# Bills would streamline tiling permits for ND farms



## Billyhcc

http://www.inforum.com/event/article/id ... /homepage/

Bill would streamline tiling permits for ND farms
BISMARCK (AP) - More North Dakota farmers are using tiling to drain their fields, and some state lawmakers want to streamline the process for getting a permit.

Similar bills in the North Dakota House and Senate would direct permit applications to local water boards. Now, farmers who want to put tiling in more than 80 acres of land must apply to the state engineer. Supporters say it can take months to get approval.

Tiling drains water from below the surface of farm land. Farmers install perforated plastic tubing a few feet under the soil that diverts water to ditches, lakes and ponds.

Supporters say tiling helps with crop yields while reducing erosion and flooding. They also say it helps flush salt from the soil.

The bills are HB1459 and SB2280.


----------



## Chuck Smith

Help stop flooding?? It will keep from that crop field from getting flooded. But the water needs to go somewhere. If any bill you would want to watch and make sure is not a "foot in the door" type bill it is this one. Right now this bill will not allow you to get a streamline permit for anything over 160 acres. But this could lead down the road especially with a down economy and cuts to goverment spending is they will next make it 200 acres or more need to go before an engineer....etc.

If you want to see habitat get lost in a hurry....this bill will do it. Any bill that will allow for easy tiling of land.....Many of the little grasslands, cattails, etc are not getting plowed now is because they are wet. Let them put in tile....it is gone. This bill makes it easier to be allowed to tile land.

But it does not have to do with NR's so I am sure some won't even care about it. oke:


----------



## jtillman

Chuck Smith said:


> But it does not have to do with NR's so I am sure some won't even care about it. oke:


As a MN res, I normally try to stay out of ND politics....but I hope for the sake of ND hunting, all of you that were so passionate about those bills that impacted NR seasons are as passionate about this bill. This could have a much bigger impact on duck and wild population than NR hunters ever wil. I would hope you get on your 'email tree' on this topic and contact your reps.l....but that's just the humble opinion of a MN res that has seen the destruction of wildlife habitat due to massive tiling....so it probably means nothing.


----------



## Augusta

For once I have to agree with the NR, this bill is very bad for habit. If farmers are allowed to drain "wet" areas, there goes a ton of habitat. If you don't believe me, take a look at MN. They tile, and have lost tons of habitat. We need to stop this bill before it's to late.


----------



## rd51

Augusta said:


> For once I have to agree with the NR, this bill is very bad for habit. If farmers are allowed to drain "wet" areas, there goes a ton of habitat. If you don't believe me, take a look at MN. They tile, and have lost tons of habitat. We need to stop this bill before it's to late.


I don't know how old you are Augusta, but you don't need to look at Minnesota to see what field drainage does. When I was a kid growing up west of Fargo in 1960's there were potholes all over in the valley on the ND side of the river. There were ducks everywhere, then the field drainage started and the potholes that were there are no more. I had a summer job with a guy that did field drainage and saw some of the old duck sloughs disappear. This is about 30 miles of Fargo. I also worked for the SCS one summer and it was the same, staking for drainage. One farmer had us stake to straighten out a river/creek that wound through a pasture of his. It was great habitat but he said it took up too much of his property so we staked it so it would be pretty much a straight shot. I suppose some drainage is good, but not what I saw.


----------



## nodak4life

Everyone that has been so adamant about contacting their reps the last few weeks had better increase that effort 10 fold in regards to voicing your opposition to this bill. Allowing this to pass will not have the opportunity of a sunset clause, it will simply be a permanent dagger in the destruction of quality hunting in the state of North Dakota. This will be just as detrimental to all hunting as CRP loss is. If this bill passes, you won't have to worry about someone else finding a good hunting spot before you, because they will be few and far between and most likely posted up tighter than a bull's *** in fly time.

Contact your elected officials today and kill this bill!!


----------



## nodak4life

TTT


----------



## g/o

> But it does not have to do with NR's so I am sure some won't even care about it.


Couldn't agree with you more Chuck, I'm anxiously awaiting Dick Monson's rally cries on this. Now you are going against farmers which Dick is one, should be interesting. :beer:


----------



## mulefarm

Haven't seen a post from Dick M, Ken, 870 and others. Better rally the toops on this one.


----------



## jtillman

g/o said:


> I'm anxiously awaiting Dick Monson's rally cries on this. Now you are going against farmers which Dick is one, should be interesting. :beer:


hmmm, interesting....didn't know Dick was a farmer....thought he was all about ND Sportsmen....guess not.

Good luck with it guys...I certainly hope you can rally the troops with our without your normal leaders on Sportsmen issues.


----------



## dakotashooter2

I see this as a potential back door to draining wetlands. It would not be visible like a surface drain and it doesn't have to be taken right to the slough so technically it wouldn't be draining a wetland. Just get it close and water will seep its way into it and drain underground. I wonder how long it will take farmers to realize that in the dry years tiling will probabbly pull what little moisture there is from the ground.


----------



## Plainsman

I have worked on wetlands throughout the Prairie Pothole Region. I would estimate that 95% of the Prairie Pothole Region in Iowa is drained. Their waterfowl hunting is nearly destroyed. Only the very rich hunt. One farm I worked on had restored a 100 acre wetland. He leased it to three people for waterfowl hunting at $6000 each. Southern Minnesota is just as bad. As we move into the this region which is moisture deficit things will change. They will still drain the wetlands, and destroy waterfowl hunting, but they will cut their own throat also. Draining soil moisture in a moisture deficit climate will result in many more years of man made drought. Then they will cry for more support. 
Agriculture will fast become working the government system and taxpayer more than working the soil. Here in North Dakota we are already a Agriculture welfare state. This will take it one step further. While their hands are in your pocket they will cry landowner rights. It worked for the high fence situation why will it not work for this situation. The only way to stop it is point out that it is not their right to flood their neighbor. Currently it would appear that the folks north of Devils Lake think it's their right to flood Valley City, Fargo, Grand Forks, and all the small communities in between. We are witnessing greed at it's darkest.

When I speak of moisture deficit I mean we are in a climate that has a higher evaporation rate than rainfall. At first you may ask how that is possible. Well, the only reason we can raise crops is soil moisture. Moisture held below the surface doesn't evaporate, but put in drain tile and we have a disaster in the waiting. They can only survive by even more taxpayer support. Also, hydrology comes into play. Our wetlands function more often as wetland systems than individual wetlands. Some are hydrological recharge, some flow through, and others are hydrological discharge systems. People out draining without knowing what they are doing is like letting a three year old play with dynamite. More water from the hydrological recharge system goes into the aquifer than is discharged to the atmosphere, hence the term hydrological recharge wetland. Tiles will cause surface flooding while at the same time cause aquifer depletion.

Legislators who vote for this will find they voted in conflict with national regulations. To think only in terms of North Dakota is to think on a tribal level rather than as a member of a civilized nation. Unfortunately we have many in the legislature that think the world revolves around them. They look at themselves as rulers rather than servants, and that puts them in conflict with our constitution. But then that has never stopped the North Dakota legislature. We need to simply look at the 1970's when they denied a farmer the right to sell his wetlands to the U. S. Government. No individual had the money to take them to court for violating their constitutional rights.


----------



## g/o

> Ag PhD host supports N.D. tiling legislation
> Posted on February 11, 2011 by Teri Finneman
> BISMARCK-The co-host of a popular agronomy TV show showed his support Thursday for North Dakota farming legislation.
> 
> Ag PhD co-host Brian Hefty was among those to testify in favor of House Bill 1459, aimed at easing the process of getting a tiling permit.
> 
> Rep. Wes Belter, R-Fargo, said people who apply for a permit must now go through the State Water Commission. However, the growing interest in tiling has created a heavy load for the commission, he said.
> 
> Belter, the prime sponsor of the bill, proposes allowing local water boards to handle the permitting process using an application form created by the state. If the local board has questions, it can ask the State Water Commission for its analysis, Belter said.
> 
> The amended bill says installation of an artificial subsurface drainage system comprising 80 acres or more requires a permit.
> 
> Local water districts may attach any necessary conditions to an approved permit, but may not deny an application unless it's of statewide significance or the proposed drainage will flood or adversely affect downstream landowners within one mile.
> 
> Permit applicants would need to provide a 30-day notice to downstream property owners within one mile of the proposed subsurface drainage. This will allow time for people to voice any concerns, Belter said.
> 
> Flowage easements may be required before receiving a permit.
> 
> Tiling is underground tubing that allows farmers to remove excess water. Due to the increasing rainfall in North Dakota, more people are interested in tiling, Belter said.
> 
> Sen. Terry Wanzek, R-Jamestown, called the bill a "win-win." The bill isn't about draining wetlands or established wetlands, he said. It's about managing water on land already farmed.
> 
> "This is huge in agriculture. It's one of the issues that I'm really excited about this session," Wanzek said.
> 
> In his presentation, Hefty said tiling can mean higher yield and less chance for soil compaction.
> 
> It can also allow farmers to plant earlier, reduce situations of getting stuck and equipment breakdowns, reduce salt levels and allow for a more predictable growing season, he said.
> 
> He believes there are at least 5 million crop acres in North Dakota that are poorly drained today, costing the state about $1 billion annually.
> 
> No one testified against the bill. The House Agriculture Committee did not take immediate action. The Senate has a similar bill.


No one testified against? Where was the NDWF and the rest of the wildlife org.'s , they never miss a chance to testify against N/R hunters


----------



## dakotashooter2

It seem strange to me that a farmer would put in drain tile then a few years later start irrigating (something that is becoming more common)the crops on that land. What that tells me is that while they are tiling to get excess water off their land as fast as possible so they can either plant earlier or prevent drown out they are removing the potential for stored moisture by removing the water so fast. Esentially they are drying out their land to the point they have to irrigate it THEN they are pulling moisture from the aqifer which cannot replentish itself as quickly because water is never allow to stand long enough to soak in to it. Sounds like shooting yourself in the foot.


----------



## Chuck Smith

This bill is not the intent to drain a big wetland or anything like that. It is intended for a farmer to easily drain that "wet" part of a field. Which i know you see all over the country side in ND. That corner or low spot in a field that is perfect for a quick little walk through with the dog to get a few flushes. Or that great nesting cover that is wet in the spring for a pair of mallards to sit on and then move along once the eggs have hatched. You will see more and more of these little spots gone. These little spots are the backbone of good populations of ducks, pheasants or hiding spots for deer. Say good bye if people don't rally for this one. But again it is mainly NR voice concern for ND habitat on this thread than some of its own residents that are so vocal on the NR issues. They should pipe in for concern and kick in the etree and email addresses of the elected officials.

I hope this gets shot down. But if it doesn't don't blame NR's for lack of habitat when you start to see more drain tile.


----------



## jtillman

I agree Chuck...maybe that is the real intent of this bill....best way to keep NR's out of ND is by there being less and less nesting habitat. Will probably work too.

It's 'shocking' that Dick & gang aren't all over this. (please note sarcasim)


----------



## jcnelsn1

One a first read these bills obviously raise issues and concerns. I am trying to gather more information and determine whether these bills would implement real changes to the system. If these permits are already being routinely issued, the practical effect of the bills may not be significant. In other words, currently does everyone who want a tiling permit get one (albeit after some delay)? Or would this bill actually make it substantively easier to get tiling permits that otherwise would not have been issued under the current system?


----------



## KEN W

g/o said:


> But it does not have to do with NR's so I am sure some won't even care about it.
> 
> 
> 
> Couldn't agree with you more Chuck, I'm anxiously awaiting Dick Monson's rally cries on this. Now you are going against farmers which Dick is one, should be interesting. :beer:
Click to expand...

The bill won't make it to the floor until next week.There is currently an e-tree message being made.....of course there are always guys like G/O who want it yesterday. :thumb:


----------



## Chuck Smith

From my reading of what is posted on here is it will make it easier to get a permit. So a person does not have to "jump" through the hoops. Now if anyone has dealt with the goverment in trying to get permits, licenses, etc. Know it can be exhausting and afterwards you think was it worth it. So if it makes it easier more people will do it.

Ken W... I think more it is people get sick of hearing... NR this and NR that. They are ruining the future of hunting...blah blah, etc. and people are all over it. Look at one of the first emails that came out was titled "the four horsemen of the apocolypse" all those bills had to do with NR licensing. Now when a bill that will directly hurt population, nesting, the future of hunting, etc comes along...those people who were so vocal saying NR are ruining hunting are not on this one saying things need to be done. That is what is bothering me. But I am glad an etree is getting processed. It is needed on this one.


----------



## 6162rk

just another place to spend the money from high commodity prices. no good for wildlife, no good for the soil, and no good for water quality. go to southern mn and i think you can find tiles every 50 yards or less. just like a checkerboard. our water quality sucks and the floods get worse every year. i was hoping that north & south dakota would have enough since to leave things alone.

the big reason is greeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

how much is enough? quit burning our food source. oil wasn't put in the ground to eat and grain isn't supposed to be burnt.

nothing but bull****!


----------



## hydro870

After reading all the posts, it is clear most of you are outside your area of expertise. I do not necessarily support this bill, but I can tell you it changes nothing as far was wetland drainage is concerned. Here are the facts:

1. Current law requires a Tile Permit for tile projects that have 80 acres of surface watershed upstream of the tile outlet. Many people find this confusing, so the new law says that a permit will be required for tile projects consisting of more than 80 acres of physical tile installed. This change in law does not affect wetlands or habitat; it just clarifies when a permit is required.

2. Current law requires a Tile Permit to be submitted to the North Dakota State Water Commission who nearly always rubber stamps tile permits. Once rubber stamped, the State sends the Permit to the local Water Resource District for final approval. The new law removes the State from the process because it takes the State 1 to 3 months to process the permit which they rubber stamp anyway. So this bill does not make it easier, only faster. The turn-around time of the past did not stop any farmers from tiling, it just caused some complaints. Thus, this change in law does not affect wetlands or habitat.

3. An approved Tile Permit does not mean the landowner can circumvent the Federal Swamp-buster law. The NRCS regulates Swamp-buster. If the tile project (permitted or otherwise) drains any type of wetland (shallow, seasonal, or otherwise) the landowner is in violation Swamp-buster and he will have his federal crop subsidy taken away.

All of the wetland draining talked about in Minnesota and Iowa took place before 1985 when Swamp-buster was passed. If you want to save wetlands, you better support federal crop subsidies. If there are no subsidies, then Swamp-buster means nothing, and then you will really see some wetland draining going on.


----------



## 6162rk

swamp buster is still happening. if you have enough money you can drain anything and not replace it. i watched this fall as a cattail slough (which i have hunted for years) was tiled and ditched out. when they got it dry enough they worked the ground and you would never know it was there. used to be knee deep water. if you want to take a drive to see look me up.

it is still going on and will not end. i know of another wooded slough of about 20 acres that is slated for the ditch/tile and chain saw. actually probably a cat will take care of most of it. then in comes the irrigator as soon as it is cleared and drained. i can show you that one also and a few more.


----------



## TK33

> After reading all the posts, it is clear most of you are outside your area of expertise.


Agreed. This is pretty common on this topic on this and other outdoor sites.


> id not stop any farmers from tiling, it just caused some complaints. Thus, this change in law does not affect wetlands or habitat.


Also agree.

A lot of people think drain tile they think of the concrete pipe that was used in MN, IA, ,IL, KS, MO, etc. That had not only a negative effect on habitat but put a lot of nitrates in the water that damaged fish and other aquatics. What guys are using right now in the valley and other places is not precast pipe being thrown in and allowing water to run freely. It is a system that has valves and sometimes pumps. A controlled system. These systems could actually help habitat and food supplies for wildlife in dry years because the system can also hold water.


----------



## TK33

6162rk said:


> swamp buster is still happening. if you have enough money you can drain anything and not replace it. i watched this fall as a cattail slough (which i have hunted for years) was tiled and ditched out. when they got it dry enough they worked the ground and you would never know it was there. used to be knee deep water. if you want to take a drive to see look me up.
> 
> it is still going on and will not end. i know of another wooded slough of about 20 acres that is slated for the ditch/tile and chain saw. actually probably a cat will take care of most of it. then in comes the irrigator as soon as it is cleared and drained. i can show you that one also and a few more.


What is the reason behind this? Is it flooding/water storage related or a private landowner just wanting more dirt?

I know of a few guys who have been nailed for draining wetlands so I have a hard time seeing how people are just draining habitat as they please.


----------



## hydro870

> I know of a few guys who have been nailed for draining wetlands so I have a hard time seeing how people are just draining habitat as they please.


Exactly.

If you see a wetland being drained it was most likely mitigated or is illegal. If you see a wetland being drained, even if it is just cattails with no standing water, you need to report it to the NRCS.


----------



## mulefarm

This should be a DO NOT PASS. Once this passes it will lead to more tiling and wetland draining and will become a permanant law.
Look at what happened to Mn and Iowa. Don't by that streamlinig BS. You need to contact your legislators an recommend a DO NOT PASS.


----------



## Old Hunter

It appears that the guides and the nonresidents want to kill a bill that would help North Dakota farmers.Who are the selfish people? :rollin:


----------



## Dick Monson

g/o said:


> But it does not have to do with NR's so I am sure some won't even care about it.
> 
> 
> 
> Couldn't agree with you more Chuck, I'm anxiously awaiting Dick Monson's rally cries on this. Now you are going against farmers which Dick is one, should be interesting. :beer:
Click to expand...

 Already done last week Jim. I hope this one dies a quick death, just like 1407. :beer:


----------



## Plainsman

g/o said:


> But it does not have to do with NR's so I am sure some won't even care about it.
> 
> 
> 
> Couldn't agree with you more Chuck, I'm anxiously awaiting Dick Monson's rally cries on this. Now you are going against farmers which Dick is one, should be interesting. :beer:
Click to expand...

I think farmers are like every other group of people. Some good ones, and a few bad ones. I know they never want to admit that there may be one in their group that isn't a perfect person, but there are a few that are very bad and greedy. This bill isn't against farming, it's only against those who don't care about anyone but themselves. North of Devils Lake they still drain knowing they are flooding out a fellow farmer downstream. They don't care and this bill will be against those types. It's not that complex. Being against those types is being for the guy downstream. Think about this for a moment: the further downstream you push your problems the larger they become.

Some mentioned this will only be for wet soil, not wetlands. When hydrology comes into play we need to look at soil type, elevation in the system, and where that causes a hydrological stagnation point to occur. You can put a tile 100 yards from many flow through and discharge type wetlands and drain half or more of the water from them.


----------



## mulefarm

Will this bill be good or bad for waterfowl?


----------



## TK33

It is probably not going to make any difference with waterfowl. As pointed out above all this does is make acquiring the permits faster. If this bill dies it won't stop anyone from tiling that was going to. If the land needs tiling I'm sure the landowner will do it no matter what.

Controlled tiling could benefit waterfowl in dry years. The valves would be closed, thus holding the water.

I believe you have to have permission or a permit to open the valves or turn pumps on, not positive though.


----------



## Plainsman

> The valves would be closed, thus holding the water.


 :rollin: :rollin: I have some swamp land for sale. :rollin: :rollin:

I think they need to close those valves north of Devils Lake. Once in closing the valves is simply a dream, it isn't going to happen. It will be devastating to waterfowl habitat, and will lower ground water, which in turn lowers wetlands. Wetlands are tied directly into the ground water system. All through the 1980's and 90's I was involved monitoring 75 wells (18 ft to 400 ft deep to measure affect of local and regional groundwater) on 227 acres with 17 wetlands. I assure you ground water and wetlands are linked and tile will destroy a lot more habitat than the few acres surrounding them.


----------



## hydro870

> Will this bill be good or bad for waterfowl?


The answer to your question is this bill does not change the situation for waterfowl. Farmers can tile today and they will tile tomorrow. North Dakota State tile permits have always been rubber stamped, it never has been a problem to install tile in ND. All this does is change the turnaround time on a tile permit from about 3 months to about 1 month. The 3 month process has not stopped anyone from tiling.

The State tile permit has nothing to do with Swampbuster. Landowners who want to install tile must abide by Swampbuster, even if they have an approved State tile permit. In order to tile you need a State tile permit AND you need to abide by Swampbuster. Swampbuster says no wetland, no shallow wetland, and no wet soils classified as wetland soils can be tiled. The NRCS enforces the rules and they make sure the tile is placed far enough away from wetland soils so wetlands are not impacted. If tile is placed too close to wetland soils the landowner is in violation of swampbuster.

Tile is only installed 3 to 4 feet deep. It's hydrogeologic (groundwater) influence is limited, when placed far enough away from a wetland parimeter, it will have no influence on the wetland.


----------



## TK33

> The valves would be closed, thus holding the water.
> 
> I have some swamp land for sale.


This just proves hydro870's point. You are outside of your area on how these controlled systems work. I know a few people who have put these in and I am familiar with how they work. Not an expert though.



> Phase 8: Operation and Maintenance of Pump Stations
> 
> If your project required pump station installation Ellingson will work with you to provide any regular maintenance needed to keep your pump station running efficiently for years to come.
> 
> Working with Ellingson Drainage and utilizing the Ellingson Advantage offers you a cost-effective, time saving alternative to the traditional way of completing projects. The Ellingson Advantage means the engineering, project management and construction is provided by one entity which allows for implementation of new technologies, reduced time for design changes and faster construction all with lower costs to you.


This is from Ellingson's site, a company out of the Fargo area. Do some research, tiling does increase the use of the land but it could benefit wildlife in the drought years.


----------



## mulefarm

Sounds like Plainsman has quite a bit of experience with wetlands and water quality. Were will the excess water from tiling go? Will it go into Devils Lake? Who monitors these valves and are they expensive to install? I'm sure that Ellingson company wants to make money, not sure if what they say is truthful?


----------



## g/o




----------



## Plainsman

> Tile is only installed 3 to 4 feet deep. It's hydrogeologic (groundwater) influence is limited, when placed far enough away from a wetland parimeter, it will have no influence on the wetland.


These guys need to talk with a non agriculture hydrologist. Much depends on the elevation and if wetlands are above that elevation. Four foot deep drain tile at low elevations can affect wetlands a half mile away. I know where tile has gone in and in most cases it was not far enough from a "wetland perimeter". Most of these statements are from people who read literature, and the literature is about ten years behind the research.

Simply because it's legal now doesn't mean it will not have a bad affect on habitat, it will. Iowa Prairie Pothole wetlands are all but gone, Minnesota has few remaining, and North Dakota's is on the chopping block. The dollar wins again. Unfortunately for every dollar the landowner makes someone is loosing. Look at the money that has already gone into dikes at Devils Lake. Many will say it's just the weather, but that's not true. The square miles of land in the watershed has doubled. It's like using a 50 gallon rain barrel for a 1000 square foot house, the expecting that barrel to hold the water when you increase that house to 2000 square feet. It's not going to work. Channel A is a river running into a lake with no outlet. Making any form of drainage easier is only going to add to the problem.

Ask yourself two simple questions. Where will that water go if it's not drained? Where will that water go if it is drained?


----------



## Springerguy

You guys in ND don't need to worry about the tiling issue. Once the wetlands in ND are drained you can come over to MN and hunt the small number of wetlands that remain - probably won't have much luck but you can hunt here since we don't limit NR's. Fortunately, MN doesn't have a "Dick Monson and crew" group running around stating that commercialization is destroying the planet and bantering that limiting NR's is the answer to quality conservation. I didn't grow up here in MN but have found the citizens of this state to be very welcoming to NR's, even though the hunting doesn't have the same quality as ND. Oh, and by the way, the old-timers here tell me the quality of hunting has decreased over the decades due to lack of habitat as the ag community has expanded tillable acres - not much to do with "commercializing" hunting by allowing NR's. But, I'm sure Dick and the other "conservationists" know best in ND - keep that focus on the NR issue as the core to all that is evil and will destroy hunting in ND.

And isn't it interesting - so many of the "conservationists" are quick to point out that since they live in ND and pay taxes it should be their right to limit NR's. It would seem to make sense then that G/O and other farmers should have the right to tile their land since they own the land and he pays taxes. Maybe the farmers should ask for money from ND taxpayers to not tile their land and preserve those wetlands.


----------



## mulefarm

Plainsman said:


> Tile is only installed 3 to 4 feet deep. It's hydrogeologic (groundwater) influence is limited, when placed far enough away from a wetland parimeter, it will have no influence on the wetland.
> 
> 
> 
> These guys need to talk with a non agriculture hydrologist. Much depends on the elevation and if wetlands are above that elevation. Four foot deep drain tile at low elevations can affect wetlands a half mile away. I know where tile has gone in and in most cases it was not far enough from a "wetland perimeter". Most of these statements are from people who read literature, and the literature is about ten years behind the research.
> 
> Simply because it's legal now doesn't mean it will not have a bad affect on habitat, it will. Iowa Prairie Pothole wetlands are all but gone, Minnesota has few remaining, and North Dakota's is on the chopping block. The dollar wins again. Unfortunately for every dollar the landowner makes someone is loosing. Look at the money that has already gone into dikes at Devils Lake. Many will say it's just the weather, but that's not true. The square miles of land in the watershed has doubled. It's like using a 50 gallon rain barrel for a 1000 square foot house, the expecting that barrel to hold the water when you increase that house to 2000 square feet. It's not going to work. Channel A is a river running into a lake with no outlet. Making any form of drainage easier is only going to add to the problem.
> 
> Ask yourself two simple questions. Where will that water go if it's not drained? Where will that water go if it is drained?
Click to expand...

Plainsman, great posts, even somebody like me can understand this will not be good for waterfowl and the water supply in general.
I wish Dick, Ken and 870 would rally the troops on this one, seems they only have one agenda?


----------



## g/o

I found these on another blog, thought they were interesting

http://northdakota.areavoices.com/2011/ ... gislation/


----------



## dakotashooter2

I wonder what percentage of tiling projects have any type of "control structures". I know a couple contractor in my area that have never installed any types of valves in the projects they have done.

Whatever....... I guess our couple thousands years of expertice is better than natures millions.................


----------



## 6162rk

g/o

i hope you don't think the water is drinkable that comes out of those tiles like the Hefty boys claim in their you-tube video.

i have a few you guys can come and drink from.


----------



## Plainsman

> And isn't it interesting - so many of the "conservationists" are quick to point out that since they live in ND and pay taxes it should be their right to limit NR's. It would seem to make sense then that G/O and other farmers should have the right to tile their land since they own the land and he pays taxes. Maybe the farmers should ask for money from ND taxpayers to not tile their land and preserve those wetlands.


Montana has priced me out of elk hunting, but it's there state. I'm not angry about it, but I wish I could still go. I don't have a thing against non residence. If you notice our deer season we even limit the number of residents that can go. Actually we limit the number of residence while still providing for non residents. I don't think having a week to hunt before non residents come is being greedy. 
Now my next statement is meant in humor: You say non residents are welcome to hunt waterfowl in Minnesota. I can't help but think it's easy to share when there is nothing there.  and I do mean that in a humorous way.

My idea of limiting non residents isn't anything against residents. I know when I go to other states there is a limit, and I appreciate the reason. It's so that when I do get to go I have a quality hunt. I hope when you come here you have a great time. I am for limiting non residents before limiting residents because to me that's just common sense. However, I don't support that to be vindictive I support it in the hopes you have a great time when you do come.
As for* "maybe farmers should ask for money from ND taxpayers to not tile their land and preserve those wetlands" *that would be ok with me. On the other hand maybe downstream people should file a class action suite and sue those farmers for about ten billion. That would be ok with me too.

If you want to educate yourself on some wetland ecology/hydrology and get ahead of the publication curve start here: http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/projects/clsa/index.htm


----------



## 6162rk

plainsman,

my thoughts exactly. who do they think is causing the flooding? i can't believe that a lawsuit has never been brought.

oh i forgot. someone on here once said that drainage does not add to flooding.


----------



## TK33

6162rk said:


> plainsman,
> 
> my thoughts exactly. who do they think is causing the flooding? i can't believe that a lawsuit has never been brought.
> 
> oh i forgot. someone on here once said that drainage does not add to flooding.


Drain tiling has had a minimal effect on our flooding the last few years here. The ground has been frozen so the water doesn't hit the tile anyways. In 2009 I was digging a borrow pit with a hoe and a frostbucket, if I remember right it was 4-5ft before I got out of the frost, it took forever. I wish they would use the waffling plan and pay landowners to hold water. Talk to an old farmer, they used to ditch and trench a lot more aggressively than they do now, lack of ditch and drain maintenance is just as big, or a bigger problem.

I don't know that I would drink the water either but just having the nitrates and other chemicals stay in the soil and in the field is a huge benefit to all of us, wildlife and humans. Think of the benefit to the fish and wildlife on the Red and Sheyenne Rivers.

A lot of guys have controls on their drain tile systems. Some don't but they can be added. As stated earlier it all has to be approved.


> Where will that water go if it's not drained? Where will that water go if it is drained?


It'll get ditched, just like it does now. It will be drained faster, dirtier, will erode more land, sit in stagnant areas, etc. Pretty much what the Hefty video showed. The issue there is storage and flow, that is not what this bill is about. I would rather see water that is tiled hitting the rivers and wetlands than dirty runoff.

Everybody has learned from past mistakes, farmers and sportsmen alike. You have to have the proper permits to tile or ditch, no farmer wants to lose anything from the topsoil or have huge erosion, no land that is designated for wetlands can be tiled, etc.

Plainsman, what effect would cleaner water have on the macrophytes or whatever? What effect does over land flooding have on the ecosystem? I am confused, you guys talk about water management, wetlands management, etc. Drain tiling is a form of management and control. It is a win win to me.


----------



## Plainsman

There are two types of pollutants to a wetland ecosystem. The ditches carry silt, and some chemicals. By someones own words on here the tile flushes the soil clean of salts. With that it also flushes the system of anything else in the soil which includes your chemicals. I don't understand why anyone would think that the nitrates stay in the soil magically while all other minerals are "flushed". 
Ditches carry silt and chemical pollutants, while drains carry little silt, but many chemical pollutants man made and those salts already in the soil.
In field studies a conductivity meter is often used to measure water hardness. You know how everyone tells you to be careful around electricity and water because water will carry electricity. Well, this will be a surprise for some people. Water does not carry electricity. Distilled water would insulate you from electricity much the same as rubber, it will not transmit it. Electricity is carried by minerals in the water. You can put a conductivity meter in distilled water and it sits on zero. Add a little bit of Alka Seltzer and the meter jumps. There are many simple experiments for high school students. I don't know the direct relationship with parts per million. 
Anyway, tap water has a conductivity of around 1200 here in North Dakota. Recharge wetlands (normally smaller and at higher elevations) are as fresh as a conductivity of 40 in early spring, hydrological flow through wetlands around this area have a conductivity of about 1000 to 3000, while discharge wetlands range from 4000 to lakes like Lake George at 80,000. The ocean is about 43,000 conductivity which means it's about 35,000 parts per million dissolved solids. 
When rain water passes through the soil into the drain tiles it dissolves minerals along the way. That includes all water soluble minerals. Minerals are then carried to a deposit area. Lets use Devils Lake as an example. With no outlet three things happen. Water raises in the lake, water is forced into the aquifer, and water is evaporated.
Have any of you noticed that when you boil water in a pan there is a white powder left behind. The same thing is happening in Devils Lake. As water is evaporated it leaves minerals behind raising the conductivity. With tile carrying more minerals, EPA restricting pumping because of already saline water that will hurt Sheyenne River water quality, and constant evaporation this lake will turn into a chemical sump. All species including aquatic macroinvertebrates, and fish have a tolerance level for dissolved solids. Even bird use is dictated by dissolved solids. You may see canvasback feeding on sago pond weed (_Potamogeton pectinatus_) in saline water, but they have to go somewhere else to drink. 
We brag about the fisheries resource at Devils Lake, but abuse the water quality and even that is limited. Not working in fisheries I'm not sure which will happen first. The fish could be killed by rising salinity, or the tolerance threshold of aquatic macroinvertebrate food resources may be met first and fish will starve. Either way the fisheries resources themselves will have a life expectancy which will be accelerated by tile draining.


----------



## hydro870

> who do they think is causing the flooding? i can't believe that a lawsuit has never been brought.


A group of landowners did file a lawsuit against the State of North Dakota for issueing drainage permits in the Devils Lake Basin. The landowners lost and the State won becuase it was shown that drainage did not cause the Devils Lake problem. Devils Lake has overflowed before, long before there was any agriculture or wetland drainage, it is completely natural.

All you need to do is drive around the valley in the spring when we are flooding on the Red and you will see that the drains are froze shut and the water is running accross the fields and over the roads. The water is running even though the drains are froze and don't work. Obviously, the drains do not cause Spring floods. The only reason we "flood" is because people live in natural floodplains. People live too close to rivers and people live below the natural overflow of Devils Lake.

By the way, forget the "Waffle" plan. The State Engineer audited the EERC's Waffle models and found them to be junk. The Waffle plan will not work to reduce flooding on the Red River.


----------



## mulefarm

What is the history of the Red flooding? It seems the last 10-12 yrs we have had a couple of 100 year floods? I can't believe that manipulating the natural flow of water hasn't had an effect.


----------



## TK33

The Red River had a volitile time in the late 1800's. There have been decades where the Red never flooded once. They had a lot of info on it during the 2009 flood.

Plainsman, are you saying that the Hefty video and other studies done where results have shown that tiled ground holds chemicals and minerals better than runoff, ditching, or overland flooding are a lie?

I thought UND had a study out that showed waffling in Richland and Wilkin was the ticket? When you say junk do you mean impractical, financially not feasible, or completely ineffective in reducing river levels. I could see the latter this year especially with so much water and snow coming from the Ottertail River. I would like to see the waffle plan tried because then a lot of drainage critics would see once and for all how little effect shutting down a field here or a section there would help.


----------



## hydro870

> What is the history of the Red flooding? It seems the last 10-12 yrs we have had a couple of 100 year floods? I can't believe that manipulating the natural flow of water hasn't had an effect.


