# Ed Schultz on Fargo flooding



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I think it was Ed. I don't listen to that guy often, but the voice sounded like him. I just caught a few minutes, but he has it right about what is causing the flooding. The only problem is Ed thinks we should solve Fargo's flooding by having retention basins in Richland County. What Ed doesn't understand is that there were thousands of retention basins north of Devils Lake that would be cheaper to restore than build new ones in Richland County. 
I understand that a lot of water enters the Sheyenne after the Tolna area. Retention wetlands in Richland County may be a good idea, but there should be wetlands that we can purchase or lease that have been drained. Those type of wetlands could be purchased or leased all the way from Tolna to where the Sheyenne hits old glacial lake Agassiz. Restored should cost far less than building. I suppose Ed considers damming up every little valley a retention wetland.
Anyway, I about fainted when Ed said something that I sort of agreed with. I would like to hear it again just to make sure I wasn't hallucinating or something.


----------



## zogman (Mar 20, 2002)

I kind of agree............. Of course then we can tile them. We all know that won't affect flooding. :rollin: oke:


----------



## blhunter3 (May 5, 2007)

Tile is a man's best friend. I wish we could use it.


----------



## sndhillshntr (Sep 8, 2005)

zogman said:


> I kind of agree............. Of course then we can tile them. We all know that won't affect flooding. :rollin: oke:


It won't. It would actually help quite a bit.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

sndhillshntr said:


> zogman said:
> 
> 
> > I kind of agree............. Of course then we can tile them. We all know that won't affect flooding. :rollin: oke:
> ...


Tile in a wetland helps flooding? I hope you meant that in jest as in tile will help add to the flood. Any form of water removal from the land and into a stream adds to the flow of the stream. Add a lot to the flow of a stream and you have a flood. Anything we as humans add is an addition to natural flooding. Sometimes we even cause flooding.
Example:
If a stream will carry 10,000 cfs without flooding and is carrying 11,000 it is flooding naturally. If we add 3000 cfs we add to the flood. If the stream is carrying 8000 cfs and we add 3000 cfs we have caused the flood. We luck out some years and the stream is only carrying 6000 cfs and we only add 2000 cfs. 
We all know what 100 year floods mean. Floods of that magnitude should only occur once in 100 years. Yet in Grand Forks since the 1970's they get a 100 year flood about 60 to 70 percent of the time. What has changed? Drainage is what has changed.

What I thought Schultz wasn't getting was he advocated retention ponds. Well, nature gave us retention ponds, but we drained them. Now we want to buy good farm land downstream and flood it. It just doesn't make sense. Retention ponds only hold water, while natural ponds provide that benefit plus provide habitat, additional ground water, carbon storage, natural water filtration, and recreation.


----------



## Mookie (Apr 4, 2011)

Here is what Glenn beck said about being fired from FOX
On his show Wednesday, Beck said he had resisted Fox's initial offer because he doesn't like conflict. He likened himself to Paul Revere, delivering a warning to America. "We will find each other&#8230;I have other things to do," he said.


----------



## sndhillshntr (Sep 8, 2005)

Removal of water through tile during periods of lower rainfall events will give more capacity during high rainfall events therefore limiting the effect on flooding. It's not that hard to understand...


----------



## jpallen14 (Nov 28, 2005)

sndhillshntr said:


> Removal of water through tile during periods of lower rainfall events will give more capacity during high rainfall events therefore limiting the effect on flooding. It's not that hard to understand...


What your kidding right?


----------



## sndhillshntr (Sep 8, 2005)

No, and I may need to excuse myself from this thread. My original post was not for current/original wetland drainage. It was more directed towards agricultural field drainage.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

> Removal of water through tile during periods of lower rainfall events will give more capacity during high rainfall events therefore limiting the effect on flooding. It's not that hard to understand...


That is understood....but what during heavy rainfall. It pushes more water into already full streams, rivers, lakes, etc. How hard is this to understand.


----------



## sndhillshntr (Sep 8, 2005)

Chuck Smith said:


> > Removal of water through tile during periods of lower rainfall events will give more capacity during high rainfall events therefore limiting the effect on flooding. It's not that hard to understand...
> 
> 
> That is understood....but what during heavy rainfall. It pushes more water into already full streams, rivers, lakes, etc. How hard is this to understand.


During heavy rains it really wouldn't matter, most rain would runoff either way. Depends on the soil structure and if it had any capacity. The untiled for sure would have less capacity leading to more runoff as well as erosion.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

So instead of having a natural holding area in a field (wet spot). It gets tiled and that water will just sit there during heavy rain or after a heavy rain? I have seen waterways where tile is funneled too and drainage ditches where tile is funneled towards running over after a heavy rain. Then I see fields with out tile that have water standing on it.

Yes soil structure matters, soil density, etc. But water does not sit in a field that is tiled. It runs off. Which runs to a water shed of some sort. Which raises the water levels of that water shed. Which can make a river that has not reached flood stage reach flood stage. It is that simple!


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

Plainsman said:


> What Ed doesn't understand is that there were thousands of retention basins north of Devils Lake that would be cheaper to restore than build new ones in Richland County.
> .


Hate to burst your bubble but retention North of Devils Lake is at capacity.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

barebackjack said:


> Plainsman said:
> 
> 
> > What Ed doesn't understand is that there were thousands of retention basins north of Devils Lake that would be cheaper to restore than build new ones in Richland County.
> ...


Well, let me burst your bubble. The drained wetlands at slightly higher elevation ----- some have water, some are dry. If they have a ditch and the area they run to is lower they drain. Have you seen the aerial photos and compared them to the 1957 aerial photos? I have. Even though it looks like an ocean to the north the dry areas at slightly higher elevation (that's why they are dry) have small drained wetlands that hold no water.

Not only that some that are higher elevation and holding water the farmers are draining. At least they were two years ago. I can't say about last summer.


