# Lake Sakakawea



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Can anyone explain how the release of water from Garrison Dam is determined.

Does NDGF have any say in the process?

Just heard from a friend on Parshall bay, he said access to the lake will be very difficult if the level drops as predicted.


----------



## gandergrinder (Mar 10, 2002)

No. The Army Corp of Engineers has supreme rule on that one. There were, I'm not sure they if they are still pending, a number of lawsuits brought forth by the State of North Dakota against the Army Corp of Engineers.

The fight is over upstream interests North Dakota and South Dakota vs. downstream interests Missouri barge traffic. This has been going on for years. The recreational value to the upstream interests is very large compared to the downstream barge traffic. I worked on a study for the Game and Fish but it has not been released yet so I can't really say much about it. It has a variety of good information on the recreational value of the Missouri River in North Dakota. Hopefully it is released soon and with permission we can put it on the site.

There are also a number of endangered species caught up amongst all of this and this has been a point of leverage for up stream interests. Lots and lots of info out on it if you want to learn more.


----------



## dkerbaug (Jun 6, 2004)

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Lake Oahe is another lake that is suffering from downstream interests.

I grew up along Sakakawea in western ND, so I'm famliar with the many years of conflict regarding the Corp. Lake Sakakawea really is a pitifull sight compared to normal lake levels.

Not only are we challenged to get a boat in at any of the boat ramps, but the shore is under restriction to motor vehicles. What used to be a very short walk to water for shore fishing has now become out of the question to pack fishing gear across the desert.

I hope your right, as there just hasn't been much leverage to work against the lake level on.


----------



## Ryan_Todd (Apr 11, 2004)

nd just needs to put in a large pipe from devils lake and both problems would be solved. :thumb:


----------



## nilsmaster (Sep 26, 2003)

ryan,

It's called whacko environmentalists. The McClusky canal wasn't suppose to stop dead in its tracks ya know...Missouri River water was on its way to the Red before the whacko's started crying. Ah yes, a liberal society is mmm mmm good.


----------



## HUNTNFISHND (Mar 16, 2004)

Why can't the McClusky canal be used in reverse? By diverting Devils Lake water over to Sakakawea we could lower Devils Lake, raise Sakakawea, and not have the opposition from Minnesota or Canada. Seems like a win, win, win to me!

I am serious. Can someone explain why that would not work?


----------



## nilsmaster (Sep 26, 2003)

The canal wasn't even finished and shut down due to major lobbying from the whackos (at least from how I interperet it). It would take booku bucks to get it finished plus you'll probably never get the easement or whatever you want to call it to take water from DL and run it down the Missouri. There just ain't no way.


----------



## nilsmaster (Sep 26, 2003)

What species in DL would be dangerous for Lake Sakakawea? What water pollutants exist in DL (it is basically a large slough and if it wasn't for higher water it would be pretty stagnant)? How do you justify cost of pumping water over a 400 foot elevation difference? How do you justify pumping it west when the whole goal is to take water east in the state? How much of a difference would water from DL make in Sakakawea? How much water would DL let out? There fishing would drastically changed with a large change in pumping water? What happens when a drought hits the DL area? You have a pretty expensive sysem sitting doing nothing?


----------



## HUNTNFISHND (Mar 16, 2004)

There are no dangerous species in DL that are not already in Sak. The poor water quality is highly overrated, if walleyes can thrive and spawn in it, it is good enough for me. 

How do justify raising roads every year? How do you justify the lost land, homes, and soon towns? I don't think anyone wants more water in the eastern part of the state, in the near future anyway.

Why should we keep wasting money raising or moving roads in the DL area? All they seem to be doing is diking the lake every year. How much money has already been wasted on road construction and COE studies? :eyeroll:

I guess I just figure since the canal is already half done and has to be maintained anyway the cost to put an outlet into DL to drain to Canada could be used to pump DL water to the canal. But what do I know! 

I don't think the people around DL are too concerned with a drought as much rain as they've had this year! Also how nice are those roads going to look if the water does eventually recede? Just my :2cents: :2cents: . :soapbox:


----------



## tumblebuck (Feb 17, 2004)

You won't be able to get water from DL to Sakakawea because of topography. Water can't flow up hill. Don't remember what the elevation difference is...I'm sure somebody on this site know. Now if you've got a really big pump....


----------



## Southwest Fisher (May 14, 2004)

I've done some pipeline work, the logistics just aren't there, no matter how you may want to blame it on liberals (c'mon, already, WTF, is that answer just easier than thinking?) it would take a huge pump and giant pipelines pumping for a hell of a long time. It's literally an UPHILL battle!

