# water runs DOWN HILL



## farmer1950 (Dec 28, 2011)

In responce to Mr. B's articles about saving the Sheyenne. It sounds like he would like to go back to the "good old days." Obviously he doesn't like Devil's Lake water because he thinks it will polute it. He wants to remove all run-off and take out all black top because it doesn't let water soak in. Without black top, commercial transportation would be in kind of a bind. Concrete doesn't let water soak in either, so much for city growth. Removing run-off means no more ditches or dikes. Last time I checked water RUNS DOWN HILL. (at least I thought so). Trains are ok, water can soak through the tracks, oh wait the Devil's Lake track may close because Devil's Lake has too much water.
Where is Mr. B. going to pitch his tent. Houses need a CONCRETE foundation. And we already decided that's not in the streams best interest. GOOD LUCK!


----------



## dakotashooter2 (Oct 31, 2003)

Yep it does run downhill and when DL gets full enough it will start flowing toward the sheyenne, quickly erroding hundreds or thousands of years of light silt that have filled in its natural channels then giving DL water an uncontrolled path into the river. Then the problems will really start.


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

Hey, I'd like to go back to the good old days too, the ones when all that water that is now in DL was still in the sloughs that used to be in that area.

Can't understand why everyone is against an outlet that would allow the releases to be controlled, rather than having it overflow and become an uncontrolled release.

huntin1


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

We have denied the truth so long that the problem has grown. Now we have a monster on our hands.


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

huntin1 said:


> Hey, I'd like to go back to the good old days too, the ones when all that water that is now in DL was still in the sloughs that used to be in that area.
> 
> Can't understand why everyone is against an outlet that would allow the releases to be controlled, rather than having it overflow and become an uncontrolled release.
> 
> huntin1


Dont worry, the sloughs are all full too!

I want to go back to the good old days too. The days when the DL basin filled up and outletted to the Sheyenne, the "au natural" way!


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

huntin1 said:


> Hey, I'd like to go back to the good old days too, the ones when all that water that is now in DL was still in the sloughs that used to be in that area.
> 
> Can't understand why everyone is against an outlet that would allow the releases to be controlled, rather than having it overflow and become an uncontrolled release.
> 
> huntin1


Have to say that from what I have seen and heard it has a lot to do with the talk of bringing down the lake well below the natural outflow levels and that our neighbors to the north likely would have won in court to block any attempt that was not treated water.

I know that some of the people from the area I personally know think that an outlet is going to remove thousands of acres of water so they get their land back. Not a reality in todays world of litigation! That is not saying I do not understand their point of view.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Dont worry, the sloughs are all full too!


The few that are left are full to their average established levels and beyond, but some could contain more before natural overflow. Those that are drained some are low and hold water, but others are higher elevation and dry. The drained wetlands that I looked at vary from those in low areas having water to those at higher elevation being dry. My only point is that under natural conditions Devils Lake would be lower because there is still some holding capacity north of Devils Lake, and in natural conditions there was no Channel A.



> I want to go back to the good old days too. The days when the DL basin filled up and outletted to the Sheyenne, the "au natural" way!


That would make today's fishing pale in comparison. We have to get back to society paying for conservation practices rather than support prices on surplus grain.


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

You know, I get sick of hearing how the issues today in the DL basin are the farmers fault.

Draining wetlands draining wetlands, blah blah blah. Back in 2003 and prior, ya, you could have said the lake wouldnt be quite to high if the farmers would hold a little water on their land. 2011-2012, hell no. Tough to hold more water when theres nowhere left to hold it.

Go ahead, tell me where the people of the DL basin are supposed to hold more water?










Oh yeah, heres the basin in 2010, just to give you an idea of the astronomical amount of water that entered into the basin in just one years time.










Mother nature deals in extremes. Really high deer numbers, really low deer numbers. Really high predator populations, really low predator populations. Really hot, really cold. Really dry, really wet. Mother nature always compensates to the other extreme. Thats exactly what is going on in the DL basin right now, and when she spills into the Sheyenne, the people down stream can just deal with it just as the people of the basin have been dealing with it for almost 20 years. Its natures course, and its happened before.


----------



## dakotashooter2 (Oct 31, 2003)

Getting DL water levels back to normal isn't gonna help any farmers for at least their lifetime. Many areas have washed right down to the gravel and most will take years to establish a decent topsoil again, when they don't resemble a swamp..

IF DL cuts a channel to the Sheyenne the upstream farmers will be happy but the downstream ones will not. Then instead of removing excess water someone will be looking to dam the channel. It's a lose lose.


----------



## zzyzx (Mar 20, 2010)

Devils Lake is in a basin. They fill and drain, overflow and evaporate through the centuries. Build below the historical high water mark and a few wet years means you get flooded out. Anyone who builds in a flood plain and can't figure this out is dumber than a politician.

What is surprising about the Devils Lake situation is that some old farmers didn't go in at night a year or so ago and dynamite an outflow channel.


----------



## farmer1950 (Dec 28, 2011)

huntin1 said:


> Hey, I'd like to go back to the good old days too, the ones when all that water that is now in DL was still in the sloughs that used to be in that area.
> 
> Can't understand why everyone is against an outlet that would allow the releases to be controlled, rather than having it overflow and become an uncontrolled release.
> 
> huntin1


 I agree with an outlet, a long time ago. The people downstream ignored Devils Lake's problems because it didn't affect them. They just blocked outlet attempts because they didn't want water ruining the perfect river (rivers need water, if they don't have it, that means it isn't a river). They were all for the natural, UNTIL the water was a few feet from roaring their way and causing a mess, then they wanted an outlet. A little consideration for other people on both sides of this debate could have solved a lot of problems


----------



## Bad Dog (Jan 20, 2011)

Awesome! Yes water runs downhill. And it'll run even faster down hill if its confined to a straight ditch. Someone made the comment


> You know, I get sick of hearing how the issues today in the DL basin are the farmers fault.