We are simply in a wet cycle.

The rural agricultural grid system of ditches with road embankments that hold back water and meter it through small culverts does more to make flooding less than the other way around. The man made road embankments hold back far more water than the wetlands man has drained. Many of the roads are several feet higher than field level, yet they are overtopped. There is just too much water, and nothing is going to hold it back. We are in a wet cycle and the flooding is completely natural.

Look at the glacial lakes in NE South Dakota. Most of that area is pasture, no cultivation, no drainage. Yet this area is flooding just like Devils Lake. If the Devils Lake basin was all grass and no drainage, Devils Lake would be in the same flooding situation like it has many times before, long before the area was settled.


----------



## Plainsman

hydro870 stated:


> We are simply in a wet cycle.


That's the untrue excuse you get from those who failed at predicting drainage affect on Devils Lake. The truth is Devils Lake was flooding when I could walk across lakes, that had been ten feet deep in the 1980's, wearing Nike's and not get wet feet. The Wildlife Society I believe it was wrote a letter in 1977 warning that all the drainage and channel A would be a problem. The understanding of wetland ecology and hydrology was so poor that no one understood, and they still don't understand today. As I said literature is ten years behind research. Unfortunately no one wants to hear the truth.

TK asks: 


> Plainsman, are you saying that the Hefty video and other studies done where results have shown that tiled ground holds chemicals and minerals better than runoff, ditching, or overland flooding are a lie?


I'm telling you they hold nothing. They leach it from the soil, flush it to drains, and let it go directly like a main vein into wetlands, lakes, and rivers. The other story you get are from those making a profit to tell fairy tales. Look, a previous poster mentioned how they flush salinity from a farmers field. Where do you think they flush it to. Are they destroying the groundwater or wetlands, or both. Where do the minerals go. Your comment sounds as if you think the tile holds the minerals. The minerals are dissolved and carried into the tile. The minerals are part of the water, and go to wetlands where evaporation concentrates them in the wetland. That is the result no matter how far from a wetland you place the tile. Drains destroy wetlands and flood downstream, while tiles pollute water quality with dissolved solids and agriculture chemicals.


----------



## mulefarm

Don't remember this much destruction during the wet cycles of the 90's.


----------



## Plainsman

mulefarm said:


> Don't remember this much destruction during the wet cycles of the 90's.


Even back in the 1970's I remember Grand Forks having three 100 year floods. They call them 100 year floods for a reason. I think Valley City, Fargo, and Grand Forks will have another one this year.

This isn't just about environment. I think if Devils Lake goes down the valley by Tolna, North Dakota, then Valley City, Fargo, and Grand Forks are going to have a 10,000 year flood. No one will pay attention, at least not those making a buck, until someone dies. Those making a buck will not care then either. We have become a self absorbed society, where neighbors mean little, and if your ten miles downstream we mean nothing. Watch and see how many more homes are lost this year. Who will pick up the tab, those who are responsible, or the government who blows our tax dollars like confetti and is going broke?


----------



## hydro870

All of the wetlands upstream of Devils Lake are completely full and overflowing becuase there is more water than they can hold becuase we are in a wet cycle. The excess water flows down hill and has been for the last 15 years regardless if Channel A exists or not.

Some of these guys think ditches make water out of thin air. Water flows down hill regardless if there is a ditch present or not. All the ditch does is save the roads from being washed out and brings order to the flow. Hydrology 101. Devils Lake would look no different if Channel A were never built.


----------



## TK33

> I'm telling you they hold nothing. They leach it from the soil, flush it to drains, and let it go directly like a main vein into wetlands, lakes, and rivers. The other story you get are from those making a profit to tell fairy tales. Look, a previous poster mentioned how they flush salinity from a farmers field. Where do you think they flush it to. Are they destroying the groundwater or wetlands, or both. Where do the minerals go. Your comment sounds as if you think the tile holds the minerals. The minerals are dissolved and carried into the tile.


Your comment is against the research of some universities and extension services. I have a hard time believing that tiled land would pollute the same or more than ditched or regular run off.


----------



## Plainsman

> Devils Lake would look no different if Channel A were never built.


I know Devils Lake would look much different. To start with all of those wetlands that are now dry and farmed would be full of water. When they wanted to drain them they said they were so small that they would have no affect. For one that would be true, but when you make it thousands it's no longer true. Give me a five gallon bucket and a teaspoon to dip water with and within a few days I will make that five gallon bucket run over.



> Your comment is against the research of some universities and extension services. I have a hard time believing that tiled land would pollute the same or more than ditched or regular run off.


Either the research was old, or lacked the newest technology, or lacked the expertise. Yes, I am telling you they are wrong. I heard one professor from NDSU say that if all the wetlands were drained it would move the water through Fargo in a more timely fashion. Yes it would. Faster, and over a shorter time period. Translation: deeper and more destructive. More wetlands do mean more water right? And if those wetlands didn't hold it and let it go through the groundwater to lower elevation wetlands that flow over more slowly the water would come faster right. Simply ask yourself those questions.

In the Federal government people in research were moved from agencies that had land, or law enforcement divisions. This was done so no pressure could be brought to bear on research. I would say any hydrologist who says drain tile helps wetlands or helps flooding knows which side his bread is buttered on.

If you want some bad news, weather pattern scientists who look back a half million years through soil anion analysis/technology say we are towards the end of a 400 year drought cycle. Expect a lot more water. This wet cycle is miniscule.

Edit: I see I was still thinking about the water from the other post and missed your point about salinity and pollution. Here is what happens and I think you will agree with it. Rain with no solids falls on the land and it's like distilled water. Since it is carrying no dissolved mineral load it readily dissolves minerals within the soil as it moves downward and finally into the tile. The water from tiles gets drained to the same place any other wetland drain goes, and that is either a river or a larger wetland. Once exposed to the atmosphere that water begins to evaporate. Evaporation does not take those dissolved solids with the water. It takes water only and leaves the solids behind. Every year that larger wetland gets more and more saline. For those who want to see that affect boil away water in a pan, add more water and boil it away, then look in the pan. Have you ever noticed the mineral deposits on the electrodes of an electric coffee pot? The same thing is happening to our wetlands, and tile accelerates that problem.


----------



## Chuck Smith

> . All this does is change the turnaround time on a tile permit from about 3 months to about 1 month. The 3 month process has not stopped anyone from tiling.


This is a problem. This will make people tile more. If a person only has to wait a month to tile they will do it. Think of growing seasons. If a person has to wait 3 months to get a permit they won't try to tile right before they have to plant. Then that will hold off or forget about it until next year. If they only have to wait a month. They can see the spring thaw or snow totals. See if a spot is going to be wet or not and get in ahead of planting time and tile the land. You will see drain tile getting put in while you are trying to spring snow goose hunt. Just wait and see.

Like others have mentioned this will not drain wetlands. This will drain the small or "wet" spots in a field. Farmers have the right to drain it. But many don't. It is the little low spot in the field. This holds birds and is also places for nesting cover. For waterfowl and for upland birds. Having a farmer only wait one month will make many of these places get drained. This will kill many nesting spots for all birds. It will destroy habitat.

I am not against farming one bit. But like others have stated with commodity prices skyrocketing you will see wildlife habitat get destroyed. Bills like this will be the down fall of quality in ND hunting.


----------



## gator_getter

This bill will not increase tiling. If a farmer wants to tile he will tile. In SD they tile right through the planted fields in some cases.

Those of you who are against tiling and believe it is the destruction of ND wildlife need to put your efforts elsewhere in fighting your case.

This bill eases the burden on the ND water commission and takes the approval process to a local level.


----------



## nodak4life

TTT

Don't listen to the propaganda from those who brought forth this bill. If this goes through wetlands will be drained (whether purposely or not), the levels and flows will be altered negatively in rivers/streams and will bring chemicals in faster (and yes a study recently showed a rise in agricultural contaminants in the Red River).

Everyone on this site that is opposed to this bill needs to make contact with ND representatives today!!


----------



## Billyhcc

> "This bill eases the burden on the ND water commission and takes the approval process to a local level"


This is the main issue with this bill. Why not increase the staff at the ND water commission? The more fingers in the pot, the more the rules will get stretched. I was talking to a relative who works for the NRCS and he said it is easy to prove that a farmer drained a wetland by gps photos but when they go to prosecute it gets handed down to the local water commission and all they get is a slap on the wrist because the guys on the board are either fellow farmers that have done the same thing, friends, family, etc.


----------



## nodak4life

TTT

These bills are much more harmful than 1407, call today.


----------



## nodak4life

TTT

I hope all that are calling/emailing on 1407 are doing the same with these bills. DO NOT PASS


----------



## hydro870

Plainsman - It has been proven in a court of law that drainage projects, including Channel A, did not cause the rise of Devils Lake. Take a moment to read about the trial in a news story that I copied below:

Devils L. Landowners' Lawsuit Dismissed

In May 1999, approximately 100 individuals who own land around Devils Lake sued the State of North Dakota, the North Dakota State Water Commission, the State Engineer, and nine water resource districts (collectively referred to as ʻdefendantsʼ). They alleged that water projects in the upper Devils Lake basin - designed, constructed, funded, and/or maintained by the defendants, caused Devils Lake to flood their property. The landowners sought monetary damages in excess of $10 million, an injunction, and an order directing the defendants to initiate condemnation proceedings. On Oct. 25, the court concluded that the plaintiffs failed to establish that any of the alleged projects were the cause for the harm and damages incurred by the plaintiffs to their properties. As a result, the court issued its decision in favor of the defendants.

The court also concluded that the dramatic shift in the climatic conditions of the Devils Lake basin region over the decades, and especially in the 1990s, was the sole proximate cause for the increased water elevations experienced by Devils Lake, which in turn, caused damages and harm to the properties of the landowners. Starting in 1993, the Devils Lake basin began experiencing huge runoff events. The estimated average annual inflow to Devils Lake for 1950-1992 is 60,100 acre-feet. The estimated average annual inflow for 1993-1999 is 328,200 acre-feet, and inflow for this 7-year period accounts for 47 percent of all inflow to Devils Lake for 1950-1999. Between 1993 and 2004, the volume of Devils Lake expanded from 827,278 acre-feet to 2,704,967 acre-feet.

As mentioned above, Devils Lakeʼs expansion was the impetus for the landownersʼ lawsuit against the defendants. Unlike the numerous previous lawsuits over projects in the basin and around Devils Lake itself, the specific allegations were that the defendants were responsible for private drainage, and all of the water management activities in the upper Devils Lake basin, including:

• Hurricane Lake outlet channel and control structure
• Iverson Dam removal
• Lake Ibsen control structure
• Mauvais Coulee improvements above Lake Alice
• Mauvais Coulee improvements below Lake Irvine
• Lake Irvine control structure
• Channel improvements between Mikes Lake and Chain Lake
• Calio Coulee channel improvements above Chain Lake
• Grand Harbor drain and pump station
• Starkweather channel improvements
• Channel improvements between Morrison and Cavanaugh Lakes
• Channel improvements between Cavanaugh and Dry Lakes
• Dry Lake outlet channel (Channel A)
• Ring channel on the north and east sides of Devils Lake
• Creel Bay dike

The parties engaged in extensive discovery,
exchanging thousands of documents,
and over 50 depositions were taken.
During trial, the court admitted over
1,000 exhibits, and heard testimony
from numerous experts on statistics,
computer models, geology, hydrology,
Devils Lake, the Devils Lake basin,
and climatology.
Ultimately, after eight years of
litigation, and 17 days of trial, the court
ordered that the claims be dismissed
with Prejudice-meaning the plaintiffs
cannot sue on the same grounds in the
future.
This article was developed in cooperation
with Assistant Attorney General, Matthew A.
Sagsveen.


----------



## Plainsman

All that proves is they didn't have the right data or the right witnesses. There is no doubt that channel A, which carries as much water as a small river, running into a lake without an outlet is going to flood it. If it didn't flood where did all that water magically go. 
What you had was unprepared attorneys against the government. Who's going to win in 99% of those cases?

Go up and watch channel A at highway 2. Do you know how much water that channel is carrying. Has anyone put a stream gauge on it? Why not, don't they want to know? Fifteen feet deep 100 feet wide and flowing at about 6mph, and with no outlet. Ya, a court proved it wouldn't flood. That only proves the faults within our court system.


----------



## Dick Monson

In case anybody missed the vote results. How did your Senator do?

SECOND READING OF SENATE BILL
SB 2280: A BILL for an Act to create and enact a new subsection to section 61-21-02 and a
new section to chapter 61-32 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to
subsurface drainage of water; to provide a penalty; and to declare an emergency.
ROLL CALL
The question being on the final passage of the amended bill, which has been read, and has
committee recommendation of DO PASS, the roll was called and there were 39 YEAS,
7 NAYS, 0 EXCUSED, 1 ABSENT AND NOT VOTING.

YEAS: Andrist; Berry; Bowman; Burckhard; Christmann; Cook; Dever; Dotzenrod; Erbele;
Fischer; Flakoll; Freborg; Hogue; Kilzer; Klein; Krebsbach; Laffen; Larsen; Lee, G.;
Lee, J.; Luick; Lyson; Miller; Murphy; Nelson; Nething; Nodland; O'Connell; Oehlke;
Olafson; Schaible; Schneider; Sitte; Sorvaag; Stenehjem; Taylor; Uglem; Wanzek;
Wardner

NAYS: Heckaman; Holmberg; Marcellais; Mathern; Robinson; Triplett; Warner
ABSENT AND NOT VOTING: Grindberg

Engrossed SB 2280 passed and the emergency clause was declared carried.


----------



## mulefarm

Does this mean that you will be like Mn in the future?


----------



## gator_getter

The urban population in my opinion is losing touch with what is going on with agriculture in North Dakota and farm life in general.

Maybe we should plug all the drain tile in the homes in the city of Fargo......ya, I think not.


----------



## mulefarm

gator_getter said:


> The urban population in my opinion is losing touch with what is going on with agriculture in North Dakota and farm life in general.
> 
> Maybe we should plug all the drain tile in the homes in the city of Fargo......ya, I think not.


Extremely intelligent answer.


----------



## hydro870

> Go up and watch channel A at highway 2. Do you know how much water that channel is carrying. Has anyone put a stream gauge on it? Why not, don't they want to know? Fifteen feet deep 100 feet wide and flowing at about 6mph, and with no outlet. Ya, a court proved it wouldn't flood. That only proves the faults within our court system.


Plainsman, what this really proves is you don't have a clue.

You state channel A is 100' wide, 15' deep, and flows at 6 mph. Your measurements equal a flow of 13,200 cubic feet per second. The highest recorded flow in the entire history of the SHEYENNE RIVER at Valley City is 7,940 cubic feet per second recorded on 4/17/2009. The fact that you claim the flow on Channel-A is 1.66 times the flow of the devastating 2009 Sheyenne River flood at Valley City is more than I need to disregard everything you have ever posted on this thread.

hydro870 - who is a registered professional engineer and is a water resources engineer who has built several flood control projects in the State of North Dakota.


----------



## Dick Monson

I'm pretty sure there a gauge on Channel A. USGS would have the flow records on one of their sites. I was at a water meeting back in the '80s where the speaker said the inflow to DL from Channel A that particular year was 2.5 of the Sheyenne. Remember there are multiple inflow coulees up there.


----------



## Plainsman

hydro870 said:


> The fact that you claim the flow on Channel-A is 1.66 times the flow of the devastating 2009 Sheyenne River flood at Valley City is more than I need to disregard everything you have ever posted on this thread.


Dick Monson commented:


> I was at a water meeting back in the '80s where the speaker said the inflow to DL from Channel A that particular year was 2.5 of the Sheyenne.


hydro870 wants to puff up his chest:


> hydro870 - who is a registered professional engineer and is a water resources engineer who has built several flood control projects in the State of North Dakota.


OK, I'll play along. Water Resource engineer= professional ditch digger.
I worked as a professional for 36 years. Most of that time was with wetland ecology/hydrology. Dicks recollection above proves you have no idea what's going on. I would guess you make your bucks destroying wetlands. I made mine collecting data to understand wetland ecology/hydrology. People in research do read books to educate themselves, but more often they write them so others can read and understand. Even if your up to date with the literature hydro870 your still ten to twenty years behind the knowledge that exists.

Having worked for USGS I had no doubt there was a flow gauge on multiple points along channel A. I also knew the flow was beyond what most people would expect. However, without checking into it I had no data. I was happy to see you step in it and Dick have an answer. Not to worry though hydro870, with our current legislature I'm sure your backhoe will be busy.


----------



## hydro870

Dick, be careful with repeating comments you heard from a "speaker" at a meeting in the 1980's no less. Some people may take your post of a "comment" you heard and use them as truth in their arguement. The watehed area that feeds the Valley City Sheyenne River gage is 2,110 square miles. The watershed area above Channel A I will let you figure out, and then maybe the common sense lightbulb will click on. It is strange that you could buy into the statement that this "channel" flows at over 13,000 CFS!

Plainsman, I attacked your figures and questioned you becuase of it; the figures you state are absolutely crazy. You attacked me becuase of my profession. Whenever that happens, I know I have won.

By the way, I have nothing against biologists who practice biology.


----------



## Plainsman

PM me. I would like to know if your an engineer in the sense the guy picking up my garbage in ten minutes is a sanitation engineer, or if you have a degree in engineering. If you do is that degree in how to drain wetlands and the mechanical of it, or is it in understanding wetland ecology/hydrology. I would be interested in what angle your expertise plays in your judgement of channel A. 
My comment on dept simply comes from my Depth finder on my boat. My comment on width simply comes from my laser range finder. My comment on speed simply comes from my GPS when I lifted anchor and drifted. I will look into how to find actual stream gauge readings.


----------



## Longshot

hydro870 said:


> Plainsman, what this really proves is you don't have a clue.
> 
> You state channel A is 100' wide, 15' deep, and flows at 6 mph. Your measurements equal a flow of 13,200 cubic feet per second. The highest recorded flow in the entire history of the SHEYENNE RIVER at Valley City is 7,940 cubic feet per second recorded on 4/17/2009. The fact that you claim the flow on Channel-A is 1.66 times the flow of the devastating 2009 Sheyenne River flood at Valley City is more than I need to disregard everything you have ever posted on this thread.
> 
> hydro870 - who is a registered professional engineer and is a water resources engineer who has built several flood control projects in the State of North Dakota.


Well hydro870, since you claim to be the expert are you telling me that channel A is 15' deep throughout the 100' width. I think you are inflating your numbers. Even if channel A had an average depth of 10' you have a flow of 8800 cfs. Instead you are using what is probably the maximum depth. A channel with a maximum 15' depth would probably be closer to an average depth of 8'.
I think you know this, but winning the debate is more important.


----------



## hydro870

> Well hydro870, since you claim to be the expert are you telling me that channel A is 15' deep throughout the 100' width. I think you are inflating your numbers. Even if channel A had an average depth of 10' you have a flow of 8800 cfs. Instead you are using what is probably the maximum depth. A channel with a maximum 15' depth would probably be closer to an average depth of 8'. I think you know this, but winning the debate is more important.


We'll that is true, I do know this, and I am debating. Yes I want to win the debate because on this issue, I am right. I would never debate in a ecology or biological issue - not my area, and I would likely say something that is not correct. When this happens, now hundreds of others have the wrong information. But on the internet, everyone is an expert.

So let's assume Plainsmans measurements are not average depth and average width. Let's assume his measurments are the maximum depth and maximum surface width, and I will save myself some time and use your figure of 8,800 CFS. You are still claiming that the flow in Channel A is greater than the MAIN STEM FLOW OF THE SHEYENNE RIVER ON THE LARGEST FLOOD EVER RECORDED IN HISTORY at Valley City. Come on people!

Plainsman - thank you for continuing the personal attacks against me. As far as my angle, I am just trying to be real -there is so much misinformation about flooding. Everyone has to blame somebody. Because you are a North Dakotan and an American you are my brother.


----------



## Plainsman

> You are still claiming that the flow in Channel A is greater than the MAIN STEM FLOW OF THE SHEYENNE RIVER ON THE LARGEST FLOOD EVER RECORDED IN HISTORY at Valley City.


Who said that? If I did that was not my intent. My observations were in the third week of June. At that time channel A looked to me to be carrying about the same water as they Sheyenne at that same time. As a matter of fact the Sheyenne was about 200ft wide where I was floating with a canoe and hand held GPS, but it was only four feet deep and moving about two miles per hour. I also assumed you guys would know I was sitting in the deepest part of Channel A drowning leeches when I looked at my depth finder. It was a crude measurement combined with a lot of experience that I made those comments.

Read some of this guys publications.
http://water.usgs.gov/nrp/proj.bib/winter.html

I will admit that I am not close to understanding hydrology at this man's level. He is world renowned. Google for more of his publications.

hydro870, my purpose is not to attack, but it appeared you wanted to make comparisons in our expertise. I question, because I run into people who drain who call themselves water engineers. I don't know you, but those guys knew nothing about hydrology, only about backhoe and drain tile. They were from Iowa. You guarantee people about channel A, and I am absolutely sure you are wrong. I base that on a number of publications I read on the Devils Lake watershed.

For people who are curious think about this: There are 43,560 square feet in an acre. A five acre drained wetland with an average depth of three feet produces 130,680 cubic feet. Since the average wetland has approximately a 1/10 watershed ratio (at least) and our average rainfall is 17 inches we get 3,049,200 cubic feet from precipitation in that year. Now take that times thousands of wetlands and ask yourself if drainage has an impact. I'm simply saying tile will add to the problem, that channel A is already causing.


----------



## Chuck Smith

Plainsman statement is correct....


> There are 43,560 square feet in an acre. A five acre drained wetland with an average depth of three feet produces 130,680 cubic feet. Since the average wetland has approximately a 1/10 watershed ratio (at least) and our average rainfall is 17 inches we get 3,049,200 cubic feet from precipitation in that year. Now take that times thousands of wetlands and ask yourself if drainage has an impact.


Where is all of this water that could be drained off of fields going to go? It won't just disappear. It has to go somewhere. To the next door neighbors property? To a different county? To a different state or country? To a river, stream, etc. Can these things handle much more water? Are cities down stream ready to handle more water in a given rain fall or snow melt? Can a wetland already in existence handle more water?

The impact of draining has so many scopes and issues. Where streamlining it to give out permits more readily would be a huge mistake.


----------



## Longshot

> hydro870 - who is a registered professional engineer and is a water resources engineer who has built several flood control projects in the State of North Dakota.


Since you claim to be a PE you should know that most experienced engineers know enough not to make statements on drainage issue estimates as being factual numbers. We learn every day that our estimates are just that estimates and many times nothing more than an educated quess. Hydrology is not an engineering problem alone and to think so just shows the lack of experience. Too many times we hear estimates from engineers and find they have never been outside the office to even visit a site. Working off manuals is one thing, but without the field knowlege it does little good and this comes from experience.


----------



## Dick Monson

hydro870 said:


> Dick, be careful with repeating comments you heard from a "speaker" at a meeting in the 1980's no less. Some people may take your post of a "comment" you heard and use them as truth in their arguement. The watehed area that feeds the Valley City Sheyenne River gage is 2,110 square miles. The watershed area above Channel A I will let you figure out, and then maybe the common sense lightbulb will click on. It is strange that you could buy into the statement that this "channel" flows at over 13,000 CFS!quote]
> 
> Take time to read my post. I didn't say inflow was 13,000 cfs. I said the inflow was 2.5 times the Sheyenne that year. Which was a dry year so the flow on the Sheyenne was probably down. I know a couple guys in COE and USGS so I'll try to find the exact figure of inflow. Then we won't have to guess.


----------



## Plainsman

> Plainsman - thank you for continuing the personal attacks against me. As far as my angle, I am just trying to be real -there is so much misinformation about flooding. Everyone has to blame somebody. Because you are a North Dakotan and an American you are my brother.


I apologize if it came off as an attack. What it was is my frustration with like you said everyone on the internet being an expert. What I wanted to know was your degree that makes you an engineer. I have run into college professors that are economists, but call themselves wetland ecologists. They estimate wetland values, but because they have no data on wetland contributions to the aquifer, or data on vast numbers of wetlands contributing to flooding they look at that value as zero. Not very scientific.

Your statement that because I am a North Dakotan and an American that I am your brother does touch my heart. I don't wish the loss of job opportunities on anyone, or flooding for the farmers north of Devils Lake, but at the same time I am concerned about downstream damage. Something has to give and the longer we ignore the problem (which it appears we are) the worse it will be.


----------



## hydro870

OK, sounds good. It is easy to misunderstand each other when a conversation is in text. Sorry about that, I'm sure we would get along great in the ice house.

I am an engineer and a duck hunter and I have only been involved in one project where we drained 10 acres of wetlands. We replaced these wetlands by restoring prior converted wetlands nearby. The rules are the rules. Since you have been around a while, you probably remember before 1985 Swampbuster when draining wetlands was not an issue - those days have changed. Of course there is midnight drainage going on, but this is illegal. If we see this happening, we should not just drive by and complain. We should report it. Trust me, I make much more money trying to figure out how to retain water, than I do trying to figure out how to get rid of it. I agree that much of the water resources projects of the past has been drainage. Actually, most drains were designed by federal engineers working for the SCS (now NRCS). They built some dams also however.

Of course wetlands store water, but when there is so much water that the wetlands are full, the water then runs down hill. This is the condition we are in. I guess the question is, how many acre-feet of wetland depressions have been cut. You would then compare this to Devils Lake which currently is holding about 3.1 million acre-feet of water. By comparing the two, you would know if it amounts to a hill of beans. Yes, you also would need to understand annual evaporation and infiltration from these wetlands because it is more than just a one time acre-foot calculation.


----------



## Plainsman

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LIDAR

I think you will find this interesting. I heard on the radio that they will begin using LIDAR this spring, in a study demanded by downstream interests. I have seen this used before and using elevations it should identify all basins capable of holding water. The interesting thing is it will identify those basins capable, and then see which ones should still be holding water. I would guess there will be a lot of violations picked up this spring.



> Of course wetlands store water, but when there is so much water that the wetlands are full, the water then runs down hill.


That's true, but the problem is wetlands with drains hold nothing. So we have the wetland holding nothing, and the surrounding watershed that also contributes to the cubic feet of water going downstream.

I know we are a bit off subject, but this is a good subject that needs to be talked about. Perhaps it should be started in hot topics so we don't tie up the original thread. Sorry about that Dick.


----------



## Dick Monson

Everbody is cool. It's a facinating conversation you two fellows are having since you both have a background in the subject. Hot topics would be a good place for it, not because folks are upset, but because it is definately timely with the annual melt and also super wet conditions that continue to worsen. Maybe one of the super mods could split it out and move it? Or just start it over there?

(I'd like to hear more about the LIDAR)


----------



## Lardy

Definitely an excellent discussion to read.

Im an environmental management major and have taken many courses that have talked about all these issues hundreds of times. Its pretty cool to see some real life scenarios like this. I know im a little late to chime in on the argument about ag chemicals in tile water but everything that I have read states that these chemicals ARE moved through tile. This was discussed not only in my ecology classes but my civil engineering hydrology class as well.

When talking about wetlands overflowing and running downhill causing problems, yes it is problem for those in that area. However sending that excess "problematic water" elsewhere is definitely going to affect someone else or some other waterbody downsteam from you in multiple ways. So who deserves to deal with it in the end? Tiling seems to give people that out of sight out of mind mentality.

Trying to look up this "Channel A" that you guys keep talking about. Could anyone give me some background info on this?


----------



## Bob Kellam

Lardy
USGS web page for the DL Basin

http://nd.water.usgs.gov/devilslake/sci ... ology.html.

ACOE
http://www.mvp.usace.army.mil/pressroom ... ageid=1816

http://www.mvp.usace.army.mil/docs/gis/ ... R_Grid.htm


----------



## Plainsman

> (I'd like to hear more about the LIDAR)


I don't know that much about it Dick, but I have talked a bit with a fellow biologist that uses it. He was asked to do some work in eastern United States evaluating forested areas. In that situation height and density of forest was evaluated using LIDAR. It works much like a laser range finder, just a few hundred million dollars more sophisticated. They can use satellite, or high altitude reconnaissance aircraft. They should be able to map the Devils Lake Basin detecting even small differences in elevation, and of small areas even the size of a six inch drain ditch. 
Archaeologists can now detect things underground that they want to dig up even before the first shovel of dirt. I would guess if technology keeps advancing it will not be long before they can detect subsurface tile from satellite.
Some time this summer we should have the whole picture in one map. We should know basins that can hold water, basins that do hold water, basins that are drained, and every drain ditch no matter how small. That can be cross referenced with the past satellite images from the Earths Resources Technology Satellite that was launched many years ago. We also have records from the 1957 Department of Agriculture high elevation aircraft photography to match up with this. It will be interesting when they match it to wetland easements at the Fish and Wildlife office.


----------



## Chuck Smith

> Of course wetlands store water, but when there is so much water that the wetlands are full, the water then runs down hill.


Hydro....this is the problem. Where will all of this new water go. If more farmers tile because of the ease of getting a permit if this bill passes? Like I have stated... I am not worried about the wetlands getting drained. I am worried about the small parcel that are 10-60 acres in size. The "wet" spots in a field that eventually dry up in the summer but are nesting habitat in the spring. Now these will get tiled so they are not "wet" and will be lost. THen where does that water go in the spring? When before it was a natural drainage for the field. It goes to a wetland,river, stream, lake, etc. That is already at capacity. Then what?



> When talking about wetlands overflowing and running downhill causing problems, yes it is problem for those in that area. However sending that excess "problematic water" elsewhere is definitely going to affect someone else or some other waterbody downsteam from you in multiple ways. So who deserves to deal with it in the end? Tiling seems to give people that out of sight out of mind mentality.


This is exactly another issue with tiling. Not only loss of habitat or water. But you are pushing the problem to others. Also when Lardy talked about the chemicals getting transferred by the tiling. That is another reason why this bill should be shot down.

Here are reason why I think it should be shot down:
1. Affect drinking water (no natural filtration)
2. Destroys Habitat
3. Stressing already over filled wetlands or water sources.
4. Pushing water problems onto others (more flooding)
5. Where will all the water go?

And I am sure there are more.

With the price of commodities you will see more and more habitat getting destroyed. Once it is gone it is almost impossible to get back. This is a bill all ND Resident Hunters should be worried about.


----------



## Plainsman

> 3. Stressing already over filled wetlands or water sources.


That has been stated many times, but for those of you not familiar with the land north of Devils Lake, about 95% is already drained. The problem as farmers see it is this: the bottom of the wetland is still moist in spring. The other problem is when drained and these wetlands were perhaps a hydrological discharge wetland they became so contaminated with minerals that you can't grow anything. Now if they tile those old wetland basins they will flush all those minerals downstream. Even the fresh part of Devils Lake will have such high mineral content that the EPA will block all pumping to the Sheyenne river.

Once the natural overflow hits the Sheyenne river south of Tolna, North Dakota the water quality on the river will take a dive. Expect fisheries to suffer on all downstream reservoirs. Also, expect much more water in Valley City, Fargo, and Grand Forks than they have ever seen. They better build those dikes in Grand Forks another ten feet high.


----------



## gst

I wasn;t going to get in this discussion dominated by such "experts", I know questioning this expertise is forbidden, but the expertise in plainsmans last post eludes me. If these wetlands contain water in the spring and can not be seeded, how are all these minerals farmers use getting into them. Also if they are indeed wetlands do these mineral not leach past the depth that tiling takes place? If 95% of the land north of DL is already drained and tiling contributes to water quality deteriotrating to the point it affects fisheries, why then is DL not already affected? Particularily if there is so many contaminates that if the natural overflow is washed out fisheries down stream will be negatively affected as plainsman claims. I will readily admit I am not an "expert" when it comes to tiling, so if my comments are of an "unexpert" nature I apologize. Also in regards to spring flooding can someone answer these questions. How deep is most tiling, and what is the frost depth when most spring flooding occurs.

Just a few questions for the experts. And while we are asking questions here is a couple more. It is estimated by the year 2030 (less than 20 years from now) there will be an additional 300,000,000 people on this planet than what there is now. These people will have to be fed. Some are claiming this is the golden age of agriculture largely because demand will continue to outpace production. It is estimated that the population of earth will double from what it currently is before beginning to decrease. So the question is where then will the food to feed these people come from?

Now before a couple fellas go off acusing me of being a selfish greedy landowner/farmer reminiscient of the old eliteist land baron of Europe ( it seems to be a typical response from some) realize food production for a growing population is part of the puzzle right along side maintaining recreational activities and the enviromental sources that contribute to them. Now for the thousand dollar question, what takes prescedence, food production or recreational activities. (Weigh your answer carefully before suggesting someone else is selfish) I am not saying it has to be either or, or done at negative cost to the enviroment, but EVERYONE has to realize the changing demands placed on our lands and what they produce in both food and recreational activities. So for all those "experts" against this bill, what are your solutions to producing more food to meet the growing populations demand?


----------



## Chuck Smith

> Just a few questions for the experts. And while we are asking questions here is a couple more. It is estimated by the year 2030 (less than 20 years from now) there will be an additional 300,000,000 people on this planet than what there is now. These people will have to be fed. Some are claiming this is the golden age of agriculture largely because demand will continue to outpace production. It is estimated that the population of earth will double from what it currently is before beginning to decrease. *So the question is where then will the food to feed these people come from? *


Gst... Great post. This is true and a great point. A balance needs to be found.

But here is another million dollar question....will the majority of drained land be put into corn or wheat? $6 + corn is not going to be used to feed cattle, hogs, etc. That will make the cost of milk, beef, pork, poultry, etc triple from what it is now if $6 corn is being used. If it is destined for wheat then that will help feed the planet. But you know as well as I do that the majority will be put into CORN.

