# Conflicted ND Water Policy



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

This isn't a bash on private landowners nor governing institutions but there seems to be a conflicted water policy in our state. On one hand the Red River Basin is racked by continual flooding both spring and summer. On the other hand there is farm policy in place that encourages continued draining of runoff water into the narrow confines of communities along the drainages of the basin.

Farm programs encourage this drainage without restraint by setting lower program payments for conservation than for cropping land. Then governmental agencies rush emergency aid into afflicted areas to build higher dikes for each cycle of flooding. Catch-22. No mutual benefit so the cycle continues each spring and summer. Each side is like a shark eating it's tail and saying it's well fed.

Why can't the existing agencies involved hammer out a plan that serves the best interest of all concerned?


----------



## jhegg (May 29, 2004)

Dick,
Ask the ND Farm Bureau. I'm sure they can provide you with the amswer. Whether they will or not is another question.
Jim


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I think it was 1977 that the Wildlife Society wrote a letter saying that channel A would be a problem. Everyone laughed, because as they said the lake is so huge it couldn't possibly be a problem. A lake with no outlet and we have doubled or tripled the land area running into it. Sure, nothing will happen, and if the pump it downstream where cities are already flooding that will be no problem.

I guess the problem that we have to decide is it worse to have five acres of water on a section, or five feet in your basement. It's a problem we will have to answer one day while Valley City, Fargo, and Grand Forks are still mostly above water.


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

As I posted in the politics forum, drain tiling is not helping either. UND's water waffling study seems to be a stretch to me and my farmer buddies but it needs to be studied and implemented. The hangup we had when discussing it was the week to ten day planting delay. A lake is economically unfeasable. It would cost hundreds of millions just to acquire land at the current prices, let alone the enormous construction costs. A channel or diversion would help Fargo/Moorhead but I think it would have to on the MN side because the Sheyenne diversion is already to our west and if one failed and flowed into the other one that would be a huge disaster.

Something needs to get done soon. My back is sore and my shoulders hurt and we are nowhere near done. This sucks.


----------



## bearhunter (Jan 30, 2009)

TK33 said:


> Something needs to get done soon. My back is sore and my shoulders hurt and we are nowhere near done. This sucks.


 i'm with on this one


----------



## Conservit (Mar 25, 2009)

Hello all new to this forum...well not really I have enjoyed reading your reports/posts for several years now. I could not help but to sign up and join the fun. 
I have to ask. Is there a general consensus as to the problems that are being cause by the farming practices today (namely the draining of wetlands and the tiling) in reference to flooding? 
Sorry I know some will think that now is not a good time to discuss this, but I can not help but wonder if it had been taken more seriously during the last flood if something positive could come from it?

Lastly I am physically unable to help with the efforts going on right now, but I think I speak for most Dakotan's when i say GOD BLESS.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Sorry I know some will think that now is not a good time to discuss this


Actually it's a perfect time.

Now consider this. When a five acre wetland is drained, how many acre watershed was it storing? A five acre wetland could be shallow or deep, but those I have looked at from Iowa to the Missouri Coteau in Canada they will have a watershed of 15 to 100 acres. That water will go away through evaporation and contribution to the aquifer.

The flooding at Devils Lake has occurred because they have doubled or tripled the land mass draining into the lake. The lake has now outlet. Now they want to pump it into the Sheyenne River which passes through Valley City, Fargo, and ultimately Grand Forks as a major contributor to the water already in the Red River. If they don't want to take action then flood every year, but don't expect the taxpayer to foot the bill year after year. What a waste of money. Just about as stupid and big of waste as the Obama bail out.

Drain proponents like to say, that the water from the Sheyenne would only be about two to five feet of the water on the bottom of the Red. I like to think of it as additional water, and that it's two to five feet on top of the Red. Their argument that it is only two to five feet on the bottom tells you they know it's a problem, but they want to do it anyway.

