# Forum editorial: Lake outlet opponents not credible



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

*Forum editorial: Lake outlet opponents not credible*
The Forum
Published Wednesday, May 03, 2006
Opponents of the Devils Lake outlet project in northeast North Dakota continue to manipulate data to bolster their biases. Their latest stunt is to portray water quality in the Sheyenne River (into which the outlet discharges) as pristine while the water in the lake is a stew of polluting chemicals. Calling their characterization a lie is too kind.

The latest distortion is about sulfate levels in the lake. The operators of the outlet have delayed opening the gates this spring because sulfate levels in the river are high. Sulfate levels in the lake also are higher than usual in spring. So, as promised, the outlet will remain closed until sulfate levels conform to permit requirements.

Sulfates are compounds that could, at certain levels in water, cause digestive problems and increase water treatment costs. Those levels have not been reached either in the river or the lake.

Outlet opponents focus on only one part of the sulfate situation: levels in the lake. They conveniently do a quick-step around the fact that sulfate levels are high in the river. They choose not to discuss the fact that sulfates are naturally occurring substances in North Dakota soils that tend to leach into surface waters when ground water levels are high. The sulfates in the river are natural; they have absolutely nothing to do with the lake outlet.

Outlet managers and the North Dakota Department of Health are considering permit modifications that would more honestly reflect natural background levels of sulfates. The current sulfate standard is based on old data that showed lower concentrations in the river, thus preventing a lake discharge when lake sulfates were at a specific level. A more sensible approach would be to issue a permit that would take into account variable natural conditions.

Finally, outlet opponents are so fixated on attacking the outlet, they seem blind to the real pollution problems in the Sheyenne River watershed. Their obsession with soil-borne sulfates is peculiar when compared to the man-made pollutants which flow (are flowing now) into the river. They include pesticide and herbicide residue, discharges from sewage treatment lagoons and the nutrient-rich runoff from feedlots and pastures. Apparently those unnatural pollutants pass muster for the outlet foes.

It's hard to take their rantings about the outlet seriously when they don't seem interested in cleaning up their own backyard.

Forum editorials represent the opinion of Forum management and the newspaper's Editorial Board.


----------



## always_outdoors (Dec 17, 2002)

What? Nobody here from Save the Sheyenne to dissect this article??

Dick, I figured you to respond to this?

IMHO the outlet was a $10 million political tatic that isn't going to result in much of "easing the pain" up here in DL. On the other hand, this water is going to make its way into the Sheyenne one way or another all while flooding farmers out towards the north. It is amazing to get 10 miles north of this town and see how it is backing up.

Canada is going to get it either through the Red or they will get it through the natural outlet to the north.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

What's to respond to? The writer has ties in the Basin. :wink: Nor has he lead a charge to restrict other pollutants. Which is a good idea. The outlet boys wanted this rammed through, and to get it they agreed to low levels of pollution. Knowing in advance they couldn't make the cut. Hoeven agreed because he needed the votes. Now they go back to raise the level of pollution because they have the ditch in. Pretty slick. Hell they drain water on each other, why would they care about downstream?


----------



## always_outdoors (Dec 17, 2002)

Dick: I am still learning more and more about both sides of this issue, so maybe you can help me a little and I am glad to see you responded.

What happens when Stump Lake gets so full it pours into the Sheyenne? Then it isn't filtered at all correct??

I didn't agree with the outlet. You are correct and as stated above this was just a $10 million waste of taxpayers money and just plain crappy politics.

So are the people up here just supposed to sit back and watch the water come up?? Not trying to be sacrastic. Just wondering if anyone down there has ideas or has presented ideas for aiding some up here.


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

Most of us who contribute to these discussions are so full of BS that a little sulfate would do us some good for it's laxitive affect.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

What is the result when when everybody on the outside of a closed basin drains into it? The guy in the upstairs apartment has a bathtub runing over. Instead of shuting the water off, he cuts a hole in the floor.

It isn't just Devils Lake by any means. The land use in North Dakota is so out of wack it beggers the mind. The farm program fuels the incentive to break ground that should have stayed in grass. (no run-off) The Valley floods too, same deal, completely channelized for instant draining, and if the ground is too wet to plant there is always the disaster payment that buys votes to do the same insanity next year. It's a giant spinning tread mill and I'm on it too. And now of course CRP funding is collasping so Uncle can pay through FEMA and disaster instead. Congressmen like that, makes good headlines.


----------



## always_outdoors (Dec 17, 2002)

Dick: I didn't mean to call you out on this subject Dick. Just knew you were in the heart of it all and could probably help me with my questions the best.