Our GNF has nothing to do w/ Sak, they wouldn't let it be like it currently is. The problem isn't just the barge traffic in the lower Mizz either, it's the fact that the Mizz feeds into the Miss, and the Corps (HQ'd in St. Louis) are under pressure to keep levels down there high, for numerous reasons but none of which I give a damn about when I see Sak this low - yes, we're getting the shaft. But there is good news. Currently Max Baucus of MT is pushing a bill that would put a federal requirement on water levels (comparitive with rainfalls) in Montana and the Dakotas. He has bipartisan support in this, but it may not see vote for awhile. I have more on this, I will post a link when I get a chance. Wow, could this be a Democrat helping us out - who'd have thought? Nils, it's not liberals keeping Sak low, okay, at least not any ones from around here. Maybe we should work on what we have in common instead of fighting against each other when we have the same end desire.


----------



## nilsmaster (Sep 26, 2003)

SW, we can have some fun with political lingo can't we. I wasn't saying liberals do it it's the environmental whackos and the majority of them happen to vote party lines and we know which one. That's all :wink:

They could pump water anywhere they want but the price tag will not be pretty. Right now I'm working on rural water in Medora and it's amazing what technology can do. Anywho, the lake will just have to stay low for awhile. I just want shorline access to be a little more "user" friendly. P.S. Fishing is on Fire on Sakakawea!


----------



## Brad Anderson (Apr 1, 2002)

The Missouri River, in St. Louis Missouri, is flowing nicely. Too bad the lobbyists always get their way.


----------



## Nemont (Jan 27, 2004)

Just wanted to point out that there is one more big dam and resivior upstream and that it to is hurting.



> FORT PECK, SAK, OAHE AT RECORD LOW LEVELS
> 
> Fort Peck
> 
> ...


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Sept. 14
COMMERCE: River interests clash over Missouri River

Sens. Bond, Burns spar

By Libby Quaid

Associated Press

WASHINGTON - Drought-ravaged communities along the upper Missouri River would keep more water, and downstream barge shipping would halt immediately, under a measure that cleared a Senate committee Tuesday.

The battle over who gets more water erupted after lake levels plummeted to all-time lows at the big reservoirs in Montana, North Dakota and South Dakota this spring and summer. Along the lower reaches of the Missouri, barge shipping will end early this year, in mid-October, as the Army Corps of Engineers cuts releases from the reservoirs to conserve water.

But Sen. Conrad Burns, R-Mont., said it's not enough merely to curtail shipping.

"They've been doing it at the cost of our water," Burns said. "We feel like that if you're in drought conditions, that everybody should share the pain, that's what we're saying."

Burns' solution is to stop releasing water for barges right now, and he added it to an Interior Department spending bill that cleared the Senate Appropriations Committee on Tuesday evening.

The move angered Sen. Kit Bond, a Missouri Republican allied with the shipping and grain industries.

"The scope of the disaster, not just to Missouri but for all of the Mississippi River states is unimaginable," Bond said in an interview. "Because this would shut off the flow of the Missouri right now. This is a total nuclear war on Missouri."

Bond and Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, tried unsuccessfully to kill the provision, but Bond said, "The fat lady hasn't sung on this one. This battle is just beginning."

The 2,341-mile Missouri, the nation's longest river, provides more than half the water for the Mississippi River. Sixty percent of all U.S. grain exports move through the middle Mississippi River, said Chris Brescia, president of a St. Louis-based shippers' group called MARC 2000.

Ending navigation would force the grain to be moved more expensively by truck or by rail, an alternative shippers estimate to add $8 to $12 per ton.

Drought severely has damaged the upriver recreation industry and the economy that revolves around it, said Chad Smith, a Nebraska-based spokesman for the conservation group American Rivers.

The provision by Burns would force the corps to halt reservoir releases when levels at the big three reservoirs drop below 40 million acre feet, rather than below 31 million acre feet under the current master water control manual for river operations. They are Montana's Fort Peck Reservoir, Lake Sakakawea in North Dakota and Lake Oahe in South Dakota.

With the Burns amendment in place, there would have been shipping last year but not this year and probably not next year.


----------



## rap (Mar 26, 2002)

the latest dakota country has an article about the possibility of pumping water from DL to Sakakawea. It concluded it isn't likely, because it would be a problem transporting it uphill and cost too much mula.


----------



## jimboy (Apr 1, 2003)

Here is an idea,

How about getting some of those fat cats in Missouri to pay for the pumping of Devils Lake water to garrison. If they want barge traffic so bad then maybe they should help you guys out instead of sucking what little resources the Dakotas and Montana have. Just goes to show you how much they care about you guys. take a collection from all the states that use the missouri and mississippi for commerce and use it to help off set the water levels in time of need by draining DL. Just another example of one state telling another what to do with it's resource. :******:


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

Not a bad idea jimboy, but if you give the Corps the water from DL who going to stop em' from flushin' all that water also!!


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Corps fields upstream complaints on Missouri River flows
By the Associated Press 
9:57 a.m. - GLASGOW, Mont. (AP) -- More than 100 residents, business owners and political representatives here have asked the Army Corps of Engineers to hold more Missouri River water upstream to keep Montana businesses afloat.