Up to this time the solution to water has always been dam it up and keep it if you want to shaft your neighbor downstream (dry west) or drain it if you don't want it and flood your neighbor downstream. Where there is little water like Arizona people try to hoard it. Where there is excess the solution has always been pass it downstream and let someone else worry about it.

If we are serious about fixing the problem offer conservation payments for wetland restoration upstream. For those that are still drained Fargo should file a class action suit with every city along the Red against every owner of every drained wetland upstream. After all if damage has occurred because someone altered something then they are liable.


----------



## Conservit (Mar 25, 2009)

Plainsman, I thank you for your reply, although there are many on here that seem to have a pretty good grasp on what is happening in our outdoor world, I must say I have been very impressed with your knowledge and understanding of nature, conservation and wildlife.

I am not an "educated" man but I do pay attention to the world around me and I try to learn something everytime I have the opportunity to be in the outdoors. Sadly so often I feel like i am in the minority when it comes to wanting to conserve and protect our resources especially with the people in my generation... IMO there is too much emphasis on "limits" the "kill "and not enough on the hunt and just enjoying our surroundings.

Thanks for listening, I look forward to future discussions with you and others on this forum.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Conservit, good name there, and thanks for coming to Nodak Outdoors!

I have some ditches on my farm. That said I'm part of the problem also. 50 years ago the USDA had a massive program for wetland drainage-fill accross the country, so we did. 30 years ago that trend changed, possibly with the enviromental movement and with the costs of surplus grain production caused by USDA farm programs. Swampbuster (prohibit drainage) was an outcome of that movement but was gutted by political pressure.

One of the "incentives" for this drainage is USDA's crop insurance that gives a higher payment for cropping than water storage. If a priority were transfered to wetland retension instead of the "prevented planting" payments, at least some of this flooding could be averted. There are numberous other benefits as Plainsman pointed out too. It would cost no more, it would just be a transfer from one program to the other. The squeaking wheel.........


----------



## Conservit (Mar 25, 2009)

Dick M, thank you for the info. It is easy to get caught up in the right/wrong...good vs evil. I have to persuade myself from this temptation often. 
I have decided to try and gain all the Good information I can, and hopefully try to help better the situation. It is just like most things in life..a little bit adds up quick. 
No big deal if I litter it's only 1 cup...or that one beer bottle I left on the ice is no big deal. As long as everyone else picks up there trash everything is OK...right??
I feel the need to not only NOT being part of the problem ....to wanting to be a part of the solution.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Conservit I grew up on a farm and one thing that stood out to me was conservation programs. My family had much of our farm in what they called Soil Bank. It was much like the current Conservation Reserve Program. Ever since the Soil Bank program I have thought that paying for conservation was better than paying for support prices of commodities. It makes more sense for society and the farmers. Conservation programs bring down production which brings up prices on the free market. The farmer still gets his income, the taxpayer gets habitat, wildlife gets habitat.
So what can we do now? The agriculture programs encourage poor land practices, we pay taxes on support prices year after year, habitat suffers, farmers don't get rich on price support, so they plant more poor land. Science and politics get mixed and we don't know if global warming is real or just a political club. Is everything going down the tubes? I think there is an opportunity here.
Satellite monitoring reveals that as air passes over the Prairie Pothole Region atmospheric carbon is reduced. Research reveals that it's wetlands that are harvesting the carbon from the atmosphere. So looking at the Soil Bank program and the Conservation Reserve program what have we learned? Well I think we can make payments to restore wetlands to as near original as possible. If we can get natural vegetation growing they will store up to 35 tons of carbon per acre like wetland that were studied. Power companies could enhance those payments to farmers mitigating for carbon they produce. Farmers get an income, electric prices from power plants will remain low for the same taxpayer that funds the program, commodity prices should increase slightly even though the land mass taken from production is not high, wildlife gains habitat, and flood threats are reduced. There are few things government can do that would produce so many win win outcomes. 
If the whole global warming thing is a hoax we still win because this money would still be a good investment. 
I do not support cap and trade, but I would support an agriculture program like this. I think it would save taxpayers money, save electric consumers money, provide farm income, and many other advantages.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I think I will have to look at the NRCS website. I think they already have some good wetland restoration programs that pay decent. Perhaps more landowners would be receptive if power companies could enhance those payments. Of course wetlands would have to be looked at to determine if original hydrology had been restored, and what type of vegetation was present. Plant species will determine the rate and how much carbon is being stored.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Those are good points Plm. To induce enrollment the payment needs to be more than just the soil survey productivity index used by NRCS. The requirements need to reflect the other benefits to society.