Again I am not going to say farmers are bad for wanting more acres of land to produce more crop to make $$$ and enrich their lives. That is the All American Dream. But making it easier to drain land that is a naturally wet gives us all the problems we have with flooding, water pollution, erosion, etc. Then the by product of recreational hunting. It will take away nesting habitat, cover, etc.


----------



## gst

Chuck, thanks, in the near term most land that will be tiled will indeed likely go into either bean or corn production. That may change dependent on economics of various commodity production. $6 dollar corn may indeed go into feeding cattle if the exports of beef economically justify it as they currently are doing. How ever it is a ripple affect on food prices because of supply as you suggest. If more beef is exported due to demand, more will have to be imported for domestic supply. If more grains are exported because of demand, prices will reflect that. If food prices start to increase such as you have mentioned and some predict, what emphasis do you beleive the population will give their priorities to. Duck habitat or food production?

Instead of habitually being opposed to every single bill or regulation change that agriculture brings forth as some of these sportsmen and the groups representing them are, perhaps coming to the table and finding solutions that benefit all if it can be done would be in the best long term interests of conservation. History has shown that when faced with food shortages or high costs of food, populations tend to care less about enviromental issues or natural resources such as wildlife.


----------



## Plainsman

> Now for the thousand dollar question, what takes prescedence, food production or recreational activities. (Weigh your answer carefully before suggesting someone else is selfish) I am not saying it has to be either or, or done at negative cost to the enviroment, but EVERYONE has to realize the changing demands placed on our lands and what they produce in both food and recreational activities.


That is all in a state of flux. Today, we don't need to increase production, tomorrow we may need to. Today it may simply bring down the price of commodities, tomorrow the demand may bring the price up.



> I wasn;t going to get in this discussion dominated by such "experts


Actually, this did fall right into my experience. Hydrology isn't my strong point, aquatic macroinvertebrate taxonomy is. However, the invertebrate work was linked to hydrology, weather pattern, ornithology, herpetology, botany etc, for a complete look at wetland ecology from a system perspective rather than individual wetlands. Some wetlands were three miles apart and hydrologically linked.
I'm interested in Devils Lake, because that is my home area. I grew up just miles from the shore, and wetlands are what I have worked with in my career more than any other wildlife or ecology field.



> Also in regards to spring flooding can someone answer these questions. How deep is most tiling, and what is the frost depth when most spring flooding occurs.


Good point since tiling is at about three or four feet it should still be frozen, unless under a couple of feet of snow. I know the two foot deep pipe that drains my basement sump doesn't freeze, because it's under four feet or more of snow in my shelter belt. I would guess that it is frozen under my lawn where it's only six inches deep. One year most runoff will be overland carrying silt, while another year it will flow through the tile. Things are not just always the same, so each year will be different. Tile will later carry groundwater beneath the wetland basin to another larger wetland or to Devils Lake.

I don't believe we are even close to the need of destroying habitat to feed the world. We have countries willing to sell us food commodities at a lower price than our own farmers do. That's why they need protective (shaft us) legislation. You know, for example, like the grocery store can't buy milk even from a neighboring state.
There is a solution. If the carbon reduction requirements are pushed on the power companies expect the cost of your electricity to double or triple. It will cost you as a taxpayer or as a consumer or both. The solution is to pay the farmers north of Devils Lake to restore wetlands. It isn't going to be cheap, but it will cost you far less than your energy bill going up. Do it like CRP and pay them by the acre. Just as an example give them $100 an acre to restore a wetland, then let power companies purchase carbon credits from them at another $100 an acre for the same ten years. That's $2,000 per acre which more than double what their land is worth. They will need to be watched closely, because now in that area north of Devils Lake it's common for them to take the money for a wetland easement then drain it a couple days later. That should be a felony. 
These wetlands that they would get up to $2,000 an acre for should not be drained or they will lose the carbon they have stored. Something like this would solve many problems. It would solve the flooding of Devils Lake, hold electrical costs down, provide habitat, get the carbon footprint people off our back,etc. It's a win win situation, and you seldom have that. 
This should work out. I am surprised anyone would bring up starving people since we have had many programs to reduce the food surplus to artificially get the commodity prices up. Remember Reagan's PICK program. They paid farmers not to plant and raise food. However, that backfired because farmers enrolled their crop land, then went out and broke up pasture and hay land. We had record production that year. Ironic isn't it. Many of the ag programs have been habitat destructive and accomplished nothing but take taxpayer money out of guys working for a salary and put it into farmers pockets. Maybe this time the consumer could see a benefit also.


----------



## Lardy

I was thinking the exact thing as Plainsman. Just because the worlds population is growing doesn't mean we need to increase our area of productive farm ground immediately.

Providing food to the expanding population isn't the only part of sustaining a growing population. Clean water actually comes at #1 for all life. The only problem is that currently the money to be made in food is much higher than making clean water.

A lot of production guys use the "we have to feed the world population" line which yes, is true but aside from what plainsman stated about how our system is mostly to blame I want to know honestly how many producers are thinking "Oh jeez, how am I going to feed a growing population" as they're combining their crop. Or are they thinking, I need to hit 200 bushels so I can buy that shiny new duramax? I'm not attacking farmers for this mindset,we all do it. I just want them to GET REAL before spewing a bunch of ethical BS that they may not even truly care about more than the next person.


----------



## Bad Dog

gst - you ask how are all these minerals farmers use getting into them. Also if they are indeed wetlands do these mineral not leach past the depth that tiling takes place? If 95% of the land north of DL is already drained and tiling contributes to water quality deteriotrating to the point it affects fisheries, why then is DL not already affected?

Actually a study is being done on Lake Alice, which is now connected to Devils lake. What has been shown thus far is that Lake Alice does have high concentrations of certain agriculture chemicles and organics. Something that one would not see in an area that has been transformed through farming.

As for feeding the world, this issue is not production but distribution. If we as a country truely felt it was our place to feed all the starving and malnurished souls in this world, then we would stop using grain for fuel, for animal feed, and start mass shipments of grain to all the Third World countries and offer it too them for FREE, not with strings attached. It's not about feeding the starving and malnourished souls, it's about greed.


----------



## TK33

Here is what I found from the EPA's site on ag tiling.


> In general, less surface runoff, erosion, and phosphorus is lost from land that has good subsurface drainage than from land without drainage improvements or with only surface drainage.
> 
> Nitrate loss can be quite high from drained land. Because nitrate is very soluble, it flows easily through the soil and into tile lines. Nitrate flow from subsurface drains is one of the main sources of nitrate in streams and rivers in the Midwest. Concern about hypoxia, or low oxygen levels, in the Gulf of Mexico has increased concern about this nitrate source. Concentrations of nitrate in tile drains are usually quite high (10-40 mg/l).
> 
> Pesticides can also flow into subsurface drains, but usually only in very low concentrations. Pesticides move more easily in flow over the soil surface than through the soil, so the highest concentrations of pesticides in tiles are often in fields that have surface inlets into the drains. In fact, subsurface drainage may actually reduce pesticide loss to rivers and streams because it reduces surface runoff.


One thing I can't figure out is how nitrate loss can be worse with tile as compared to overland flooding, ditching, or regular rain run off. The experts that I have read and heard on this have said that nitrate content is lower in tiled drainage than in runoff or ditched land. Maybe one of you water guru's can answer that. Seeing what a 3-4" June or July storm does to a black dirt field in the valley I am not sure I buy that anything is worse than overland flooding or fast run off. Erosion isn't good for anything, I have lost a few acres on the Red thanks to massive erosion since 2009. A lot of our flooding and overland issues in the valley and I'm sure in other places are due to erosion issues in ditches and rivers that have not been fixed, until recently.

One thing no one has discussed is that fact that tiled land with control structures can retain water than untiled land in dry years. If we ever have any of those in our lifetime. This could be a benefit to wetlands.

The percentage of land that is tiled right now is pretty low, how can one say that it is even a factor in water quality deterioration? Seems to me like tiling is an easy scapegoat. People in Fargo like to blame tiling for our flooding problems, not the the fact that people/developers/gov't has put homes and other structures lower than the level we know the Red, Wild Rice, and Sheyenne can get to. No one wants to pay extra taxes or assessments for ditch and river cleaning/dredging.

If this bill fails it won't have any effect on tiling installation. If the grower feels the land needs tiling, it will get it.


----------



## Plainsman

> One thing I can't figure out is how nitrate loss can be worse with tile as compared to overland flooding, ditching, or regular rain run off.


It has to do with water solubility TK. Pesticides don't move as fast unless they are applied with a surfactant, then they move more rapidly also.


> The experts that I have read and heard on this have said that nitrate content is lower in tiled drainage than in runoff or ditched land.


They were not experts, or they were experts with an agenda. Were they experts with no interest, or were they experts with department of agriculture. Perhaps they were experts for one of the tile producers.

Erosion is a problem. It's a problem for the fields it is stripped from, and the areas of deposit. On the other hand chemical pollution can be a problem a thousand miles from the source. The Gulf of Mexico for example, or for the Sheyenne, Hudson Bay.

TK, I have worked in five states with tile drain, and less than five percent have water control structure. They just don't get installed. It's an excuse to make them look good to those who are border line on their thoughts about tile. In no state have I seen tiling good for wetlands. In most cases it's like saying cancer is good for your lungs.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> [They were not experts, or they were experts with an agenda.
> .


plainsman,Can we then assume you have no agenda? :wink:

One can not deny feeding a growing world population will be necessary that will change production ag in the years to come. And a "balance" as I mentioned will have to be reached. No one addressed where a populaces priorities go when faced with food shortages or rising food costs. It is not conservation. So to ignore this or suggest we "give away" more than we already do of the number one source of new unborrowed revenue this country takes in thru ag exports is putting ones head in the sand and not being willing to face reality simply because one has an "agenda" they follow.


----------



## Plainsman

> One can not deny feeding a growing world population will be necessary


No one did gst. What most are saying is that it isn't necessary now. Now the problem as someone stated is distribution. That and many that are going hungry can't afford your beef or grain.

Most of the draining in Iowa and southern Minnesota is done with tiles. The fields are tiled to ditches, and the ditches run to larger ditches. I know a fellow who worked on wetlands restored by Fish and Wildlife and State agencies. Some tile is so old in Iowa that it's constructed of square wooden tile. I had no idea wood would last that long in the ground. To restore wetlands they broke the tile at the edge of the wetland for a distance of about ten feet. Most of the restored wetlands had clay tile.



> So to ignore this or suggest we "give away" more than we already do of the number one source of new unborrowed revenue this country takes in thru ag exports is putting ones head in the sand and not being willing to face reality simply because one has an "agenda" they follow.


No one is suggesting we (as in you) give it away. However, the taxpayer does purchase a lot from farmers and then give it away. As far as export I remember when we sent a bundle of wheat to Russia. It drove commodities up and us U. S. residents paid a lot more for bread. My brother tells me about the neighbors being ticked at my dad. He farmed at the time and was sitting around with some other farmers. The Korean war had an affect on commodities also and when one farmer said he never had it so good my dad said ya, but it's blood money and I would rather be broke. Although we were farmers my dad always had a clear picture of things.

Edit:


> plainsman,Can we then assume you have no agenda?


No, I do have an agenda. My agenda is the integrity of science. I get real ticked when people twist science for their wallet.


----------



## gst

]


Bad Dog said:


> As for feeding the world, this issue is not production but distribution. If we as a country truely felt it was our place to feed all the starving and malnurished souls in this world, then we would stop using grain for fuel, for animal feed, and start mass shipments of grain to all the Third World countries and offer it too them for FREE, not with strings attached. It's not about feeding the starving and malnourished souls, it's about greed.


Plainsman it does appear someone suggested it be "given away".

The problem with many is they do not understand how the production of food is related to a countries security and in this country in particular it's gross economic health. It comes from generations that have never gone hungry. Plainsman, you never have answered what is this countries largest source of bringing new unborrowed revenues into this country.

Stop and consider where we would be economically without the ability to export food. There are some estimates that within 50 years the global population will double before starting to decrease. It seems as long as the conversion of enviormental based lands are in say brazill and not the wetlands that raise your ducks you are fine with other countries producing more food and the wealth that this country brings in from agriculture exports be turned into costs we pay out to other countries.



Plainsman said:


> I don't believe we are even close to the need of destroying habitat to feed the world. We have countries willing to sell us food commodities at a lower price than our own farmers do. That's why they need protective (shaft us) legislation. You know, for example, like the grocery store can't buy milk even from a neighboring state


You really do not understand this countries policies and why they exist in regards to ag/food production. You are not claiming to be an "expert" in this area as well are you? It seems your extent of knowledge in this area is they are done to simply "shaft" the tax payer :roll: This is totaly unlike all those salaries paid to Federal employees by the "taxpayer
" for all the economic wealth they have contributed to this country over the years. oke:


----------



## 6162rk

pros and cons to drainage (appears i should have said tiling)
feel free to add more

pros  
get in the field sooner
less drowned out of crop
farm marginal land
less turning around in field
more production (food for people)

add on

cons
water quality issues (both ground and surface)
less moisture drains to aquafer
less moisture for local evaporation
tiles run all winter (draining sub soil moisture) 
tiling leads to ditching (extra water can't all run in a tile) 
less wildlife habitat
more food production (people get more obese/more health issues)
tiles are much deeper do to large equipment

add on


----------



## hydro870

For those who are interested, the LiDAR project covers the entire Red River Basin in the United States including the Devils Lake Watershed. The LiDAR data is elevation data that was collected by airplane using a signal that reflects to the surface and back to the plane. It is accurate to within about 5 inches, depending on the ground type. It is great data. The first flights were collected in 2008 and I think the Devils Lake basin was the last area to be completed. Two foot elevation contours can be viewed on the International Water Institute Website. The map on this site is GIS based and you can even pick specific spots and determine the elevation with the error limits stated.


----------



## hydro870

Oh, almost forgot, if you want to start a "hot topics" thread - call it "Do Drains Cause Floods?"


----------



## Plainsman

gst, I'm not an expert, but I have been around long enough to hear farmers cry about the surplus destroying their prices. I remember truckloads of potatoes dumped in the Red River Valley, I remember thousands of gallons of milk being dumped. My comment about protective laws stems from Leever's being fined for purchasing milk from Minnesota. Here in North Dakota we hold our residents hostage at the grocery store.

We have people going to Cuba ever so often and angry because they can't sell to a nation we have an embargo on. I guess they think they are special. No other business can sell to a company we have an embargo on, but we have people from North Dakota who want to sell to Cuba. We did sell a lot of wheat to Russia during the cold war. Just a few years ago farmers were hot for NAFTA. They thought they would move a lot of produce. Then Canada started shipping down here. Soon North Dakota farmers were on the Canadian border trying to stop trucks. They say they want to feed the world, but the truth is they were trying to stop those trucks from getting to us. Maybe they want to feed everyone but us.

Some day we may need to drain, but it's in the future and I don't mean next spring.


----------



## Bad Dog

I thought this discussion was about a bill that would speed up the tiling permit process and the possible ramifications of such. I do enjoy how discussions evolve. Growing up in the prairie pothole region of Iowa, I witnessed the effects of a 100+ years of tiling: 95% of wetlands drained; poor ground and surface water qualities; wells contaminated; increased soil erosion (do to land being cultivated that probably shouldn't); the existing wetlands (lakes) having high concentrations of nitrogen and phospherous; soaring land prices; etc, etc. This is just what I witnessed. Tiling is not an autruistic event as some may portray.

I agree that 'food' is tied to a nation's national security. My question is why? I lived for several years in remote villages in a third world country and witnessed American food (corn) being used to 'convince' village leaders to do certain things. If we truely want to 'feed the world' then let's do it without any strings attached.


----------



## Plainsman

> I thought this discussion was about a bill that would speed up the tiling permit process


It was, and still is, but because there was so much interest in the Devils Lake Basin we moved it from the conservation form to the hot topics.

Bad Dog, I have worked some in your area. I worked on wetland restoration actually. What you say is spot on. Because of the much higher mineral content of our soils in North Dakota tile has to potential to be far more destructive. In Kidder County for example some wetlands have twice the mineral content of ocean water. Start draining in that area and you will have white soil and no grain. They already applied for and got permission from the government to exceed the 25% of land in any county in CRP. I believe that county hit 35% CRP.

There is only so much good crop land and we have already gone beyond that. Every dumb government agriculture program has been habitat destructive. Often good grazing land is put to the plow because a government ag program insures they can't fail. Then because we have an even greater surplus they need support prices. They destroy their own land, their own prices at the market because of surplus, then the taxpayer picks up the mess. Now they want to speed up tiling so they can destroy more, create more surplus, and get more support prices for poor business practices. Make no mistake about it, agriculture is simply a business, no better nor worse than any other business. Why do we continue to support this business far beyond any other business in America?


----------



## gst

plainsman, you have the tendency to reference things from 30 or 40 years ago as if they are relevant in what is happening today or in the future. History can be used to learn, but just because something happened 30 years ago does not mean it is relevant in todays world. You really have no clue outside the idea it is "your tax dollars" that keep farmers in business why this country has the policies it does regarding ag. I asked once what percentage of a dollar that you pay in taxes that actually go to ag programs and you never answered. You make comments like "being held hostage at the grocery store" by farmers. Yet you never acknowledge you as an American pay the lowest percentage of your income for food of any nation in the world. You have never answered my question of where this country would be if instead of haveing new dollars coming into it from agriculture exports, we were paying those same monies out in importation of the ag products we need.

Production ag has changed from what you reference in the past. Demand for ag products have changed from what you reference. These things will continue to change. What does not change is what I referenced in comments no one seems to want to address. and that is where do peoples priorities lie when food prices increase significantly or food shortages occur.


----------



## Chuck Smith

gst....

Here is the thing I have. All of this new land that could be opened up to farming or the Marginal or even Pasture land that could be put into production because of tiling has nothing to do with FOOD. It has all to do with ethanol. Like I eluded to earlier is that this land will not be put into long grains or food grains. It is for corn for ethanol...PERIOD. You know it and I know it. Farmers know it. Farmers want to capitalize on it. I don't blame them at all. But again water quality, erosion (wind), flooding, enviromental implications will happen. Then the wildlife aspect. Now with marginal land getting plowed up....will people lose hay ground? Will people start to lose pasture? Will land rents jump through the roof? Will land prices go up? Will the price of farming go up? Who knows...people think that with more land rent prices should drop..... I don't think it will. It will be more people going after land.

In my area people are thinking about jumping into Crop farming. Yes that is correct. They figure they can lease the equipment instead of purchasing. They can rent the ground and purchase all the needed inputs. So you see greed is pushing some of this...With corn $6 or any higher commodities prices people think they can make $$.

Edit:

I have many friends who are farmers or in the ag industry. Many are very skeptical now with the prices. Some are fearful of what could happen. Right now they see that china is in a drought and fear that the high prices could change in a year if china starts to produce more. They also fear that it could all come crashing down. So to say this is Food related and for the future is not 100% correct. But again nobody can predict the future.


----------



## nodak4life

Great post Bad Dog about what happened to Iowa. Everyone else take notice from someone that has seen the "truth" about what happens with increased tiling:

*95% of wetlands drained; poor ground and surface water qualities; wells contaminated; increased soil erosion (do to land being cultivated that probably shouldn't); the existing wetlands (lakes) having high concentrations of nitrogen and phospherous; soaring land prices; etc, etc. This is just what I witnessed. Tiling is not an autruistic event as some may portray.*

Contact your reps today for a DO NOT PASS on any bills that relate to tiling!!


----------



## Plainsman

> plainsman, you have the tendency to reference things from 30 or 40 years ago as if they are relevant in what is happening today or in the future. History can be used to learn, but just because something happened 30 years ago does not mean it is relevant in todays world.


Actually it is relevant because as time progressed from 1960 to now agriculture has become more and more dependent on tax dollars and less dependent on the market price.


> I asked once what percentage of a dollar that you pay in taxes that actually go to ag programs and you never answered.


I didn't answer because your question is simply smoke and mirrors. Anytime someone complains about any federal project or spending the side who wants it asks "how much of your dollar goes for agriculture". They know that there are so many programs that no one program takes even a single percent of your tax dollar. Lets stop the slight of hand (more like slight of mind) and get to the nuts and bolts.


> You have never answered my question of where this country would be if instead of having new dollars coming into it from agriculture exports, we were paying those same monies out in importation of the ag products we need.


Where would this country be without the support prices from tax payers so you can compete with the rest of the world. I often hear that American farmers are the most efficient. Actually they produce the most, but they are the least efficient. OK, now I have to go back to 1988 data. At that time the estimate was that China was getting one unit of energy for every unit expended in agriculture. At that same time Americans were putting in many units of energy (I actually heard 50 units) for every unit produced. That kind of business model can not survive without outside help. Wall Street is nothing compared to the money pumped into agriculture the last 50 years.
Some of these guys are spot on. This isn't about food, it's about greed and ethanol. As far as my comment about being held hostage, why can't I buy Minnesota milk at my local grocery store? Now I need an answer, from the man that likes to play 20 questions.


----------



## mulefarm

Because it is a nonresident cow and likes to bust roosts?


----------



## gst

Chuck, at this moment, ethanol is driving corn production and as I said, you are right that most new land that would be tiled will go to corn and as I said bean production. But ag production like everything else is based on economics. If populations keep increasing and the global economies keep growing, demand for food may outpace energy demands for corn. As I have asked a couple of time and NO ONE has answered where does a populaces priorities go when faced with food shortages or substantially higher prices.

.


Plainsman said:


> Where would this country be without the support prices from tax payers so you can compete with the rest of the world. I often hear that American farmers are the most efficient. Actually they produce the most, but they are the least efficient. OK, now I have to go back to 1988 data. At that time the estimate was that China was getting one unit of energy for every unit expended in agriculture. At that same time Americans were putting in many units of energy (I actually heard 50 units) for every unit produced


19888????? Really???? What was that I said about always going back in time 30 years??? So are you seriously stating that American farmers are not the most efficient in the world??? Now I would guess a team of oxen planting a crop would take less energy/ unit, but lets be just abit realistic as to the need to actually feed the population of our country and the world in this manner. :roll:



Plainsman said:


> This isn't about food, it's about greed and ethanol


This quote sums up your veiws regarding agriculture and why it is a waste of time to debate it with you.. If you wish I can go back and find several posts where you continueally refer to "greed" when it comes to ag producers.



Plainsman said:


> I didn't answer because your question is simply smoke and mirrors. Anytime someone complains about any federal project or spending the side who wants it asks "how much of your dollar goes for agriculture". They know that there are so many programs that no one program takes even a single percent of your tax dollar. Lets stop the slight of hand (more like slight of mind) and get to the nuts and bolts.


Tell you what you post what percentage of your tax dollar you always calim supports "greedy"ag that goes directly to production ag and what percentage of your disposable income you pay for food a year and I'll answer your question about milk. Here's a hint, I gave the answer in a post in the past complete with figures and links to back them up. No smoke and mirrors, just simple numbers.


----------



## Plainsman

> Tell you what you post what percentage of your tax dollar you always calim supports "greedy"ag that goes directly to production ag


There are a lot of hidden expenses gst. It's not just the price at the grocer store. It's the price April 15 and at the grocery store. The April 15 price is a lot higher than the price at the grocery store. It's not just price support. Even the school lunch program is more to help grain prices than feed children. If it wasn't they wouldn't let the kids throw away more than they eat.

Yes, my figures come from 1988, but it has become worse not better. A family farm in China is two or three acres and most don't have oxen to pull a plow it's hand labor. I'm realistic enough to know that is impossible here. All that I am saying is that we are the least efficient. Perhaps the most productive, but the least efficient. I know you will try not to understand what I am saying, but I'm not typing this for you. I am typing this to stimulate the thought of others. You see a handful of rice goes a long way for labor in China, but here we start with the production of your big John Deere. Energy to build the tractor, energy to make the chemicals, diesel to prepare the field, diesel to apply the herbicide, energy to build the combine, diesel to run the combine, energy to dry the grain if needed, energy to haul to the elevator, energy to ship to the market, and I know I missed some. Like energy to drain the wetland which in turn equals energy downstream to sandbag etc. No gst your not the most efficient your not even close.


----------



## Centerfire

Is there any topic that doesn't start a NR argument - lets get over it on this topic and move on.

It is a greed issue - Farmers think because they own the property they can do what ever the hell they want with it. I don't know why they think they are so special they should not be held accountable. I own property but I do not feel that gives me the right do things that impact others - flooding & water quality. In the late 60's and early 70's it seemed like every farmer in eastern ND had a backhoe and dozer working their property doing unregulated drainage. Not good - some dumped the equivalent of small lakes on their neighbors. It still goes on - farmers illegally draining property with drain tile or contouring field with what is really a new drain - This is bad enough as is - ease the restrictions things will go rampant.

Farmers who drain tile should not be allowed to collect flood or drought insurance - why should they be compensated for a problem they contributed to - Those low spots act as water storage, they are the producers on dry years, they replenish the subsoil moisture. What kind of logic is it to pay for CRP then allow more acreage to be added to production by drainage.

I rent my property and right in the lease - I do no allow any re-dressing/contouringof the property and I do not allow burning of sloughs - Yes I could go for the money, drain and have 25 more acres to rent but I accept the property for what it is in it's natural state. The waterfowl and wildlife is a perk more valuable than the money to me.


----------



## TK33

> I agree that 'food' is tied to a nation's national security. My question is why? I lived for several years in remote villages in a third world country and witnessed American food (corn) being used to 'convince' village leaders to do certain things. If we truely want to 'feed the world' then let's do it without any strings attached.


One of the first things Mubarak when the uprising started was buy up a bunch of food. Hungry people are desperate people.

There is always a string attached. I am glad it isn't just a giveaway and that there are strings attached. If the Gov't wants to give food away they should start with the hungry here in the US.


> My agenda is the integrity of science. I get real ticked when people twist science for their wallet


Who is twisting it for their wallet? You know as well as anyone that Gov't Agencies will twist science or play politics to keep funding coming in to them.

I am not real sure who you think is gaining on the tiling research issue. I quoted the EPA, you say that is wrong. The Hefty Company is an agronomy and seed company, other than that it one researcher disgreeing with another. To say that tiling would have as negative effect of an impact as you think is a guess. Most of what is avalibale is from one gov't agency or another and they can't even agree.

Tiling is not that hard to do. If one guy is making a killing at it there will be competition soon.


----------



## Bad Dog

TK33

I thank you for being honest in your answer and not just stating the line that one hears so many times "It's to feed the world". You're right and that is my point. I don't like it when I am fed a line such as "It's about feeding the world", because it's not, it's about money, power, and greed. I welcome everyone's own beliefs, I just don't like it when people portray themselves as being altruistic when in fact they are the opposite.

There bad seeds in everything. Has there been instances when the Government has twisted, misqouted science for their own political gain, agenda? Yes, the last administration's take and policies regarding global warming. However, it is who uses the science and research that twist it, not the scientist running the research. The research is the research, nothing more. Many have run research, myself included, to answer a question and that answer was something totally unexpected, but it is what it is.

One of the great aspects of Government research is that it is full of checks and balances, unlike the private sector, to insure it is initiated and completed properly, regardless of the outcome. Typically there is no agenda, unlike private sector run research.

Most of what I have heard from that company had nothing to do with research but more with showmanship. I could be wrong, but I have not seen them present one scientific reviewed paper that they have done that supports the claims that they make. It is no different that what goes on here, it's just their opinions that they present as scientific fact. They put on a good show as did they snake oil salesman from the past.

As your signature states, the natural resources all for all the people, all 6.697 billion of us, not just the 672,000 that live in our state.


----------



## gst

plainsman, there HAS been questions asked to stimulate the thinking of others that neither you or others outside of TK even mention a response to. Such as. 
1. Where does a populations priorities go when faced with food shortages and significantly higher food prices? 
Do you honestly beleive it is conservation and your recreational activitiy of hunting ducks??? 
2. What would be the effect on this countries economy if it were to move from being a net agriculture products exporter to a net importer? 
Do you honestly believe it would be beneficial?

Yours and others answer to these questions has been, "greedy farmers". The above are legitimate questions when debating this countries policy on food production and yet no one wants to address them. It is much simpler to just say "farmers are greedy",but that also opens a window into the mind set of the people making the statement. Here is a revalation, people involved in agricuture are doing so to make a living which involves making money.

plainsman do you seriously beleive the world population could be fed from families raising two acres of rice?????? American farmers are the most efficient in the fact we raise more volume of food/acre than any other country. There is a reality of the necessity of a level of volume of food production that is tied directly to the rising world population that apparently you and others do not understand. When someone talks of "feeding the world" it is not some magnanimous, altruistic statement, it is one of reality and necessity.

I brought up the issue of maintaining a balance based on what the entire populace of a country puts an emphasis on and what a country itself needs and your reply, "greedy farmers", it seems to be a reoccuring theme to a number of topics with you.


----------



## Plainsman

> 1. Where does a populations priorities go when faced with food shortages and significantly higher food prices?


That's so simple even an idiot knows the answer. When people begin to starve they will destroy the planet. Food is number one.



> 2. What would be the effect on this countries economy if it were to move from being a net agriculture products exporter to a net importer?
> Do you honestly believe it would be beneficial?


I don't think we need to base our economy on exported foods. Look at other nations of the world. Many have good economies without basing it on food. I know you would like to keep it that way, but we seriously need to expand our exports in other commodities. 


> American farmers are the most efficient in the fact we raise more volume of food/acre than any other country.


You just don't get it do you? Or you hope others don't get it. Do I need a hammer to pound this home? Production and efficiency are two different things. If farmer A produces 1000 units of energy, and expends 50,000 units of energy doing it, and farmer B only produces 100 units of energy, but expends 125 units of energy doing it who is the most efficient. Sure farmer A produces more, but farmer B is far more efficient. American farmers are among the most productive, but the least efficient. 
Our family has (had) this relative that didn't follow the directions on the fertilizer packages. He went to each of his fields and did six chem tests on each field then applied what he thought he needed. He died two years ago and from one section of land he left his relatives 1.8 million. He was far more efficient than his neighbors.

I know you want to sidetrack this gst. Channel A is a big problem, but you think farmers should be able to continue to drain because "it's a landowners rights issue".


----------



## gst

plainsman what you do not seem to understand is if every farmer only was only able to produce 100 units rather than 1000 even more people will starve to death around the world. Plain and simple. Of course it takes less energy for some one to plant 2 acres of rice by hand, but do you understand this method of ag production will not feed the current global population much less one that will be doubling in the next 100 years????????????? You do not seem to be the one "getting it". So how do you propose we feed the global population as it doubles???? I would really like to hear your response to this one question.

Not only do people "destroy the planet when they are starving", they destroy govts and countries as well. Thats why a "balance" needs to be realized. One may have to give up smaller concerns to save larger ones while new methods of production are being developed to address everyones concerns, conservation plus food production. That is what the debate is about,not side tracking anything.

So answer this one question you never have, what would happen to this countries economy if the revenue that comes in as unborrowed revenue thru the sales of exported ag products was not there??? We already have a budget deficiet, the answer is we would have TO BORROW EVEN MORE MONEY to offset this loss of revenues.

I'm all for creating more wealth by building more things that can be exported to add to the gross domestic revenue of this country, at one point in time this country dominated that area. The reality is we no longer do, for a whole number of reasons. And you are not going to turn back the hands of time to make us a global manufacturing competitor. So what does this country still have that it does produce that it can sell and bring these revenues into this countries coffers more than anything else??????? Whoose demand globaly is going to increase???? You never have answered that one simple question. People like you would even take that away from this country. What other "commodities" do you suggest we "expand" our export of to create revenues for this country.


----------



## Plainsman

> plainsman what you do not seem to understand is if every farmer only was only able to produce 100 units rather than 1000 even more people will starve to death around the world. Plain and simple.


Yes, that is plain and simple.



> Of course it takes less energy for some one to plant 2 acres of rice by hand, but do you understand this method of ag production will not feed the current global population much less one that will be doubling in the next 100 years?????????????


 :homer: No one is saying that. I'm talking about comparing acre to acre, energy unit to energy unit.



> You do not seem to be the one "getting it". So how do you propose we feed the global population as it doubles???? I would really like to hear your response to this one question.


It certainly will not be accomplished by flooding your fellow farmer downstream, or your neighbor in the next town below your drain tile. As someone mentioned the current problem is distribution. Drought occurs here and there throughout the world, but not all the world at the same time. If distribution was improved everyone would be taken care of. If you didn't grow corn for ethanol and burn more energy doing it you could feed more. Ethanol isn't working the land, it's working the taxpayer.



> Not only do people "destroy the planet when they are starving", they destroy govts and countries as well. Thats why a "balance" needs to be realized. One may have to give up smaller concerns to save larger ones while new methods of production are being developed to address everyones concerns, conservation plus food production. That is what the debate is about,not side tracking anything


No the debate is about does every break always go to the farmer even if he floods others and destroys their livelihood? Does every break go to agriculture even if it's destroying the future of agriculture? The debate I guess is so simple it actually comes down to "Does water cause flooding" and you must think it doesn't.

I see your back to the 20 questions? Your asking some that our elected officials can not figure out, but you want those answers. If you had them the nation would be looking to you. You don't, and neither do I, but I do know that easier tileing will mean more flooding, and more environmental damage. Environment isn't just for the cute fuzzy little animals, it affects our quality of life also. When you contaminate the water the cities spend more to process it for drinking. Agriculture makes a loaf of bread cost a lot more than the price at the store, and the price when we pay our taxes.

The landowner rights that you often think should be all inclusive only goes so far, and that is until you start to destroy the property of others or their quality of life. Currently agriculture is a lot like the unions. The taxpayer can't be expected to open all their pockets and sustain their own quality of life. Enduring flooding is another expense caused mostly by agriculture.


