History of Dry Prairie Rural Water Authority

In 1992, the Fort Peck Tribes decided that the water problems on the reservation had to be addressed and began work on a water supply system for the southern half of the reservation. It was soon realized that if all the people on the reservation couldn't benefit from the system, federal funding would be difficult to secure.

In 1994, the system was redesigned to include the whole reservation with a one-phase construction plan to cut costs. It was then presented to Senator Conrad Burns who after study suggested it become a regional water system because areas outside of the reservation were experiencing similar water quality problems.

In December of 1997, a steering committee, consisting of one county commissioner, one conservation district member and one member at large, was formed for the off-reservation system. These volunteers began the task of informing the public of the benefits. The committee toured three similar systems in South Dakota and found that many of the challenges of combining tribal and non-tribal water systems have been resolved.

In August of 1998, an association of conservation districts was formed to govern the off-reservation system. To receive state or federal funding, a legal entity had to be in place. This association board, consisting of two members from each county, was the legal entity which conducted the business in the early stages of organization, under the name Dry Prairie Rural Water (DPRW).

During the 1998-99 State Legislative Session DPRW's efforts concentrated on two bills.

1) Creating a funding mechanism for regional water systems. (SB 220)

2) The formation of water authorities. Water authorities are an extension of water district law and are necessary in governing regional projects. (SB 302)

Both bills passed convincingly.

In January 2000, DPRW became a Regional Water Authority with it's members being the County Conservation Districts. Becoming a water authority has enhanced the project's bonding capabilities and limit all liabilities to the Authority.

The project was first introduced in the 104th US Congress. The Montana Delegation reintroduced the project in the 106th Congress in Bill S 624 and HR 1124. Hearings were held in both House and Senate Subcommittees on Water and Power. After passage in Congress, President signed the authorizing bill into law on October 27th, 2000.

Looks to me like it was a bipartisan effort spearheaded by Senator Burns- supported by the Montana delegation- and after being passed by Congress signed into law by Clinton...
I guess you can't blame this one on Bush or Obama!
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Looks to me like it was a bipartisan effort spearheaded by Senator Burns- supported by the Montana delegation- and after being passed by Congress signed into law by Clinton...
I guess you can't blame this one on Bush or Obama!


OR, give credit...


Oldtimer said:
Whitewing- you can howl all you want-- but we just got notified that the water line project that received funding thru the Job/Stimulus bill will be going 50 yards from our house this summer and are second in line to get a water hookup...
Some in this area will have the first drinkable water since the area was settled... :D
 

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
Mike said:
I guess you can't blame this one on Bush or Obama!

No. Just blame it on gov't. :roll:

Isn't one of the basic purposes of government to to provide infrastructure for the greater good?

Roads,power and water are pretty important economic drivers in the area and state. I'm not saying give it away but when governments can partner with state and local governments and private sector it should be a win win. The cost share with the reservation made a project more reasonable cost and maybe neither would have it with out the combined effort.

Beside you wouldn't want OT to move in next to you just because you have good water. :lol: :lol:
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Big Muddy rancher said:
Mike said:
I guess you can't blame this one on Bush or Obama!

No. Just blame it on gov't. :roll:

Isn't one of the basic purposes of government to to provide infrastructure for the greater good?

Roads,power and water are pretty important economic drivers in the area and state. I'm not saying give it away but when governments can partner with state and local governments and private sector it should be a win win. The cost share with the reservation made a project more reasonable cost and maybe neither would have it with out the combined effort.

Beside you wouldn't want OT to move in next to you just because you have good water. :lol: :lol:


the water would be tainted, by the time OT got his telephone hooked up. Mike would have to vacate...

:lol:
 
Top