----------



## lindyrigem (Apr 10, 2011)

i've been following the thread on tiling land and i'd like to add my two cents. i fish on the red river frequently and know how fragile the eco system is. if tiling leeches as many chemicals and nutrients into the runoff that comes off the tiled fields as you say this really concerns me. one question i have is what is going to be the impact of tiling these fields on leaching sulfites into the runoff. sulfites are what everybody downstream from the devils lake outlet is up in arms about. from what i understand theres only two ways to remove sulfites from a drinking water supply and that is either by reverse osmosis or by a cationic exchange system. none of the towns or cities along the red river are currently set up to remove sulfites and would need to build new water treatment facilities to deal with these sulfites and guess whos going to have to pay for them us. there are strict regulations on industries along the river that release water into the red river. will the farmers that tile have to follow the same strict regs in some form or will they have to prove in some form that they are not sending pesticides and high nutrient levels to the red river or is it going to be up to concerned citizens to prove they are. you know theyre farmers so they will probably be exempted from any regulations just like everything else they do. this tiling sounds sucks as far as the red river and the enviroment in general. one last thing, ammonia in the runoff is a deadly chemical to an eco system. the way industry gets rid of ammonia is to release high ammonia water into a man made made wet land pond containing cattails and holding it there until the ammonia content meets state guidelines and then it can be released into the red river. the cattails take in the ammonia and use up the nitrogen.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

The reason they had to pump from the west end of Devils Lake and not the east end was sulfate levels concentrate as water moves east and evaporates. Then there is stump lake that had much higher concentrations than Devils Lake. Until recent high water the mineral content including sulfates was so high in stump lake nothing lived in it. Back in the late 1960's I was working one summer for NDSU dept of Entomology. A number of times we tried to collect aquatic insects in Stump Lake, and after repeated efforts gave up. 
Recently the EPA dropped their objections to water being released from the east end which is Stump Lake. They have ignored the real problem of wetland drainage so long that now we have a huge problem on our hands. I don't know if you have been listening to the news, but Valley City may experience a record flood shortly. Stump Lake is set to overflow soon. Add that to the equation and there will be real trouble. 
Yes, those towns along the Red will either spend millions upgrading or simply give up and dig wells.


----------



## lindyrigem (Apr 10, 2011)

plainsman i know im kind of off topic but are the farmers who tile going to have to comply with any type of discharge regs on the runoff coming out of their pipes and how high are the ammonia levels and sulfites, not to mention pesticide levels going to be. i know the argument that tilers use is that the dilution level is so high once it gets into the river that it doesnt matter. this is a bunch of b.s. because if you are only talking about one 160 acre field this may be true but if you multiply that one 160 acre field by say 2ooo you have a serious problem that needs to be addressed and you know the farmers arent honestly going to police themselves. we need to put the same discharge regs on farmers that industry has put on them in this state but i think the ag lobby has too much pull and the farmers are going to be allowed to run amuck just like always. dont these farmers who lazer ditch and tile have a clue or are they just so greedy that they just dont care if they help flood someones home and possibly destroy some peoples livelyhood.


----------



## blhunter3 (May 5, 2007)

Too late to make regs or change's. Everything would be grandfathered in....


----------



## lindyrigem (Apr 10, 2011)

thats too bad. guess i should follow these issues more closely in the future. money rules i guess nowa days, no surprise.


----------



## blhunter3 (May 5, 2007)

Tiling and draining is a part of farming and it won't go away. Its not that you can't stay in the conversation, just realize that tiling and draining has been around for so long that if changes were made, that it would only affect new stuff, not the old stuff.


----------



## lindyrigem (Apr 10, 2011)

i realize tiling tiling and ditching have been around for a long time but what i think has changed is the efficiency with which the draining is done has markedly increased i.e. lazer ditching. in some cases drainage ditches have high spots removed with an excavator equipped with lazer. drainers are getting better at their craft.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I don't know if they are subject to rules or not. However, it's not true that they are simply grandfathered in. Since they run into water that hits more than one state, and especially because the Red goes to Canada the feds can step in and make any rules they want. As a matter of fact we have been violating a treaty with Canada that was signed in I think 1914. I don't remember dates very well. Anyway, both of us have been violating it. Canada violates it sending pollutants down the Souris, but we send it back north even more polluted.

If you remember Garrison Diversion that would have been a serious violation of that treaty because it moved water from the Mississippi watershed into the Hudson Bay watershed. Moving water that far (across a continental divide) has some serious disease and parasite implications. It could have cost Canada millions per year in destroyed fisheries. The farmers of North Dakota pushed it hard.

Two groups in North Dakota push ag hard with little regard for anyone else. That's the Farm Bureau and the Farmers Union. About the only difference between the two other than Farm Bureau being political right and Farmers union being politically left is that the Farmers Union wants everyone to pay taxes and give it to the farmers, and the Farm Bureau wants everyone to pay taxes and give it to the farmers. I guess the political difference is the only difference.


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

Plainsman said:


> barebackjack said:
> 
> 
> > Plainsman said:
> ...


Well Bruce, sorry but I grew up north of Devils Lake. Places that have NEVER had standing PERMANENT water in them in my lifetime, are now holding water year 'round. Places I witnessed being drained as a kid, are holding water, there is NO PLACE to drain it to! The places water was previously drained to are full and backed up to the places it was once upon a time drained from. The chain lakes (or more fitting now, chain "lake") and Devils Lake are starting to equilize. Theres very very very few places left to "store" water, and even the very few that are left dry still, wouldn't amount to a mole hill in the rockies.

Ten or fifteen years ago the "damn farmers and their draining" held some truth up there when it came to flooding issues in the southern part of the basin, and even than this largely ended up being only a problem for Devils Lake proper and those dealing with old lake bottom. But since 2008/2009 its been ma' nature and its impacting a much larger portion of the basin.


----------



## lindyrigem (Apr 10, 2011)

plainsman, went on the enviromental working group website you posted. some of the top subsidy recips farm in my neck of the woods, they are all stinky rich. these farmers drive 40000 dollar pickups and whine if it rains, whine if it doesnt, whine, whine, whine. i have several friends who were small farmers and went broke and nobody forgave their loans or dumped piles of money in their laps. they were too honest i guess.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Well Bruce, sorry but I grew up north of Devils Lake.


Well, I grew up just south of you then. You may also not know that one fellow posting on here, he and his wife own a farm at Starkweather. There are still wetlands above the flood. Some of the U S Fish and Wildlife wetlands are full of water, but they are on land that is above the flood and could be drained. I don't have a big disagreement with you, because your mostly right. However, in those few instances where there is land high enough there are wetlands drained that could still hold water. That is a very flat area. It's not like I am talking wetlands on top hills. A hill up there is 10 feet high. Still, it's above water, and wetlands on it are capable of holding water or being drained. I think the last time I seen a guy ditching up there was two years ago.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Plainsman said:


> Two groups in North Dakota push ag hard with little regard for anyone else. That's the Farm Bureau and the Farmers Union. About the only difference between the two other than Farm Bureau being political right and Farmers union being politically left is that the Farmers Union wants everyone to pay taxes and give it to the farmers, and the Farm Bureau wants everyone to pay taxes and give it to the farmers. I guess the political difference is the only difference.


plainsman, would you please take the time to learn a little factual information before you post things regarding agriculture and the people and groups involved in it. You do realize Farm Bureau has policy advocating to end direct Govt farm subsidy payments do you not?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> You do realize Farm Bureau has policy advocating to end direct Govt farm subsidy payments do you not?


That's what they preach, and I agree with them, but they sure grab any money from the government that comes their way. It's sort of like Gordan Kahl who didn't pay taxes, but took every check he got from the government.