Wetland drain off, vegitation burned for crop insurance.








Both of these situations pictured above and below are the result of the "prevented plant" provisions of the farm program.


----------



## dakotashooter2 (Oct 31, 2003)

I personally believe farmers are shooting themselves in the foot draining off wetlands. While it may beneficial right now how about long term. And by long term I don't mean 20 years. How about 50 or 100 years and beyond. Most farmers don't worry about that because it is beyond their lifetime. At some point this state will see another severe drought and farmers will be crying their eyes out. Both the wetlands and the aquifers they support will be dry and fingers will be pointed..... at everthing/everyone but the true cause. I feel the same about the extensive use of chemicals and chemical based fertilizers on the land. The land is gonna hit a point of no return and could very likely be damaged for hundreds or even thousands of years. Right now we have no idea what the long term effect will be unfortunately it will probably be my grandchildren that have to deal with it. While I don't think humanity is capable of destroying the earth we sure could make it inhabitable for a long time.


----------



## magnum3.5 (Sep 19, 2003)

Ahh fellows wait a minute and look at the big picture. ( not trying to stir the pot) Back in the 70's early 80's Devils lake was trying desperately to get fresh water. Even well before. Tried for garrison diversion over and over that would have not only stabilized the lake but would have supplied drinking water for Fargo and Grand forks. The people from down stream were elated to get fresh water except Grand Forks. The city commission voted against the diversion project. The water if I remember correctly (now I maybe wrong) could also be diverted back to the Missouri river. It would have been a win win for the whole state.

Now the lake is busting at the seams. We can't get rid of it. Farms are being lost, homes being relocated, and the farmers that have been draining are getting the blunt of the blame. First they want the water now they say wow that's enough!

The corp of eng have publicly said less than 3 feet of Devils Lake is from Draining of upper basin. The proof came in 96-98 when the water storage payments came through for the farmers from the upper basin to store water too relieve flooding. Didn't matter more was lost. Another little observation the upper basin from north of Leeds to Edmore Got a hell of a storm late last spring over 9" in several areas and the lake went down. That very storm covered over 70 square miles. Leed's, Cando, Bisbee, Egeland, Starkweather, Garske, Webster, Penn, Edmore, and Hampden. The level of the lake went down. No storing of water free flow and the lake went down.

In 1960's my grandfather put the whole farm into wildlife easement so channel A wouldn't split the farm in half. If he would have his wits and seen the long term he would have been better off draining into it and driving around to farm it. I know I am going to take a thrashing from all you guys but this is what I have observed in last 30+ years.

Magnum


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I must have a relative living right next to you. Just a little further upstream my daughter-in-law has a half section, or something like that.

I think Corp of Eng. needs to do that study again. If you increase the area of run off by two or three times it's going to be more than the top three feet. I suppose though that the top three feet means thousands of acres. Still, the lake has been flooding and going up without high rain event years. There is only one explanation for that.

I think currently NRCS is paying close to $100/acre for 99 year leases.

If you consider that wetlands can store 35 tons of carbon per acre when they drain it North Dakota is perhaps producing more carbon than all the auto's in California.

Society could get a lot more out of paying for wetland restoration than they would paying support prices.