----------



## gst

plainsman, you ALWAYS come back to the tax payer arguement and your "every break goes the farmers way" us taxpayers against them attitude. What I am trying to get you to understand is much larger than that both domestically and globally. Here is a link to a couple of articles in The Furrow Magazine. http://www.deere.com/en_US/ag/furrow/

Do you know who Norman Borlag was? He is refered to as the father of the Green Revolution. He is credited with saving literaly millions of lives globaly thru his work on plant genetics and cross breeding. Here is a quote from him from 2006 that is include in the Serving 9 Billion article in the above link. "over the next 50 years the worlds farmers must produce more food than the total amount they have produced in the past 10,000 years combined."

Stop and think about that for just one minute. It is estimated that by 2050 the worlds the agricultural output will have to DOUBLE to continue to feed the population of the world. There are some that claim there is technology that will allow yields to double while allowing the farmer to have a smaller footprint enviromentally. That is the balance I am refering to. And yet it is estimated there will still be opposition from enviromental, as well as political avenues.

There are other experts such as NC States crop scientist Tom Sinclair and Paul Fixen of the International Plant Nutrition Institute that say while technologies will allow for yield increases there are factors that will limit how much of an increase that is possible, and that the ONLY way production amounts necessary to feed the world will be possible is thru conversion of lands to raise crops. What you do not seem to understand is that production ag and the necessity for it are going to change in the next 100 years like it never has any time in this worlds history. It is said that doubling the worlds food production while protecting the enviroment will be the greatest challenge mankind has ever faced. There will be countries and govts that will change as a result of food costs and shortages. And yet you base your veiws on issues and ideologies from 30 and 40 years ago. You can either realize that food production will ultimately trump your hard line ideologies of conservation (you admitted so yourself) and fight tooth and nail against them every chance you get as in your response to this bill, or you can understand changes will happen and work to find this balance that is spoken of where by a process that happens in conjunction with regulations already in place to govern them is simply streamlined to make moving forward in reaching the necessary goals of producing enough commodities to continue to feed this world population exist while maintinaing things such as regulations regarding wetlands.

Or you can simply blow this article off as merely another vested interest greedy ag publication and the "experts" as puppets pushing their all or nothing agenda of greed upon the American taxpayer as you seem to always do.


----------



## Chuck Smith

GST..... are we in a world food shortage right now?

The answer is yes and no. Where the answer is yes is political leaders are making it a shortage and not getting food to its people. Then there are country's like the US and other "wealthy" country's (i use wealthy loosely with the USA). That have food surplus but are not totally exporting it. Yes food could be worth more than oil if certain things happen. But right now it is not. But yet people play the card or "we are feeding the world"... when the truth is we are not.

So yes if we have starving people on US soil the enviroment will get lost. But we are not there. So why destroy it now?

Again I am not just talking about ducks.....other have stated very valid claims that tiling does not help. Water quality, Re-hydration of soil (think farmers need that on dry years or months), natural water table levels, Flooding issues, etc. Then the enviromental issues with the animals alone. But again that is just a by product.


----------



## Plainsman

gst, as Chuck stated we are not currently in a food shortage, even though yes there are starving people. I see tiling as bad for the environment, bad for flooding cities, and bad for future farmers. Once you tile you loose your groundwater, and to maintain your crop you will most years require irrigation. If that includes pumps then you are adding again to the flooding. Not only that, but the tile will alter the hydrology. Some tiled and irrigated land will be productive, but some at the lower elevations will require heavy irrigation, not for moisture, but to flush the salts downward. Without that flush the land will turn white and nothing will be raised. If I look from a pro agriculture view I still see the long term affect of drainage and tiles as very destructive.

If indeed we must produce so much food in the future then we better not be so careless today. If today's farmers are careless they will destroy the future for their children, grandchildren, and everyone else too.

I see tile as simply another form of inefficiency. Sure some areas will raise more crop, but you will expend energy and money on tile, on irrigation, on making water palatable for cities, on floods that take away other good crop land, destroy homes downstream, and add expenses for many other people. That's why I brought up inefficiency in the first place. If we need so much more food in the future we need not only be more productive, but more efficient. If not we will see a depression like the 1930's. Also, when the world needs fresh water or food what will they choose?

gst, I think that before you see the gloom and doom food shortages you speak of we will see a world war that will make WWI and WWII look like church picnics. Keep in mind like in Europe most wars have also included revolts against the aristocracy. Society will look at landowners that way. I would bet that before you see those food shortages you will see the end of private land. Your children will be government employees, not land owners. I don't like the idea either, but that's my prediction, and your hastening that day.

yes I am conservative, and I don't like the term "entitlements". You see I don't think your entitled to have your hand in my pocket. Lets call it what it really is, welfare.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> Enduring flooding is another expense caused mostly by agriculture.


This single false and simplistic statement clearly sums up your bias against "greedy" ag. The worst flooding this planet has ever seen happen was when agriculture did not even exist. What was the name of the lake that covered where you are currently living? Do some agriculture practices contribute to problems associated with flooding, yes, are they the cause of most flooding as you claim,? One response, if you want people to take you serious, try not to let your bias show so clearly through false statements like this. Lets see, 12 inches of rain in 48 hours, damn those farmers for making it flood. :eyeroll: .

And if you would show me were I EVER mentioned the absolution of property rights or even property rights themselves in discussing this issue. You seem to always bring this up. I am merely suggesting how and why agriculture will change over the next couple of generations and stating it is not a simplistic as you make it seem. .

Chuck, one question are we exporting agricultural products to other countries? Yes. So we are "feeding the world" That phrase is not meant to illicite some greater than thou ideologies, it is a simple statement of fact. Without the agricultural commodities produced here in the US and exported to other countries as well as technpologies to feed themselves, millions of people would have starved over the last century.

I have never once suggested agriculture be pushed forward at the expense of conservation and enviromental concerns such as you mention. I have been steadfast in suggesting a balance should be reached. What I have suggested is if this balance is not pursued in a method that ag production can increase to feed the world, the very thing plainsman him self stated will likely happen will in that the enviroment will be destroyed. Food trumps anything in the end. It has brought down some of the greatest countries of the time. So bickering over a process (this bill) that will not really change any outcomes is not much of a step in acheiving a balance between, here it is again, "feeding the world" and conservation is it. It is merely an example of what that article stated about some enviromentalists are never satisfied and as a result there are currently 1.1 billion people already undernourished in this world. Now who exactly is the "selfish" "greedy" ideologists?


----------



## Plainsman

> This single false and simplistic statement clearly sums up your bias against "greedy" ag. The worst flooding this planet has ever seen happen was when agriculture did not even exist. What was the name of the lake that covered where you are currently living? Do some agriculture practices contribute to problems associated with flooding, yes, are they the cause of most flooding as you claim,? One response, if you want people to take you serious, try not to let your bias show so clearly through false statements like this. Lets see, 12 inches of rain in 48 hours, damn those farmers for making it flood. .


I look at Grand Forks when I think like that. Every ten years they have five or six one hundred year floods. They call them 100 year floods, and they based that information on data prior to a lot of drainage. So how many times have you seen 12 inches in 48 hours. I am 62 years old and have only seen 11 inches in 48 hours once in my life. However, I have seen cities in North Dakota flood seven out of ten years. There is only one explanation for that.

gst, take another geology class, the area I am in was never lake. Unless you go back to when all of North Dakota was under ocean. Are you talking jurassic or precambrian?



> And if you would show me were I EVER mentioned the absolution of property rights or even property rights themselves in discussing this issue.


Not on this issue, but we have debated a long time gst. Your stand on the high fence issue was that it was property rights. I think your property rights are whatever society says they are. If you don't believe that watch what happens over the years. There are consequences for thinking the purpose of others is to serve you.

Your say your feeding the world so when a farmer from Brazil sells us beef is he feeding the United States?


----------



## gst

If we are not in a food shortage, why is China considering lowering trade tariffs and barriers? Why were a short time ago countries rationing wheat supplies? The "experts predicted we would have to feed livestock wheat to work our way thru the glut of wheat, yet demand higher than supply has driven prices up . As was mentioned what was the first thing the leadership of Egypt did to try and quell what they saw coming in their country?

What people do not seem to realize that with the growth in world population outpacing increases in global food production we are one year away from food shortages globally any given year. Things have changed from the era plainsman wants to harken back to. Global poppulations are increasing at the pace of 200,000 people /day.



Plainsman said:


> yes I am conservative, and I don't like the term "entitlements". You see I don't think your entitled to have your hand in my pocket. Lets call it what it really is, welfare


Plainsman, How then do you justify your Federal salary you collected until your retirement? How many years were you living off the taxpayer? How many years were your hands in my and others pockets?? At the very least a large percentage of farmers income comes from free enterprise and capitalism. Could you say the same? Now if you want to continue to have this type of childish and meaningless debate about the usage of Federal dollars I am not going to waste my time. Your history of comments show a clear bias against agriculture because of a miniscule amount of your tax dollars that went to support this govts cheap food policy and food security programs. And you do not even take the time to realize the basis behind why you have the lowest cost, most readily avalible, safest source of food of ANY industrialized nation on this earth. There is an old saying, don;t critisize the farmer with your mouth full, you seem to have a habit of doing so.


----------



## Chuck Smith

> Chuck, one question are we exporting agricultural products to other countries? Yes. So we are "feeding the world" That phrase is not meant to illicite some greater than thou ideologies, it is a simple statement of fact. Without the agricultural commodities produced here in the US and exported to other countries as well as technpologies to feed themselves, millions of people would have starved over the last century.


2009 exports via wikapedia:


> Export goods agricultural products (soybeans, fruit, corn) 9.2%, industrial supplies (organic chemicals) 26.8%, capital goods (transistors, aircraft, motor vehicle parts, computers, telecommunications equipment) 49.0%, consumer goods (automobiles, medicines) 15.0% (2009)


We as a nation export automobiles.....is the USA make the world drive cars? Do you think that at $6 corn we will start to export our beef or will beef production drop because of high feed prices? But yes I understand what you are saying. But we are not in the dire food crisis you keep talking about. It is ag experts that are predicting the future....will they be correct? Who knows. I can make a guess as well and be just as accurate as these experts you are quoting. One thing you will see before anything else is the US are making strides in seed genetics that will produce more and more grain. Just look how farming has changed from the 1980's. Less lost grain, higher yields, more efficency and less waste of the actual grains. The USA is a leading agricultural export. But look out for china....if they did not get the drought they had this year our AG economy would not be looking so great. Just wait until china gets caught up with our AG technolongy.

Again I am not against farmers one bit at all. I am getting many of the info I get from friends who farm. I am getting it from clients who farm. Also many of them say tiling is one of the worst things they have done and is very bad for the overall good for the land. But yet it still keeps getting done.

Lets get back on topic.... Will this bill help with that much production that will feed the world? No it will destroy small parcels that are needed for natural drainage, natural filtration of rain water, natural flood controls, etc.


----------



## gst

[quote="Plainsman"


> And if you would show me were I EVER mentioned the absolution of property rights or even property rights themselves in discussing this issue.


Not on this issue, but we have debated a long time gst. Your stand on the high fence issue was that it was property rights. I think your property rights are whatever society says they are. If you don't believe that watch what happens over the years. There are consequences for thinking the purpose of others is to serve you.

Your say your feeding the world so when a farmer from Brazil sells us beef is he feeding the United States?[/quote]

First off, you are now comparing my stance on HFH here in ND to my stance on global ag production and food requirements?????? Get real. Now once again show me where I have EVER said property rights are absolute in this debate as you suggest or any other.

Secondly yes that Brazilian rancher is feeding the US. As we export more higher cost cuts to other countries, we are not able to meet domestic demand of certain cuts and particularily grind. Without the importation of this beef, we would be short grind. If you wish to debate this issue as an "expert" as well, I will look forward to it.


----------



## Chuck Smith

> Secondly yes that Brazilian rancher is feeding the US. As we export more higher cost cuts to other countries, we are not able to meet domestic demand of certain cuts and particularily grind. Without the importation of this beef, we would be short grind. If you wish to debate this issue as an "expert" as well, I will look forward to it.


This is off topic but....
Are we importing beef now because the cost of US beef is too high? Is it because of the commodities going crazy? Is it because beef production has dropped off because of the goverment push for ethonal? etc.

Now again this has nothing to do with this tiling bill. But yet it does to a certain extent where it is out goverment pushing for more corn which is leading people to want more corn ground. Which some marginal land will be tiled to product corn. Does this new tiled ground have the mineral needed to produce good yields of corn....nope. But will it be tiled and put into corn... yes. With the land and minerals being pillaged.


----------



## Plainsman

> Plainsman, How then do you justify your Federal salary you collected until your retirement? How many years were you living off the taxpayer?


Easy, I didn't feel I was entitled to it unless I worked to earn it. When I needed to buy something I felt responsible enough to the taxpayer to get it as cheap as I could. I felt responsible to the American taxpayer, and especially so to American hunters who pay excise tax. That's why privatization of wildlife irritates me. Hunter and general taxpayers pay biologists to manage wildlife, and there are some who try hog the resource for themselves.



> At the very least a large percentage of farmers income comes from free enterprise and capitalism.


That's good, but like other businesses that's where it should all come from.



> Could you say the same?


Not at all, and I am constantly beholding to the working people of America. Teachers, policemen, and others who are supported by tax dollars should all feel this way and give the taxpayer a days work for a days wages.



> Your history of comments show a clear bias against agriculture because of a miniscule amount of your tax dollars that went to support this govts cheap food policy and food security programs.


there you go with the cheap food hoax again. I may have a bias, but it's based on data and reality. Also, as I have mentioned before any one government program doesn't take a lot of my tax dollar, but it doesn't mean many are a waste and a drain on the taxpayer. You see even though I was a government employee I have always respected those who pay for the day to day operations of this nation. My salary was not someting I was entitled to, it was something I was expected to work for.

Just because you know little about the effect of tile on hydrology doesn't change the fact it's th subject, and so is Devils Lake flooding.


----------



## Chuck Smith

> Your history of comments show a clear bias against agriculture because of a miniscule amount of your tax dollars that went to support this govts cheap food policy and food security programs.
> 
> there you go with the cheap food hoax again


GST.....why have certain ag foods have risen about 30% from a year ago if the goverment is keeping our food cheap? (again I know our food in the USA is cheaper compared to food around the world.)


----------



## gst

So plainsman, are you suggesting what the American farmer is providing the American tax payer has no value or has been worked for? If you are truly claiming the Federal Ag policies are not tied to a cheap food profram you reallky know little about the histopry of these programs. But then again your bias has shown that time and again. So tell me this in the grand scheme of things which do you beleive the public as a whole is more concerned with, what percentage of their disposable income go to buy food or wether a particular snail has an eco system? That is the point you are not getting. I am not suggesting that eco system is not important, it is a part of the balance I mention time and again, but when peoples food costs continue to rise, they won't give a rats *** about a snail and wetlands. Did you even bother to read the article in the link I posted?



Plainsman said:


> Plainsman, How then do you justify your Federal salary you collected until your retirement? How many years were you living off the taxpayer?
> 
> 
> 
> Easy, I didn't feel I was entitled to it unless I worked to earn it. When I needed to buy something I felt responsible enough to the taxpayer to get it as cheap as I could. I felt responsible to the American taxpayer, and especially so to American hunters who pay excise tax. That's why privatization of wildlife irritates me. Hunter and general taxpayers pay biologists to manage wildlife, and there are some who try hog the resource for themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At the very least a large percentage of farmers income comes from free enterprise and capitalism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's good, but like other businesses that's where it should all come from.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Could you say the same?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not at all, and I am constantly beholding to the working people of America. Teachers, policemen, and others who are supported by tax dollars should all feel this way and give the taxpayer a days work for a days wages.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your history of comments show a clear bias against agriculture because of a miniscule amount of your tax dollars that went to support this govts cheap food policy and food security programs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> there you go with the cheap food hoax again. I may have a bias, but it's based on data and reality. Also, as I have mentioned before any one government program doesn't take a lot of my tax dollar, but it doesn't mean many are a waste and a drain on the taxpayer. You see even though I was a government employee I have always respected those who pay for the day to day operations of this nation. My salary was not someting I was entitled to, it was something I was expected to work for.
> 
> Just because you know little about the effect of tile on hydrology doesn't change the fact it's th subject, and so is Devils Lake flooding.
Click to expand...


----------



## gst

Chuck Smith said:


> This is off topic but....
> Are we importing beef now because the cost of US beef is too high? Is it because of the commodities going crazy? Is it because beef production has dropped off because of the goverment push for ethonal? etc.
> 
> Now again this has nothing to do with this tiling bill. But yet it does to a certain extent where it is out goverment pushing for more corn which is leading people to want more corn ground. Which some marginal land will be tiled to product corn. Does this new tiled ground have the mineral needed to produce good yields of corn....nope. But will it be tiled and put into corn... yes. With the land and minerals being pillaged.


Beef production in this country is dropping off for a multitude of reasons. Economics, land disappearing to other uses,(developement, hunting as well as crop production) age of those involved in the industry. We have increased exports substantially and as a result of the national economy demand on cheaper cuts of meat such as grind(hamburger) has risen dramatically. Thsu the need to import lower quality lean beef from other countries.

I have ALWAYS said the ethanol industry is a farce. And now as more is made public about it the value of what is produced is not worth the cost.

Now as to why food costs have risen 30%, everyones costs are going up from the ag producer to the processor to the transportation to the retail. Where do you think these costs ultimately end up? The consumer. By controling many of these aspects of food production over the years thru various means, the govt has indeed been able to provide a cheap food policy for it's people regardless of what the expert plainsman claims. This control is starting to diminsih as we become a more global market place and govts involvement in controling ag production is lessened. So as we move forth and food costs continue to rise and govt puts less and less in control in ag production remember plainsmans claim of this cheap food policy this country had for decades being a falacy.


----------



## Plainsman

> again I know our food in the USA is cheaper compared to food around the world


 Chuck, Is it? Is sthe govenment keeping our food cheap, or are they using our money through the back door to make us think our food is cheap? Seriously, I doubt if we counted all of the costs it wouldn't be a cheap as we think.
http://farm.ewg.org/


> $11.7 billion in subsidies 1995-2009.
> North Dakota ranking: 7 of 50 States





> I have ALWAYS said the ethanol industry is a farce. And now as more is made public about it the value of what is produced is not worth the cost.


I could not agree more. Agriculture needs to be dictated by the land. Some land simply dictates that the harvest of it's natural resources is best accomplished with a cow. The PIK program I mentioned caused many farmers to break up their pasture or their hayland because they enrolled their crop land into PIK (Payment in Kind). It was years ago, but it's a good example of habitat destructive programs. The crazy thing is most farmers thought the prices would go up so they wanted to plant more than ever. The problem is they all thought that so broke up land that should never have been crop land. 
The other disastrous result is that it lowered the average acreage of many counties. Then the farmer was angry with the government for doing that, but the government didn't lower the average bushell per acre the farmer did. 


> So plainsman, are you suggesting what the American farmer is providing the American tax payer has no value or has been worked for?


No, what I am saying is that you get many breaks beyond anyone else. The carpenter that builds a house in town gets paid for what he produces, but he doesn't get double through a government price support program. He doesn't get paid by the government because he wasn't working for them he was working for the homeowner he contracted with. Farmers like any other business are working for themselves. What is the difference with farming? Maybe the government should have cheap houses too. Don't give them any ideas.  I guess that was Barney Franks idea. 

gst The truth is I think farmers are like everyone else. There are good ones and bad ones. There are a bunch of them that I like, but as long as your going to paint a false picture I am going to expose it. I am also happy you brought up my government employment because I want people to know how appreciative I am, and how well I tried to handle the money I was trusted with. I just think everyone who gets tax dollars should be appreciative, don't you? The only real entitlements we have are the ones we have invested in. So to the working men and women who make this nation run I would like to take this opportunity to say thank you, and God bless.

OK, back to tile and Devils Lake. Anyone think that water doesn't contribute to flooding?


----------



## 58504451

Plainsman and Chuck - What percentage of a farmers income comes from goverment payments?


----------



## Plainsman

Whoooooo, unbelievable. I don't want to embarass anyone so I will X out the name and town. Don't take my word for it, look for yourselves. http://farm.ewg.org/top_recips.php?fips ... orthDakota

XXXXXXXX Farms ∗ XXXXXX, ND 58282 $8,787,539

That is 8 and 3/4 million dollars to one farm operation. I understand the Obama administration budget would nock out the top two percent of these guys. How many of you taxpayers got eight million smackers from the government? Today's farming operations are not the kind I grew up on as a kid. Of course this isn't typical either, but there is a bunch of them. They earn what they sell their produce for at the elevator, but I wish they would understand that the price supports are at the good graces of the American people.

That would go a long way towards better agriculture practices in the Devils Lake Basin. I wonder how many wetlands would be restored for flood abatement with eleven billion dollars. Hey, I am for giving them that money for something that benefits more people. Oh, to be clear, I live on a hill not a flood plain. However, this money may be better spent reducing flooding which reduces damages. I guess an economist would have to sit down and really come up with a conclusion. Does the food produced outweigh the damages caused etc. I don't know, but at this time I don't think anyone does until they look at it more seriously.

I think we all need to watch Devils Lake this spring and ask ourselves "was this preventable".


----------



## 58504451

Plainsman you humor me again. Do you have any idea of what makes up the numbers you find on the ewg site? Those dollar amounts also include your sacred CRP program payments, tree plantings, conservations programs, and direct payments which are disappearing. They are also cumulative amounts and not annual amounts. Using your logic a goverment worker making $50,000 for 35 years would be showing up on their site as having taken $1,750,000! That's without bebefits.

My question which you didn't answer is what % of gross income comes from farm payments?? You were very accurate is saying this isn't the kind of farms you grew up with, they're gone for a reason.


----------



## Plainsman

I know all those thing. However, your math is different than mine. From 1995 to 2009 doesn't give me 35 years. You wouldn't try mislead me would you? Also, your talking GS-11 PhD starting salary in the field I was in. I'm not complaining, just keeping everything in perspective. 
I'm even for giving more, but for different things, none destructive. My big beef is people look at it as entitlements. People don't appreciate entitlements. That makes them think people paying for it have little to no value to them.


----------



## gst

Plainsman, so what do you think the average American has gotten for the federal farm subsidies?

Here is a post from an earlier debate you never acknowledged or responded to regarding your website.

Plainsman I spent just a couple minutes on your site. It seems you conveiniently forgot to mention that this 11 billion dollar figure you post is for a time frame from 1995 to 2009, 15 years. You also convieniently forgot to mention that in this time period 1.6 billion of this was CRP paymts. You also conviniently forgot to mention 16% of farmers here in ND do not collect subsidies, the top %10 collected an average of $41,000/year and the bottom %80 collected an average of $1626/ year. (If you wish to talk figures publically on this site, what was your average annual paycheck from the govt tax coffers per year the last 15 years you were employed?)

Now as I said plainsman, if you want to have a serious conversation about why agriculture is subsidized, research and post the dollar amount of the agriculture commodities ND producers raised for consumption and exportation (total ag revenues) over the same time frame from 1995 to 2009. Then compare the subsidy dollar amt to this generation of equity dollar amount for this country. Now stop and think of the consequences of this country not having that equity produced and having to borrow that amount. If you look at this with an unbiased veiwpoint, perhaps you begin to see why this govt has chosen to subsidize ag. For the record there are aspects of the subsidy program that should be changed, but if you take the time to actually research a bit, you may begin to understand the basis behind the program as a whole. If you do wish to start such a debate, you should probably start an new thread so not to sidetrack this one complaining about NR's.

So I ask once again, what do you beleive the American citizen has received from these Federal dollars supporting ag?

As to your question about water causing flooding, I thought a few posts ago you claimed it was farming that caused flooding. :wink: You always go from catagorizing ag as greedy to back pedaling when taken to task. It is the same old song and dance.


----------



## Plainsman

> Plainsman I spent just a couple minutes on your site.


Hey, I didn't know I had a site.



> It seems you conveiniently forgot to mention


That's not an honest statement. You see I posted the site so everyone could see it. I assume everyone can read and get that informatin for themselves. You do think people on here are smart enough to read don't you?



> You also conviniently forgot to mention


That's about as realistic as American farmers are the most efficient. Lets not make false statements like I conveniently forgot.



> If you do wish to start such a debate, you should probably start an new thread so not to sidetrack this one complaining about NR's.


Sorry, but that's not the subject. The subject when it was still in the conservation form was drain tile. When it changed to the Devils Lake Basin it was moved to hot topics.



> As to your question about water causing flooding, I thought a few posts ago you claimed it was farming that caused flooding. You always go from catagorizing ag as greedy to back pedaling when taken to task. It is the same old song and dance.


I don't see taken to task or backpeddling anywhere. Nature comes close to handling things correctly. The natural Devils Lake Basin nearly all the time was contained within Devils Lake. Now agriculture has caused the flooding. It has vastly increased the square miles of area that drain into Devils Lake. Oh, I know that will be another question, but file your own Freedom of Information Request. The NRCS should have that information. It should also be available once LIADAR is run this summer. Then we can debate some more.
As far as agriculture being greedy, like I said they are like everyone else. I think they are greedy when they don't appreciate fellow American citizens. These days it appears many don't. If I am wrong on that I will be pleasantly surprised. As a matter of fact about that I would like to be wrong.


----------



## gst

plainsman, if it were not for American consumers buying the products we raise, it would be a very difficult business to be in. You do not seem to understand it is a two way street. Not only do the American farmers owe their livihoods to the American people, the American people owe the fact they have as repeatedly said the cheapest, most readily avalible, safest supply of food of any nation as well as the security of not having their food source controled by other nations to the American farmer. You seem to at times to forget this and the mention and notion of greed takes over.

As to the snippits of the last post you quote, realize as was said that was taken from another thread if you recall were we had this debate, the comments were directed at the conversation going on there, but the figures were relevant to this discussion when once again you bring this site into the conversation.

So continue to everytime something in regards to farming comes up to continue to post about the "greedy" farmer as you did in this thread early on. It seems to be the old standard.


----------



## Plainsman

> plainsman, if it were not for American consumers buying the products we raise, it would be a very difficult business to be in


Yes, that's true, and so is the following: The American people and the American farmer need each other like the farmer and the hunter. You may notice in many threads I have mentioned the need for each other. If you think you need to be paid every time you turn around (hunting) how will hunters feel loyalty. I'm simply trying to keep your mentality from destroying that link. It's a cheaper symbiotic relationship for you than it is the hunter. The fewer hunters the less political impact and the more we need you. The bigger the farms get the less farmers, the less farmers the smaller political impact, the more you need us. Together we keep more hunters, together both have more support. Now if your take that as backpedaling your not a smart man.

The greedy: The ones that don't care about their downstream neighbor including farmers. The ones that would do anything for a profit. The ones that take and take and don't appreciate. If you don't fall into that group don't be offended. If you do fall into that group go ahead and be offended.



> As to the snippits of the last post you quote, realize as was said that was taken from another thread if you recall


No, I don't recall.



> So continue to everytime something in regards to farming comes up to continue to post about the "greedy" farmer as you did in this thread early on. It seems to be the old standard.


It's only the greedy that would sacrifice poor water quality for everyone else as long as they make a buck. It's only the greedy that don't care if downstream homes are destroyed. Etc etc. Like I said if you don't fit the description. So what bothers you? Do you think every farmer is perfect, or do you fit the description. I don't think any vocation consists of all perfect people, but that's the picture you try to paint. I think you know much of this, but don't want anyone else to know it. We do. I like dignity, and don't expect you to worship the Americdan hunter, but don't expect me to fall on my knees before you either.


----------



## gst

plainsman, you simply do not seem to get the point I am making. No where have I ever suggested hunters should have to pay as you imply I do, nowhere have I suggested farmers can do what ever they want regardless of the consequences as you imply I do. If flooding was a direct result of agriculture (AS YOU CLEARLY SAID IT WAS) and did the down stream damage you claim, don;t you think the civil courts would have dealt with this by now? As I said, some ag practices may contribute to problems associated with high water levels, but to make the statement you did particularily when you are claiming to be an expert, only shows your bias against ag rather than any expertise. (here it is again if you do not recall) 
Plainsman wrote:
Enduring flooding is another expense caused mostly by agriculture.

I simply pointed out in the next couple of generations ag production is going to change dramatically from the time frame you reference of 30 or 40 years ago. It is going to change dramtically from what it is today. I simply am pointing out that to take a hard line stance as you are doing, may very well in the long term cause much more damage to conservation than trying to find the balance I mentioned in the very first post I made in this thread in response to your statements about greedy farmers. Recall those first posts you made, they painted the whole ag industry as greedy , entitled SOB's that tiled every acres of ground out there and every home owner down stream was flooded out soley as a result of these greedy people that had their hands in your pockets. (Please don;t make me go back and specifically pull each statement you made out one by one to show you this.)

The point I am making is this, at some point, food trumps conservation in peoples priorities. By working WITH the ag community rather than constantly painting them as greedy entitlement takers with their hands in your pockets that seems to be a common thread in your post on topics such as this, (particularily when you will not even make the attempt to learn why this country has the policies it does regarding ag) perhaps in the long run conservation would be better served by looking ahead and working with ag with the realities of what agriculture must do to continue to provide food sources for all people as things change in the future rather than looking back 30 years. You do not seem to understandf I am a strong believer in conservation( we have had this discussion previoiusly about how we run our operation) but I understand the reality of what happens to conservation when economics from commodity prices that are pushed to a level because of supply (the lack of) and demand (shortages) can ultimately do. It is not greed, it is simple economics. I either do what I have to to compete or I will not be in the business long.

Apparently you are resting the future of conservation on a world war taking place and populations being wiped out so there will be no need to feed a doubling population. Even if that happens, what priority do you believe will be placed on conservation? You say at some point my children will not own the land but be govt employees because the populace will become tired of the land owner. At that point what priority do you believe will be given to conservation? The point I am making is that instead of invariably coming out aginst every single bill, issue ECT... agianst what you paint as the greedy farmer, step back and look waht each will do on it's merit. This bill in particular will not change how many acres are tiled. Period, If there is an economic benefit to do so do you honestly beleive changing the process from 3 monthes to 1 month is really going to change the amount of acres tiled??? So what has your post about greedy farmers with their hands in your pockets living off the taxpayer really accomplished in the big picture of acheiving a balance and helping conservation? NOTHING And yet you paint yourself as the champion of conservation all the while foolishly condemning and slandering those involved in ag that are implementing actual conservation practices because they believe in them that are speaking out trying to offset the damage your hardline comments ultimately cause the future of conservation. But hey what do I know, I'm not the "expert"


----------



## Plainsman

> plainsman, you simply do not seem to get the point I am making. No where have I ever suggested hunters should have to pay as you imply I do


Sorry, gst, I wasn't talking about you in particular. I didn't use my words right. I don't know you. You could be one of the best for all I know, we just disagree on some things.



> nowhere have I suggested farmers can do what ever they want regardless of the consequences


No you have not, but during the high fence debate you thought that was a landowners right. I don't think it is, so you think a landowners rights go beyond where I think a landowners rights should end.



> If flooding was a direct result of agriculture (AS YOU CLEARLY SAID IT WAS) and did the down stream damage you claim, don;t you think the civil courts would have dealt with this by now?


They should have, but no has organized that ---- yet. This is how I see it. With the higher precip Devils Lake would have still contained it. With the added square miles of area the watershed became to large for Devils Lake to contain it. As Dick mentioned people estimated the flow at 2.4 times the Sheyenne River. My estimate was more crude and simply an observation by depth and speed of drift that showed on my gps.



> Plainsman wrote:
> Enduring flooding is another expense caused mostly by agriculture.


 Yes I did say that. Until agricultural drainage cities along the Red River didn't flood as often. Simply go back and look at the records. What has changed since 1900? That is an expense to those cities and homeowners. The expense therefore is an agriculture expense, but to everyone, not the person who drained. I think they need to be held accountable.

My bias is towards irrefutable data, not any group or person. We can't solve problems if we are going to look at it through the glasses biased for or against a group. The old cliche get real applies here. All the food shortage argument is simply rationalization to continue the poor land practices.


----------



## Chuck Smith

> Plainsman and Chuck - What percentage of a farmers income comes from goverment payments?


I have no clue and really don't care. I have never stated that tax payers pay farmers or anything like that.


----------



## Plainsman

Chuck Smith said:


> Plainsman and Chuck - What percentage of a farmers income comes from goverment payments?
> 
> 
> 
> I have no clue and really don't care. I have never stated that tax payers pay farmers or anything like that.
Click to expand...

I don't have a clue either, but if one farm pulled in 8 3/4 million I hope it's half of you guys are making a bundle. :rollin: :rollin: :rollin:

Ya, I looked at some people I know (distant relation) to get more of an idea of what each farmer gets. That farm got about 283 thousand. However, he broke it up and his son got about the same and so did his wife. So that makes a little over 3/4 million 15 years, or 56.6 thousand a year. Hmmmmm what percent is the gross income? Don't give me net, I know you guy spend a lifetime hiding money from the IRS, so I'm no match. :rollin: :rollin: :rollin: I am wondering though if that is half the net?

A friend of mine who was a farmer (passed away a year ago) said he cleared about $60 an acre on 2000 acres of crop land. I don't know how many acres the relative has, so can't compute that. I looked at it on google earth and think it's about 2000 acres. It looks like my friend was making about $120 thousand a year which is good, but not going to make you rich. His kids are working it now so we will see how they do. I think the relative that would not buy a self propelled combine, and did chem tests on his land in the spring did a little better.

It's hard to tell about farm income. The guy who made $60 an acre never complained, but the guy I know who complains the most buys his wife a big new Cadillac every three years. Maybe he is in debt to his ears, I don't know. However, that's not the point of this discussion because I hope they all make a good living.

I don't think farm prices have much bearing on what drain tile will do to water quality and flooding at Devils Lake. May I ask what you think would be a fair ten year payment to restore wetlands? I think payments could be real good and still much cheaper than dikes and flood expenses.


----------



## TK33

Plainsman,

Until 2009 the old record for the Red River of the North was 40.1ft. That was in 1897, how much drain tiling and ditching was there in 1897? How many wetlands were intact in 1897?