I have always looked at the Farmers Union as socialists and the Farm Bureau as the guys with the God complex. As much as I dislike the Farmers Union if the Farm Bureau had their way out entire populace would be slaves to the farmers. Like Stalin and Hitler they don't much like each other, but they have some of the same philosophies. As a matter of fact the Farmers Union would be happy to adopt some of Stalin's philosophy while ---- well you know.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

plainsman, you do realize that once policy is adopted by the members, this org. actually lobbies to get them accomplished right?

I must say, for someone that claims to support ag as much as you do, you sure do not let an opportunity go by to take a cheap shot at it. :-?

And given the consideration of where your very own checks came from, well you know. :wink:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> gst said:
> 
> 
> > plainsman, you do realize that once policy is adopted by the members, this org. actually lobbies to get them accomplished right?
> ...


Ya, I do know policy comes from it's members.

Ya, I do still support the majority of farmers, and many ag programs. However, I have decided that someone has to point out their bad decisions before they tick off all of society. I'm not just hounding you because I dislike farmers as people.

And last I sure do remember where my checks came from, but I actually worked to earn them. It was my decision to be part of the public sector unlike being part of the private sector and telling myself I am part of the free market.

My point is the Farmers Union is extreme liberal. They would have ate dung if the three stooges told them it was candy. Then we have the Farm Bureau. They don't mind free money, but in all other respects they want to be left alone. They are very much like the old European aristocracy. They believe if you own land you should be able to do anything you want. They don't see themselves as subject to the will of society through a republic government. Just like good old Gordon take the money and run Kahl. The Farmers Union is liberal, but the Farm Bureau runs very close to the border of social irresponsibility. Both groups are me, me, me, but with different political philosophies to meet that end.

Edit: 4/14 I just ran across a quote that will work for those pro ag that want their way at any cost:


> "We do PRECISION GUESSWORK based on vague assumptions and unreliable data of dubious accuracy provided by persons of questionable intellectual capacity."


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Plainsman said:


> Edit: 4/14 I just ran across a quote that will work for those pro ag that want their way at any cost:
> "We do PRECISION GUESSWORK based on vague assumptions and unreliable data of dubious accuracy provided by persons of questionable intellectual capacity."


Plainsman, this very quote could be applied so many ways to any number of your very own claims thru out these threads, it did make me smile.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

You wish. It applies to, we have to feed the world. We in America get news that always looks like the world will starve without our farmers. Not true. I suppose it's good business to make everyone think that. The ironic thing is it pushes prices up, but the farmer doesn't get it the shipper gets it to market, the processor gets it, the shipper back to the retail gets it, the grocery store gets it etc, but the farmer gets shafted.

It applies directly to those studies that say tile doesn't drain off undesirable chemicals. That's is like trying to say the sun rises in the west. All credibility is lost with that type of fairy tail.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Plainsman said:


> We do PRECISION GUESSWORK based on vague assumptions and unreliable data of dubious accuracy provided by persons of questionable intellectual capacity."





Plainsman said:


> It applies to, we have to feed the world. We in America get news that always looks like the world will starve without our farmers. Not true. I suppose it's good business to make everyone think that.


It didn't take long to come across a claim you make that seems to fit the first quote you provided. It appears you are suggesting that if the food crop commodities produced by American farmers were no longer produced there would still be enough food to feed the current world population? Not too mention the one many "experts" are claiming we will se in less than 50 years?

Do you know this for a fact, or is it "PRECISION GUESSWORK"?
This is based on factual data or "vague assumptions"? 
Since there is no data links included to back up this claim, it is hard to determine if it is "unreliable" or "dubious"
How do you beleive the Great Plains of the USA came to be called the "Bread Basket of the World"? 
One can only assume someone that would make a claim such as this must either have a "blind bias" against American agriculture or be "of questionable intellectual capacity". Or perhaps they could just beleive in "fairy tales" where everyone lives happily ever after!


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I have simply come to the conclusion that all I have to do is take the opposite view of you and I will be right 90% of the time. I would have thought that the world would be in tough shape without American farmers, but since you think so I must have been wrong.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

plainsaman, please, simply do me and everyone on here one favor. Carry on whatever debate you wish, but simply try one time, to do so without making incorrect assumptions and statements either intentional or not about a profession you obviously know little about.

It seems from how you worded your claim, that you beleive the American farmer contributes little to providing food to other countries. 
Plainsman, quote:
"It applies to, we have to feed the world. We in America get news that always looks like the world will starve without our farmers. Not true. I suppose it's good business to make everyone think that."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 43656.html

http://www.agweb.com/farmersfeedingthew ... ture1.aspx

http://www.suite101.com/content/america ... rm-a231011


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

gst, it simply boils down to this. You don't have to destroy to produce. We don't need to destroy fresh water to have food. That old pioneer technology doesn't fit with the modern machinery capable of destroying large tracts of land and water. In some hands a huge tractor and plow are as destructive as giving a cave man a machine gun to hunt with. He would have wiped out everything in his area and later starved to death. Some of today's farm practices are the same. There no need to destroy everything today and have nothing tomorrow. Maybe those who know how to grow corn should learn how to do it without destroying that which will support life tomorrow.
The problem I have is short sighted practices. I never really do know if it's greed or ignorance. Perhaps it's just plain stubborn, and because someone says it isn't good they all take it as a personal attack. Loyalty is fine, but it can backfire. Loyalty to the United States was good in WWII, but loyalty to Hitler was not. Now, for the thick heads that doesn't mean I am comparing farmers to Hitler. We both know some are that stupid don't we gst? What I am comparing is sometimes sticking together is good, and sometimes it isn't. When your wrong it isn't.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Plainsman said:


> gst, it simply boils down to this. You don't have to destroy to produce. We don't need to destroy fresh water to have food.


Please show where anyone has suggested that we do? Some of the links I have provided discussing agricultures role in meeting the new demands placed upon it specifically mention this very thing if you would take the time to read them.

What has been suggested repeatedly is that perhaps people and organizations working positively together (such as many outside of this site are  ) to continue to develope workable advances in sustainable agriculture as a peice of the puzzle will accomplish much more than throwing snide insinuations of greed, and the multitude of other simply untrue comments directed toward ag that have been made on this topic. And perhaps in the long run that working together to find a mutually beneficial balance that is being done, rather than the everpresent sniping at ag we see on sites such as this made by a few, will ultimately serve conservation best.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Then solve the tile problems rather than rushing forward and making permits easier. At this point it's simply making things easier to destroy our fresh surface water supply while depleting our ground water supply. Otherwise it's like the old cliche about putting the cart before the horse. It's like teaching hunter education before a young hunter hunts, not after he shoots someone.

If you want science and agriculture to work hand in hand to develope better agriculture practices I'm all for it. I hope those practices will also result in better farm income so they are not punished for implementing good practices.