Dakotashooter, I agree that farmers are shooting themselves in the foot draining wetlands. Many of them put more than half their water into the aquifer. A neighbor to my brother drained a 20 acre wetland. About 19 acres were on my brothers land, and the guy dug a trench across my brothers alfalfa field. He wasn't to happy, but he was even less happy when the spring that ran past his house and irrigated his garden for 30 years went dry. Then his shallow well went dry. The wetland was only about 600 yards from his house. On top of the hills, and my brothers farm is in the Sheyenne valley. He plugged the drain and the spring begin to run the following June.

I think not much was learned in the drought of the 1930's and it will be repeated again. The only thing that has held it off this long has been the NRCS.


----------



## Hunter_58346 (May 22, 2003)

So you are saying that the draining that takes place in the Devils lake basin causes the spring flooding in the RR Valley? Not for another 12 feet I believe. And nobody in the valley has drainage ditches? I have flown the RR Valley and have seen first hand the network of drainage that they have in place, all draing into the Red River 
Hurricane Lake in Towner/Pierce county has gates and have been closed for years. The Overflow feeds Devils Lake.. Lake Ibsen south of Leeds has closed gates, overflow feeds Devils Lake. There are far more intact wetlands in the upper northwest basin than there are drained ones. Don't preach that the farmers in the upper basin are dumping water on down stream communities because you are misinformed. You may believe newspaper articles and news stories but they arent worth the paper that they are written on.
I am not a farmer and do not profit directly from farmers but blaming them for others problems is assinine at best. When Devils Lake reaches 1460 it will dump into the Sheyenne river naturally. Then what, build a damn to hold back the flood waters?
When our newly self appointed Saviour takes away farm payments and gives them to the homeless to share the wealth, then who will you start in on??


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

> So you are saying that the draining that takes place in the Devils lake basin causes the spring flooding in the RR Valley?


No. Not saying that.

I am saying there is Federal policy in place to allow and encourage draining, through the Farm Program. That incentive is more profitable for landowners than retaining wetlands. This action contributes to flooding and a host of other environmental problems. *Every year there is a minimum guaranteed one million acres of "prevented planting" under the crop insurance program. *

Reverse the incentive.


----------



## Conservit (Mar 25, 2009)

So some people still believe that the draining of wetlands and the tiling that is happening is not compounding the flooding problems? That is a problem.
It seems time to move past the blame game, it actually appears that some of the operators are pointing the finger at the next guy because he has more tile on his land, or has drained more wetlands...come on!

Time to Man Up and be responsible, we would be farther ahead to pay for increased incentives to Not tile/drain than we are paying for flood damage every few years, not to mention the environmental benefits that come along with it.

I am not an Obama fan...but not sure that he should be taking the blame for this one yet?

So anyone know what can be done to end the draining? Where do we begin? Is it possible? :huh:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Hunter_58346 no I didn't say Devils Lake contributed to the flood in Fargo. I am saying drainage contributed to both. I know about Devils Lake, I grew up on the south side of it and my relatives still farm there. When they pump from Devils Lake into the Sheyenne it cuts my brother-in-laws farm not in half, but it cuts it off enough so instead of using the gravel ford he has to drive 10 miles around to part of his farm.

Saying that draining wetlands doesn't contribute to flooding is as unreasonable as saying water doesn't contribute to flooding. Get real.

Conservite is absolutely right about paying incentives to restore would be much cheaper than paying for flood damage so often. If that doesn't work, then laws will have to be passed to just simply stop drainage. Perhaps laws will have to be passed to restore wetlands. I would jump on the gravy train now if I had wetlands to restore.

Your right about Obama. I doubt he even thinks about farmers, but if he figures out flooding is caused by drainage he may pay attention. I am afraid it may be a dismal four years for farmers.

Oh, and Hunter_58346 I have flown everything north of Devils Lake to the Canadian border. I have compared the 1957 aerial photo base maps to current wetland inventory maps, and I have compared that to Earth's Resources Technology Satellite Imagery from the 1970, and current Satellite Imagery. I also spent a summer on the ground checking existing wetlands on U S Fish and Wildlife property. I know that area very well. In the Starkweather area nearly no private wetland exist.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

> I have some ditches on my farm. That said I'm part of the problem also


Dick, You can fill those ditches and restore the wetlands and get paid for it. I did, why don't you if you're so concerned??????????? :huh:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> fill those ditches and restore the wetlands and get paid for it. I did,


g/o :thumb: You are then part of the solution. :thumb:


----------



## magnum3.5 (Sep 19, 2003)

As the ole quote go's "Whiskey is for drinking and waters for fight en".