The massive flood of 2009 was 40.8ft on the Red. 8.4" in 112 years. Not exactly an earth shattering record breaking event. Could it be that perhaps just maybe the effects of agricultural drainage are overestimated here? Especially when you consider how many of our recent floods have occurred when the ground was still frozen?

Here is NDSU's take on flooding. http://www.ndsu.edu/fargo_geology/whyflood.htm

One thing that has not been addressed here is the fact that Canada has a lot to do with our flooding here to do they not?

To say that drain tiling is a greed thing is painting with a very broad brush here. Tiling is another form of precision ag, it is not going to end. It still has to be approved, if one has a problem with tiling you can take it up with the water board or the county.

I do agree that too many wetlands have been removed, that is obvious but even if there were and additional 25,000 acres of wetlands in the Red or Devils Lake basins would that really make that much of a difference.


----------



## Plainsman

> One thing that has not been addressed here is the fact that Canada has a lot to do with our flooding here to do they not?


The only Canadian affected flooding is along the Souris River. It's more like we affect the flooding in Canada. After all the Red River runs from Fargo to Canada not the other way around. I think they may have installed some water control structures across the border that affects Pembina.



> Here is NDSU's take on flooding.


I went to NDSU, but lets face it it's an agricultural college. They also have an that thinks if you drain all the wetlands they will move through Fargo in a more timely fashion. I agree, faster and deeper.



> Until 2009 the old record for the Red River of the North was 40.1ft. That was in 1897, how much drain tiling and ditching was there in 1897? How many wetlands were intact in 1897?


While your at it why don't you go back to lake Agassiz? It was even deeper then.  Did you notice you went back over 100 years? Do you remember me talking about flood classifications and the 100 year, 500 year etc floods? Remember I mentioned that Grand Forks had a half dozen 100 year floods in the 1970's, and it's only continued to get worse? The comparison to 1897 lends more credit to what I am saying if you pay attention.



> Not exactly an earth shattering record breaking event.


 Try to find if that was classified as a 100 year event or what they considered it. Since it was a record it must have been very spectacular and extraordinary.

OK, I did go read NDSU's article. I see it was from the geology department, and they had some reasonable explanations. I remember reading it I think. I put together about 200 papers for hmmmm, (can't remember their name right now) Red River Watershed group or something like that. It included the Devils Lake Basin, and all aspects including geology, recreation, hydrology, soils, wetlands, drainage, conservations, agriculture practices, etc. It's been seven or eight years. I like retirement and have forgotten many of those little things. All I do remember is reading a lot more than I liked. The book "A River Runs Through It" just about made me need a Prozac prescription. No, not the movie. I can't even remember why now, maybe it was just a bad day.


----------



## Plainsman

> if there were and additional 25,000 acres of wetlands in the Red or Devils Lake basins would that really make that much of a difference.


Sorry, forgot to make any comment.

I guess that would depend on if they are seasonal or semipermanent, hydrological recharge or discharge, the wetland acreage, the size of the associated watershed etc.

As an example lets say they are moderate elevation within the system, even small five acre, with an average 50 acre watershed, deep for seasonal, but on the shallow side for semipermanent. That would give us more than likely a hydrological flow through system, four feet deep, dry perhaps around July 1 on an average year. Conductivity in the area of 800. Dominated by _Scholachloa festucacea and Polygonum coccineum_.

To keep it simple lets use just 1000 wetlands. Four foot center, and if a typical basin that would give about a 2.5 foot average depth. So 1000 wetlands X 5 acres X 2.5 ft deep X 43,560 sq ft. = 544,500,000 cubic feet. That's just the wetlands themselves. Here around Jamestown our average rainfall is about 17 inches. Now lets look at the watershed of 50 acres. 1000 watersheds 50 X 1.42 X 43,560 = 3,092,760,000 cubic feet. It adds up fast.

Since the wetland is as I described with those typical plant species you can reduce those numbers some. Perhaps about 8 inches of depth for evaporation, and maybe 6 inches for transpiration. That's for the wetland, the watershed you could only reduce by perhaps 10% at most. If it was a deeper wetland dominated by _Typha species _you could reduce it by more. Higher elevation hydrological recharge would let you reduce it by 50% because that would go to groundwater, hence the term "hydrological recharge".

There are no formulas for that, it's just rough estimates from the experience of working with hundreds of wetlands.


----------



## TK33

Both 1897 and 2009 were considered 500 year floods. With 112 years of manmade manipulation of water the net effect was 8.4 inches.

What I am saying is that the Red and I'm sure the Sheyenne has reached sky high levels without drain tiling or other ditching. Drainage was done a lot more irresponsibly and without government oversight. As I stated earlier a lot of the complaining about water levels has more to do with other factors, including irresponsible building, and that drainage is incorrectly and conveniently blamed on the farmer.

Once the water or snow gets to a point it is going to flood. No matter the drainage, once a lake always a lake I guess.


----------



## Plainsman

> What I am saying is that the Red and I'm sure the Sheyenne has reached sky high levels without drain tiling or other ditching.


Ah, yes absolutely. I was building on that point that they do, but not as often.



> Once the water or snow gets to a point it is going to flood. No matter the drainage, once a lake always a lake I guess.


Yes, that is true. I grew up just a few miles from Devils Lake. I remember the national guard tanks doing maneuvers on the bottom of east Devils Lake. It only had a small pocket of moist ground covered with Phragmites in the very middle. Creel bay was nearly dry, and Minnewaukan was seven or eight miles from the shoreline. My grandfather used to take the Minnie H from Fort Totten Bay to Devils Lake in the 1890's.


----------



## gst

TK33 said:


> Could it be that perhaps just maybe the effects of agricultural drainage are overestimated here? Especially when you consider how many of our recent floods have occurred when the ground was still frozen?


Plainsman, from an unbiased expert perspective, can you comment on the above statement as it pertains to tile depth, soil hydrology when the soil is below the temp of 32 degrees, and the typical average soil temp during spring flooding times at the depth tile is laid? .

Then if you would list the numbers of times the Red and the Sheyenne have flooded in the summer monthes when the effects of the agriculture practices you blame flooding on would be most apt to contribute.

Perhaps your statement, (Plainsman wrote:Enduring flooding is another expense caused mostly by agriculture) is not as acurate as you wanted people to believe. Perhaps snow pack, how it melts, and just perhaps, and now this is just a big maybe here, but perhaps building along a river in a historical flood plain has a bit to do with the reoccuring expenses people endure from flooding. Even though you never mentioned them. Now admittedly I am no expert so maybe I am way off base. Maybe it is simply the greedy farmer and agriculture causing it all. :wink:

And while you are answering questions as an expert, has Devils Lake ever overflowed down the Tolna Coulee into the Sheyenne before?


----------



## Plainsman

> TK33 wrote:
> Could it be that perhaps just maybe the effects of agricultural drainage are overestimated here? Especially when you consider how many of our recent floods have occurred when the ground was still frozen?


If tile was full of water and froze then it would not contribute. Most tile goes to the center of a wetland and has an open end. Tile simply beneath wet land would not contribute if it's frozen when the ice melts. Since I know of no tile north of Devils Lake (I would guess there is some), and open drains will carry water if the ground is frozen or not I doubt the effect of wetland drainage is exaggerated. Someone mentioned that the wetland were full and running over. No, they are empty and hold nothing, that's the problem. Lets pay farmers. If not for restoration, then for temporary storage. Someone tell me what they think a fair price would be. I know they don't like to drive around those wetlands, but I'll bet like anyone else their is a price where they would and smile.

has Devils Lake ever overflowed down the Tolna Coulee into the Sheyenne before? I don't know the last date that the lake run over that outlet. It must have been just prior to my grandfather homesteading considering the amount of silt. That silt has been deposited in the last 100 years. I don't remember right off hand when lambsquarter (_Chenopodium album_) was introduced into North Dakota. Somewhere around 1908 to 1914 I think. I believe they have found pollen from that plant at six feet below the land surface in that drainage. That would indicate six feet of soil since that plants introduction.

At one time certainly, but not when my grandfather homesteaded in that area. I do know there is about six feet of silt in that drainage. That would cut out fast if it overflows. I have heard they want to rock line that so it doesn't erode and turn into a raging river which would be real bad downstream. I worry about this spring. Actually the pumping has cut a relatives farm in half right now. They have a rock ford on the river, but it's to high to cross even in deer season. I drove my pickup across and picked up deer before, but now because of so few bridges its a 12 mile drive around to pick up my deer. I camp on the south side of the river, and shoot most of my deer on the north side.


----------



## gst

plainsman, http://savethesheyenne.org/4nwf.htm From this link:

"Sufficient sedimentological evidence exists from the Tolna Outlet to document at least six times [emphasis added] in the Holocene (the last 10,000 years BP [Before Present]) when water from the Devils Lake/Stump Lake system overflowed into the Sheyenne River."

and they cite evidence of five overflow events occurring between 7,500 and 9,500 years ago and four occurring between about 700 and 5,000 years ago, including one that apparently lasted for several hundred years, for a total of nine overflow events in the past 10,000 years since Devils Lake was formed by the Wisconsin Glacier (Murphy et al., 1997). In fact, the sediments in Tolna Coulee six feet down at elevation 1,453 feet are over 5,000 years old and those eight feet down at elevation 1451 feet are over 7,400 years old (Murphy et al., 1997) Therefore, with materials at 1453 feet being over 5,000 years old and those at1451 feet being over 7,400 years old, it is clear that the outlet did not erode to elevation 1450 feet during any of at least four overflow events that have occurred in the last 5,000 years. In fact, with the sediments at 1458.5 feet-a half foot below the current overflow elevation of 1459 feet-being over 1,100 years old, it is evident that virtually no erosion of the outlet occurred during the last overflow event about 700 years ago (Murphy et al., 1997).

The geologic evidence indicates that, rather than the outlet eroding during overflow events, the trend has been the exactly the opposite, with deposition of sediment during overflow events building up the outlet.

Plainsman, Note the last event occured aproxiamately 700 years ago. So how many drainage ditches existed during any of these previous events???? Note as well the time frame and amount of the silt deposits which are much different than your expert claim.



Plainsman said:


> I don't know the last date that the lake run over that outlet. It must have been just prior to my grandfather homesteading considering the amount of silt. That silt has been deposited in the last 100 years. I don't remember right off hand when lambsquarter (Chenopodium album) was introduced into North Dakota. Somewhere around 1908 to 1914 I think. I believe they have found pollen from that plant at six feet below the land surface in that drainage. That would indicate six feet of soil since that plants introduction


).

Also from the study, 
"Evidence of at least seven fluvial events has been preserved in the channel fill deposits of [Tolna Coulee] trench TT1. Fluvial events are marked by layers of coarse grained sediments presumably washed into the Coulee by water flowing from Stump Lake. These sediments were deposited at times when water levels in Devils Lake were sufficiently high to cause water to flow into the Sheyenne River through Tolna Coulee. [emphasis added] It is likely that additional flood events occurred in this Coulee, but are not recorded in the sediments at this site. The sedimentological evidence is missing either because floods were of insufficient size and duration, or because it was removed by the scouring action of subsequent flood events."

Plainsman, Just perhaps the results you are blaming soley on agriculture and "greedy" farmers (flooding everyone downstream) is merely a snapshot in time of a much larger geological, fluvial (I like that word) and meterological event hapening now that has happened before on more than one occassion? As I said I am admittedly not an "expert" and I do have a bias that I readily admit, so perhaps what I am presenting has no validity at all.

By the way, the link I provided was from the National Wildlife Federation, one can hardly claim they have an agricultural bias.


----------



## Plainsman

Like I said: Plainsman wrote:


> I don't know the last date that the lake run over that outlet.


My only point was it was a long time ago.

That was recognizable, and I think I remember reading it, but unfortunately like many things I have forgotten most of it. I do know there are areas with six feet of silt since 1900. I would say those events first eroded the valley, then as waters subsided deposited silt. Fast water erodes and carries silt, and slow water deposits it. Not unlike the sandbars on our Missouri river, or the annual even of the Nile.

Edit: I think they guy who was telling me about the silt deposits was testing between Devils Lake and Stump Lake. I suppose that flow would have been slower, and it was actually farmed, so every rain event moved some soil down hill. Since the Tolna coulee has a much faster decent there would a faster water flow and less silt deposit when it carried large quantities of water. I will have to read that article again. Under those conditions the silt will be larger particle deposits. I might add that I like reading reports from Geologists. They are usually straight forward. Oh, and the TV news out of Fargo has been on Devils Lake and flooding. A farmer friend near that valley told me about the people wanting to rock line it.

I'm not surprised that the end product of those overflows was silt deposition. Everything in the world works that way. Mountains are being eroded and valleys are being filled. However, there is one heck of an erosion event with any spectacular overflow. Also, in many cases those deposited soils are more easily eroded. I wish I could remember the data, but most silt deposits in this state have been since agriculture. That's why the NRCS has "acceptable erosion", and I think that is 1/32 of an inch. I'll bet you remember that better than I do. Isn't that about five tons per acre? Remember I said wetlands have about 1 to 10 ratio with their watershed. That means the 50 tons from ten acres has to be deposited somewhere. Most often the majority of that eroded soil becomes silt in our wetlands. They are being destroyed that way also.

Then there are wind born sediments that catch in areas of high vegetation. I have taken snow cores in areas 1/4 mile from any tilled field, and seven foot snowbanks on the lee side of hills contained six inches of soil. Just as an observation most of it moved when the snow melted and run to the adjacent wetland about 30 yards away. It was dropped when the water slowed in the shallow marsh emergent vegetation.


----------



## Plainsman

Oh, before I go work in my shop I should clarify something. Wetland drainage doesn't always cause flooding, but it always contributes to it. Some years we have no flooding, some years that we would not flood the added water causes small flooding. If we already have a flood, the additional water contributes to it. If the Red River is at your doorstep the last thing you need is another foot of water. 
I was once debating an agronomist who finally had to admit the above, but he said the agricultural water was on the bottom. If you can figure that out let me know.


----------



## TK33

I found some more info on nitrate loss. Purdue and the U of M both contradict your statements Plainsman. In the 80's Nitrate loss was greater on tiled land, not anymore. Here are the links, there are even pictures. 8) 
http://www.agry.purdue.edu/drainage/water-quality.html
http://www.extension.umn.edu/distribution/cropsystems/dc7740.html


> Controlled drainage has become recognized as an effective practice -- and in other states, a best management practice -- for mitigating nitrate losses from drainage systems. This practice involves placing simple water control structures at various locations in the system to raise the water elevation. This elevated water causes the water table in the soil to rise, which, in effect, decreases the drained depth of the field. Researchers from North Carolina, Ohio, Michigan and Canada have demonstrated that controlled drainage decreases the volume of water drained (15-35 percent), slightly increases surface runoff (because soils have less space to store water), and significantly decreases (up to 50 percent) nitrate losses seen in conventionally drained fields15. Decreases in nitrate losses have been attributed primarily to reductions in the volume of water drained and, to a somewhat lesser extent, by increased denitrification in the soil. If managed properly, controlled drainage has the potential to improve crop yields by making more water available to plants.


The bottom line is this Plainsman and other pundits and fear mongers, agricultural practices and technologies are catching up with tiling and making it the best alternative for ALL parties involved. It is not in the farmers best interest to trash the soil, to have the money he spent in fertilizer and pesticides flushed away, and to have large scale erosion. Greed is not the proper description, frugality and efficiency are better terms to describe tiling.

Crop production comes first on the land, the goal needs to be to find ways to have production compliment wildlife and fish.

I live not too far from the Red River, I don't blame farmers for my headaches. I blame the additional water on the snow and the rain, the fact that the Red runs North and the thaw runs North, and that maybe we shouldn't have built this close to the Red.


----------



## gst

plainsman, you wanted to talk about the effects of water moving in the DL watershed and made insinuations that agriculture is the cause of high water levels, down stream flooding on the Sheyenne and sediment deposits as a result. You were asked a specific question directly based on the expertise you have claimed on this subject and you made a statement that insinuates the sediment in the Tolna Coullee to which the question was directed has happened since the early 1900 insinuating agriculture has caused it. The link I have shown directly disputes that claim. It also shows that this "fluvial" event of DL overflowing into the Sheyenne has happened on a number of occassions prior to agriculture even existing. So how do you explain that and STILL balme agriculture soley for what is happening now?

Now in how you word your statement it seems you are insinuating for every 10 acres of land that is farmed, there is 50 tons of silt that is washed away as a result of agriculture? Is that happening on every 10 acres?? How many acres involved in agriculture have errosion happening at this level? Does it happen every year?



Plainsman said:


> I'm not surprised that the end product of those overflows was silt deposition. Everything in the world works that way. Mountains are being eroded and valleys are being filled. However, there is one heck of an erosion event with any spectacular overflow. Also, in many cases those deposited soils are more easily eroded. I wish I could remember the data, but most silt deposits in this state have been since agriculture. That's why the NRCS has "acceptable erosion", and I think that is 1/32 of an inch. I'll bet you remember that better than I do. Isn't that about five tons per acre? Remember I said wetlands have about 1 to 10 ratio with their watershed. That means the 50 tons from ten acres has to be deposited somewhere. Most often the majority of that eroded soil becomes silt in our wetlands. They are being destroyed that way also


One question if you would, when exactly was the date that you were taking core samples of snow that contained 6 inches of soil? Of course at times there is soil erosion involved in agriculture, no one has denied that. . But you would be hard presed to argue that ag has not made substantial improvements to address that very thing and are continuing to make even more inprovements in conservation farming over what took place in the good old days you so often refer to in the 70's and 80's. How familiar arre you with any of these new practices and programs?? If those involved in conservation understand the need to work with agriculture as they meet the everchanging demands we face moving forward in a rapidly changing world, to continue to keep conservation an important part of a viable method to continue to increase production as the world population demands, they can work hand in hand. Agencies like the NRCS are proactively working to do that very thing. Farm machinery companies are building inovative implements for this very purpose. Seed companies are working thru genetics to producemore with less. But if conservation advocates take an adversarial position at every turn, based on biased, short sighted individuals that seem to constantly blame "greedy ag" , conservation, the enviroment , and ultimately everyone will suffer. You even said so yourself when you admitted food needs will trump conservation when people are starving or paying a significant portion of their revenues for food.

Plainsman, I have readily admitted my bais is towards ag, I have told you several times in past discussions both public and private of my committment to conservation thru the practices we implement in our operation. Perhaps it is time you admit your bias falls against ag that converts grasslands to crop production in any way shape or form. Particularily if you are going to claim a level of "expertise" in discussions regarding these topics. Under this guise of expertise it seems you are prone to make less than factual statements leading people to believe what you want them to. But then again, that is human nature.


----------



## Plainsman

> It also shows that this "fluvial" event of DL overflowing into the Sheyenne has happened on a number of occassions prior to agriculture even existing.


Of course it has, it has had several thousand years to do that. Many things happened before agriculture. No one is blaming the disappearance of dinosaurs on agriculture.



> So how do you explain that and STILL balme agriculture soley for what is happening now?


As I have stated mulitiple times agriculture doesn't always cause floods, but it contributes. Read above.



> Now in how you word your statement it seems you are insinuating for every 10 acres of land that is farmed, there is 50 tons of silt that is washed away as a result of agriculture?


I think you know better than that, but hope someone is stupid enough to get mixed up. What I said was NRCS sets acceptable levels of erosion at 1/32 of an inch, and asked: that's about five tons isn't it? Oh, heck, you read it, your just trying to mislead others.



> How many acres involved in agriculture have errosion happening at this level? Does it happen every year?


I wouldn't know how many acres, but I'm sure it doesn't happen every year. Especially now with the no till practices.



> One question if you would, when exactly was the date that you were taking core samples of snow that contained 6 inches of soil?


One question? That indicates t me that you can't count.  Here we go with the 20 questions again.  It was after the jurassic. :rollin:


> you have claimed on this subject and you made a statement that insinuates the sediment in the Tolna Coullee to which the question was directed has happened since the early 1900


Yes, I still think there has been more siltation since 1900 than prior. I need to talk to some geologists and look at their data processing techniques and see what they think. The geologists I worked with in Denver used the same techniques I talked about and we estimated wetlands in Stutsman county (the ones I looked at) had more silt since 1900 than any other time since glaciers formed them. Pollen isn't bad, and cladocera will take you back a thousand years. I forget the name for it, but plants have cells they store waste in. That waste is very durable and you can look at wetland siltation all the way back to the glaciers, and identify the plant species by the shape of those cells. Plant species tell us what type of wetland it was thousands of years ago, and are also good water chemistry indicators.


----------



## gst

Plainsman, 
Re: Bill would streamline tiling permits for ND farms
by Plainsman » Fri Feb 11, 2011 10:41 am

I have worked on wetlands throughout the Prairie Pothole Region. I would estimate that 95% of the Prairie Pothole Region in Iowa is drained. Their waterfowl hunting is nearly destroyed. Only the very rich hunt. One farm I worked on had restored a 100 acre wetland. He leased it to three people for waterfowl hunting at $6000 each. Southern Minnesota is just as bad. As we move into the this region which is moisture deficit things will change. They will still drain the wetlands, and destroy waterfowl hunting, but they will cut their own throat also. Draining soil moisture in a moisture deficit climate will result in many more years of man made drought. Then they will cry for more support. 
Agriculture will fast become working the government system and taxpayer more than working the soil. Here in North Dakota we are already a Agriculture welfare state. This will take it one step further. While their hands are in your pocket they will cry landowner rights. It worked for the high fence situation why will it not work for this situation. The only way to stop it is point out that it is not their right to flood their neighbor. Currently it would appear that the folks north of Devils Lake think it's their right to flood Valley City, Fargo, Grand Forks, and all the small communities in between. We are witnessing greed at it's darkest.

plainsman, this was from your very first post in what started this whole debate. So how is one not suppose to draw a conclusion you are blaming flooding downstream from DL on farming? Even though it has happened several times before agriculture was a part of the landscape. Once backed into a corner of fact, you admited tiling actually has little to do with spring flooding. This diatribe pretty well sums up your bias against agriculture, and from here on out I will simply let it speak for itself.
"Agriculture welfare state, cry for more support, their hands in your pockets, cry landowner rights, flood their neighbor", and "Greed at it's darkest" Yep, no bias there for sure. :eyeroll:


----------



## Plainsman

> So how is one not suppose to draw a conclusion you are blaming flooding downstream from DL on farming? Even though it has happened several times before agriculture was a part of the landscape.


Because Devils Lake overflowed then with high water that makes today look silly. Glaciers melting cause a lot of flooding, and over thousands of years there are major events like none of us have experienced. Now I'm not sure I heard this right, but a lady who did her PhD on weather patterns looked back a couple hundred thousand years using soil anions. She said even though we think we are wet we are in a relatively dry period as weather patterns go over thousands of years.

Chuck, it appears your up on the corn ethanol problems. You know those CRP fields had to be classified as highly erodible to be eligible to enrol. In other words more than five tons per acre were washing off those fields. So when corn prices went up people begin to pull out of CRP in favor of corn. Do you know what types of crops cause the most erosion? Yup, row crops like corn. So now we have gone from a conservation practice on highly erodible land to the most destructive.

There will be a lot of water degradation this spring, not to mention flooding.

I'm not as bad as gst makes me out either, I say pay the farmers. Even if it takes twice what the land is worth. They will hold us up for sure, but pay the ranson.


----------



## gst

plainsman, if you would simply stop pulling stuff out of your *** as "expert" facts


Plainsman said:


> Because Devils Lake overflowed then with high water that makes today look silly. Glaciers melting cause a lot of flooding, and over thousands of years there are major events like none of us have experienced.


Recall the link I provided, this from that.

These sediments were deposited at times when water levels in Devils Lake were sufficiently high to cause water to flow into the Sheyenne River through Tolna Coulee. [emphasis added] It is likely that additional flood events occurred in this Coulee, but are not recorded in the sediments at this site. The sedimentological evidence is missing either because floods were of insufficient size and duration, or because it was removed by the scouring action of subsequent flood events."

These statements indicate that indeed the overflow happened before as late as 700 years ago when there were NO glaciers, much like it will now as it gradually works it's way up to overflow levels. The fact is flooding in the DL watershed has been a historical ongoing event happening multiple times, not a singular "fluvial" event suddenly caused by the occurance of agriculture in this small window of time you wish to twist to fit yor agenda.



Plainsman said:


> Chuck, it appears your up on the corn ethanol problems. You know those CRP fields had to be classified as highly erodible to be eligible to enrol. In other words more than five tons per acre were washing off those fields.


This is simply not true. Simply because the soi profile causes it to be classified as "highly erodible" does NOT mean "In other words more than five tons per acre were washing off those fields" and you damn well know that otherwise you sure as hell aren't much of an "expert" We farm land that is classified as"highly erodible" and there has NEVER been 5 tons of sediment/acre coming off those fields in the last 30 years. And simply because land is tiled or at some point in the past did have erosion, does not mean it now will. Agricultural practices have changed, even you admitted that. recall your statement: Quote"I wouldn't know how many acres, but I'm sure it doesn't happen every year. Especially now with the no till practices."

But then to be honest and factual regarding this issue does not fit your agenda which is clearly biased against ag. ie plainsmans own statements ;
Quote""Agriculture welfare state, cry for more support, their hands in your pockets, cry landowner rights, flood their neighbor", and "Greed at it's darkest" and the latest, "They will hold us up for sure, but pay the ranson.


----------



## mulefarm

Interesting discussion. GST, if you are farming highly erodible land,aren't you speeding up the erosion process? Why not plant something that will prvent the erosion problem? I'm learning a lot from the posts and not trying to be a smart a--.


----------



## gst

mulefarm said:


> Interesting discussion. GST, if you are farming highly erodible land,aren't you speeding up the erosion process? Why not plant something that will prvent the erosion problem? I'm learning a lot from the posts and not trying to be a smart a--.


mule, open minded dialogue is always good!! For at least 3 decades there has been no erosion issues on these lands as we have not only planted crops in manners that prevent erosion, but trees as well. In some instances some land has been kept in grass. In our area it is wind erosion that is the primary erosion cause. We work with our NRCS agency and develope conservation planting plans for these acres.

At one time, erosion was a significant problem with many farming practices. Economics as well as education has brought about a change in that as greater yields are being acheived thru conservation farming methods, and technologies are about to allow us to gain even higher yeilds while as mentioned in the link I provided, leaving a smaller footprint enviromentally. Fertilizer costs that are tied to energy costs as well as genetic developement in crops are creating technologies that will in the future enable less actual fertilizers to be used to acheive even more than what is being done now. Modern day no till drills are allowing for planting crops with less than a 10% disturbance of the soil (some are as low as 5%) and the organic matter covering it. As mentioned in an article Dick links in anpother thread relating to tiling organic matter in soil profiles is being realized as critical and is a large part of soil health as well as water retention. Farmers are seeding fall cover crops just for that purpose to improve soil health and profile thru the breakdown of organic matter and the opening of the profile for water infiltration. Farming practices have changed dramatically from what plainsman references. Yet that does not help his agenda so the whole story remains untold. The long and short of it is the worlds population is growing, and to have an adequate food source avalible production will have to increase at the same rate. If a balance is to be acheived between this and conservation, both "sides" will have to work together to acheive it. Comments such as those plainsman makes on a regular basis regarding agriculture and those of us involved in it does nothing to make this easier.

There was a reason I asked the question early on, where does a populations priorities go when food shortages and high prices exist? There are some pretty smart people that beleive that if agriculture does not keep up pace production wise we will fall behind and not be able to increase production at the rate population is growing. At that time serious food shortages will develope and what concern towards conservation do you think populations will have then? Look at what the countries in Northern Africa have been doing. laying in supplies of food grain commodities in an attmept to pacify the populations there. That is fact. Why is that. Some of the reasons for unrest in these countries can be directly attrributed to food shortages and costs. Think about the cost of this to us as consumers and a population next time you fill up your gas tank. Then think what the ripple effects thru our economy are because of it. Food costs in this country are rising partialy because of it and we have ample supplies. Stop for a moment and think of the result if this were not the case. Will this happen tommorrow, no, but whose crystal ball is clear enough to tell what will happen 50 years from now as the world population possibly doubles? A little "food" for thought.


----------



## Plainsman

> plainsman, if you would simply stop pulling stuff out of your a$$ as "expert" facts
> 
> Plainsman wrote:
> Because Devils Lake overflowed then with high water that makes today look silly. Glaciers melting cause a lot of flooding, and over thousands of years there are major events like none of us have experienced.


Hey, your the one who brought up all those overflow events, not me. I agreed with you also. By the way since you say that Devils Lake running over will not erode the Tolna Coulee, what do you think formed that valley to begin with, little leprechauns with tiny dossers? 



> or because it was removed by the scouring action of subsequent flood events."


Scouring action meaning erosion right?



> These statements indicate that indeed the overflow happened before as late as 700 years ago when there were NO glaciers,


I don't get it, you argue when I agree. I said there were previous flood events like nothing we have experienced. When you asked me when the last one is I also said "I don't know, but it was before my grandfather homesteaded". I said that because I thought you were going to make some claim that it was recent, but I did say "I don't know". Get it now?



> Plainsman wrote:
> Chuck, it appears your up on the corn ethanol problems. You know those CRP fields had to be classified as highly erodible to be eligible to enrol. In other words more than five tons per acre were washing off those fields.
> 
> This is simply not true.


Oh,but it is true. Land had to be highly erodible to qualify, and when corn price went up we heard everyone say that CRP would go away because everyone is planting to corn. Row crops are the worst for erosion are they not?

If I remember my first statement about five tons per acre was in a questioning fashion directed at you. You never ansered it. If it was wrong you should have corrected it then, not wait for chance to cry about it?

Can someone come up with a number on acceptable erosion, or at what point it's considered high erosion. I'll look at the NRCS web site.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> Hey, your the one who brought up all those overflow events, not me. I agreed with you also. By the way since you say that Devils Lake running over will not erode the Tolna Coulee, what do you think formed that valley to begin with, little leprechauns with tiny dossers?


This is exactly what I mean by pulling stuff out of your ***. Show me where I ever said an over flow will not erode Tolna Coulee. The link I provided states small "fluvial" events occured that likely did little erosion. BIG difference than what you claim I said.



Plainsman said:


> I don't get it, you argue when I agree. I said there were previous flood events like nothing we have experienced. When you asked me when the last one is I also said "I don't know, but it was before my grandfather homesteaded". I said that because I thought you were going to make some claim that it was recent, but I did say "I don't know". Get it now?


Do you mean a claim it was more recent like this one you made? 


Plainsman said:


> That was recognizable, and I think I remember reading it, but unfortunately like many things I have forgotten most of it. I do know there are areas with six feet of silt since 1900. I would say those events first eroded the valley, then as waters subsided deposited silt.





Plainsman said:


> How was that "six feet of silt" deposited in the coulee since 1900 if there has not been an event to leave it there?
> 
> or this claim it has happened in the last 100 years?
> has Devils Lake ever overflowed down the Tolna Coulee into the Sheyenne before? I don't know the last date that the lake run over that outlet. It must have been just prior to my grandfather homesteading considering the amount of silt. That silt has been deposited in the last 100 years. I don't remember right off hand when lambsquarter (Chenopodium album) was introduced into North Dakota. Somewhere around 1908 to 1914 I think. I believe they have found pollen from that plant at six feet below the land surface in that drainage. That would indicate six feet of soil since that plants introduction


In the time frame we are talking of when DL has flooded and washed out Tolna Coulee, would "just prior to" your grandfather homesteading be considered "recent"?

You got caught trying to make the insinuation DL rising to the level that it will erode and washout and flood downstream then deposit silt as a result of errosion in the Tolna Coulee was soley a result of agriculture practices in the last 100 years. And now you are backpedaling once again.

As to the land needing to be highly erodible to be enrolled in CRP that is only partially true, some lands were and are enrolled under other classifications that have nothing to do with erosion. The statement you made that I said was unture was your claim that "5 tons were washing off those fields". Many lands that had conservation plans and practices in place that had for years prevented "5 tons from washing off those fields" were accepted into the CRP program. Simply because land is classified as "highly erodible" does NOT mean that your claim of "5 tons washing off those fields" actually was happening, it only classifies the soil type as been able to have that level of erosion occur if not prevented in some manner. Conservation tillage practices such as notill farming, fall cover crops, ect... does prevent these soils classified as "highly erodible" from eroding at all even if they are tiled. But then again that inconvieniant truth does little to help your agenda aginst agriculture so it is not mentioned and rather insinuations that all lands classified as "highly erodible" or that are tiled are witnessing errosion happening at the levels you wish people to believe are used when in truth they are not.

Are there instances of preventable erosion taking place as a result of agriculture? yes (less and less as practices change to a point it is now sledom seen). Work to address them, and not use inuendo and mistruthes to paint the whole of agriculture with a broad brush to simply help your agenda. As you said, there is ALWAYS instances of erosion taking place even without agriculture, how do you think the Tolna Coulee was formed anyway? :wink: ( so how many tons/acre of silt and minerals do you think were washed downstream during those "fluvial"events"?)


----------



## Plainsman

> In the time frame we are talking of when DL has flooded and washed out Tolna Coulee, would "just prior to" your grandfather homesteading be considered "recent"?


I'm getting real confused. I thought you said the last event was 700 years ago. Just when do you think my grandfather homesteaded in that area?

Yes, I think there is more silt in that area than some people think. One of my friends went up to visit his farm and found guys out in his field surveying. He had no idea who they were or what they were doing. I would have thought they would have asked before, but I guess not. I'll wait and find out what's going on with those surveys before I make anymore comments.