----------



## People (Jan 17, 2005)

Back when it was dry no one was telling the farmers they could not do that. Now it is their problem because it is wet. Maybe Fargo should build some dike action like many other town have. How about clearing the junk in the Red? Oh they cannot do that because it looks bad or it affects my river front property view. It really stinks for Fargo but they need to get a resolution not force others to fix the problem for them.

What is really sad is if the same thing happened to FM as Grand forks FM would not fix the problem. How many times do they have to take a beating before they take responsibility for themselves?


----------



## blhunter3 (May 5, 2007)

6 times.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

People, who is really responsible for Fargo flooding? Mother nature sometimes, but it is more frequent than nature. The cause? Should Fargo pay the whole debt when the problem is passed down from upstream? I don't live in Fargo, I don't have a dog in Fargo's fight, but in the best interest of responsibility is it all Fargo's? They often take a beating because they are our largest town. They are still one of us.

I don't go to Fargo often. I look at the Red River Valley as a biological desert. I live in Jamestown, grew up south of Devils Lake, but feel at home after I cross the Missouri.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Plainsman said:


> If you want science and agriculture to work hand in hand to develope better agriculture practices I'm all for it. I hope those practices will also result in better farm income so they are not punished for implementing good practices.


plainsman, what have I been telling you has been happening in agriculture all thru this thread???? Technologies and practices in ag ARE changing. What you are suggesting is EXACTLY what is being done. I said way back at the beginning of this discussion AG is doing more with less all the time because of new technologies. Sustainable ag is not simply a buzz word, but a reality that everyone realizes we have to move towards. But like turning around a large ship, it does not happen instantly. Take the time to actually read the links people provide or do a little unbiased research on your own.

So if you truly beleive in the importance of sustainable ag where food is produced and the enviromental and recreation opportunities still remain a part of the puzzle, actually take the time to better inform yourself of the advances being made in agriculture rather than relying on 30 or 40 year old personal experiences of the way things were and simply sniping about the greed in ag which is no different than any other profession. At the very least, if you want what you post on here on the affects of agricultural practices to have ANY credibility, at least inform yourself enough to realize they have been notill planting corn for decades!

If you want to be given credibility and taken seriously, take the time to inform yourself enough that when you post a claim on sites like this regarding agriculture and the people involved they are actually factualy correct. Can you see the frustration someone in ag may have with someone posting comments about ag that does not even have the knowledge to know anything about current technologies and practices happening in ag ???? Agriculture understands the issues society sees as they look at our profession and if you do not think agriculture itself is agressively developing and implementing new technologies to address the negative aspects you simply do not know much about agriculture. And if you are not willing to take the time to inform yourself, you have no business making claims regarding it that are not factual. And if you do choose to make these unfactual claims do not be surprised when someone takes you to task for doing so.


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Plainsman wrote,



> People, who is really responsible for Fargo flooding? Mother nature sometimes, but it is more frequent than nature. The cause?


The Souris is flooding into and above Lake Darling. No one around Kenmare is into tile. Somebody needs to be held accountable and beaten with a sandbag for this.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> plainsman, what have I been telling you


You have been telling me, but I have not been believing. I look at someone like you and I see someone who promotes ag at any cost. Trust is gone when you twist my words. I goof once in a while, and you call me on it, and I correct my mistake if it is a mistake. Remember when I said ag gets 90% of the money? I had to explain that if you combine ag and wildlife ag gets 90%. Any idiot knows if defense gets the most ag can't get 90%. However, you tried to make it out as if I was a lair. Since then what you say means very little to me. Because of that I shelved you into that group that is intellectually dishonest and don't care how much damage ag does as long as you get your way.

Here have some fun with this and try tell me farming isn't flooding Devils Lake.

http://edcsns17.cr.usgs.gov/NewEarthExplorer/



> The Souris is flooding into and above Lake Darling. No one around Kenmare is into tile. Somebody needs to be held accountable and beaten with sandbag for this.


I do see your humor in that. More flooding occurs with drain ditches than tile, but tile leeches more minerals from the soil and contributes some to increased water flow. I noticed that there are some control structures on those tile in the Red River Valley that end in the I94 ditch. They were flowing last week at about ---- well, it looked like 1/3 capacity. Or at least 1/3 the diameter of the pipe that ended in the ditch. That's a bunch of water when you have ten pipes in one mile.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

plainsman I tell you what, if you had simply made one comment regarding the Federal budget and Ags share, it could be written or "explained" as a mistake. But recall your claim as well that ag was second only to Defense in spending in the Federal budget? Combine that with your continueing snipes of ag's "greed" and their "hands in your pockets" and being a "welfare state" and your "explaination" rings a little hollow. There are a number of claims you have made regarding ag that have simply not been true in this one single topic.



Plainsman said:


> You have been telling me, but I have not been believing


So when someone tells you something and also provides you links to websites that shows what they are saying is indeed fact, yet you choose not to beleive it as you have just admitted, would that be considered "blind bias"?



Plainsman said:


> You have been telling me, but I have not been believing. I look at someone like you and I see someone who promotes ag at any cost.


From a related thread. 
gst quote [plainsman what would be your impression of someone that uses notill and minimum till methods of farming? That uses cover crops to naturally add nutrients and organic matter back into the soil? That has their most HE soils in CRP? That plants miles of tree rows? That has much of the lighter soils in their operation into grass that they implement rotational once over grazing systems on.? That puts in alternative water supplies to keep cattle away from creeks? Someone that is instilling these conservation values into his kids just as they were instilled into him by his father? Someone who had the value instilled in him and is instilling the vlaue in his children that you leave something better than you found it. Someone who never once voted for politicians that are proud of "bringing home" more Federal dollars than this state pays out. Someone that volantarily is a member of an ag org advocating for the end of govt subsidies. Someone that belongs to and supports ag orgs that have this same belif in land stewardship and have programs and awards for this very thing. Someone who is an advocate for stewardship of the land they make a living from because they beleive in it.]

plainsman quote [I know your talking about yourself, and the above would be someone I would hold in the highest regard. I appreciate that type of person beyond the words I can find to express it.]

:-? So which is it? If I may toot my own horn a bit, (it is regarding something I am proud of), plainsman do you beleive a county NRCS agency would choose two generations of a family farm to acknowledge them both with their conservation acheivement awards if they "beleived in ag at any cost" ?


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Plainsmen wrote,



> Remember when I said ag gets 90% of the money? I had to explain that if you combine ag and wildlife ag gets 90%.


Here is a government pie chart with the true numbers.

http://www.sfbayjv.org/pdfs/FBGuide.pdf

2008 Farm Bill Distribution of Mandatory Spending FY 2008-2017

Foods Stamps 51.9%
Child Nutrition 21.4%
other 2.5%
Crop Insurance 6.2$
"CONSERVATION" 7%
Commodity Programs 10%

Plainsman, you're numbers don't jibe. So let's double check them with some of your friends at Defenders of Wildlife.

http://saltshake.com/?get=1.28.539

Nutrition 66%
other 3%
Crop Insurance 8%
"CONSERVATION" 8%
Commodity Programs 15%

Your partners at defenders report it a little different but again "your numbers" do not jibe. You are simply outrageous.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> So when someone tells you something and also provides you links to websites that shows what they are saying is indeed fact, yet you choose not to beleive it as you have just admitted, would that be considered "blind bias"?