My understanding is that the DL Basin is NOT a closed basin, but an open basin. Am I incorrect?? If my memory is correct EERC, the Red River Basin Institute, and ND Water Commmission have concluded it is an open basin. If I am wrong, my appologies.

If we are the bathtub up here, we would love to be able to turn the water off. Just got a another shower yesterday.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

No sweat, we are friends regardless of differing views. I'm thinking if the basin had been ruled closed the oulet could not have been constructed? Any basin would be open if it is filled high enough. Hobart Lake is a mini example. The water is running out---underground. It's the pits.

In my opinion land use is the culprit. Like all water problems it is passed down stream instead of accecpting local responsibility. Like people who build in a flood plain and expect help when it floods. Remember when Fargo was facing flooding and they decided to build the dry dam on the Maple? A few drained sloughs with plugged drainage ditches would have held more water. Instead they condemed the farmers land for the dam. If the folks upstream in the basin maxed out their water retension capability, the idea of draining off the excess water would be more accecptable. Hasn't happened.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Live2hunt

When you get rid of water to solve a problem, you really don't solve it you just shift it downstream. What I think needs to be done in the Devils Lake basin is a program much like CRP. Pay farmers to restore wetlands and hold water on the land. In the past 30 years the square miles of land that drains in to Devils Lake has increased dramatically. If you recall I think it was 1977 (perhaps wrong on the year) that Channel A was dug into Devils Lake. This thing carries as much water as some of our rivers, and it carries it into a lake with no outlet.
When channel A was put into use proponents said that all the wetlands were so small they would have no affect. Give me a teaspoon and enough time and I can make a five gallon bucket run over. A
I would propose payments equal to or greater than CRP. Keep the water on the land, and it will not become a problem for Devils Lake. 
If the lake is to remain productive it will soon need a draw down phase, then reflooding to release nutrients for primary production. They could do this with water control structures on restored wetlands. Hold the water for five years, and release for two. Keep the productive fisheries up and reduce flooding.
The proponents of release into the Sheyenne tiver are less than forthright with us. They say if Valley City has a storm and flooding problems they will shut off the water. If you remember the storm of 26 July, 1993 we received 11 inches in less than 24 hours. So did Valley City. It takes the water from Devils Lake seven days to reach Valley City as I understand it. What good does it do to turn off the water when the affect will reach Valley City five days after the flood is over. It will do no good. 
Watershed management is the only thing that will solve these problems.


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

The best thing for Devils Lake is to break this 15 year wet cycle we are currently in however we are only a month or so away from the next drought so..... An average to slightly below average annual precipitation would do wonders for the lake.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

DJRooster said:


> The best thing for Devils Lake is to break this 15 year wet cycle we are currently in however we are only a month or so away from the next drought so..... An average to slightly below average annual precipitation would do wonders for the lake.


My relatives farm very close to Devils Lake. A couple of years ago the fields were blowing dust, and channel A was still flowing good. Before Devils Lake starts downward because of weather patterns farms will have dried up and blown away.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

http://savethesheyenne.org/ Check it out.


----------



## always_outdoors (Dec 17, 2002)

I won't argue that the outlet was a waste of money, but the following I don't believe one word of. Of all the research I have seen presented, I have never seen any backing these statements.



> Threats to the Sheyenne River include drainage projects such as the Devils Lake outlet which will introduce large amounts of saline water affecting citizens living along its banks, the users of the water, the groundwater, thousands of trees and riparian habitat for wildlife. Be an informed citizen. This picture shows the riparian area along the river's forested banks, a scenic gem in southeastern North Dakota. Interbasin transfer of salty waters, such as Devils Lake waters, would kill the trees, pollute the groundwater through seepage, introduce nonnative biota and increase flood potential for the area. Extended high waters would accelerate bank erosion. This information is being presented by People To Save The Sheyenne, a grass roots, nonprofit organization formed in 1997.


This is a misrepresentation and there has been no evidence that I have seen presented that states "kill the trees". nonnative biota??? When was the drainage picture taken? You can sure enhance things by taking pictures right after a downpour on a site that probably had just been completed and seeded.

Devils Lake probably wouldn't be in quite the mess it is if we hadn't of let all the wetlands be drained many years ago. Problem is they are drained now and even if you could restore them all, the water is here. The only thing now is whether the people down south want filtered through the outlet or do you want it naturally coming from Stump Lake. I have a co-worker on Stump and he says it is rising 5 inches a week. Only one big hill and then it is downhill from there into the Sheyenne.

We screwed up when we allowed wetlands to be drained. No doubt about that, but IMHO this water up here is going to end up in the Sheyenne. Unless of course God would shut the water off for us.


----------