"People here are going out of business," said Bill Harris, owner of Crooked Creek Marina north of Winnett. "They're suffering terribly."

Harris was one of several speaking at a meeting Wednesday. It is one in a series of meetings called by the corps to get public comment on its latest draft of an annual operating plan for the river. Harris said there's no compromise in the corps' Master Manual for the Missouri River system and he was not sympathetic to downstream states' call for increased flows.

"All they get in the lower states is a shorter barge season," he said. "Here, we go out of business completely."

Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., sent a statement through a spokesman that raised the possibility of delayed corps funding if the agency does not do a better job of protecting Montana's interests.

"We're tired," said Jack Foley, who delivered the Baucus statement. "We're frustrated. Dramatic action needs to be taken to protect what little water remains."

Jack Stults, speaking for the Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation and Gov. Judy Martz, asked that flows from Fort Peck Dam not exceed more than 8,000 cubic feet per second. Stults also said state officials were especially galled by a recent request for an extended barge season downstream because of bumper crops.

"To make such a request and degrade the economic base here that's already suffering so severely already is wrong," he said.

Larry Cieslik, chief of the corps Reservoir Control Center in Omaha, Neb., said the agency's Master Manual calls for a reduction in next year's barge navigation season that could be as much as 61 days. A decision will be made March 15, he said.

"Folks down South don't think this is a good compromise," Cieslik said. "They think they're giving up a lot."

Water storage on the Missouri River system stood at a record low 35.4 million acre-feet as of Oct. 10, far lower than the previous record low in 1991 of 40.8 million acre feet.


----------



## tobgarden (Oct 9, 2002)

I'm sorry, but pumping water from Devils Lake to fill Sakakawea is another hair brained idea that just doesn't work. Devils Lake would struggle to fill just the bay in which my resort is located. Do you realize how much water is in Sakakwea vs Devils Lake. The folks in the DL lake area have much to deal with due to the high water level, but one should be careful what you wish for as we all know high water levels can go to low water issues in just a few short years.

The real solution to solving the Missouri River woes is a new plan based on water conservation first. When will all of the people up and down the Missouri River system realize that the water is the #1 asset for all of the states involved. We need a plan that saves our fresh water instead of converting it into salt water! Establishing much higher minimum levels on all of the lakes and managing system uses according to inflows makes a lot of sense to me.


----------



## njsimonson (Sep 24, 2002)

Nils -

Your arguments and comments are USUALLY so coherent with at least SOME factual basis. Not this time. The water of Devils Lake is more damaging than you think, whether it would go to Sakakawea, the Red River, the Sheyenne or piped straight up and dumped into Canada. It's going to create havoc wherever it ends up.

"Whackos" like me are speaking out to prevent the filth water of Devils Lake at this point in time from destroying the Sheyenne watershed. I don't know if you realize how high in salts and alkilinity that Devils lake water is!?!

Do you know that nearly every small town along the Sheyenne that gets a majority of its city water supply from the river would have to spend (as you termed it) "booku bucks" to install desalinization plants to treat the outlet water - costing upwards of a million dollars?

Further, the change in flow and in water quality would be damaging to the Sheyenne in manners we can't comprehend on an ecological platform. From what kind of microbial life, invertebrates, plants and insects can live in the outlet-mixed water all the way up to whether or not vibrant and populous game fish like the smallmouth bass (that favor clear moving water) would be able to survive in such a murky, salty, silted environment.

Don't think that there ISN'T going to be an environmental impact resulting from the DL waters, wherever they go be it Sak, or the Sheyenne.

And remember, just because a person cares about the environment, and about the costs the people would incur doesn't make one a WHACKO or a LIBERAL.


----------



## Remmi_&amp;_I (Dec 2, 2003)

I just don't think we are going to see the levels of Lake Sakakawea rise significantly in the near future. My parents have a cabin near Coleharbor and the reason they picked this location (15-20) years ago was because the water came up into this completely sheltered bay where we could swim and dock our boats in completely calm water..........even when the wing was blowing 25 mph. When they put in the new boat ramp late this summer, we were visiting with the workers and they indicated they already have plans for another one in our area because of lower water projections! Scary if you ask me!

I would like to know exactly how much barge traffic there is down south? If any of you know where I can find the info, I would appreciate it.

Thanks, and happy huntin'


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

Water management in North Dakota has been a disaster wether you are talking about Devils Lake or the flooding of 500,000 acres of prime farmland to build the mainstream Missouri River Dams. We have not recived just compensation for that land and of course have been out foxed by downstream interests when it comes to management of resevior resources. Our history of water resource management is not one to be proud of and has really hurt or state financially for many years and will continue to do so in the future. Our leadership has pretty much been pressured by outside entities and we have been badly out foxed by other policitcal influencs. I am not sure where the blame is but we are finally starting to stand up for our fair share of this valuable resource.


----------