It's been so long since I have taken you serious that I have not read any of your last websites. I do believe that agriculture spending is only second to defense. I have tried to get a handle on it, but it's like all the government agencies are trying to hide the bottom line. Last week I spent an hour on the ag budget for (I think it was the new one, maybe 2010) and could find no total. I tried adding things up, then found that they repeated themselves and I added some things twice. So, I default back about five years to what I heard concerning a comparison of ag and defense.



> So which is it? If I may toot my own horn a bit, (it is regarding something I am proud of), plainsman do you beleive a county NRCS agency would choose two generations of a family farm to acknowledge them both with their conservation acheivement awards if they "beleived in ag at any cost" ?


That depends on the guys in the NRCS, and if you have political clout. Maybe your a conservationist, maybe your not. Maybe you simply found a way to make it pay decent. After all your the guy trying to get paid every generation. It sounds like you work the system pretty well.



> So let's double check them with some of your friends at Defenders of Wildlife.


Well, there went another one that I was taking serious. To bad.


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Plainsman,

You must have forgotten to address the part about your figuires, you said,



> I had to explain that if you combine ag and wildlife ag gets 90%.


Your statement doesn't ad up. I took numbers from a government pie chart. At the opposite end of the political spectrum is Defenders of Wildlife. Even though defenders are reguarded as left of center, their numbers are closer to the truth than yours.

You said somewhere you get tired of defending yourself. If you are the victim here it is because your statements are outrageous.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Plainsman said:


> It's been so long since I have taken you serious that I have not read any of your last websites. I do believe that agriculture spending is only second to defense. I have tried to get a handle on it, but it's like all the government agencies are trying to hide the bottom line. Last week I spent an hour on the ag budget for (I think it was the new one, maybe 2010) and could find no total. I tried adding things up, then found that they repeated themselves and I added some things twice. So, I default back about five years to what I heard concerning a comparison of ag and defense.
> .


Plainsman if you don;t read the links provided that try to "inform the uninformed" how can you ever become one of the "informed"??? 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Unite ... ral_budget ( took 56 seconds to find)

plainsman, if you actually take the time to look at this link you will see there are 14 budget items in mandatory and discretional spending that take more of the Federal budget than does ag. You will see that in fact ag is NOT second behind defense #1 in discretional spending, but rather 10th on the list. You don't recall where pension and benefits for retired govt employees falls in that list do you? :wink:

http://www.obpa.usda.gov/budsum/FY10budsum.pdf

In this link if you choose to look, you can scroll down and see a pie chart of what percentage of the Ag budget actually goes to ag. In 2010 it was 17% . If you continue to scroll down you will see how that 17% is broken down in a more detailed manner allowing one to see what actually goes to production ag.

If you can find any "explanation" that will indeed show ag spending is second only to defense spending in the Federal budget as you claim yet again, I would most certainly like to hear it. Perhaps there is something regarding adding wildlife or something.... well I'm sure you have one.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I'll check it out tomorrow. It would be interesting.

I did google top government budget items and found one that puts ag in about fifth place this April. With Obama care Health and Human Services now takes first place, followed by defense, then the treasury, dept of labor, then ag. With the idiot in the oval office maybe we all have bigger problems to worry about. Unless you live in Valley City. Those guys are hurting tonight. Maybe some would consider turning those water control structures off on their tile.

http://www.federalbudget.com/

I gave up on the dept. of ag website. I felt like I was going in circles trying to add things up. Then the darn thing is so big when you want to go back and look at something it's 40 pages back.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

plainsman, 5th is a little different than second, but you had better dig a little deeper yet! Surely there will be some comparison to wildlife or something to explain your claim.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

gst said:


> plainsman, 5th is a little different than second, but you had better dig a little deeper yet! Surely there will be some comparison to wildlife or something to explain your claim.


See it's your attitude that makes it hard to support farmers, but then I remember others. I would never support paying you forever for your wetland. You take cheap shots, and try bend our arms to give to you. There are farmers that are good businessmen, there are farmers going broke, there are responsible and irresponsible farmers. Then there are parasites mining the system. Your explanations I have rarely read because it comes with a smart mouth too. I would not look at myself as an ambassador for farmers if I were you because you do a terrible job. What makes you think your going to accomplish something?

If farmers were all like you I would forget I was conservative and hope that Obama would nationalize farming. Pay you a government GS5 and leave you on the farm. See if you think life improved then.

You complain about things becoming personal, but your the one that always makes them so.

Can you ever stick to a subject, or are you always one of those whining farmers all the jokes are about?


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Would the real farmer/rancher basher Plainsman please stand up!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That last post said it all.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

plainsman, for someone who earlier in our discussion was wondering where peoples sense of humor was and who claimed to enjoy "poking fun" at others you surely seem to be less understanding when it applies back to you. Relax, enjoy the debate and realize others besides yourself may "poke a little fun" now and then on here. :wink:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Well, some of those things you have said seriously, so it's hard to tell. For all I know your the next Jay Leno, or a bar room drunk that makes crude remarks about mothers then says their joking to keep their teeth. Who knows, not me. However since no one can tell perhaps it's out of place. This is Hot Topics, not Saturday Night Live.

I can't keep you on subject, and I think that's because you want to avoid the subject. You were right on one post somewhere when you mentioned you (farmers) have not done a good job in PR. One of the problems is it is usually done one on one and we keep getting different stories. I know farmers from both extremes. From those who would give the shirt off their back to guys like I mentioned Gordon Kahl who killed people to keep from paying taxes, but cashed every government check that came his way. I liked one of the posts today. I don't remember which thread it was on. They guy talked about responsible herbicide use and explained it. I was extremely happy to read that. Then he said that the farm income was only 10% federal subsidies. I would guess that's his since I know some are higher. Still, I enjoyed his perspective. I hope he doesn't go off the deep end fast like Shag.

gst, if defending your profession is what you want to do I would suggest a different angle. Look at Shag he complains about government spending money and at the same time you want to be paid for every generation. The two of you need to synchronize your stories. I hear Shag complain about government spending, and the places it's going. I have not heard him complain about it going to ag. Like he said this country is broke.

So gst you have been on this thread a long time and have not addressed Schults remarks. What did you think? I think he who starts a thread should be able to ask questions right?