 Not all farmers just those that drained all the water on the property they farm, into ditches that flow into coulees that flow into dl. Channel A and the movais were dug for what purpose? To get water into dl when it was drier. One doesn't have to be a rocket scientist or a drainer to realize that if what is in one place and then you move it to another, where did it go? To the other place, duh!


----------



## Duckslayer100 (Apr 7, 2004)

Coulda shoulda woulda. All talk now. Way too late to do anything about it. Spring should be interesting, to say the least...


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Draining wetlands draining wetlands, blah blah blah. Back in 2003 and prior, ya, you could have said the lake wouldnt be quite to high if the farmers would hold a little water on their land. 2011-2012, hell no. Tough to hold more water when theres nowhere left to hold it.


Really? I know land up there that still has dry wetlands. Of course they have drains that lead to larger drains that lead to larger drains that lead to channel A that leads to Devils Lake. Some people may be tired of hearing it, but then I guess they are tired of hearing the truth. Most who are tired of hearing it have a dog in the fight.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

This subject is always a tough one, at what elevation would an outlet be approriate. What many have always failed to see is legally that is the height that the water would flow naturally. That is also the same height that the courts when this goes there will determine it can be drained down. Many forget that this body of water is included in an international treaty because of the Red!

Now if nothing is done and the overflow cuts and creates a new level, then that is a different animal, which it seems is the sticking point. People affected want the water gone back to levels we had seen for years and years. That is not going to happen unless through natural events!


----------



## dakotashooter2 (Oct 31, 2003)

Just because a wetland is dry does not mean it has been drained. Wetlands come and go through natural processes also. Over time as debris from cattails and other plant growth decays and "fills in" a wetland to the level that it may drain off naturally and no longer hold water. I have seen this in my lifetime. I know of sloughs that were 3' deep when I was a kid and now are dry or nearly dry and no artificial draining has been involved. Meanwhile 200 yards away is a 1' deep slough that didn't exist 35 years ago. ND has been in a wet cycle for quite a while now. While some of the DL rise can be atributed to artificial drainage the fact is most wetlands probably reached a point where they either surface drained excess water or the water is draining off subsurface due to saturation. I see springs all over the place that didn't exists 20-30 years ago.

The subject of draining DL is also touchy. An outlet years ago would have produced water with more salinity than it currently has. If DL ever starts to drain naturally and washes out a channel the water will have more and more salinity as the water level drops. Theoretically the water is probably at the purest level it will ever be right now so it would make sense that now is when it would be best to draw water off it. Allowing "fresh" water in the spring to flush through the lake would seem to be the best way maintain a reasonable water quality in the river but then you get the issue of flooding.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

The high salinity is why the first drain went in at the west end of Devils Lake. This fall I had to drive ten miles around to pick up deer when other years I just drove the pickup across the river. I know it's because of the drain, because I hunt both sides of where it comes in.

There is another fellow on this site that has land up north of Devils Lake. If he chimes in he can tell you there are wetlands in elevation above the ditches that are dry from being drained. Yes there is a lot of water, some wetlands will hold no more, and people are correct we would be in trouble anyway, but not near as bad.

My neighbor north of me here in Jamestown just moved in a few years ago, from Tolna. He went up to the farm last spring and found people surveying his farm. No one had asked or informed him at all. I think I would have been ticked.

Stump Lake is much more saline than Devils Lake. It's one of the only wetlands in North Dakota that I have sampled and found no invertebrates. That was back in 1968, and I know it's much fresher and full of walleye now. However, it is more saline that the main body of water at Devils Lake.

I don't know how the treaty with Canada works. I know Garrison Diversion would have violated that treaty because it would have brought water from another watershed with perhaps devastating disease potential to Canadian fisheries. Since Devils Lake doesn't have Missouri River water we may not be in violation if we drain into the Sheyenne. That's were it drained naturally in the past. Personally if it drained there in the past I don't see a problem, other than we need to be careful we don't wipe out Valley City, Fargo, and Grand Forks.


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

Which is why I believe an outlet that will allow a controlled release makes a lot more sense than just waiting for a natural release as some are advocating. When that water starts to go people downstream will be in trouble, I question that Valley City would be able to survive it.

And yes, I know that draining the wetlands in the DL basin is not the total cause of this mess, but it sure has contributed to it. How many acre feet of water would stay in those wetlands instead of just running right through the drain ditches and into DL?

huntin1


----------



## Bad Dog (Jan 20, 2011)

plainsman said


> I know land up there that still has dry wetlands. Of course they have drains that lead to larger drains that lead to larger drains that lead to channel A that leads to Devils Lake.


 he's correct. There are thousands of acres of wetlands that have been drained up there. Don't need to be a wetland expert to know that. All one has to do is compare a set of photographs, one old and one present day, around the munich area.

Why should valley city, lisbon, fargo accept dl water without them having to show that they are trying to limit the water flowing into dl? sounds like a bunch of you know what to me. those communities of vc, lisbon, fargo, etc., should demand that they'll accept an outlet when the upper basin is serious about limiting the flows.


----------

