# Devil's lake outlet permit



## MRN (Apr 1, 2002)

The comment period for the DL outlet permit has been extended. This is actually an important issue as the outlet has a huge potential to screw up everything from drinking water, fishing, and riparian environment all the way north to Winnepeg.

Can any of the G&F folks here tell us more about the potential impact and all the unknowns? Perhaps this even warrants an email alert. We all care about preserving the environment.

You can see the application and can offer a comment here:
http://www.health.state.nd.us/rulemakin ... rgePermit/

M.


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

http://nd.water.usgs.gov/pubs/wri/wri02 ... 024042.pdf

I'm not sure if I'm for or against this ??? Seems kinda late to spend all that money - But if this wet cycle is not over - something has to be done - or else alot more will have to be spent & maybe even move the city of DL & alot more towns & people & farms - roads - bridges etc. etc etc.

http://www.swc.state.nd.us/projects/devilslake.html

http://www.devilslakend.com/home/floodmap.htm


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

This could keep you busy awhile  :roll: :wink:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=U ... gle+Search


----------



## economics 101 (Jan 30, 2003)

MRN,

I will withold any derogatory comments on your post until I am sure that you are not favoring the environment ect. over people.  The lake has risen 20 plus feet in the last 10 years and no end in sight. The proposed state outlet will help relieve some pressure and only uses the best water of the lake. While I do believe the downstream interests have some concerns, I am fully confident the state will not be "dumping" one problem for another. There have been over 200 homes and structures moved from the lake area over this time and over $195,000,000 spent on roads ect. It ( the lake ) is a monster :******: and has no way out until everyone and everything is gone. I can go on and on about the devestation it has caused, but will save for later when I see how this post is viewed by the sportmen and women of the state.

Econ


----------



## MRN (Apr 1, 2002)

E101,

I feel for some of you poor sots, but the problem is that the state IS planning to dump one group's problem onto everyone else, while probably not even aiding the original group in the process. Not much support coming from Minnesota or Canada. Why not? Water quality is a huge concern. Water quality is actually more important than hunting (but thats just some silly public trust stuff....).

The problem is that the "best" water in the lake is pretty bad, and the worst water (east) far exceeds the water quality standards for anything. The "best scenario" 100 cf/s release will push the rivers to or above their quality standards for salts/sulfates/disolved solids. But the plan is to make feasible a 200-300 cf/s release, up to a maximum of 600 cf/s. Why is that? Do you think that puts our water quality in harms way???? But we can trust the politicians.

M.


----------



## Dan Bueide (Jul 1, 2002)

This is pretty interesting, and I'm surprised it's the first time it's surfaced on this site. Once when sharing a "******" with neighbors in one of our garages, one of them with no connection to hunting and very little to the outdoors or rural ND asked "Why in the world would we support and fund that outlet if there's a risk to water quality and flood exacerbation to us and others? If they've got a problem, let them take care of it themselves." Having spent enough time in the DL area and having friends there, I explained to him that, yes, there were some, largely unquantifiable risks to the downstreamers, but we needed to accept those risks because of the greater and known risks to the DL region. In other words, there must be some compromise and risk assumption by us for the greater good of other fellow ND's.

That's one of the things that honked me off the most about the reaction of some of the more prominent DL folks to the waterfowl issues. To them, there was no compromise or looking past what they perceived was best for their area. No consideration or moderation towards an approach that might work decently well for all, but not perfectly for any. To the contrary, efforts towards compromise were met with threats of lock-outs.

Incidentally, DL doesn't want a return of the pre-90's lake levels. The outlet is only to regulate maximum elevation. An inlet, as part of the Garrison Diversion project, is also desired. That way the lake elevation can be moderated, probably just 3-4 feet below the current level and much higher than most of us can remember. That's great, as the larger lake has made for recreational opportunities (and $) for the area beyond what anyone could have imagined 15 years ago. But, as the DL area looks to the rest of the state to help it with these issues, I hope that some in that area will be willing to work with folks in other areas of the state on other issues, even those they perceive could negatively affect them somewhat. Get a little, give a little.

This topic brings up another point. Urban sportspersons serve as important liaisons and ambassadors to rural ND. I can't tell you the number of times someone who doesn't venture out into the country much says "I'm going to or traveling through ___________" Invariably, I'll say, "you can't possibly travel to or near __________ without stopping at __________ [store or restaurant]" As ND continues to "urbanize", the role of urban sportspersons to market, promote and stand up for rural ND will become even more important. This is another reason I think there are strong reasons for rural and urban to find common ground and compromise on the hunting issues. By and large, urban sportspersons are the most direct link between city and country, and whether or not believed, often rural's strongest advocates.


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

Coot you could end up in a boat after all 

It is ironic that those that have posted & leased the most in the past, may be some of the most in need of support ??? Wonder if those that led the charge will remember this ??? :roll: - I won't mention names :roll: Not to mention how all the government moneys have already enhanced their present day operations :eyeroll:

& how all the draining in the past has contributed to the problem. :eyeroll:

That green on that flood map sure looks to be ducky to me (& don't ya just love those meandering water laws 

Does the quote "you get what you give" ring a bell ???

http://www.devilslakend.com/home/floodmap.htm


----------



## Perry Thorvig (Mar 6, 2002)

I thought the Stump Lake outlet overflow was 1446.5 feet. Why does the lake still keep rising above that overflow level? It's just over 1447 today.


----------



## Fetch (Mar 1, 2002)

I think that is when the flow starts into Stump - elev. (happening now) The natural flow out of stump & into the Sheyenne river is much higher & many Millions of dollars later. - the +1460

http://www.devilslakend.com/home/floodmap.htm

When stump gets full, thats when the poop hits the fan & they will get the water down stream, if they like it or not & they should be preparing for it infastructure wise - & imagine the millions it will take to solve all the other problems that will cause. Seems to me a slow drain from the better water part of the lake would be much prefered ???

Can you imagine them trying to do the Pick Sloan deal, for the Dams on the Missouri today - NO WAY !!! the days of grand scale projects must be over ??? & that is why this one is such a nightmare.

Keep in mind this is just the States plan the Corp. of Engineers has another (much bigger) :roll:


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

Now I am not saying that they don't need or deserve an outlet, but.......I remember back in the dry years there was talk of the possibility of an outlet so as to aid some other areas of ND and the DL region wouldn't hear of it!! Goes back to what Dan said, you kind of reap what you sow. That being said, I am in favor of doing what needs to be done in order to help the DL community. I am a bit concerned about wtar quality though.


----------