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Plainsman said:


> For all I know your the next Jay Leno, or a bar room drunk that makes crude remarks about mothers then says their joking to keep their teeth


Plainsman, if you recall I beleive I have never mentioned anyones family such as anyones mother or son in a smartass manner in this discussion! Nor tried to justify (explain) it to (keep their teeth):wink:

I told you right from the beginning I was not interested in debating the effects of tiling, and that in some instances would not disagree with some of the effects pointed out. But it quickly evolved to where I little time for much else than pointing out and correcting your incorrect claims! :roll: Hows your explanation for some of them coming! 



Plainsman said:


> gst, if defending your profession is what you want to do I would suggest a different angle


Pointing out the incorrect and unfactual claims others make about my profession is enough of a full time job on here. And when links are posted that show the very thing you compliment others on you do not take the time to read them, so what is a guy to do???? Please do not be offended if I do not place much emphasis on your critique. :wink:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Well, I'll try give things a fair perspective. I have always looked at your explanations as excuses rather than explanations. I guess that comes from the constant "landowner rights" attitude from the perpetual easements and high fence debate. Since you believe so many things are a landowners rights I it appears you think flooding Fargo was a landowners right. That really turned me off and led me to be suspicious of any site you posted.

gst, when a farmer makes only a few more dollars upstream draining in any fashion, but collectively causes or contributes to millions of dollars in damages downstream what is a person to think. If I had a farm uphill from you, drained my wetlands, and flooded half your land and your house would you accept the premise that it's my right?

Defend agriculture all you like, and in some circumstances I will agree with you, but the flood causes and contributions must be faced because the problems are getting bigger. How many springs in a row must these towns along the Sheyenne and Red River sandbag and loose homes. I talked with a fellow from Valley City last night and he said about 1/3 of the houses in a small complex south of Valley City were lost yesterday.

If you really want to be helpful maybe you can show me a few more sites on the federal budget. I know I should spend more time looking myself, but I am only getting to the computer in between glue drying on boards, and changing bits on my router. Just finished new kitchen cabinets and starting on some other small projects.



> Plainsman, if you recall I beleive I have never mentioned anyones family such as anyones mother or son in a smartass manner in this discussion! Nor tried to justify (explain) it to (keep their teeth):wink:


Oh, absolutely I know you didn't. I was hoping I had made that clear when I said I had no idea about who I talk to. Like I said maybe your the next Jay Leno, I don't know.


----------



## north1 (Nov 9, 2010)

Read allot of valid arguements on both sides of the fence. Here's my situation. Farm in central North Dakota north of Minot. Not allowed to do any drainage. Cannot collect crop insurance on most of slews because they have been wet more than 3 years. Pay land taxes on 100% of land whether it is wet or not. Pay rent of farmable acres, but these include slews. Government payments-crock of crap. Don't amount to anything in the scheme of things. Cannot refuse them because I farm on shares and landlords collect 1/3 of payment and will rent to someone else if I refuse them because they don't want to give it up.

Have been keeping rainfall data since 1987 for atmospheric resource board and rainfall totals have drastically increased since 1993. Last year was the most rainfall ever recorded for my area. There is so much standing water when the temperature rises it smells putrid. Incidences of mosquito born illnesses are rising. Had two neighbors diagnosed with west nile virus. Saline seeps and alkaline areas are exploding due to stagnant water and salt leaching. I mean out of the 2800 acres I farm I have about 300 in slews and more and more that won't produce a crop due to high salinity/alkali.

Tried to at least be able to drain water away from where my shop is, and where my house is. Water was infiltrating bin floors and affecting stored grain. My basement wall in my house caved in, in 1999 due to groundwater pressure. Was told by soil conservation I could only make a ditch as deep as the clay layer and no deeper. So basically 12". They did come back and measure to make sure it was right. Trouble is it is not enough to move away water and now my basement walls are bowing again and had to empty out two grain bins to try to save the grain. Don't know whats going on south and east but I ready for a damn drought!


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Read allot of valid arguements on both sides of the fence


Wow, for the situation you find yourself in I applaud you.



> Pay land taxes on 100% of land whether it is wet or not.


I don't think you should have to do that.



> Tried to at least be able to drain water away from where my shop is, and where my house is. Water was infiltrating bin floors and affecting stored grain. My basement wall in my house caved in, in 1999 due to groundwater pressure. Was told by soil conservation I could only make a ditch as deep as the clay layer and no deeper. So basically 12". They did come back and measure to make sure it was right. Trouble is it is not enough to move away water and now my basement walls are bowing again and had to empty out two grain bins to try to save the grain. Don't know whats going on south and east but I ready for a damn drought!


I wish government regulations would allow government employees some leeway when enforcing rules. They need to trust their employees enough to allow some common sense. I am a conservationist, not a preservationist. I don't like draining wetlands, but I think we need to look at alternatives. However, when your home is threatened it would be my opinion that regulations need to bend some. People are more important than anything else on earth. I am a conservationist, because I believe the future for everyone is best when we use our resources intelligently. If I could I would grab a shovel and be right next to you digging away from your buildings.

north1, the wetlands that you own. What would you have to have for payments per acre to restore those wetlands. Now keep in mind it would be substantial because the plow could not go through them again without releasing carbon. I don't buy into the global warming theory, but I think the government is going to waste a lot of money forcing power companies to reduce carbon emissions. I would rather see a mitigation process because rather than waste some benefits can come from mitigation. Perhaps a deal would need to be struck removing taxes on that land forever. After all if you sell it you don't pay taxes, and if you do something to benefit society without continued income you should not have to pay taxes either. Tell me what you think.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Plainsman said:


> Wow, for the situation you find yourself in I applaud you


Many of us that live in NC ND north of Minot have found ourselves in this situation.



Plainsman said:


> by Plainsman » Sat Apr 16, 2011 12:51 pm
> Well, I'll try give things a fair perspective. I have always looked at your explanations as excuses rather than explanations. I guess that comes from the constant "landowner rights" attitude from the perpetual easements and high fence debate.


Plainsman, how many times have I stated I beleive landowners rights are not "absolute" but that the consequences of infringing on them must be weighed very carefully????? This is the 4th or 5th time you have referenced back to the HFH debate during this topic. Perhaps if you guys would realize it was the people of ND that spoke and let go of it you could have a bit more of an open mind within these debates. I really could care less what you guys debate on these sites, but if you wish to start out the debate by sniping at my profession and make inaccurate and outright false claims regarding it, expect to be corrected.


----------



## north1 (Nov 9, 2010)

Plainsman,

I guess I would actually have to know what you mean by "restore" wetlands. Right now wetlands have interconnected so I have a bunch of hills surrounded by water. The water is trying to make its way to the Souris River but is impeded by silt infiltration, roads, etc. This is all natural drainage that was established 10,000 years ago after the last ice age. Its a very slow process and by the time its done trickling away it will be mid to late may and I will be faced with trying to seed my way in between the slews to get the hills seeded. Extremely innefficient and a waste of fuel, fertilizer, time, equipment cost.