> You got caught trying to make the insinuation DL rising to the level that it will erode and washout and flood downstream then deposit silt as a result of errosion in the Tolna Coulee was soley a result of agriculture practices in the last 100 years


Yes, I still think most of the silt I am taking about was the result of silt from neighboring fields washing into the valley, not Devils Lake overflowing. When we had our farm in soil bank an old field still had a fence along the north side. Our neighbor on the hills above the Sheyenne lost a lot of dirt that seven years we were in soil bank. In a valley on our farm leading to the Sheyenne river that fence became covered in silt. We caught about four feet of silt in the valley from poor land practices above us. We also caught wind born soil because we had a couple of hilltops that had lost topsoil and after five years that light soil at the top had a decent layer of soil over it.



> The statement you made that I said was unture was your claim that "5 tons were washing off those fields





> That's why the NRCS has "acceptable erosion", and I think that is 1/32 of an inch. I'll bet you remember that better than I do. Isn't that about five tons per acre?


Back to the bottom line: Draining contributes to flooding, and tile is a form of draining. To make it easier is to encourage it. Bad idea. 
As an example of flooding look at the last 30 year records of Fargo and Grand Forks. When you get 100 year floods every few years there has to be a reason. The reason is drained wetlands.


----------



## mulefarm

In MN the last 40-50 years tiling has removed almost all of the shallow wetlands that we had. The ones remaining are degraded to the point that we have no pondweeds or freshwater shrimp. Our supposely shallow lakes, almost never freeze out, and are full of minnows and carp and have degraded water. Even worse I have read were this is effecting the quality of our drinking water because there is no natural filtering happening. In the summer after heavy rains, small rivers and streams, have flash flood warnings for people in those areas. This was almost unheard of 10-15 years ago and now it is the norm. Could this eventually happen in ND?


----------



## Bad Dog

The coulee has already been surveyed for sediment by NRCS probably close to 8-10 years ago. Sediment, that being which has acculmulated since statehood, that which is the 'excess' desposits above the normal soil profile for that type of soil, was....drum roll.....10-16inches.

And, by the way, the City of Devils Lake had 12 inches removed a last year.


----------



## Plainsman

Bad Dog said:


> The coulee has already been surveyed for sediment by NRCS probably close to 8-10 years ago. Sediment, that being which has acculmulated since statehood, that which is the 'excess' desposits above the normal soil profile for that type of soil, was....drum roll.....10-16inches.
> 
> And, by the way, the City of Devils Lake had 12 inches removed a last year.


I don't know what those guys were surveying. That's why I didn't say.

I don't understand your last sentence.


----------



## Bad Dog

Plainsman

The City of Devils Lake bought the property where the outlet would be located a few years back. The City hired a contractor to go in and remove 12 inches of material from the outlet. So now , instead of the outlet having a vegetative covering to aid in protecting it from erosion, the outlet is bare making it far more susceptible to erosion if/when water overflows.


----------



## gst

What people do not seem to understand, is quite simple. You can NOT base what you know about agricultural practices that are happening now and in the future on what you have seen happen in the past 30 years ago. THEY HAVE AND ARE CONTINUEING TO CHANGE TO INCLUDE MORE AND MORE CONSERVATION PRACTICES IN FARMING METHODS. In most of ND in the 70's snirt drifts were a common sight. Now they are a rareity if happening at all. The economics of farming does not work if one uses the kinds of practices that lead to the kinds of erosion plainsman wants people to beleive is happening (5 ton/acre) on all lands to further his agenda against ag, you will, number one be in violation of more than one regulation with the NRCS and number two, likely not economically stay in business long. This simply is not happening to the degree plainsman wishes people to beleive thru his insinuations simply because lands are classified as HEL they are in fact losing soil to erosion at the levels that put them in that classification. THE FACT IS THE VAST MAJORITY ARE NOT. But yet he continues to insinuate they are, Why?

plainsman, On one hand, when forced to, you admit that tiling does not contribute to spring flooding as the frozen soil temps at that level do not allow water to move thru the tiles. Then once again you claim all drainage contributes to flooding.


Plainsman said:


> Back to the bottom line: Draining contributes to flooding, and tile is a form of draining. To make it easier is to encourage it. Bad idea.
> As an example of flooding look at the last 30 year records of Fargo and Grand Forks. When you get 100 year floods every few years there has to be a reason. The reason is drained wetlands.


Or 100 year levels of snow and rain in multiple close together years. :eyeroll: Even thru your expertise, you do not seem to want to admit spring thaw run off when the soil is frozen and the flooding associated with that is a much different beast from soil hydrology and the ability of the soil to retain and hold water than is a summer "fluvial event". You never did answer the question how many times flooding has occured in the summer monthes in Fargo or GF when the soil hydrologies and wetland retention aspects you claim expertise in would become a factor. Would you care to answer that question now?


----------



## Plainsman

Bad Dog said:


> Plainsman
> 
> The City of Devils Lake bought the property where the outlet would be located a few years back. The City hired a contractor to go in and remove 12 inches of material from the outlet. So now , instead of the outlet having a vegetative covering to aid in protecting it from erosion, the outlet is bare making it far more susceptible to erosion if/when water overflows.


Thank you. I was not aware of that. I have not kept up with the overflow debate much since they were debating if they should remove sediments between Stump Lake and Devils Lake. As a matter of fact that's perhaps where some confusion came in. I have a lot of respect for geological reports. As a matter of fact it was geologists who taught me how to look at the pollens and phytoliths, not biologists.



> plainsman, On one hand, when forced to, you admit that tiling does not contribute to spring flooding as the frozen soil temps at that level do not allow water to move thru the tiles. Then once again you claim all drainage contributes to flooding.


That's simply not true. I am not going back and spend time looking, but I think I said every year is different. One year they are frozen, the next snow cover keeps them from freezing. One year they contribute, the next they do not, but they always contribute to draining away salts and pesticides to the wetlands.

Also, if the soil is frozen during melt it runs off much faster, and is not caught by wetlands that have ditches in them. It isn't that the tile is frozen in most cases, it's that the ground between the surface and the tile is frozen. In almost all cases the tile has a surface opening at the center of a wetland. The water does flow through that.

Just like the high fence debate you try to say people belonged to HSUS, now you try to demonize to win an argument. I know 95% of the farmers are good people, but there are a few very bad ones mixed in. You simply want to think they are all angels, and I would simply ask people if they know any demographic where everyone is perfect.

So are you ever going to tell me what is considered acceptable erosion today. Is it 1/32 inch / 5 tons per acre or not?


----------



## jrp267

Well after 5 pages of reading I think I learned alot. But of course according to some the internet only contains lies. Any on this site http://www.americannonfiction.com/2008/12/where-american-tax-dollars/1435/ It states that 1.5 cents of every tax dollar goes to agriculture. Just a tidbit I dug up. Anyone who believes drain doesnt have an adverse affect on the enviroment is only lieing to themselves. I also believe that big ag is one of the only businesses where they are allowed to pollute with continued taxpayer payment to repair their damage. Now I have a buddy that farms and I grew up on a farm. In both instances the wildlife are very important and it usually is not the family farmer that is the source of all that is evil in ag. It usually resides with the very large corperate farms. Not all but some. Unfortunately for all in this debate 20 yrs from now those who will be able to say I told you so will have still lost. That is the sad reality.


----------



## Chuck Smith

GST... I have not read this thread in awhile so i won't copy and paste everything...

But yes you are correct that practices have changed. You talked about planting trees, grasses, etc. To help with erosion both caused by water and wind. But do you think if a person is wanting to tile land would they also put up protective measures like you talked about? I would bet not. Most will not take ground out of production....they just want more. Those little wet spots in a field that are grass....don't they help protect with erosion? But now with a bill that is meant to stream line tiling...they will be gone.

Wind erosion will be a huge factor. Tiling does nothing to help with this. It causes moisture to leave the ground faster. Like mentioned with row crops are the worse for wind erosion. What does our future look like.... more corn. Which is more row crops....which could led to more wind erosion in dry years.


----------



## Plainsman

> Wind erosion will be a huge factor.


Wind isn't as bad as water erosion in row crops. The height of corn gives the soil some protection from wind, but that unprotected soil between the rows, and the ridges the corn grows on makes those low spots act just like drainage ditches. As far as I know they don't use no till to plant corn.

I agree that practices have improved, but the dollar overrides good management often. In the long run good management pays off, but to many people only look ahead one year. That's not just farmers either.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> Just like the high fence debate you try to say people belonged to HSUS, now you try to demonize to win an argument.


plainsman, this statement now is just as much a lie as it is when you made it and could not back it up with proof when asked to do so during the HF debate. :eyeroll: I have never stated the FC groups were members of HSUS. If I am wrong, prove it.



Plainsman said:


> I know 95% of the farmers are good people, but there are a few very bad ones mixed in. You simply want to think they are all angels, and I would simply ask people if they know any demographic where everyone is perfect.


Once again, show were I have ever said ALL farmers are "angels" as you suggest. I have repeatedly said there are a small percentage that are NOT farming in manners that are in compliance with USDA requirements and there likely always will be. But the fact is it is a very small percentage, and yet your comments paint all of agriculture to be such.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> plainsman, On one hand, when forced to, you admit that tiling does not contribute to spring flooding as the frozen soil temps at that level do not allow water to move thru the tiles. Then once again you claim all drainage contributes to flooding.
> 
> That's simply not true. I am not going back and spend time looking


So you do not have to waste your time and go back looking here is your statement.



Plainsman said:


> TK33 wrote:
> Could it be that perhaps just maybe the effects of agricultural drainage are overestimated here? Especially when you consider how many of our recent floods have occurred when the ground was still frozen?
> 
> If tile was full of water and froze then it would not contribute. Most tile goes to the center of a wetland and has an open end. Tile simply beneath wet land would not contribute if it's frozen when the ice melts.


Now if you will, please answer these relevent questions. 
1.What is the average soil temp at the depth tile is laid in ND during the spring monthes when run off flooding occurs?
2. How many times have Fargo or GF flooded durring the summer monthes when the soil temps at tile depth are not frozen?


----------



## gst

Plainsman, in regards to your question regarding erosion amounts. Every farmer that receives any form of govt payment enters into a contract with the USDA. 
http://www.in.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/Tr ... AD1026.pdf
As a part of this contract there are stipulations regarding highly erodible lands (HEL) Click on the link and read A thru D on the first page.

The maximum tolerances that have been determined regarding erosion loss are as you said (5 tn/acre on deep soils like those in the RRV, and 1tn/acre on shallow or "light" soils as found in most of the rest of the state) and are what is considered in determining the continuation of productivity of these soils. ie "loss tolerance" ( or what can they lose and still remain productive) . There are also a number of other factors involved in determining this classification of HEL soils as well that go into a formula for tolerance determination. They can be found in this link. 
.http://www.pr.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/s ... ELdefs.htm

As this link shows there is a formula in which the numbers you quote (5tn/acre) are entered into to determine the erodibility index used to determine compliance.

Calculating Erodibility Index - The erodibility index (EI) for a soil map unit is determined by dividing the potential erodibility for the soil map unit by the loss tolerance (T).

Sheet and Rill Equation: R x K x LS = EI 
------------
T

So plainsman a question for you. Given the fact the "loss tolerance" figures (or "T" in the above formula) you quote are only part of an equation, what is the ACTUAL amount of erosion that can happen per acre and still remain in compliance with the above contract as a result of this formula?

Please answer if you would. The answer is quite relevant to the discussion.

In regards to compliance, if you are using farming practices that result in soil losses greater than this you can lose ALL of those millions of dollars of "entitilements" that you stated producers get. Stop and think about your claims yoiu have made here for a moment. The noncompliance penalties can be found in this link. Go down and click on 2002 Compliance Key Points for the list of paymts that would be forfeited.
http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/compliance/

So plainsman tell me this do you really beleive, given the dollar amounts you claim the farmer is receiving from govt programs (remember the 8 million dollar figure you stated one farm is getting) that they are going to risk losing them by farming with practices that erode just under the tolerances of these contracts???? Do you really beleive a farmer can control the amount of erosion that happens that closely? Get real. The vast majority of farmers are using practices that keep them from coming anywhere near these levels. But you continue to insinuate otherwise. Remember, even if the farmer is in noncompliance on just ONE quarter out of all the hundreds they would farm to get this significant of a govt payment ($8million) they can lose all these payments.

My advise to people is don't take my word for it, (or even what the expert plainsman tells you). Talk with your local county agent, talk with your local NRCS people, research conservation farming, research cover crops and soil management, research crop residue management, research ZERO TILL farming, research how farm equipment has evolved, ect...... Then come back here and honestly say wether it is fair to compare farming practices and results that are happening now and into the future with what happened in the 70's and 80's such as plainsman continueally does.


----------



## gst

Now my closing comments in regards to this topic. It can not be denied global populations are growing rapidly. It can not be denied demands placed on production ag to produce food are growing with this rising population. It can not be denied that production ag practices have changed and are continueing to change from what they were decades ago implementing more and more conservation practices. And it can also not be denied that when faced with shortages of food or significant increases in the price of food, a populations priorities move away from conservation.

So if conservation is to be included and remain a priority as agriculture moves forward to meet these changes it faces, it must adapt and change with ag to be able to continue a balance. So then tell me this, what good does rhetoric like the statements plainsman makes regarding agriculture and it's producers, (Quote""Agriculture welfare state, cry for more support, their hands in your pockets, cry landowner rights, flood their neighbor", and "Greed at it's darkest" and the latest, "They will hold us up for sure, but pay the ranson.) really do??? Does anyone actually think agriculture producers will be willing to work proactively with conservation when the "experts" in conservation come forth spouting these ideologies???

Stop and realize that on forums such as these the individual has the opportunity to read what they have written prior to hitting the submit button. (and even edit if they wish) So their comments usually show an insight into what their true ideologies are. Either that or an insight to their short sighted approach to thinking.

So now as was mentioned, 20 years from now when people are looking back and saying I told you so, will they remember this conversation about the changes that agriculture is facing and the need for conservation to proactively work and change with ag to ensure its part in a balance? Or will they simply be spouting off the same rhetoric such as "greedy farmers" , "greed at it's darkest" ect... and continue to blame this for conservations demise? It seems to be the case now even though conservation in farming has never been as much a part of production ag as it is today .


----------



## jrp267

gst said:


> And it can also not be denied that when faced with shortages of food or significant increases in the price of food, a populations priorities move away from conservation.


While I agree with most of the things you said, would you please quit implying that there is some sort of food shortage. There is no shortage only some greedy people not sharing what they have with those too poor to afford it. Now who is greedy is left up to debate but the farmer has very little to do with international policy.


----------



## Plainsman

gst, it appears you know the answers to some of those questions your asking, so why don't you just tell us? I do thank you for confirming that 5 tons per acre limitation on erosion.

I will read those sites you listed, but now I have to get ready for a noon Bible study.

No one is denying that today's agriculture is much more conservation oriented than it was 20 years ago. As a matter of fact it's much better than it was 10 years ago. There has been vast improvements, but why go backwards with tile.

As I stated, some years tile contributes to flooding, some years it does not. However, it always contributes to water quality degradation when it's working. Also, if the tile has an opening in the center it will drain the wetland.


----------



## gst

jrp, while there is no shrotage where populations are dying off currently, world stocks of grain are at precariously low levels and demand of some commodities such as corn have "experts" claimng that even with two years of record yeilds we would not produce enough to climb out of this demand/suppy situation we are currently in that has driven commodity prices to where they currently are. If that is indeed the case, and couple that with drought in other countries such as China or flooding and drought in couontries such as Australia,ect... there in deed can result a situation like we saw in 2008 here countires were indeed actually rationing wheat as it's value hit almost $20/bus. The point is that with the growing population the big picture has changed from what it was 30 years ago in the ability to mainatain large levels of surplus. Of course production will ebb and flow, but the point is with the growing world population the margins of surpluses are projected to be much tighter than in the past. If one does not look toward the future realizing the possibility of food shortages could occur, perhaps it is a bit of short sightedness.

Answer this what has happened to food prices around the globe as well as here in this country? What would happen if a situation existed such as before where wht was $20 for say a couple of years? You think there is "turmoil" in the middle east now throw that situation in the mix in these countries as well.

And if you get outside of the US where we have as has been said before, the cheapest, safest, most readily avalible source of food in the world, there are other countries that might dispute your claim there is currently no food shortage in the world.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> gst, it appears you know the answers to some of those questions your asking, so why don't you just tell us? I do thank you for confirming that 5 tons per acre limitation on erosion.


plainsman Once again you insinuate that 5 tns is something more than a level whereby the soil type can still maintain its productivity long term. Yet once again, this figure is only part of a formula which is used to determine a level that is in compliance with the stipulations of the HEL contracts most every producer is under. NOT how much is actually being lost/ acre as you seem to continueally insinuate.

I have found with my kids, if you give them the answer, they really do not learn much, but if you give them the tools and they come up with the answer on their own it sticks with them. So please do the research and answer the question I asked. (also the one about summer flooding of communities such as Fargo and GF if you would) If you will not do this, if would appear you are less interested in getting the actual facts out there then you are in furthering this agenda you seem to have by making statements full of inuendo.


----------



## gst

plainsman while preparing for your noon bible study please consider the claim below if you would.



gst said:


> Plainsman wrote:
> Just like the high fence debate you try to say people belonged to HSUS, now you try to demonize to win an argument.
> 
> plainsman, this statement now is just as much a lie as it is when you made it and could not back it up with proof when asked to do so during the HF debate. I have never stated the FC groups were members of HSUS. If I am wrong, prove it.


----------



## gst

I know I said I was done commenting on this issue, but the following claim from plainsman regarding notill planting of corn just might explain the degree of his lack of understanding of current ag practices and so impact his "expertise" in this debate.



Plainsman said:


> Wind isn't as bad as water erosion in row crops. The height of corn gives the soil some protection from wind, but that unprotected soil between the rows, and the ridges the corn grows on makes those low spots act just like drainage ditches. As far as I know they don't use no till to plant corn


Note the last statement in the above quote. 
http://extension.missouri.edu/publicati ... px?P=G4080
http://www.no-tillfarmer.com/pages/Feat ... anting.php
http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=no+ ... n+planting
http://www.extension.umn.edu/distributi ... C6074.html
http://www.ia.nrcs.usda.gov/news/succes ... lCorn.html
http://www.agry.purdue.edu/ext/corn/new ... -0515.html




http://newfarm.rodaleinstitute.org/dept ... till.shtml
http://www.utextension.utk.edu/publicat ... sp435c.pdf

ect....


----------



## Plainsman

I think the comment from three or four high fence advocates was that the Fair Chase group was in bed with HSUS. That means they thought we were one of them, working for the same thing. Split hairs if you want.

If you have something that says row crops are no more erosion prone than any other crop those papers have about the same worth as Charmin. I ask people to ask themselves this simple question. Would thick stems and root structures just below the surface of wheat protect topsoil more than plants planted in rows which makes the area between them a perfect runway for water?

Perhaps there are improvements, but I don't believe that row crops are as good as other crops for soil retention.

You know gst you paint me as anti farmer even after I explained the specific type I don't like. Perhaps I should say the specific practices I don't like. It isn't any different than not liking a policeman that is on a power trip rather than there to serve the people, or a fellow biologists who cries global warming because he knows liberals will throw money at him. I make no excuses for bad behavior no matter the occupation. Is it small wonder I often say "I know I am being fair because everyone hates me equally". I just tell it the way I see it. I make no excuses for those in my profession, but you have a tough time admitting anything wrong within yours.

We have beat this dead horse to death. Maybe if people are interested they can ask some questions about wetlands/hydrology/water chemistry, etc. It appears some people are looking for information. I would just as soon get into a subject you know nothing about so I can duck you for a while.

If any of you fellows are in college headed for a career in wildlife or anything similar maybe we could start a discussion in the member's form where it will not turn into a debate every time we breathe. I know one or two people mentioned that. My best advice of course is to look for peer reviewed scientific literature and skip the grey literature (popular articles by advocacy groups).


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> Just like the high fence debate you try to say people belonged to HSUS, now you try to demonize to win an argument.





Plainsman said:


> I think the comment from three or four high fence advocates was that the Fair Chase group was in bed with HSUS. That means they thought we were one of them, working for the same thing. Split hairs if you want


Plainsman claiming someone said something they did not when you know they did not because you were called out on it once before when you made the very same claim and could not prove it because the person never said it maybe "splitting hairs" to you but it amounts to lying in my book. Hope you enjoyed your bible study.


----------



## jrp267

There is no food shortage. Period. We choose not to feed people and make fuel. There is no shortage not even close. And as far as other country's without food, that is where the greed comes in.


----------



## Plainsman

jrp267 said:


> There is no food shortage. Period. We choose not to feed people and make fuel. There is no shortage not even close. And as far as other country's without food, that is where the greed comes in.


I agree, but I think it's an age old excuse to continue bad habits. Some of the younger guys are getting with the program, but some of the old ones like myself just can't change. 
I was watching an old western the other night (wish they would keep making good ones) and this rancher dammed up the creak so his neighbors cows would have no water. He was trying to force his neighbor off the land so he could buy it. I was thinking how ironic, today they drain onto their neighbor. Remember the old rancher in the westerns telling his son "son you got to leave your mark on the land". They sure have. 
People my parents age often called school "learnin the three R's". Someone has to tell them it wasn't rip, rape, and run. 

One way or another society will drag them forward kicking and screaming ---- into the 19th century.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> I was thinking how ironic, today they drain onto their neighbor. Remember the old rancher in the westerns telling his son "son you got to leave your mark on the land". They sure have.
> People my parents age often called school "learnin the three R's". Someone has to tell them it wasn't rip, rape, and run.


Nice. Yet one more quote from a conservation "expert" that will help entice agriculture into working with conservation. :eyeroll:


----------



## gst

jrp, if you wish to debate the policy of food for fuel, have at it. But the fact is as long as this policy remains in place lands to produce food and the commodities grown on them are being taken out of that segment that creates food. Various factors have resulted in global wheat stocks falling to 30 year lows. Where are the population levels as compared to 30 years ago? It is estimated that even with 2 record corn crops the stocks of corn would not be replenished to a level that will affect pricing. Food commodity prices are rising. If large SURPLUSES are not produced they will continue to rise. The point trying to be made that as population grows the need for the ability to grow these surpluses grows even more substantially or food shortages will signifiacntly develope and the results of them will begin to spread.

Do a search on world food shortages. It takes a bit to weed thru the "end is coming" sites but there are some that give a bit more insight than either you or I have regarding the factors affecting food shortages and the global consequences of them. And yes distribution and the willingness of some to distribute is a part of the picture. But if one looks at it with an open mind you will invariably see the global population is growing and consequently the ability to produce food to feed it must grow correspondingly as well. If it does not because people work to limit or restrict ag rather than working with it to move forward. Food shortages will unquestionably happen.


----------



## gst

http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article3782.html

For the first time, we are seeing the emergence of a global agricultural market driven by the growing demand for grains and a scarcity of supply. Wheat inventories, for example, have reached a 30-year low. In one year inventories in the European Union have plummeted from 14 million to one million tons. The fact is that arable land cannot be increased at will. Over the past three decades, the amount of arable land worldwide has stagnated at about 1.5 billion hectares (3.7 billion acres).

While new agricultural lands are being added in Russia and South America , more and more land is lost to residential and industrial development in Asia and Europe . In China , eight million hectares (20 million acres) of land under cultivation have vanished within a decade. For comparison, just under 12 million hectares (30 million acres) of land are currently used for agriculture in Germany . These spatial limitations would be tolerable if the world's population wasn't growing at such a breathtaking pace.

World food security, as measured by grain inventories, has slumped to its lowest since records began in 1960. Just 50 days of grain inventories are available, compared with 115 days in 2000. Julian Cribb, a professor from Sydney 's University of Technology , predicted the oil and credit crises rattling world economies will be "nothing compared to the threat from emerging global food shortages." (Courier-Mail)

jrp 
Perhaps "food security" is a better point of discussion than "food shortage". In a sense it is as plainsman says "splitting hairs" but it probably is a better defining statement. It also is what has driven this countries ag policies.

Note the time frame of this article, Feb. 2008. That fall global wht stocks sent wheat prices to all time high prices. It saw countries rationing wht and putting bans on exports in place. Now other commodities such as corn are seeing the same happenings globaly. They are talking record soybean crops in Brazil and yet the pricing of beans remains bullish. Perhaps those claiming demands being placed on agriculture to produce enough to meet global food demand are changing have a bit of credibility.

As I have said production and pricing of ag commodities will ebb and flow due to many factors. It would be unfortunate if shortsighted conservation ideologies and rhetoric kept ag producers from proactively working with conservation practices while developing methods to keep pace with a growing populatiopns demands.


----------



## Plainsman

gst said:


> Plainsman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was thinking how ironic, today they drain onto their neighbor. Remember the old rancher in the westerns telling his son "son you got to leave your mark on the land". They sure have.
> People my parents age often called school "learnin the three R's". Someone has to tell them it wasn't rip, rape, and run.
> 
> 
> 
> Nice. Yet one more quote from a conservation "expert" that will help entice agriculture into working with conservation. :eyeroll:
Click to expand...

You will work with conservation when it benefits you. You have a price just like everyone else. You still have not told me what that price would be to restore wetlands. You just took the oportunity to whine some more about my comment we will get held up. We will because farmers are just like everyone else. Your insinuation is they are better.

Did ranchers dam up water to hold it from their neighbor? Yes. Do farmers now drain on their neighbors? Yes. So since when has the truth become anti anything? Have you ever heard "son you have to leave your mark on the land". I have. Did you ever hear your father or grandfather refer to school as the three R's, meaning "reading, riting, and rithmetic". I don't spell that bad, it's just the way they said it.

The rip, rape, and run: well, when I was working three summers as the onithologist on a team looking at the Great Plains we run across this company in Montana. They bought up huge trackts of native prairie and put it to the plow. They worked the land, then resold within three years. What they were doing is getting paid productive field prices for what should have remained pasture. Some things are just meant to be harvested by a cow. So I see ranching as less destructive than farming, big deal. I coined their operatioin, rip, rape, and run. Fit as far as I was concerned.

I have explained my stance on farming, but you refuse to listen because you think the sympathy ploy will get you some wheresd. It's attitudes like yours that lead to jokes about a basement full of farmers being called a whine cellar. I hope you do have a sense of humor. I heard that joke from a landowner who is always happy telling it to one who always whined. You can sue himyou want, but you will have a hard time. I wish the guy was still alive because I really liked him. My realtivves that farm are that way and let nearly anyone who asks hunt. Most of my relatives farm, but that is changing this generation.

So, gst, what's the price per acre to restor wetlands?


----------



## Plainsman

I run out of room to type without the page jumping up and down.

Much of what you say in those last two posts I will agree with. However, the food shortage you speak of I can't take serious until farmers stop complaining about surplus, and Canadian wheat. You just can't have it both ways.

Food prices are jumping right now, but I don't think it has to do with shortage. It has more to do with the economy.

Here is something you should think about. That's the total affect of tile and drains. I agree that tile is good most times for the small piece of land you want to put crop on. However, much of whether it's good or not depends on the lands position in the elevation continuum of the landscape. With most of the landscape at a higher elevation you may only grow kochia. At higher elevations in the landscape it more often turns out good for that piece of land, but bad for land at elevations below it. I believe that you can't just look at that piece of land, but land below that elevation, the groundwater quality, and the lake and stream quality. Of no small significance is the contribution to flooding. It has to do with the total affect which sometimes can lead to less production, and what it does to others.

Some of my complaining about the tax dollars isn't as simple as it may appear. Part of that is I don't like to see farmers or anyone else become dependent on government. Government is like a cancer and if you don't keep it in check it will grow until it self destructs. On the other hand if your going to take the money responsibilities come with it. The money doesn't necessarily make you beholding to government, it makes you beholding to the tax payer, just like it did me as a federal employee. When you mentioned how small amount of my tax dollar agriculture took I thought to myself government employees take even less, but I don't like to think that way. I am totally appreciative of the guys who helped pay my salary by the sweat of their brow. I hope I pleased them. Even now it is the American hunter, the outdoorsman, birdwatcher, the taxpayer that I argue for, and yes also the farmer. I don't want them to self destruct.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> I have explained my stance on farming, but you refuse to listen because you think the sympathy ploy will get you some wheresd. It's attitudes like yours that lead to jokes about a basement full of farmers being called a whine cellar.


plainsman in this thread about conservation and agriculture production, would you please show an example of what you beleive constitutes a whining ploy for sympathy that I have made.



Plainsman said:


> So I see ranching as less destructive than farming, big deal. I coined their operatioin, rip, rape, and run. Fit as far as I was concerned


plainsman so farming is destructive? Perhaps an insight into the source of the comments you make.



Plainsman said:


> Much of what you say in those last two posts I will agree with. However, the food shortage you speak of I can't take serious until farmers stop complaining about surplus, and Canadian wheat. You just can't have it both ways


Plainsman, if you take time to read the links I have posted, you will see it is not me talking of food shortages and pressures on ag to produce more to keep up with the demand of a growing population. It is people far smarter and better versed than I and even you as an "expert" in regards to these issues. Continue to deny what people like this (actual experts in this area) are saying and make more comments about whiney/greedy farmers (and yes I have a great sense of humor) and see what good it really does in the long run.


----------



## Plainsman

> plainsman so farming is destructive?


Lets break it down into practices. Some are good, some are bad. You drain a five acre wetland and it may not look that big, but 1000 of them contribute significantly to floods. Another thing I have always been curious about: If you harvested in 100 yard consentric circles around a wetland I wonder what the bushel per acre would be close to the wetland vs 300 yards away. What I am getting at is if you had two of these on 160 acres and drained them, then had an identical field next to it and didn't drain them I wonder which field would produce the most.

No time left for now.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> Lets break it down into practices. Some are good, some are bad. You drain a five acre wetland and it may not look that big, but 1000 of them contribute significantly to floods.


plainsman. You never have answered the one question I am curious about your take on given your expertise in soil hydrology, water absorbsion and retention, the effects of a growing crop and root structure during the summer monthes and how often this draining contributes to flooding out of those "downstream" during this time frame. The question you have not answered for whatever reason is how many times in the summer monthes when the ground is thawed and the areas you have expertise in I mentioned above would matter, has the towns of Fargo and GF ever flooded?

If you wish others to answer your questions please answer this one that is particularily relevent to this discussion.


----------



## Plainsman

> You never have answered the one question I am curious about your take on given your expertise in soil hydrology, water absorbsion and retention,


That's not my expertise. I worked with a couple of fellows that knew that inside and out. Every time I talked to them they lost me about half way through. They visited our area about three times a year, and I learned a little more each time they came. I have forgotten most of my college classes dealing with that. At NDSU I went through the college of agriculture rather than arts and science because I could actually replace much of my sociology's and things with more science. I thought I needed agronomy and veterninary medicine more than another sociology class. 

I know enough to know the old Grain Belt beer advertisements were wrong. In the unconsolidated glacial till of western Stutsman county we tracked water from a two inch rain to 88 feet in seven days. Not the 100 years for 100 feet like the old beer advertisement. Maybe they were tracking in through solid rock. That's about the time frame involved with the desert rock around Zion National Park.

So if you had a wetland gst what would it cost me per acre to get you to restore it, and why?


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> hydro870 wants to puff up his chest:
> 
> 
> 
> hydro870 - who is a registered professional engineer and is a water resources engineer who has built several flood control projects in the State of North Dakota.
> 
> 
> 
> OK, I'll play along. Water Resource engineer= professional ditch digger.
> I worked as a professional for 36 years. Most of that time was with wetland ecology/hydrology. Dicks recollection above proves you have no idea what's going on. I would guess you make your bucks destroying wetlands. I made mine collecting data to understand wetland ecology/hydrology. People in research do read books to educate themselves, but more often they write them so others can read and understand. Even if your up to date with the literature hydro870 your still ten to twenty years behind the knowledge that exists..
Click to expand...




Plainsman said:


> You never have answered the one question I am curious about your take on given your expertise in soil hydrology, water absorbsion and retention,
> 
> That's not my expertise.


So what then is your expertise as it pertains to what you have commented on in regards to these things in earlier posts? I tell you what, you answer the question I asked in my last post regarding flooding during the summer monthes and I promise I will answer your question about what it would cost you to get me to restore a wetlands. Promise.


----------



## Plainsman

I forgot about this email:


> I thought the LIDAR was already run on the upper basin. The hold up is getting the money (a lot) to analyze the data to make sense of it. ND state government refuses to fund the work because of the proof it provide. No proof, no arguement





> I promise I will answer your question about what it would cost you to get me to restore a wetlands. Promise.


I doubt that because it would give away how much your making now, and I don't think you want me to know that.
Haaaa, 



> plainsman in this thread about conservation and agriculture production, would you please show an example of what you believe constitutes a whining ploy for sympathy that I have made.


Look at your last post, your crying about what I say. I know you just want me to shut up, but that's not going to happen. You constantly portray me as against farmers (whine) you say that I am wrong that you think landowners are angels (whine) when I said I was willing to pay for wetland restoration, but we will get held up, and we should pay the ransom you said I was anti farmer again because of that statement (whine). Well, when people have you over the barrel they often gouge you. I think farmers are like everyone else, no better, no worse. Evidently you think they are better and any statement that makes them normal is anti-farmer.

Now if I wanted to take a cheap shot I would say your anti city folks, anti environmental, pro drain, pro anything agriculture, but I'm not sure of those things, so I'll pass on a cheap shot like that. I will just talk about poor agriculture practices. I'm not talking about the good ones, because that's not the subject.

Wetland drains of any kind contribute to floods and water quality degredation. Plain and simple, and those ditches don't carry milk and honey like some want us to think.


----------



## gst

Plainsman as you will not answer the question regarding flooding during the summer monthes in Fargo and GF, the two examples you gave when you claimed tiling causes flooding down stream, I will try. The fact is it is very rare indeed during the summer monthes when soil/water retention, soil/water hydrology, plant developement, root structure and developement, soil organic matter content ect... becomes relevent that this flooding occurs. So just perhaps the situations you seem to claim as a "professional" are not as dire in regards to down stream people being flooded out as a result of tiling as you would like people to believe as you make claims such as "agriculture causes flooding" and "farmers flood out hose downstream from them. ect....... . If you wish to be given any credibility try not to make such broad base claims.