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

> So some people still believe that the draining of wetlands and the tiling that is happening is not compounding the flooding problems? That is a problem


Drain tiling can be a good thing. What happened this year is a culmination of last fall and obviously winter. Drain tiled land can hold more water and if done right can help with flooding. Last fall there was not one farmer who closed his tiling system, they were all open to get the crops off. This would be an example of the bad of drain tile. In the spring the tiling system can be shut off, thus holding the water. It is up to the water boards to enforce this.

The wetlands are like the trees. Every farmer in the valley got rid of wetlands and trees several years ago. Now the farmers are planting the trees again to save the topsoil. The wetlands are no different, soon the farmers will need wetlands again, the catch is they need to be built right. The water boards need to do a better job enforcing ditching and drainage rules. They already make the farmers go through a mountain of paperwork now they need to make them follow through.

I will guarantee you there will be a mountain of discussion after the water recedes. I hope people take a look at the waffling plans for water retention. In my opinion this is one good plan that could benefit everyone. The ground is still frozen this year so waffling would have had no effect on planting. We need to strike a balance between farmers and suburbia


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> I hope people take a look at the waffling plans for water retention.


That's what nature gave us to begin with, but man has destroyed it. Thousands of wetlands that once held water now send it down the Red River. How many 100 year floods do we need in a 10 year period before we know something is wrong? 
Seasonal wetlands are just that seasonal. Many are dry by June, and most are dry by August. In spring before melt they are completely dry waiting to hold everything that comes from their small watershed. These are what are often called nuisance wetlands by some people.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

> It would cost hundreds of millions just to acquire land at the current prices, let alone the enormous construction costs.


I think that would be a lot cheaper in the long run. It has to be millions of dollars of lost commerce and damaged property every year over there. And the inevitable is a dike bursting letting freezing cold water in and killing a few thousand locals in Fargo. That would not be good.


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

After this I have never been more convinced that a diversion is the only way to go for Fargo. There are a lot of people who want a reservoir, that would be great but the cost of adding a reservoir could kill the project. There is a lot of things that get in the way of flood control for the F-M area. Two cities, two counties, and two states; one of which is flat broke.

The old flood control plan was for a 42' wall in South Fargo along the red. We were looking at 43' a few days ago, the trouble is where the wall would be placed there would have been no way to raise it so we would have been diking behind them. So the people who live along the red still would have been flooded.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

TK, the cheapest plan with many fringe benefits is to support the NRCS program for restoring wetlands. The cost is less to taxpayers, the farmers get an income, restored wetlands provide water retention, restored wetland provide habitat, restored wetlands provide carbon sequestration, etc. What other plan does all that, and has federal dollars to support it? 
Simply call your Washington reps and ask that money be diverted to NRCS for that project. Give them 20 million in North Dakota and you not only lower the flood impacts, you stimulate the economy. Send some of that stimulus package to NRCS, and stipulate that the work to be done be contracted. In that fashion it will come to our government offices within the state and be passed on to farmers and contractors.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

A polite discussion is refreshing. :beer: And you fellows certainly deserve to quaff a few root beers when this is over.

But I think the problem is much bigger than just the few counties and communities bordering the Red River. Oakes, Lamoure, Jamestown, Valley City, Devils Lake and smaller towns, not to mention farmsteads that go under too. Other states face the same problems. The present policy is to move water out as fast as possible. The top of the funnel gets bigger every year by drainage.

The present make-up of county water boards is not going to solve the issue either. They take a thankless amount of heat for no benefit. There is no teeth in the law they try to enforce.