In some instances these wet areas haven't been farmed in 15 years. On the other hand some of them have been farmed. In 2003 some were seeded. In 2010 some were seeded but a couple of 4" rainfalls drowned them out. Was tough because spent the tremendous fuel, seed and fertilizer costs only to have them inundated and alot of money was lost.

So what a wetland is now may not be next year, and what is farmed this year may be flooded next year. Whats the answer? I really don't know anymore and am getting to the point where I don't know what the heck to do. What do I plan for seed, fertilizer, fuel, land rent, machinery purchase, etc when I don't have any inkling what my acres may or may not be? The only avenue I have for mediation is drier weather, and sorry to say that is completely out of my control.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

north1, I sure would not want your headache.

About your house, is the water surrounding you or is it coming from a specific direction? The reason I ask is that you should be able to protect your property in the country just like people do in the city. I would dig a 20 ft sump 50 feet from my house and start pumping. There is no law against a well. I have a 24 inch bored well on my property. Even though the well is in a valley the top is higher than the bottom of my basement. One spring when things were real bad I threw a sump pump down my well and pumped for two weeks. If your surrounded I would think that closer to your house would affect the ground water enough to take the pressure off your basement and dry up the floor too. That depends a lot on soil types of course.

I complain about support prices, but only because some don't appreciate it. The tile thing bothers me because it puts some people in the very predicament you find yourself in. Back to support prices for a moment. I think if bread goes up the farmer doesn't get much. I have explained this before, but here I go again. The shipper gets more, the mill gets more, the baker gets more, the people who ship back to the grocer get more, and the grocer may get more, but the farmer is guaranteed nothing. Therefore I know I pay at the grocery, and I know I pay on April 15, but when I pay on April 15 I know the farmer gets that.

I have people ticked because I called some farmers greedy. Some are, some are not. However, it evidently offends some that I think any are. I even went so far as to explain that in any group of people, teachers, police, biologists, etc some are greedy. I even explained that I will not stick up for greed in my profession, but that's not good enough for some. Please understand that I don't consider all farmers greedy. As a matter of fact they would be a minority. I also wish there was some way to solve your problems.

We are between a rock and a hard place. Leave the water and farmers suffer, drain it and people are drown from their homes. I think we need to work together on this. When we have springs like this there should be some system to pay people to delay the flood by holding water. In the long run it would be cheaper than the damages done. In all fairness even the insurance companies should kick in to this because it protects them also. This is a problem for society, not just the farmers, and not just towns along the flood route like Fargo. People have ignored the real problem at Devils Lake and soon they will have to pay the piper. They gambled on the problem going away, and there was more problems than just weather. It was a foolish gamble.

Now we would be ahead if our legislature didn't stop the U S Fish and Wildlife from buying wetlands 30 (oops tried typing in the dark) years ago. We will loose land one way or another. If they had not made that foolish mistake there would be more water on Fish and Wildlife Service land and less on private property. Both would have been happy.


----------



## north1 (Nov 9, 2010)

plainsman,

There is a natural drainage about 100 yards south of me, but it flows very slow. The other three sides have ponded water that will not drain and will have to evaporate. In 1999 when my basement wall collapsed I built new walls and put drain tile around outside. The water table is so high it is pushing up through the concrete floor and still putting pressure on outside walls so that it is bowing them. This summer I will redig around walls, put in anchors to better support them and install more tile.

I really do feel you have valid points and concerns. I, however, don't agree with the government purchasing more land. They already in my humble opinion own too much and them owning more is going down a slippery slope. They also take very poor care of the land they do own. Management of wildlife species is not properly done. This ranges from how they handle the deer population to wetland species. For instance, if they believe mother nature should take care of deer population why did they build dams on the souris river to control ponding for waterfowl. They flood certain areas and drain certain areas for ducks but kill beaver and muskrats in the process. Why do they use wildfires along the souris river to limit natural forest growth? Does this not release a tremendous amount of carbon into the atmosphere? They can basically do anything they want without reprocussions. That is the slippery slope I speak of. Is this the natural order of things? It seems hippocritical to me.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> They already in my humble opinion own too much and them owning more is going down a slippery slope.


Well, I'm probably guilty of thinking back 30 years because I don't have current numbers, but 30 years ago we were the state with the lowest percentage of public land. Like I said I don't mind paying support prices, but I prefer to pay for conservation practices. I don't know how you felt about it, but I liked CRP. I think the idea went beyond conservation and was created partially to reduce production thereby bringing up the price of grain.

Your story about wildlife management gave me a chuckle because I remember getting all of my fellow biologists, who were avid duck hunters, upset with me one day. I say ya, I like ducks a lot. They were surprised since I rarely hunt them and asked me why. I said "because they are great fox food". Oh, oh, trouble.



> Why do they use wildfires along the souris river to limit natural forest growth? Does this not release a tremendous amount of carbon into the atmosphere?


I don't know how much gaseous carbon it releases. It puts up a lot of particulate, but that's not the problem. I didn't know anyone was burning to control forest growth I always thought it was used for weeds in place of a herbicide. I do know for years they burned to reduce buckbrush, but then after nest dragging we found 99% of mallards nested in buckbrush. If they are doing it for buckbrush they better rethink.

I think many people have a distorted view of the natural prairie. We read books where homesteaders wrote back to their family and said "Martha the grass is up to the middle of the horses belly". Well, they were interested in grass so that's what they wrote back home to Martha about. My grandfather homesteaded in about 1879 or 1880 and he said the buckbrush and silverberry was everywhere. That's south of Devils Lake, and about at the southern end of the range for silverbberry. We have some down towards Jamestown, but it's rare. I would guess there is a lot in your neck of the woods.

About the house. In the house I live now I had to dig through my concrete and lay tile under my basement too. Then I drilled holes in each cement block and built my own "beaver system". They wanted $5500 to do it, but I built it for $400 myself (including the cost of a jig saw). The sumps run about every five minutes today.


----------



## shaug (Mar 28, 2011)

Plainsman wrote,



> We are between a rock and a hard place. Leave the water and farmers suffer, drain it and people are drown from their homes. I think we need to work together on this. When we have springs like this there should be some system to pay people to delay the flood by holding water. In the long run it would be cheaper than the damages done.


There you go. Years ago there was a county cost share program to build small dams and put a small drain in the bottom. Hold back a rush of water and drain it off slowly. It works great in rolling hills. Takes pressure off county roads bridges and people down stream.

I have several of these spots on my property. When I first started farming I did not have the money to rent dirt moving equipment to build. The county was very interested in cost share but said the program had changed and Ducks Unlimited was now involved. The guy from DU came out and was very excited as he explained his plan. A ten foot high dike and flood out about 80 acres of my land for ducks. Ten feet deep on one end and about two feet a quarter mile on the other end. I said wait a minute, what about the drain pipe to drain it off. He said no, we want it full of water for ducks. Psh!!!

