St. Mary Tour Focuses on Aging Infrastructure

On August 14 and 15, the St. Mary Rehabilitation Working Group toured the United States side of the St. Mary/Milk River Irrigation Project as well as the Canadian side of the St. Mary Project. The Working Group tour was led by the Lt. Governor along with congressional staff, US and Canadian Milk River Irrigators, Tribal partners, engineering firms, legislators from the State, project stakeholders, Department of Natural Resource employees as well as Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) representation from the state and national level, including the Deputy Director of Operations David Palumbo. Senator Jon Tester attended the morning briefing to hear the tour participants concerns of the project. (see picture 1.)

As many locals were aware the tour on the US side consisted of reviewing infrastructure that is 110 years old. Highlighting the tour was an 18-inch split in one of the St. Mary River siphons. An estimated 2 to 3 cubic feet per second of water was pouring out of it and over the hillside next to the siphon and back into the St. Mary River. (see picture 2.)

The St. Mary Canal System has so degraded that the BOR is only capable of diverting 650 cfs because of potential canal failure. This is less than the 850 cfs the US can divert out of the St. Mary River per the Treaty with Canada. Marko Manoukian, St. Mary Working Group Co-Chair commented, “this 200 cfs loss to Canada down the river would be enough to provide Glasgow Irrigation District with two full irrigations annually”. (see picture 3.)

There is a much different story in St. Mary Canada. First, St. Mary Canada has two river sources in addition to St. Mary River and has five storage facilities. The storage devices and canal system are completely modernized with electronic controls and most all laterals that deliver to farmers are through buried plastic pipes. This allows the irrigation to be done by a sprinkler on the flat plains around Lethbridge. Additionally, the provincial government of Alberta provides annual funding for irrigation infrastructure investment. In 2017 the government invested $19 million and has been as high as $25 million in past years. The 13 Irrigation Districts need to provide 25% cash match for the grant dollars. The dollars in the funding pool are only available for irrigation districts. Studies by Alberta government estimate that for every dollar invested in irrigated agriculture they receive three dollars back in return. (see picture 4 – Canadian Potato Plant)

Comparable in Montana funding for irrigation investment by the state is limited to $125,000 every biennium and irrigation districts compete with municipalities for dollars. In 2017 about $1.5 million was awarded to irrigation in Montana. (see picture 5 – Walking the St. Mary Siphon). Federal budgets like that of BOR have been static to declining for years. The St. Mary Working Group has benefited from an investment of $600,000 from the Montana State Legislature (2015 and 2017) in an effort to find $150 to $200 million in Federal dollars to rehabilitate the irrigation system.

So how important is the St. Mary River to the lifeline of the Hi-Line you ask? The Milk River is capable of producing enough food to feed over one million people annually. Dave Peterson, Havre Public Works Director pointed out at the beginning of the tour, the Milk River is the sole source of drinking water for the 17,000 people in and around Havre at this time. This is the same case for Chinook and Harlem, communities like Malta may have to drill deeper wells without the transfer of water from St. Mary into the Milk River. Since June 23 of 2017, all of the flow of the Milk River has been supplied by St. Mary River water. Without it, these residences would be without water. The comparison of St. Mary Canada and its investment in irrigated infrastructure is just another example how the US is falling behind other countries when it comes to investing into things that are productive, like water and food. Jennifer Patrick, Milk River Project Manager said, “We need to look at this project as an asset to invest in, not a liability”.