As to how much it would cost you for me to restore a wetland, the answer is this. Nothing as we have no wetlands on our operation that have been drained and converted. :wink: Bet you were not expecting that answer from a "greedy" farmer like me.  On a portion of our lands we have a higher priority of wildlife management on we do not even farm the temporary wetlands that we could under the contract I mentioned and link I provided that we are operating under with the USDA. (they provide nice cover for the couple hundred pheasants my sons raise and release each year) On some of our lands we do farm these temporary wetlands when we are able to. Now if you wish to expand this conversation to what it should take for someone else I can only give you a hypoothetical answer. That would be whatever the production on those acres could generate and the value of not having to spray and seed around them (costs of overlaps). I would venture a guess that value would fluctuate dependent on soil type, cropping rotations ect... So to put an exact dollar figure on it would be difficult for someone like me. Hopefully you understand that. If I am not mistaken, I beleive there is a program (WRP) that does just this. If it is successfully gaining acres, I would guess the dollar figures are enough, if it is not gaining acres perhaps either the dollars are not enough or the regulations are too much.

Regardless of what the total cost per acre would be, here is the part you probably will not accept, in direct reply to the specific question you asked:


Plainsman said:


> So if you had a wetland gst what would it cost me per acre to get you to restore it, and why?


It would literally cost you no more than a few pennies each year. That is a fact. Yet you make statements insinuating you will be "held up".  Hmmm, sounds kinda whiney and greedy :wink: 
So now plainsman answer this question what is having wetlands maintained on private lands worth to you in dollar figures? 
(I won't even ask how much having access to the cheapest safest food source in the world is worth to you.) :wink:


----------



## Plainsman

When everyone with two firing brain cells knows most flooding occurs in spring why do you want to talk about mid summer? No matter what time of year, if a flood occurs, wetland draining will have contributed.

I remember 1993, and we got about 11 inches of rain here in Jamestown in one day. Do you think wetland drainaing contributed? You would have to think that water didn't contribute to deny that it did. The only question would be how much did it contribute. If the water is one inch from coming in your basement maybe two inches to you would be important.



> As to how much it would cost you for me to restore a wetland, the answer is this. Nothing as we have no wetlands on our operation that have been drained and converted. Bet you were not expecting that answer from a "greedy" farmer like me.


Careful gst your sandwich is going to get all soggy from the tears. Whine a little why don't you.  No, I wasn't surprised on either count. You told me before you take good care of your land, so I'm not surprised you don't have drained wetlands. I also am not surprised you didn't pass up looking for sympathy again. 
OK, lets assume you had a ten acre drained wetland and a guy from NRCS asked you to plug the drain and break the tile to restore the wetland. How much would it cost per acre to get you to do that? You didn't really answer the question. You fell back on the old "it would only cost you pennies per year. So take that times say 50 million taxpayers ($.02) and you want one million a year per acre? Is that what your telling me?    See, I knew you guys were getting rich. oke: I know it depends on what the land earns etc, but what would be the figure if one of those wetlands you have was drained? Dollars please. 
I do commend you for not draining all those wetlands. Now I can't wait to see how that turns out to be me hating farmers. I'm waiting with baited breath.
Oh, by the way, do your sons make money off those pheasants? That may be an entisement to leave wetlands.  In other words are you leaving them for love of hunting yourself, wildlife, or just how many George's you can collect? Fair question I think. I sure like this question thing.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> When everyone with two firing brain cells knows most flooding occurs in spring why do you want to talk about mid summer? No matter what time of year, if a flood occurs, wetland draining will have contributed.


Plainsman, the big difference here is you claimed tiling CAUSES flooding, please do not make me go back and quote any number of times you made reference to this. The reason to reference summer flooding, as was said this is when the soil hydrology and water retention issues of wetlands that are affected by tiling would most come into play. Anyone with 2 firing brains cells should understand that, particularily a "professional" in wetland ecology and hydrology. Spring flooding is LARGELY cause by overland water movement, not as a result of it moving thru 4 feet of frozen soil first.



Plainsman said:


> Careful gst your sandwich is going to get all soggy from the tears. Whine a little why don't you. No, I wasn't surprised on either count. You told me before you take good care of your land, so I'm not surprised you don't have drained wetlands. I also am not surprised you didn't pass up looking for sympathy again


"plainsman in this thread about conservation and agriculture production, would you please show an example of what you believe constitutes a whining ploy for sympathy that I have made."

Please indicate exactly how one would consider the above statement you quoted to be whining or looking for sympathy????/ :eyeroll:



Plainsman said:


> You didn't really answer the question.


You asked what it would cost YOU to get ME to restore a wetland. I think the answer was direct and quite clear.



Plainsman said:


> Oh, by the way, do your sons make money off those pheasants? That may be an entisement to leave wetlands. In other words are you leaving them for love of hunting yourself, wildlife, or just how many George's you can collect? Fair question I think


You just can't help yourself from making insinuations about peoples greed can you. :eyeroll: 
My oldest son who started raising these birds 3 years ago at the age of 13 in conjunction with our independent pheasant club that has been operating for around 20 years. They provide chicks and the first few bags of feed. The birds are then raised and released with no payment being received. Nor is there any "Georges", Jeffersons, Lincolns, Hamiltons, Jacksons, Grants , Franklins or even one thin FDR or even single red Lincoln exchanged at any time if anyone hunts them on the many acres of unposted land they end up on. Is that clear and direct enough for you?? :eyeroll: He has implemented it into an FFA project and could possibly win acknowledgement if he puts enough effort forth, so maybe he is a bit greedy in your eyes for that :eyeroll:

The fact that you would insinuate or question a kid raising pheasants as looking for the most numbers of "Georges to collect" is pretty sad. Even if the kid was raising pheasants as many do to sell to others to raise and release and collecting a few "Georges" what the hell problem is that.

This thread has clearly shown your true colors. That "question" directed at a kids ambition or more accurately that fishing expedition for a reason to back up your constant greed insinuations, pretty well capped it off. And I will simply leave it at that. Unless of course you wish to start questioning my kids who you have never met motives once again. :eyeroll:


----------



## Chuck Smith

gst....

can you prove that tiling does not cause flooding?

Water is getting drained off of land correct? Where does that water go....to a watershed. Which leads to river, stream, lake, etc. Instead of this water staying on the land it gets moved. So it has to go somewhere. So it is a factor in flooding or water levels.

If you can't accept that fact then you have blinders on. The water does not magicly disappear. It has to go somewhere. It is not allowed to do into the soil or down to the auqafiers. It gets moved.


----------



## gst

Chuck Smith said:


> can you prove that tiling does not cause flooding?


Chuck that is the point of the whole discussion is it not? Perhaps you can answer directly these questions.

1. what is the average soil temp between the suface and tile depth in the spring thaw when flooding occurs? 
2 Do you agree the summer monthes is when water most readily moves thru the soil and is moved "somewhere" as a result of tiling? 
3. How many times has Fargo or GF flooded during the summer and fall monthes?

I do not beleive I have ever claimed tiling does not move water. That is kinda the whole point of tiling. The question here is does the tile itself cause ENOUGH water to move rapidly enough to CAUSE flooding. If the ground temps are below freezing in the spring and water is not moving thru it to the tile, how can one claim tiling CAUSES flooding in the spring? So then one is left to examine the time frame when the negative aspects of water movement relating to tiling would most readily occur which is in the summer and early fall monthes. So once agian, if tiling CAUSES or even significantly contributes to flooding, how many times has Fargo or GF flooded during this time frame?

Admittedly I am no professional, but it does seem logical to me that if one is going to claim tiling CAUSES flooding as plainsman and others on here have, one would see this flooding happening in the time frame when tiling actually does what it is supose to do and move water to "somewhere" during these summer and early fall monthes . But then again who knows maybe it is not.

If one has an issue with tiling draining wet areas (note I said areas, actuall wetlands require a significant process to be allowed to drain if at all) fine debate that issue. But please do not claim as does plainsman that agriculture is the "cause of flooding and the expenses" that go with it as a result of "greed at it's darkest" by farmers who only "rip, rape and run".

Chuck one last question if you would who do you beleive a farmer would be most likely to work with, a conservationalist that is working with the farmer to acheive better production as well as a balance with conservation such as NRCS for example, or a conservationalist "professional" that starts posts calling farmers greedy and blaming them for flooding out their neighbors down stream and any number of other gems we have seen in this thread? So who do you think loses in the long run in the case of this type of rhetoric??


----------



## Plainsman

> The fact that you would insinuate or question a kid raising pheasants as looking for the most numbers of "Georges to collect" is pretty sad.


That's what I mean by your constant crying for sympathy. My oldest kid is about 40, yours could be 50 years old for all I know. I'm surprised you didn't tell me he was six years old.

gst, you aren't as dumb as your pretending to be. Above I said if it floods in summer then all sources of water contribute to that flooding. Don't worry though you can pretend all you want and your not going to frustrate me. It should become apparent to everyone that you don't want to understand.

No, you didn't answer the question and I don't think you ever will. To answer the question would give everyone an idea of how much you make per acre. Can't let that out can we? :rollin:

As usual gst it's just another game of 20 questions, and ducking questions. Does water cause flooding? What comes out of drain tile, dust? What flows down drain ditches? When tile helps flush minerals from the soil where does it go? Nope it's not the moon, try again. Have you ever heard of summer flooding? I think you mentioned 12 inches in two days didn't you? That must have caused some flooding. I think ditches and tiles contributed to those floods.


----------



## jrp267

Whats interesting is that gst believes no water moves through the tile in the spring. The drainage ditches I was by the otherday are already flowing and water was coming from 2 tiles I could see. I should have taken a pic. There is nowhere near 4 ft of frost this year. Lucky if its 12 in. the early snow insulated the ground. The ground thaws from both the top and bottom. top from the sun bottom from the earths core temp. Soil that was saturated is starting to shed water into the frozen ditches and creating a backup. The backup is created because this water is draining and then freezing on top of everything. Instaed of continuing to seep into the aquafer.


----------



## gst

jrp267 said:


> What's interesting is that gst believes no water moves through the tile in the spring


jrp, please show where I have ever said NO water moves thru tiles in the spring??? I have said on a couple of occasions, no water moves thru soil into tile when it is frozen. I also asked what is the average soil temp at tile depth in the spring (how many years is the soil between surface and tile not frozen here in ND). I just talked with a good friend and neighbor that has a waterer that the supply pipe comes up thru an 8 inch PVC pipe 8 ft deep. the ground water is within 10 inches of the top. usually it is dry to the 8 ft depth. There is no tile within 100 miles of this waterer, so what could be causing this elavation of water?? We have seen ground water levels as high as they have ever been in as long as my 80 year old Dad can recall.

Perhaps the answer lies in your very own statement. As does the reason water goes somewhere other than the aquifer beneath the soil, and causes flooding.



jrp267 said:


> Soil that was saturated is starting to shed water into the frozen ditches and creating a backup. The backup is created because this water is draining and then freezing on top of everything. Instead of continuing to seep into the aquafer


]

So now given this statement, is it the tiling causing the flooding or the "saturated soils". Isn't tiling supose to keep soils from being saturated as it moves all that water "somewhere"? If the outlets to the tile are frozen now and not allowing the water to flow "somewhere" and the ground is thawed as it probably is (we have a shallow frost up here as a result of the large aounts of early snow as well), shouldn't this water have seeped down into the aquifer over the winter monthes?

Like I said admittedly I am not a "professional" but if the soil is "saturated" doesn't that mean that tiling didn;t take all the water out of that soil and send it "somewhere" ? Doesn't it also mean that regardless of wether ground is tiled or not saturated soil will not allow for water to seep into the soil and this water will go "somewhere" ? Here is a novel thought perhaps flooding is CAUSED by saturated soils receiving more water than they can handle due to large amounts of snow melting quickly or significant rainfall amounts. Naw can't be.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> My statement "The fact that you would insinuate or question a kid raising pheasants as looking for the most numbers of "Georges to collect" is pretty sad."
> 
> Plainsmans response "That's what I mean by your constant crying for sympathy. My oldest kid is about 40, yours could be 50 years old for all I know. I'm surprised you didn't tell me he was six years old.


The above statement is your example of my "constant crying for sympathy" ??????? Oooookay then. I think I'll carry on this conversation with people a little more rational if you do not mind. :wink: At least someone that does not try to justify making uncalled for insinuations about a 16 year old kid rather than just offering an apology for making such a petty assumption. :roll:


----------



## gst

I will leave this debate to whoever else wishes to continue it. When someone begins to make petty comments about my kids they have never met, it is clearly a waste of my time to continue. I beleive I have clearly articulated my point to anyone willing to listen and provided links for people that are willing to inform themselves that agriculture has and is changing and the demands placed upon it will change as well. People in conservation can either recognise this and work with agriculture to continue to provide adequate food supplies while striving to maintain a balance with conservation as many are that look forward instead of in the past, or shortages likely will occur and populations will ignore conservation in search of avalible lower cost food. And who wins then?

I also beleive the short sighted, outdated, inflamatory rhetoric from those involved in conservation or speaking on behalf of conservation that we have seen in this thread if it would become the norm, will do nothing to encourage agriculture to continue to participate in conservation. So as asked and no one has yet answered, who loses in that situation????

Sadly first conservation and then ultimately agriculture, yet some don't seem to realize it.


----------



## Plainsman

Here is some useful information, and as common sense would dictate tile will simply add to this.



> Contribution of Wetland Drainage to the Rise of Devils Lake
> 
> Although wetland drainage obviously is not the sole cause of the recent rise of Devils Lake, with inflows to the lake form 1993 to 1999 averaging 317,000 acre-feet (DEIS p. 1-5), the contribution of wetland drainage to those inflows clearly warrants careful evaluation.
> 
> Ludden et al. (1983) estimated the average depth of natural wetlands in the Devils Lake Basin at 7.1 inches in 2-year frequency runoffs, 11.8 inches in 10-year runoffs, 14.6 inches in 25-year runoffs, 15.7 inches in 50-year runoffs, and 18.5 inches in 100-year runoffs, with maximum average depths of 20.9 inches. The higher levels of precipitation and runoff in the Devils Lake Basin from 1993 to 1999 were preceded by four years of severe drought-comparable to the Dust Bowl days of the 1930s-from 1988 to 1992, so many of the wetland basins were dry and at near maximum potential storage capacity at the time the increased precipitation began in 1993. This would suggest, therefore, that as much as 328,860 acre-feet of water entered Devils Lake as a direct result of the lost storage capacity of 189,000 acres of drained wetlands in the basin. This is 2.6 times the volume that could be removed from the lake by the proposed Pelican Lake 300 cfs outlet operating at maximum capacity for seven months from May through November. This does not include the continued annual inflow reductions that would have occurred if those wetlands had not be drained.
> 
> The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service estimated the maximum storage capacity of the 189,000 acres of wetlands it determined had been drained in the Devils Lake Basin at 491,000 to 926,100 acre-feet (U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1997). This is 3.9 to 7.4 times the volume that could be removed from the lake by the proposed 300 cfs outlet operating at maximum capacity for seven months, and it also does not include the subsequent annual inflow reductions to the lake that would have occurred if those wetlands had not been drained.


----------



## jpallen14

*Tile drainage From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia*

*Social and Ecological Effects of Tile Drainage*
Unfortunately, the ability for farmers to install their own tile can be problematic. First of all, private installations may reduce the ability of local drainage supervisory boards to regulate tile installation, which in some areas of the country requires proper documentation before a contractor can continue. This leads to the second potential conflict, the unintentional interruption of existing tile networks. Most "do-it-yourself" tile plows do not dig trenches but rather split the soil enough to squeeze the tile line in; thus, a farmer would not be aware if he breaks a line of tile that might serve his neighbors, as well (Mutual tile lines are often dictated by topography rather than land ownership, and the location of many old, but still effective, tile lines are unknown.). The potential for across-the-fence disputes are obvious.

Ecologically, the expansion of drainage systems has had tremendous negative effects. Hundreds of thousands of wetland species experienced significant population declines as their habitat was increasingly fragmented and destroyed. Although market hunting within the Central Flyway was a contributing factor in the decline of many waterfowl species' numbers in the early decades of the twentieth century, loss of breeding habitat to agricultural expansion is certainly the most significant. Early maps of midwestern states depict many lakes and marshes that are either nonexistent or significantly reduced in area today. Channelization, a related process of concentrating and facilitating the flow of water from agricultural areas, also contributed to this degradation.

In bypassing the natural flow of water from the surface to the water table, drainage systems often prevent the natural filtration of water provided by soils and wetlands. Thus, drainage systems pose a threat to surface water sources by directly depositing water laden with fertilizers, eroded soil, agrochemicals, and other types of agricultural runoff pollutants. In very flat areas, where the natural topography does not provide the gradient necessary for water flow, "agricultural wells" can be dug to provide tile lines sufficient outlet. In these cases, it is the groundwater that stands to be polluted by unfiltered tile output.

Intensive Livestock Operations (ILO) have led to challenges of livestock effluent disposal. Livestock effluent contains valuabe nutrients, but the misapplication of these materials can lead to serious ecological problems, such as nutrient loading. Injecting effluent directly into the ground is one method employed by manure applicators to improve nutrient uptake. Drainage tiles may increase injected manure seepage into surface waterways from manure injection because liquid manure seeps through soils and then drains out of the field and into waterways via drainage tiles.

Today, a number of state and federal initiatives serve to reverse habitat loss. Many programs encourage and even reimburse farmers for interrupting the drainage of localized wetholes on their property, often by breaking tile intakes or removing the tile completely. Landowners are often partially or fully compensated for forfeiting the ability to grow crops on this land. Such programs and the cooperation of landowners across the country have had significant positive effects on the populations of a wide variety of waterfowl.


----------



## jrp267

gst said:


> jrp267 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's interesting is that gst believes no water moves through the tile in the spring
> 
> 
> 
> jrp, please show where I have ever said NO water moves thru tiles in the spring??? I have said on a couple of occasions, no water moves thru soil into tile when it is frozen. I also asked what is the average soil temp at tile depth in the spring (how many years is the soil between surface and tile not frozen here in ND). I just talked with a good friend and neighbor that has a waterer that the supply pipe comes up thru an 8 inch PVC pipe 8 ft deep. the ground water is within 10 inches of the top. usually it is dry to the 8 ft depth. There is no tile within 100 miles of this waterer, so what could be causing this elavation of water?? We have seen ground water levels as high as they have ever been in as long as my 80 year old Dad can recall.
> 
> Perhaps the answer lies in your very own statement. As does the reason water goes somewhere other than the aquifer beneath the soil, and causes flooding.
> 
> 
> 
> jrp267 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Soil that was saturated is starting to shed water into the frozen ditches and creating a backup. The backup is created because this water is draining and then freezing on top of everything. Instead of continuing to seep into the aquafer
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ]
> 
> So now given this statement, is it the tiling causing the flooding or the "saturated soils". Isn't tiling supose to keep soils from being saturated as it moves all that water "somewhere"? If the outlets to the tile are frozen now and not allowing the water to flow "somewhere" and the ground is thawed as it probably is (we have a shallow frost up here as a result of the large aounts of early snow as well), shouldn't this water have seeped down into the aquifer over the winter monthes?
> 
> Like I said admittedly I am not a "professional" but if the soil is "saturated" doesn't that mean that tiling didn;t take all the water out of that soil and send it "somewhere" ? Doesn't it also mean that regardless of wether ground is tiled or not saturated soil will not allow for water to seep into the soil and this water will go "somewhere" ? Here is a novel thought perhaps flooding is CAUSED by saturated soils receiving more water than they can handle due to large amounts of snow melting quickly or significant rainfall amounts. Naw can't be.
Click to expand...

Or It could be that the water would just pool and sit there until evapration took place. You know those little flooded depressions in a previously untiled field. Naw I suppose not. Never mind I forgot you are all knowing.


----------



## Bad Dog

I had mentioned this before. Here is an article from today talking about the dead zone in the gulf. An interesting read.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43262400/ns ... ork_times/


----------



## 6162rk

how's that drain tile working for the people of bismark and all the way downstream to the gulf of mexico?


----------



## Plainsman

I don't know why they have not mentioned pollution in the Mississippi Delta before. It's like a sump for 30 or more miles out into the gulf. 
I noticed they are proud of a 4% nitrate reduction. That means another 66% and they will be using about what they need. Lets see now 4% reduction since 1980. Well I would suspect that he is talking about a 4% reduction per farm acre, and since we have had how big of an increase in farm land that would I'll bet be a big increase in nitrogen. 
Well, one fellow on here doesn't want me to talk about things that old, but here goes anyway, because it is pertinent. I would guess that's why he doesn't want me to talk about it, but since this Farm Bureaucrat brought up 1980 I will go back to the 1980's.
In the 1980's a huge land area was added to the tillable acreage. Ronald Reagan decided he would help the farmers out and he sure did. He paid them not to work. Really. It was called PIK for Payment In Kind. Because the surplus was so huge (remember all the starving pygmies) that it caused the prices to fall. So Reagan decided to pay farmers not to plant. The idea was to put land to rest, reduce the grain surplus (could have given it to the pygmies for free) and that through the market prices would naturally rise. Well, that was one of the biggest government boondoggles I can remember. You see Reagan didn't count on the mentality of the farmer. Here is what they thought: oh boy with everyone not planting the prices will go up. I am going to break up every acre of hay land and pasture that I have and plant it while at the same time getting paid not to plant my existing crop land. I'm going to be rich, rich, rich, yahoo. Well needles to say we had a record crop in those years and prices stayed low. I know they complain about low prices, but what happens if Ford makes a million more F150's than people want to buy? Big sale right? Big, big sale. So they shafted themselves, much like draining on each other, prices stayed low, and now there was a huge increase in tillable land. So with a reduction of 4% per acre but a huge increase in acres what we really have is a huge increase in nitrogen going into the gulf. You know what they say about statistics. 
Now with all that highly erodible land that never should have been tilled what do we do? Oh, I know CRP. It's time for the taxpayer to sucker again and keep some from being victims of their own greed. It turned out to be just another tax burden for those who see it as an "entitlement". So what is the taxpayer "entitled" to?

Now I have a question for everyone: What is an entitlement?


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> Ronald Reagan decided he would help the farmers out and he sure did. He paid them not to work. Really.





Plainsman said:


> You see Reagan didn't count on the mentality of the farmer. Here is what they thought: oh boy with everyone not planting the prices will go up. I am going to break up every acre of hay land and pasture that I have and plant it while at the same time getting paid not to plant my existing crop land. I'm going to be rich, rich, rich, yahoo


plainsman, it is clear to see your "support" for ag in your posts. :roll:

Here is perhaps a relevant question or two that ties into Sec. Vilaseks comment regarding ag production and practices. plainsman I do not expect an answer, simply something for others to give some thought too.

What was the world population in 1980 as compared to now?

What was the percentage of under nourished people in 1980 as compared to now?

What is the number of arable(farmable) acres/ person in 1980 as compared to now?

Plainsman you make claims regarding cropland acres rising and pastureland acres dropping. it does not go back to 1980, but this site that goes back to 97 tells a different story. There are actually a number of interesting things one can pull from this site particularily under the Federal funding segment as to where federal funds go. Take some time and check it out. If you choose to not beleive this resource from the USDA I guess that is entirely up to you. :wink:

http://www.ers.usda.gov/StateFacts/US.htm


----------



## Plainsman

What is an entitlement? What makes a person entitled?

Ag people were not so much the problem as human behavior and a bad ag program. I could have told Reagan exactly what would happen. It really had more to do with human behavior than agriculture.


----------



## north1

I will admit agriculture has had a detrimental effect on the environment through the years and at present. I, however, think we need to look in the mirror people. This is not a divide and conquer arguement. We, as coinhabitants on this planet have to work together to try to minimize our impacts.

Residential lawns cover 50,000 square miles the the United States. The average homeowner uses 10 times the amount of pesticides per acre as farmers. 30 billion dollars are spent on these lawns per year, 5 billion for fertilizers. In the west 60% of municipal water and the east 30% ends up on lawns. Runoff from municipal storm drains not only adds to river water levels but also nitrate and pesticide levels. These are all stats gleaned from various sources such as the National Acedemy of Sciences, not from agricultural special interest groups.

My point is there enough blame to be passed around whether you live in the city or the country.


----------



## Plainsman

> I will admit agriculture has had a detrimental effect on the environment through the years and at present. I, however, think we need to look in the mirror people. This is not a divide and conquer arguement. We, as coinhabitants on this planet have to work together to try to minimize our impacts.


north1 that is a very reasonable statement, and I agree.



> Residential lawns cover 50,000 square miles the the United States.


That's mostly true. There are perhaps that many square miles of lawn. However, I have neighbors that are like the ones described and use ten times as much chemical as a farmer, but more in my neighborhood are solid yellow from dandelions and do nothing about it. I have fertilized twice in the past 35 years. I think lawns would be less than 5%.

Edit: I will add to this since I was headed out the door when I typed it before. The big agriculture part of that pollution we all play a part of too. We eat, so we are a part of it. 
Even if there is a 4% reduction in ag chemicals as the Farm Bureau guy pointed out there has been an increase in pollution in the gulf. Part of our spending on agriculture needs to look at new ways to hold farm fertilizers in place or other technologies to reduce those used. That will not only reduce pollution, but reduce ag expenditures which in turn helps your bottom line.


----------



## Chuck Smith

> Residential lawns cover 50,000 square miles the the United States. The average homeowner uses 10 times the amount of pesticides per acre as farmers. 30 billion dollars are spent on these lawns per year, 5 billion for fertilizers. In the west 60% of municipal water and the east 30% ends up on lawns. Runoff from municipal storm drains not only adds to river water levels but also nitrate and pesticide levels. These are all stats gleaned from various sources such as the National Acedemy of Sciences, not from agricultural special interest groups.


I agree that lawns in the US are a part of the problem. But these lawns don't have a direct avenue like drain tile that leads to a drainage ditch. Most of the chemicals have a chance to use the natural process of going through the soil, limestone, etc to go into the water. Unless it is mass amounts of rain or run off which will in turn make it go into the storm sewers. With Tiling it does not get a chance to filter naturally. It goes into a plastic, concrete (older tile systems) tubes which shoots it into a drainage ditch or system, which funnels it into a stream, river, etc. There is a difference. One gets a more naturally chance to filter than another.

I will restate that I agree lawns are a causing factor as well to pollutants in our water system.

Edit...

GST you always bring up world population and that the US needs to feed the world... You are correct the population has grown dramaticly. But so has the US importation of grain from other countrys. So has the exportation of US farming practices to other country's. Just look at Brazil and other south american countries. Their Ag economy is starting to explode. Just wait until China really gets rolling. But I will go to the old saying......give a man a fish and he will not go hungry one day....teach a man to fish he never go hungry. Why should the US have the mentality that it has to FEED the world. When we can teach the world to feed itself.


----------



## gst

chuck, what I am suggesting is that as the global population grows, the number of arable acres per person suitable for raising food declines. More will have to be produced from less. It is simple mathmatics. It is not what I'm claiming, it is people much more informed and knowledgable than me or most on this site that are suggesting this to be a significant issue in the near future. I have provided a few links to these peoples insights before.

It is easy to find solutions for problems if you do not have to realistically examine and weigh all influencing factors involved. Not so easy if you have to actually deal with the consequneces of your ideals. We are already at a point in the global population that without the responsible use of fertilizers and herbicides we could not produce enough food for the existing much less future global population on all the arable lands avalible worldwide. And as the amount of arable land actually decreases due to urbanization and building of the infrastructure to support that, as is stated, more has to be produced on less. As the impacts of these tools used to do this is better learned, practices have changed to improve what is being dicussed. But like turning a large ship, it takes a bit to accomplish it. We are moving in the right direction despite what some people wish to claim here in this country. As Ag Secratary Vilasek stated too many people beleive todays ag is the same as ag 30 years ago. These people are simply wrong.

You mentioned China and Brazil. It is interesting that in these threads ag is being maligned because of it's negative impact on the enviroment. If that is indeed the concern of those posting, perhaps they should better inform themselves to the ag practices being used in these countries and there impacts on the enviroment. There was an intersting article in the last Ag Week about this very thing. Perhaps if compared to global ag production, people wopuld begin to see the advances that have been made in agriculture here in this country. If one is so concerned over what the ag practices of the 1980's did to the enviroment, US agriculture in the 1980's was light years ahead of these emerging countries current practices. It is actually amazing the advances in US ag if people take the time to inform themselves. Heck we are even no tilling corn nowadays!


----------



## Chuck Smith

GST....

I agree that the farming practices that some of these other countries are doing are outdate....but they are learning from our mistakes. I have an uncle that is a rice breeder. He has flown all over the country and says that some of these country were doing things like the US was doing in the 50's. But now they are catching right up to speed. They are learning from our mistakes. I also agree that farm acres are getting smaller as urban expansion and population growth in the US.

But on the flip...production is increasing per acre. More people are getting higher production than ever before.

So lets take rough average of Indian......production of corn per acre in 1980 was 100. Compare that to in the year 2000 it was at roughly 135. So if a farmer lost 160 acres out of a 1000. either was turned into a development or something. In 1980 they would roughly get 100,000 bushels of corn out of 1000 acres of production. Now in 2000 they are only putting in 840 acres but they are getting 113,400 bushels. Production was better on less acres than before!

***** I used indiana because it was the first one that popped up on a search ************

http://www.agry.purdue.edu/ext/corn/new ... d2003.html

What I also meant with these comments is that the US does not or will not have to "feed the world" like you keep preaching. Our farm export soon will be going down. The reason why it has not as of yet is because the other countries are sick of eating "rice". Once they start to produce corn, beans (soy), etc. The US won't be so dominate in Ag. It is a sad fact...but the writing is on the wall.

_________________________________________________________________

Now lets get back to the real topic of Drain Tile.... Drain tile with out shut offs (and the shut offs have to be used!!!) are causing major damage to the enviroment. Just like people have stated...pollutants get washed down stream or away. Water gets funneled off property to someone elses problem, rivers are swelling because water is not getting naturally filtered into under ground aquafiers. These are all facts that you can't dispute. Because the purpose of drain tile is to take water away from soil.

So this topic is about streamlining the process to make drain tile easier to put in the ground. Pro's??? Con's??? Anyone.


----------



## north1

I consider draintile and a drainage ditch as one in the same. They both serve the same purpose, and cause the same problems - nutrient leaching, dissallow water filtration through wetlands and downstream water problems.

In my opinion they are not; however, the cause of flooding in Bismarck and Minot. I know of no draintile feeding the Souris River Basin, unless it is in Canada.

Controlling water and water use issues have plagued mankind since they first started trying to control the natural order of things. Those downstream always seem to get the shaft(either too much or not enough).

These ideas can be transferred to building dams, dikes and levees. Controlling water through urban areas to get it moving and not allowing it to spread out on natural floodplains just transfers the problem to those downstream. That is unless they have built taller dikes!


----------



## gst

Chuck, I do not beleive I ever claimed that it is the US's responsibility to feed the world. The simple fact is with our advancements in agriculture far beyond what these other coutries have currently, it has been the US that has played a large role in feeding the world. You would be hard pressed to argue that. As you mentioned and I don't beleive I have ever disputed ag practices globly are changing. But from an enviromental impact aspect, you would also be hard pressed to argue the advances in US ag production is not far out pacing that of other countires when it comes to considering enviromental impact.

Ag has advanced far beyond what some on here wish to acknowledge in responsibly using the various tools that are necessary to produce the food that is demanded to keep the cost the consumer pays relative to where it has been historically in this country. If one is not willing to acknoledge the chages for the better agriculture is experiencing in fertilizer and herbicide/pesticide usage/ conservation one is not informing themselves to the latest advances in ag.

I am not trying to claim ag is perfect. Simply that it has maintained the ability to provide the lowest cost, safest, most readily avalible source of food for the US consumer over any other industrialized country.

Dispute this if you wish, but as the percentage of your disposable income that is spent on food rises over the next year along with every other American, remember this conversation and that which took place earlier in this thread.


----------



## Plainsman

> In my opinion they are not; however, the cause of flooding in Bismarck and Minot. I know of no draintile feeding the Souris River Basin, unless it is in Canada.


I agree. It does contribute some, but a very, very small amount. North eastern Montana has a lot of drained wetlands. I forget how to spell the name, but one of their national wildlife refuges in Montana is nearly ruined because of drainage into it. It's a dead end system and water coming in evaporates leaving the solids behind. Another few years and it will be like salt soup.
The amount contributed by drainage though is a drop in the bucket.

I certainly agree with you on your other points also. Water has been withheld in some of the western states and dumped on everyone else where water is sufficient, or especially when in surplus.



> US ag production is not far out pacing that of other countires when it comes to considering enviromental impact.


Much of the world, but not Europe. They became aware of environmental problems when we were still maintaining the cowboy attitude of leaving your mark on the land.



> I am not trying to claim ag is perfect. Simply that it has maintained the ability to provide the lowest cost, safest, most readily avalible source of food for the US consumer over any other industrialized country.


Much of our cost is hidden. We perhaps pay as much on April 15th as we do the rest of the year at the grocery store. That's another wealth redistribution thing that bothers me. You have some guy who makes a million dollars a year and he pays enough taxes to pay indirectly and directly for ten people on food stamps.

Your right American farmers have made great improvements environmentally. They have also become very productive. What they have to work on is efficiency. They have extremely poor efficiency as compared to some countries. When it comes to energy in vs energy out they waste huge amounts of energy.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> Much of the world, but not Europe. They became aware of environmental problems when we were still maintaining the cowboy attitude of leaving your mark on the land.


Plainsman on a global scale, how much does Erope contribute to food production beyond what they consume, and how much does the average European pay of their disposable income for food?