The county agent just walked away shaking his head.

That was about 18 years ago. This summer I may start building. Need some culverts and a scraper. Preferably Cat 627. The money is going to come out of my pocket.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Ya, ducks unlimited is private so they have a one track mind, but it's their money



> That was about 18 years ago. This summer I may start building. Need some culverts and a scraper. Preferably Cat 627. The money is going to come out of my pocket.


Good, will you be able to put that in a pasture so you get multiple use. If you make a deep area and a large shallow area you can plant the large shallow area to some wet meadow species that make highly desirable grazing. Then drop it back so only the deep part holds water for your cattle. You could cover ten acres in early spring, then in mid May to early June drop it to one acre and leave nine for grazing. Often those grasses and sedges that grow in moist soils produce a lot of tons, but little nutrition. Well, little nutrition per ton, but still average nutrition per acre. 
It's been a long time since I had range management from Dr. Getz at NDSU. I don't think we talked much about moist soil species anyway. Life is odd, because as a biologist I did work a couple of years on grazing studies. With only 5% of the land government and 95% private we could double the waterfowl output on public land and still not have as much impact as if we had ten percent increase on private land. That's what the biologist I worked for was trying to do. It worked so well for grazing that the Streeter grazing station duplicated our study. He would be a great person to talk to about water, cattle and grazing. I think Dr. Barker at NDSU did the study at Streeter. It may be worth a call to them before you begin digging.


----------



## farmerj (Jun 19, 2004)

It would be interesting to go back 125-150 years and to look at the watershed maps and how the water REALLY flowed.

And then compare it to the changes implemented since the 70's.

Then show who pushed for those changes.

All the pissin' and moain' would stop really quickly.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I think the complete aerial photo of North Dakota was first done in 1957. I have looked at those photos often. I suppose there was a bunch of drains already in place, but it sure looked a lot different than now.


----------



## farmerj (Jun 19, 2004)

My point is...
when you start changing hydrograph profiles and changing intensity levels and duration times, bad things can happen.

On a regional level, the corp of engineers starts to take the lead. Add in pressures from watersheds and special interest, and jobs weren't done that should have been.

And it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Oh, I got your point, and I agree. I was just informing you that we have a darn good base to look at. Well----- here in North Dakota anyway. Drainage started in Iowa in the late 1800's. In the future I am sure we will look back at this and not see it as advanced ideas, but ignorance of a whole picture.


----------



## farmerj (Jun 19, 2004)

Then people need to stop pissin' and moanin' about it and start holding the Corp and watersheds responsible for their actions.

New Orleans corp got nailed on the fiasco there. More areas need to do the same around the country.


----------



## duckp (Mar 13, 2008)

http://keloland.com/NewsDetail6162.cfm?Id=114035


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

duckp thanks for the article. Years ago the feds helped pay for draining, now they are helping to pay for restoring wetlands. It's hard to blame them, they did what they thought right 30 years ago. I'm just happy that they figured out that they screwed up and are now paying to restore wetlands. The only unfortunate thing is it will take years for everyone to understand the screw up. Some old timers will die never knowing they messed up. We should never get to full of ourselves. What we see as advancement one day future generations look at as neanderthal thinking. It's like the scientists that think other are not sophisticated if they don't believe in evolution, yet if they keep up with the literature they would understand that cellular biology, and chemical physiology are challenging that theory on the basis of irreducible complexity.


----------



## People (Jan 17, 2005)

I do not think Fargo should be responsible for the whole bill but they should be for a majority of it. A long time ago Mandan and other towns in ND built dikes to prevent floods from taking back land every spring. Every year snow melts and it usually rains at least one time during the melt. What makes Fargo think it is ok to just build a temp dike every year? Here is what I heard about this. If you make a new one every year to be taken down and it fails the Gov will pay 100% of the damages but if you have a permanent one and it fails the gov is off of the hook.

I have friends out there and they are to the point where they do not help with the flood work at all. They just move the most important stuff they have to higher ground.

Same thing can be said about the roads in the west for the oil fields. There is a lot of tax monies taken in every day from all the trucks burning diesel. We know where it was bought so all that cash should go to that area to help with the roads. There is also a lot of taxes on truckers and for the most part the Gov knows where they are driving so that cash should go to those areas.

I was watching a TV show the other night and LA had this machine that ground up the road remixed it with oil and then put it back down. They said in the first year it saved them 77milion in saved work. It would be pretty easy to get a machine or three like that for that area and have them just rework all the roads. If we were to do that out would come the (*****es) who cannot see a good thing when they see one. These are the same type of individuals that would tell you and I we were messed up for using a 300WM to shoot deer. The good old what is wrong with the way we are doing it now crowd.

I guess the quickest fix for all the problems the US has would be to enact term limits for everyone who is elected but we know how that would go. I think we would have better odds of Jesus coming to our Tuesday night poker game or having a cool drink and just BS'ing.

As an infant, Chuck Norris' parents gave him a toy hammer. He gave the world Stonehenge.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> . A long time ago Mandan and other towns in ND built dikes to prevent floods from taking back land every spring.


I heard Fargo put up a lot of the money for Baldhill Dam north of Valley City. I think they paid much more than Valley City did.


----------



## farmerj (Jun 19, 2004)

Plainsman said:


> > . A long time ago Mandan and other towns in ND built dikes to prevent floods from taking back land every spring.
> 
> 
> I heard Fargo put up a lot of the money for Baldhill Dam north of Valley City. I think they paid much more than Valley City did.


Baldhill is/was a COE project. So it would be an easy one to find/follow the money on.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

The local (Fargo) television station was talking about the flood the other night in Valley City, and a question was asked why Fargo had so much say about the control of Baldhill. Although it was a federal project it was done in cooperation with Valley City and Fargo. Of that private money they said Valley City paid 20% and Fargo paid 80%. I don't know what percent was federal.


----------



## farmerj (Jun 19, 2004)

they don't really hide it either.

http://www.ci.fargo.nd.us/CityInfo/Depa ... urces.aspx


> The primary water source for the Fargo Water Treatment Plant is the Red River. The Midtown Dam pools are a sufficient depth of water to accommodate a water intake. The city also has alternative sources of water that can be used under extraordinary circumstances. An intake and pumping station on the Sheyenne River south of West Fargo can deliver water via pipeline to the treatment plant. * The City of Fargo also owns 52% of the stored water rights to Lake Ashtabula*, acquired by funding construction of the Baldhill Dam at Valley City. During a drought, water from the lake can be released into the Sheyenne River to provide water for Fargo's needs. Approximately a 2-year supply of water exists in the lake. This source was used during the dry years of 1976, 1984, and 1988.


----------



## wurgs (Mar 3, 2008)

Many cities around the country, especially in the southwest, do that to ensure a water supply during dry times.


----------

