Devils Lake Project

Senate Roll Call Vote 22

2003 Scorecard Vote

Pro-environment vote

No

Votes For

62

Votes Against

34

Not Voting

4

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has long been criticized for subsidizing wasteful or environmentally damaging water development projects. One project of particular concern to environmentalists is a Corps proposal to pump water from Devils Lake in north central North Dakota into the Hudson Bay watershed via the Sheyenne and Red rivers. Devils Lake, relatively shallow for many years, tripled in surface area during an unusually wet period in the mid to late 1990s, triggering calls for water stabilization. Although the lake has dropped about two feet over the past three years, the Corps–at the prodding of the North Dakota Congressional delegation–has sought to justify the pumping over strong objections from residents in neighboring Minnesota and Manitoba.

Because Devils Lake is a closed basin with no natural outlet, it contains high concentrations of salts, dissolved solids and other pollutants. Pumping this water into the Sheyenne River would damage water quality and drastically increase the likelihood of introducing non-native fish and other aquatic species, as well as viruses and pathogens that could travel as far as the Hudson Bay and Canada’s Lake Winnipeg.

In order to expedite the project, Senators Byron Dorgan (D-ND) and Kent Conrad (D-ND) circumvented the Congressional committees that oversee the Corps and attached a rider to H.J. Res 2, the omnibus spending bill for fiscal year 2003. The rider authorized $100 million for the Corps’ Devils Lake project, waived the longstanding requirement that the benefits of Corps projects must exceed costs and eliminated another requirement that Canadian officials must be consulted on the project. In response, Senators John Mc-Cain (R-AZ), Mark Dayton (D-MN) and Norm Coleman (R-MN) introduced an amendment to strip the rider from the omnibus spending bill. On January 23, 2003, the Senate voted to table (kill) the McCain-Dayton-Coleman amendment by a 62-35 vote. NO is the pro-environment vote.

In an environmental impact statement released three months later, the Corps disclosed that cost estimates for the Devils Lake project had doubled from $97 million to $208 million and that the project would likely provide only 19 cents of benefits per dollar spent. Nevertheless, the Corps approved the project in October. The project’s Clean Water Act approvals are likely to be contested, and neither the Bush administration budgets nor the most recent Corps spending bill included funding to start project construction. Most recently, however, in a highly controversial decision driven by North Dakota politics, Secretary of State Colin Powell declared the project complies with the U.S.-Canada Boundary Waters Treaty, over strong Canadian objections. This unilateral finding breaks with a nearly 100-year tradition of joint decision making with Canada on boundary water pollution issues, setting the stage for further controversy.

Votes

Show
Show
Export data (CSV)
  • Pro-environment vote
  • Anti-environment Vote
  • Missed Vote
  • Excused
  • Not Applicable

Vote Key

Sort by
Alabama
2025 State Scorecard Average

0%

Alaska
2025 State Scorecard Average

11%

Arizona
2025 State Scorecard Average

89%

Arkansas
2025 State Scorecard Average

3%

California
2025 State Scorecard Average

97%

Colorado
2025 State Scorecard Average

93%

Connecticut
2025 State Scorecard Average

97%

Delaware
2025 State Scorecard Average

99%

Florida
2025 State Scorecard Average

0%

Georgia
2025 State Scorecard Average

93%

Hawaii
2025 State Scorecard Average

99%

Idaho
2025 State Scorecard Average

3%

Illinois
2025 State Scorecard Average

99%

Indiana
2025 State Scorecard Average

3%

Iowa
2025 State Scorecard Average

0%

Kansas
2025 State Scorecard Average

0%

Kentucky
2025 State Scorecard Average

6%

Louisiana
2025 State Scorecard Average

0%

Maine
2025 State Scorecard Average

63%

Maryland
2025 State Scorecard Average

99%

Massachusetts
2025 State Scorecard Average

99%

Michigan
2025 State Scorecard Average

97%

Minnesota
2025 State Scorecard Average

94%

Mississippi
2025 State Scorecard Average

0%

Missouri
2025 State Scorecard Average

4%

Montana
2025 State Scorecard Average

6%

Nebraska
2025 State Scorecard Average

3%

Nevada
2025 State Scorecard Average

94%

New Hampshire
2025 State Scorecard Average

93%

New Jersey
2025 State Scorecard Average

97%

New Mexico
2025 State Scorecard Average

94%

New York
2025 State Scorecard Average

97%

North Carolina
2025 State Scorecard Average

6%

North Dakota
2025 State Scorecard Average

0%

Ohio
2025 State Scorecard Average

3%

Oklahoma
2025 State Scorecard Average

1%

Oregon
2025 State Scorecard Average

99%

Pennsylvania
2025 State Scorecard Average

40%

Rhode Island
2025 State Scorecard Average

97%

South Carolina
2025 State Scorecard Average

1%

South Dakota
2025 State Scorecard Average

3%

Tennessee
2025 State Scorecard Average

0%

Texas
2025 State Scorecard Average

1%

Utah
2025 State Scorecard Average

3%

Vermont
2025 State Scorecard Average

96%

Virginia
2025 State Scorecard Average

97%

Washington
2025 State Scorecard Average

99%

West Virginia
2025 State Scorecard Average

3%

Wisconsin
2025 State Scorecard Average

49%

Wyoming
2025 State Scorecard Average

3%