You wish the US to follow Europes lead, fine, but do not come on here then and complain about how your food costs have doubled, because they will. What would that one thing do to this countries economy right now? Then add to that the fact that European agriculure is the most highly subsidized ag production system in the world and why exactly given your stance against subsidized ag would you be giving this as an example?

US agriculture is continueally developing new technologies in ag that not only increases production, but does so in an efficient, responsible manner to allow the citizens of this country access to the lowest cost/income food of any industrialized country. As Secratary Vilasek stated please inform yourself as to what ag has advanced to and curtrently is, not what ag was 30 years ago. To continue to base your "assumptions" regarding ag on outdated information and techniques does little to back your positions.



Plainsman said:


> Much of our cost is hidden. We perhaps pay as much on April 15th as we do the rest of the year at the grocery store.


We have been thru this a number of times before. Please quit making the insinuation that most people pay more in taxes to agriculture than they pay in food costs for a year. You have been given the factual figures directly from Federal Govt websites that have shown this insinuation to simply be false.

If you wish to continue to make this claim perhaps you should show proof by posting what you paid in taxes last year, the percentage of that figure that went to production ag based on current factual US govt statistics, and what you paid for groceries last year.


----------



## Chuck Smith

GST....

The majority of the food costs rising now is because of FUEL. Yes....getting the product from the field, to the processor, to the market. It is not in the input costs (yes input costs are rising dramaticly) but that is not driving the rise in the cost of food. It is all the middle men.

Lets take a look at the chain of events for the mass production of bread. Wheat gets taken off the land and goes to the mill where the farmer sells it (Farmer is out of the equation now). The mill sends the wheat to a processor via truck, rail, etc. The processor processes the wheat into flour. The processor sends the flour to a facility that makes the bread via truck, rail, etc. The bakery or what ever takes the flour and makes bread. The bread gets shipped to either a store or a storage facility via truck, rail, etc. Then if it is not at a store yet it gets shipped one more time via truck, rail, etc. So the wheat or wheat by product gets shipped up to 5 times. Do you think those fuel costs have to be transfered to the consumer?

Edit.... other contributing factors is that the cost of making products is on the rise....insurance costs, employee wages, heath regulations, equipment, etc. Anything and everything that has a hint of petroleum or runs on a petroleum product is rising in costs to run, maintain, and buy.


----------



## gst

Chuck, no doubt fuel/energy costs are driving food costs as well as production costs up for all segments. No one is disputing that. But what needs to be considered is what is the driving factor in the difference in costs of food to the consumer between this country and others.

I would guess the chain of events for the mass production of bread as well as most other foods is the same in these other countries as it is here in the US. And yet the percentage of their income people in these countries pay for these food staples are higher than what they are here in the US. So why the difference?

Perhaps it is the policies that this govt has had regarding agriculture that has had this positive impact on what the consumer has historically paid for food in this country. Perhaps people that look with an open mind realize that these programs have not only been implemented for the American farmer (some would argue they have actually hurt agriculture), but for the benefit of the American consumer as well.

As these policies change with the lack of revenue to fund them, it will be intreresting to see how it translates to ag and ultimately the end user, the consumer.


----------



## Plainsman

Chuck I agree with everything you say.

gst, I didn't make any comments on how much Europe produces only that they are right up there on the environmental concerns, and perhaps more efficient.



> You wish the US to follow Europes lead, fine, but do not come on here then and complain about how your food costs have doubled


I didn't say I wanted to follow the European model. I simply said they are as environmentally responsible and perhaps earlier than we were. After all there land has been abused much longer.



> Then add to that the fact that European agriculure is the most highly subsidized ag production system in the world and why exactly given your stance against subsidized ag would you be giving this as an example?


I'm not against subsidized agriculture. I would rather subsidize them for conservation practices than bushels produced, because bushels produced leads to land destruction. However, given the choice I would rather subsidize agriculture because if I simply pay at the grocery store the farmer will get little of that. The increase will go to the shipper, the mill, the grocery and everyone but the farmer. In turn I would like farmers to appreciate it and not treat them with disrespect when they meet them in the field hunting.



> US agriculture is continueally developing new technologies in ag that not only increases production, but does so in an efficient, responsible manner


We in America are not efficient. That is the point I have tried to make with reasonable people. Production and efficiency are two different things. Through subsidizing we have put the big emphasis on production. That has been destructive in many ways. It has caused land that should be pasture or hay to be farmed for grain. It has lead to b igger and bigger farms destroying the small towns. It has caused chemical polution in our wetlands, lakes, and rivers. ETc etc etc. Look at our ethanol program and you will see one of the most destructive agriculture programs in my lifetime. Right up there with the Payment In Kind Reagan implemented.

I'm not saying we should turn our back on ag, but as taxpayers direct it by controlling where we put our money.


----------



## gst

So plainsman how would you ensure there is enough food globaly to feed the worlds growing population without the "ineffecient" American agriculture model that Chuck suggests we "teach" to the world? It is easy to have a philisophical ideal if you do not have to deal with reality. So how do you propose feeding what is undisputably a growing world population in an "efficient" manner?

Lands that could not be farmed sustainably 30 yeas ago with practices used at that time can now be more productive because of advancements in conservation farming pracices than what "good" farmalnds were at that time?

The simple fact is that as the global population increases and arable land decreases more will have to be produced from less. This will require changing technologies to do so. Advancements in ag will be necessary to meet the demands placed upon it. Just as advancements in ag has changed it from what it was 30 years ago when some people are basing their "perspective" of ag on.

plainsman answer one siimple question.

Do you beleive you are fully informed as to the latest production practices, technologies, advancements that have been made in agriculture? Particularily ones regarding the "efficiency" of agriculture.


----------



## Plainsman

I think often the department of ag tells farmers what they want to hear.

Also, I think your trying to justify the environmental damage of tile, and the chemicals used in ag that leaves your land through tile and ditching. Feeding the world is an excuse and a smoke screen.

Like Chuck reminded you, and me, the subject is tile. Lets hear a real justification. Lets hear why it is or isn't a landowners right when considering the downstream damage.


----------



## Chuck Smith

GST... you say that the US is not feeding the world. Yet you keep bringing up the world. The US is teaching the world. They are sharing practices for efficency, technology, etc. They are teaching the world to farm.

You keep bring up subsides. Yes I am glad that the farmers get some subsides...but the way the system is now it is broken. It is outdated and needs to be revamped. Because it is rewarding poor business. If a farmer fails he gets paid. Is that a good system? I own two businesses if I fail I don't get paid.... where is my assistance for doing bad or poor business? But this is another topic.

Now GST... please weigh in on the drain tile issue?


----------



## Longshot

*


gst said:



Chuck, I do not beleive I ever claimed that it is the US's responsibility to feed the world.

Click to expand...

*


gst said:


> So plainsman how would you ensure there is enough food globaly to feed the worlds growing population without the "ineffecient" American agriculture model that Chuck suggests we "teach" to the world? It is easy to have a philisophical ideal if you do not have to deal with reality. So how do you propose feeding what is undisputably a growing world population in an "efficient" manner?





gst said:


> chuck, what I am suggesting is that as the global population grows, the number of arable acres per person suitable for raising food declines. More will have to be produced from less. It is simple mathmatics.





gst said:


> Here is perhaps a relevant question or two that ties into Sec. Vilaseks comment regarding ag production and practices. plainsman I do not expect an answer, simply something for others to give some thought too.
> 
> What was the world population in 1980 as compared to now?
> 
> What was the percentage of under nourished people in 1980 as compared to now?
> 
> What is the number of arable(farmable) acres/ person in 1980 as compared to now?


Too funny gst, your justification for poor practices in the past posts and threads has always been the need to feed the world.


----------



## gst

Chuck I said way back when in this thread, I was not going to "debate" tile. I have simply involved myself in this "debate" to clarify some "misstatements" regarding agriculture that have been made by some in this thread. Recall a claim that there is no notill planting of corn?

Perhaps if some would simply admit they are not an "expert" or in actuality even very knowledgable at all regarding current ag practices and production techniques, and quit making untrue claims regarding agriculture that are based on 30 year old "experiences" I would not even have entered this "debate".

I try not to make claims regarding to many issues I am not familiar with. How much credibility would I have if I continueally claimed Federal biologists were greedy and simply in it for what they could rip and rape from the taxpayers thru the various programs and they scew their "science" to further their agendas regardless of the costs to others. Yet that is the very thing that is happening on this site with some that know little to nothing about agriculture.

As I said several times before, if people would simply quit making statements about agriculture that are not true, the "debate" about tile will be left entirely to those that wish to debate tile.

As to wether the US is a major player in "feeding the world", go back thru the last half century and total the US's agricultural exports and tell me what those exports were used for.


----------



## gst

longshot if you take the time to comprehend what was written rather than simply looking to take a shot at someone you do not agree with you would realize that I understand the US is not the sole source of food for the whole world. It would be redicualous to beleive so. But as the US has been a net exporter of ag products for decades, we have indeed contributed to feeding a portion of the worlds population and as the worlds population grows the amount of arable lands per person declines so more will have to be produced on less. If you want to dispute that as being nonfactual so be it.


----------



## Plainsman

> Perhaps if some would simply admit they are not an "expert" or in actuality even very knowledgable at all regarding current ag practices and production techniques, and quit making untrue claims regarding agriculture that are based on 30 year old "experiences" I would not even have entered this "debate".


Wow is that bull dropping if I ever heard it. Then to say you don 't debate what you don't know is more bull droppings. You guys know how to put tile in, but I doubt you know much about hydrology or wetland ecology, yet you debate it. Devils Lake for example. I think I have more farming under my belt than you do wetlands. As a matter of fact I have an ag degree, do you have a tile degree? You can write me off if you want, but I doubt others will.
As for 30 year old practices in my last post I related poor ag practices today and how they relate to 30 years ago. Stupidity doesn't follow a calendar. I compared the ethanol program today as being destructive like the PIK program was in the 1980's. That is current compared to the past gst.
Now stop using excuses for poor ag practices that still exist. We all know that what your saying is if your not allowed to abuse the land and water that the world will starve. Meanwhile we have laws to protect your business and stop importing into the United States. The only reason we have a net export is because you guys have received protection from imports.

OK, now can we talk tile? I know you want to derail it because you know it' bad. You know it.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> I think I have more farming under my belt than you do wetlands. As a matter of fact I have an ag degree, do you have a tile degree?





gst said:


> plainsman answer one siimple question.
> 
> Do you beleive you are fully informed as to the latest production practices, technologies, advancements that have been made in agriculture? Particularily ones regarding the "efficiency" of agriculture.


plainsman given your "degree", please answer the question. Or perhaps you can simply answer when the practice of notill planting corn began. :wink: The simple fact is you have no clue of the advancements made in agriculture regarding precision application, controled application, gps precision mapping, autorate shutoff technology ect..... and yet you make outdated inaccurate claims about agriculture. I do not wish to debate about tile. I have told you that previously. You can assume for what ever reason you wish. I would not debate much of anything with you if you would simply do one thing. I simply expect you to stop making claims regarding agriculture that are not accurate soley to serve your purpose.

Simply try doing that and you can remain "on topic" and debate all you wish without my involvement.


----------



## Plainsman

> Simply try doing that and you can remain "on topic" and debate all you wish without my involvement.


Thanks.

I think tile and drainage is one of those areas we need to drag the ag industry kicking and screaming into the 18th century. :wink: Ag has made some great advancements, but this is one area that they are still in the cowboy leave your mark on the land attitude. Since all you need to do is follow the money we as taxpayers can direct those bad habits by manipulation through the ag program. Simply stop voting for people who support ethanol for one thing. The price for corn drove the plow across a lot of CRP, hay land, and native prairie much the same as PIK (oh my 30 years old).

I am not against subsidies, but one thing we can do is call our congressmen and tell them we don't think there should be any subsidies on tiled or drained land. We should have a choice it's our money. Save the subsidies for those who are actually stewards of the land. There are many ways we can cut land miners off at the knees.

gst, not as debate or anything, but just for your interest. Have you ever noticed a fellow that posts on here by the name of indsport? He was one of the first to use gps in this state, long before the public was given access. I doubt it was any accident that the first farmer around steering his tractor and gps mapping was his neighbor. He also taught me the ropes using gps mapping. Those first units you needed a backpack for. They were on loan from the military and every morning we would have to call in for access codes and the times that the military was scrambling data so we could correct for it. Many things that the military does benefits us in so many other ways.


----------



## shaug

Plainsman wrote,



> We in America are not efficient. That is the point I have tried to make with reasonable people. Production and efficiency are two different things. Through subsidizing we have put the big emphasis on production. That has been destructive in many ways. It has caused land that should be pasture or hay to be farmed for grain. It has lead to b igger and bigger farms destroying the small towns. It has caused chemical polution in our wetlands, lakes, and rivers. ETc etc etc. Look at our ethanol program and you will see one of the most destructive agriculture programs in my lifetime. Right up there with the Payment In Kind Reagan implemented.
> 
> I'm not saying we should turn our back on ag, but as taxpayers direct it by controlling where we put our money.


Plainsman, what is obvious is that "you" would like more input and control. A planner of property rights, land use and increased land use regulations. Trying here to build concensus and implement your vision on other peoples property. However, the free market/free enterprize system many of us endear, stands in your way.

Property rights advocate and Cato Institute scholar Randal O'Toole wrote,

"any who say they can write a comprehensive, long-range plan for a city or region neccessarily presumes that: they can collect all the data they need about the values and costs of land, improvements, and proposed and alternate projects in the planning area; they can accurately predict how these values and costs will change in the future; they can properly understand all the relationships between various parts of their region and activities in those areas; they can do all this quickly enough that the plan is still meaningful when they are done; and they will be immune to political pressures and can objectively overcome their own personal preferances."

Plainsman, about a year ago Randle O'Toole was in Bismarck. I was there. Very interesting fellow. I believe the personage he described in the above paragragh fits you to a tee. Also, Randal O'Toole is an advocate of private planning verses public planning by government planners, radical environmentalists and busy body bureaucrats.

Plainsman, I invited swift and Ron Gilmore to attend an AG Coalition Meeting so they could air their concerns to the farm groups they attack, but they both declined. If Randal O'Toole from the Cato Institute comes back to Bismarck how about I give you a heads up. I'll introduce you to him. But be warned, this guy can sniff out a socialist. Ten bucks says you decline the invitation.


----------



## Plainsman

Shaug if you think I am a socialist you better read the political form more often. I am all for responsible farmers. However, many farmers today are different than the small farmers of yesterday. Sure, most are the same. Most have family that will one day take over. Many of those treat their land better than those that plan on a short career. 
When I was working in Montana (sorry this was years ago) a company was buying up land. They would buy prairie, break it up, farm it for three years, then resell it for a good profit. Some farm that way today. Some tile and drain, and pour the fertilizer to maximize production that year with little thought of tomorrow or the damage they cause.
I don't think it's socialist to look at the money gained in agriculture as opposed to the money loss caused by it. What would your opinion be of tile if damage is twice the gain? Is it socialist to look at improving the way we do things? Is it socialist to use the gps steering and cut off mechanisms gst spoke of so that we don't seed in the same places, overlap fertilizer, wast herbicide etc? What I am talking about is simply rewarding the good land steward and not the land miners. I think taxpayers can influence that. If it's our money and we are interested in how it's used doesn't it make sense to engage the political process to accomplish those goals? That's what everyone does. Doesn't agriculture do the same thing? I think you accusation is the pot calling the kettle black.
Socialism would be taking tax money from one person and giving it to another. Oh, oh, the current farm program is socialistic isn't it? You see shaug that's one of my problems with the current ag program. Talk to Farmers Union members and they are all for it. I'll bet 90% of Farmers Union members still support our Marxist president. Before this is over I think you will regret the label you tried to pin on me.


----------



## gst

plainsman if you know so much about current ag practices, why did you claim that no till planting of corn was not occurring? Recall that claim? Perhaps you can "clarify" that one.

If you know so much about the current practices ag is implementing, why would you paint the picture of all ag as greedy and willing only to "rip, rape, and run" as you did earlier in this debate?

If you know so much about the advancements in ag why do you make the claim US ag is the most "ineffecient" in the world? 
Simply because you know how to operate a GPS unit, that knowledge may keep you from getting lost in the woods, but it does not make you an "expert" in how they are being used to increase efficiencies in ag.

If you know so much about todays agriculture practices, why would you make claims of of erosion and soil loss based on 30 year old experiences you had insinuated towards todays ag practices?

If you know so much about agriculture why have you not answered how the growing world population will continue to be fed under your ideals of ag production? Perhaps you still beleive the "efficient" producer in China planting rice by hand will "feed the world".

You are most certainly free to beleive what you wish, but if you choose to publically make claims about others industries please provide the links to where you get your information so everyone can determine the factuality of your claims.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> What I am talking about is simply rewarding the good land steward and not the land miners


Plainsman, just out of curiousity and not as a debate, why then would you argue and make childish insinuations and claims as you did in a thread discussing a state law that has long protected these "good land stewards" and kept the entities most likely to be "land miners" out of this state and then lock the thread after throwing in one last jab?

Particularily with someone that is a strong advocate and practioneer of these stewardship practices?

This law has protected this state from having these corporate entities that would be the most likely to "rip, rape,and run" as you put it. And yet you argue against those wanting to continue support for this law???


----------



## Longshot

gst said:


> longshot if you take the time to comprehend what was written rather than simply looking to take a shot at someone you do not agree with you would realize that I understand the US is not the sole source of food for the whole world.


No gst, it is easy to comprehend your double talk from one post or thread to another. The US doesn't need to feed the world if it's going to cost us more in the long run in terms of our own land.


shaug said:


> Plainsman wrote,
> 
> 
> 
> shaug said:
> 
> 
> 
> Plainsman, I invited swift and Ron Gilmore to attend an AG Coalition Meeting so they could air their concerns to the farm groups they attack, but they both declined. If Randal O'Toole from the Cato Institute comes back to Bismarck how about I give you a heads up. I'll introduce you to him. But be warned, this guy can sniff out a socialist. Ten bucks says you decline the invitation.
Click to expand...

Shaug, is it being more of a socialist taking/accepting the money or looking to make the best of the money taken from others?


----------



## Plainsman

Tile gst, tile, not gps, not feed the world.

I will force myself to stick on subject even though I would like to talk about other things with you socialists. :wink:


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> Tile gst, tile, not gps, not feed the world.
> 
> I will force myself to stick on subject even though I would like to talk about other things with you socialists. :wink:


Well as you will not answer the question wether you know enough about current farming practices to back up your claims, we will just rely on the fact you did not know that no till planting of corn had been going on for quite a few years now as an indication you know less than what you claim.

So stick to debating tile, do not make false claims or insinuations regarding agriculture (or even massively outdated ones) and try not to make snide little insinuations about someones kids and you should be fine. :wink:

Oh and now and then try throwing in a link or two that provides some facts to back up what you claim. It is much easier than having to go back and "clarify" everything.


----------



## Plainsman

> false claims or insinuations


In your book gst, but not mine. Your claims are false in my book. I accept the fact that you guys are now doing no till corn. I remember when they always plowed it mostly to plow under corn borers. I don't know how extensive it is, but a friend of mine did his masters developing _Bacillus thuringiensis_ to destroy the digestive tract of Lepidopteran larvae. I have not kept up with that. If you have heard of it, tell me how it's working out.

If you practice what you preach and don't get personal you should be ok. :wink: Oh, and if you can have enough respect to drop a subject when told to you should be ok. :wink: There are some things you need to let go of. After all those people your angry at cast no stones that you did not throw larger ones at me. I'm over it so make sure you are too. I don't want to curtail speech, but I also don't want it to be my fault this goes way off track. I have done my part and now I hope you will do yours. Thanks

My point is tile and draining not only flood your neighbors and thousands of others downstream, but they pollute the wetlands, rivers, and all water structures they come into contact with. As a citizen and taxpayer we have a voice in how our tax dollars are spent. Normally I am strictly by the constitution, but I am willing to bend that slightly and even be slightly socialist to support farmers. However, I hope your Marxist president doesn't take this to extreme. If he does it may hurt you since your getting such a big chunk of the pie already. :wink: By the way when you tile and dig those drains do you pay for it all or does the government consider it land improvement and pay part. I know that in the past (yes past I admit it so this is a question) they paid for anything they considered land improvement. So here is your chance to educate us.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> Your claims are false in my book


Alright here is your chance. Another one of those "please show me" deals. Please show me an example of what you claim above.



Plainsman said:


> If you practice what you preach and don't get personal you should be ok. Oh, and if you can have enough respect to drop a subject when told to you should be ok. There are some things you need to let go of. After all those people your angry at cast no stones that you did not throw larger ones at me. I'm over it so make sure you are too. I don't want to curtail speech, but I also don't want it to be my fault this goes way off track. I have done my part and now I hope you will do yours. Thanks


Tell you what plainsman, you show me the thread that is titled does a kid raising pheasants for an FFA project deserve to be insulted for "commercializing" wildlife within this drain tile thread and THEN you preach about staying on topic. :eyeroll:

By now everyone should know you are not going to apologize for making snide insinuations a 16 year old young man you have never once met is in the same class as " a pedophile thinking he is the worlds greatest lover" as you claimed anyone that "commercializes" wildlife is in your eyes when you acuse him of raising pheasants to make some "georges" or monetary gain. Simply because you don;t agree with his old mans "perspective". If that isn;t considered "getting personal" on this site, I should be fine. By the way, I still have those dimes to bet yet if you would like to pony up. :wink:

If someone that has posted and maintained a level of courteousy in these discussions in a manner that EARNS respect asks me to "drop a subject" I will give them the respect they have earned and likely do as they ask. But for you, moderator or not, you have not met that standard. Until then perhaps you are simply better off locking this thread as well after you have had the last say.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> I accept the fact that you guys are now doing no till corn. I remember when they always plowed it mostly to plow under corn borers. I don't know how extensive it is, but a friend of mine did his masters developing Bacillus thuringiensis to destroy the digestive tract of Lepidopteran larvae. I have not kept up with that. If you have heard of it, tell me how it's working out.


That's mighty big of you to "accept" the fact notill planting of corn has been going on for years dispite your claims to the contrary. :roll: That "acceptance" alone would have probably been good enough without the "clarification". Perhaps you should now try "accepting" some more up to date information that has happened in the last 30 years regarding agriculture. Some of them are down right amazing.

Just simply quit pulling crap out of your *** without first checking and providing factual links that take a total of a few seconds or at the most minutes to find on the very same internet you are spouting off on here and you will likely be fine. :wink:


----------



## Plainsman

> Just simply quit pulling crap out of your a$$ without first checking and providing factual links that take a total of a few seconds or at the most minutes to find on the very same internet you are spouting off on here and you will likely be fine.


Since you do it why can't I? :wink:

Yes, I know ag has made some far reaching improvements. I'll bet you would fall off your chair if you knew I did as much work for agriculture as I did wildlife. Well, actually if I stop and give it more thought it's more like 30/70. You know many things I don't, but I know a few you have no idea of. I hope they get published soon. I have learned some things in these threads. Please don't puff up your chest so far you can't inhale some new ideas.

However, very little of our talk remains on topic. I know you don't want to talk about tile, but you sure want to talk. Why don't you ever start a thread about the things your interested in instead of screwing up the others with the banter that leads nowhere? If I can get one thought across to you it's this: efficiency and production are not the same thing. Actually to stay on topic, two things: tile and drainage cause flooding and pollution.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> Since you do it why can't I?


Odds are since you did not answer the last "please show me" regarding your claim what information I post on here is false, I doubt you will do so here once again.



Plainsman said:


> Actually to stay on topic, two things: tile and drainage cause flooding and pollution.


And yet once again we have come full circle. Please show where in the multiple cases of flooding here in our state, that it was CAUSED by flooding. I am sure as factual as your claims are regarding this you will most certainly write letters to the editors in the states major newspapers enlightening all the residents of Minot, Bismarck and other towns that are dealing with flooding that it is all CAUSED by tile. Apparently there is nothing left to debate after this decree.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> However, very little of our talk remains on topic. I know you don't want to talk about tile, but you sure want to talk. Why don't you ever start a thread about the things your interested in instead of screwing up the others with the banter that leads nowhere?


It is quite simple, I wouldn't even be on this site any more if people would simply stop makjiong claims about agriculture that are not true.



Plainsman said:


> If I can get one thought across to you it's this: efficiency and production are not the same thing.


So please give an example of what "effecient" means of ag "production" will feed the people of this country or this world. I am quite interested to hear your theory. Remember know there are people much smarter than me or even you that are claiming significant increases in global populations as well as dramatic increases in the population of this country. So how do you propose to "efficiently" produce enough food stocks?


----------



## Plainsman

> It is quite simple, I wouldn't even be on this site any more if people would simply stop makjiong claims about agriculture that are not true.


So it's blackmail? Everyone has to think like you or else.



> So please give an example of what "effecient" means of ag "production" will feed the people of this country or this world. I am quite interested to hear your theory.


Well, that tells me you don't understand at all --- even yet. I think your confused because the tractor dealer, the university, and others keep telling you how efficient you are to suck up.
Maybe a dictionary definition will help.
Productive: pro·duc·tive/prəˈdəktiv/Adjective
1. Producing or able to produce large amounts of goods, crops, or other commodities.
It could mean also a persons work. A man that turns out 30 widgets per hour is more productive than one that turns out ten.

Efficient: ef·fi·cient/iˈfiSHənt/Adjective
1. (esp. of a system or machine) Achieving maximum productivity with minimum wasted effort or expense.

You see the dictionary goes right along with my thinking. You as a farmer produce perhaps a hundred times as much food as a Chinese farmer. Actually you perhaps produce 1000 times as much, and I think that is realistic. However, you put many units of energy in for every unit you take out. Now I know my data is old, but 30 years ago farmers were putting in 20, 30 units and more for each unit they took out. Today I am sure that is ---- well, I'm not sure it could be better it could be worse. Maybe you can shed some light on that. Anyway, at that same time in our ag class the professor used China as an example and they put one unit in for each unit out. Now, I think the Chinese produced more pollution per unit of energy they took out than you do because their fields are also their bathroom. Yuuuuuck. So gst your very productive and the Chinese guy is very efficient. The individual Chinese guy is not very productive, but all of them as a whole are very productive. If we looked at 1000 acres I am not sure who would raise the most food. Perhaps the Chinese guys because there would be 500 farmers on two acres and his family would be fertilizing his rice. Yuuuuck again.

That is the reality of the situation. Now you can call for a citation, but I didn't look up any I drew that from education at an agriculture college.

No one is taking away the respect the American farmer deserves, we are simply talking reality. Most farmers I have no problem with and really enjoy them. The only ones that turn me off are the ones that think they are doing it all on their own and have no appreciation for the people involved with and helping them through this venture through life.

Now I hope you can respond as respectfully and not get personal.


----------



## Plainsman

Oooops I suckered again and answered another of a hundred how do we feed the world smoke screens.

OK, I'll try to pull the two together. Tile and drainage make you more productive for a few years. Once the hydrological mineral deposits hit some of that land it will be very unproductive. In the end nothing will be gained, but a lot of energy will be burned draining and tiling and more taxes will be paid by American taxpayers to subsidize grain going to other countries. So it really looks like the land produces the food and the taxpayer indirectly subsidizes some other country. 
Once you begin the expend energy to make land more productive you begin to sacrifice efficiency. Once the land becomes less productive (some of it) you loose productivity and efficiency. If farmers were making it on their own without the subsidies they would farm a lot different. The wasteful would be weeded out and only good land stewards would be left. Our government run ag program is at fault, equally or more than the farmers. Many of my farming relatives wish the government would just butt out. It's a socialist program for sure. 
Increase efficiency by using land as nature dictates. Raise grain on fertile land. Hay low areas, brushy areas rocky areas, and highly erodible areas, or graze it. You can fight nature and loose or you can learn to work with it. Tile and drain are fighting nature. Also, if you make another $100, but cause people downstream to loose a $1000 what is gained and is that a landowners right? That is simply examples gst, so please don't grab those numbers and run with them as if I am suggesting they are real. A guy has to have disclaimers even in casual speech I guess. :wink:


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> So it's blackmail? Everyone has to think like you or else.


plainsman I could give a **** how or what you think, simply stop making claims about agriculture that are not true.



Plainsman said:


> Efficient: ef·fi·cient/iˈfiSHənt/Adjective
> 1. (esp. of a system or machine) *Achieving maximum productivity* with minimum wasted effort or expense


Now plainsman perhaps back in the 1960's when you were in college, that farmer in China could produce enough rice to feed his fellow Chinese. But please explain how this example of "efficient" farming will feed the current global population. That was the question, not the difference between a webster definition. Do you truely beleive a farmer planting rice by hand will feed the population this world now has, let alone what it is growing to???

It is very easy to sit behind a computor and hypothisize based on 40 year old college learning, it is much different actually dealing firsthand with the realities facing todays global community.

So if we were to go to the "efficient" manner of hand planting crops as you suggest, it is quite clear (at least to those that understand the global issue) this would not produce enough food to feed the global population. So if you are not acheiving your needed end result, how "efficient" are you or is all that "energy" simply being wasted with "inefficient" production?

You see what you do not realize is to acheive the necessary end result, both productivity as well as efficiency must be acheived.
So make whatever claims regarding the American farmer you wish, but if you beleive the American farmer does not "acheive maximum productivity with minimum wasted effort or expense" YOUR definition of efficiency, perhaps you should talk with research extension specialists, crop agronomy professionals ag technology professionals ect.. people that are much smarter and better informed than me and even you regarding ag production and efficiencies. These folks have ag degrees as well, the difference is their knowledge comes from involvement IN production agriculture.

Here is a question for you, back when the model 45 JD combine came out, how did it get it's numerical identification? It seems most of your "knowledge" of farming comes from about this era so this should be an easy one. :wink:


----------



## north1

Wow, this has become rather vicious. I will state a few more thoughts although I feel like I'm entering a knife fight with a spoon.

As a farmer I feel government subsidies and the rules behind it have in some respects forced a hand on me I would rather not play. The only choice is to either fold or draw a better hand.

I fully realize a growing population demands more production. However; in my heart of hearts I know I would rather be doing things differently. I now farm a neighbors land for his family. He used to farm it the way it should be done. He didn't jump on the drainage bandwagon when most were, he hayed unproductive areas, seeded sweet clover cover crops and farmed with mother nature instead of against it. Man did he grow tremendous, healthy crops. 17 protein spring wheat every year, I'm not kidding. Used very little fertilizer and pesticides.

When I took over farming it the family wanted a crop every year, farm it fence row to fence row. For the first few years it produced well but I could see the deterioration over time. Even though there is no drainage the soils were high in organics and could store more water. Now it takes more fertilizer and the soils are tighter and water ponds much more easily.

These are the undeniable facts I have witnessed. It makes me sick to know inside the right way to farm, but also knowing that way would preclude the destruction of my ability to do it at all. My landlords would jump ship at the first mention of the "right way" and my neighbors would relish taking it over. I think I will sign off. I feel rather sick thinking about the whole situation.


----------



## Plainsman

north1, don't worry about the knife fight. You sound like my relatives. I know exactly how you feel caught in the programs you wish were different, but when everyone else is doing it you have to if you want to survive. I read your posts and it makes me want to come out and jump on your machinery to help. Your one of those guys we are are pulling for. I absolutely respect your attitude to the highest degree. Thank you for posting.

gst, like I said forget your bogus feed the world I'm just trying to get you to understand efficiency, but your ego is in the way.


----------



## gst

Plainsman said:


> st, like I said forget your bogus feed the world I'm just trying to get you to understand efficiency, but your ego is in the way


plainsman, you are right, what was I thinking, just this morning I had an epiphany. What am I doing argueing with a retired Federal employee regarding efficiencies. We all know how "efficient" federal govt programs and policy are. Why all those taxpayer dollars going to fund yet unpublished studies must have been effeciently spent.

So plainsman you win. Clearly you know much more about the "efficiencies" or lack there of in farming than I. Clearly you know far more about the conservation practices happening in farming such as no till planting and others than I. Clearly you are smarter than all the people that have gathered, studied and published the information provided in the links I post showing the factual basis for what I write on here that you do not beleive. Clearly we should all just sit back and let you make whatever claims you wish and not question their factual nature simply because you have posted them.

At least I can take comfort in knowing that after how ever many pages of back and forth, you have now "accepted" the fact no till planting of corn is actually happening. I hope your ego was not bruised in making that "acceptance" contrary to your claims on here regarding the practice. :wink:

North 1, If you are interested, next Tues. the 14 at I beleive 4:30 we are sponsoring an informative meeting and question and answer program at the Antler Pavilion 1 1/2 mile north of town at the "crick" on the usage of cover crops in farming operations. Gabe Brown as well as I beleive a couple guys from the Burleigh County NRCS will be presenting. If you have never heard Gabe Brown speak it is well worth the trip. He has done extensive developement of using cover crops to lower fertilizer and chemical usage while boosting production on his lands outside of Bismarck. Thru the usage of cover crops, rotational intensive grazing, ect... they have maintained a soil profile and health that is pretty impressive if you are interested in things like that. It is a steak supper program with lots of time for questions and answers.

Here is a link to his operation. http://sustainableranching.com/ If you go down to the bottom and click on the link to the NRCS you will see a little about what is beig accomplished. 
http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/feature/ourpur ... rs/nd.html I have met Gabe several times before and can guarantee you no ones "egos" will be getting in the way of sharing innovative ideas and sustainable practices. There will be discussion on the usage of cover crops seeded later on prevent plant acres to help aleviate the moisture concerns for the following year as well as put nutrients and organic mater in the soil while maintaining residue top cover. Come on up if you are interested. It is $30 dollars for the meeting and supper. (I know, only in it for the money right! :wink: )The steaks are sliced while you wait and cooked over an open fire. I'll bet they will be one of the best you have ever had!!!

I know it is not about tile or draining, and so might be "off topic" but Gabe is a perfect example of what many of us in ag are quietly doing.


----------



## Plainsman

He sounds like a sharp guy.


----------