Now during the flood Senator Conrad is considering funding cuts for water retension in conservation programs:
http://www.nodakoutdoors.com/forums/vie ... 093#581093
I hope our delegation can review that policy!


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> The top of the funnel gets bigger every year by drainage.


Excellent analogy Dick. That is why I often use Devils Lake as an example. They have vastly increased the number of square miles that drains into the lake. Devils Lake is a good example of a funnel top, while Fargo is a good example of the funnel bottom. It's hard to spread the Red River wider in Fargo (which it is trying to do), but you can reduce the square miles of land area draining into the Red and it's tributaries.


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

I would love to see more wetlands but it is probably not going to happen at a high enough scale to help us with our flooding. It would take a lot of land that I don't think the agricultural community is willing to give up. Once this flooding is done in the valley everyone will want a quick fix and I think the NRCS project will get shoved aside and walls and dikes will replace it. I hope I am wrong.

There needs to be a lot more done along with wetland restoration. Hopefully as I stated above a balance can be struck.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

:eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll: 
A little frosting on the cake. Just found out there is a move afoot in the ND Senate to slash the $800,000 line item for land acquisition from the NDGF budget. That's sportsman money, already paid in, that would probably have bought some.................wetlands.

It has been flooding in Bismarck, but apparently not in the Capitol Building.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

It would be nice to see a map of the water from the air of the whole valley to see where it gets pushed to when at these high levels. It would be nice to see it divert after a certain flood stage is reached. Without a doubt what is all ready there will need to be maintained and improved where possible. I think maybe the state and city should consider some full time people dedicated to this project. At least have it work like a trap door if needed to save lives.


----------



## Conservit (Mar 25, 2009)

Dick Monson said:


> :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll: :eyeroll:
> A little frosting on the cake. Just found out there is a move afoot in the ND Senate to slash the $800,000 line item for land acquisition from the NDGF budget. That's sportsman money, already paid in, that would probably have bought some.................wetlands.
> 
> It has been flooding in Bismarck, but apparently not in the Capitol Building.


Amazing....If this would go through it would be a huge blow to Sportsman everywhere! 
Not to mention a possible first step to purchasing/restoring some much needed wetlands, not only for the habitat they provide but more importantly to slow some of the flood waters you North Dakotans are dealing with every few years. :evil:


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

I love this discussion. I cannot believe the amount of wetlands that have been drained in this area in the past 50 years. I do not trust flood walls, look at what happened at Oak Grove. That breach was in their permanent flood wall!! The diversion has been a godsend for West Fargo, and I think it could be for Fargo as well, but most stidies say it would have to go through MN and the legislative red tape would hold it up forever. I like the waffling plan, but why not use a more natural waffling plan of temporary wetlands like nature intended. Reduced crops would be a benefit as that would naturally up prices. 
Great discussion guys!!


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

The diversion of the Sheyenne at WF might get it's test this month. There is massive water up stream. When the Red floods it spreads out on the flat flood plain. The Sheyenne sends it's whole load down a narrow river valley. Baldhill's past record discharge was apx 5000 + cfs. Right now it's at 3500 cfs but the flood here hasn't started yet.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

djleye, them damn farmers draining land, you don't suppose for one second the development of the area around Fargo would have anything to do with the flooding do you? I thought this was caused by global warming, now it's the draining.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

g/o said:


> djleye, them damn farmers draining land, you don't suppose for one second the development of the area around Fargo would have anything to do with the flooding do you? I thought this was caused by global warming, now it's the draining.


Well, if you believe all the global warming we should be getting dryer. I see the front page of the Dickinson paper had a story about global warming and a polar bear with two cubs found in Roosevelt Park. Front page story, and you go to the end and find a big APRIL FOOL. I think the whole thing is exaggerated for political gain.

Draining on the other hand you have to believe that water doesn't cause flooding to believe that drainage has nothing to do with it. Little tougher sell. We have to extremes here, one group claiming global warming and another claiming water doesn't cause flooding. One you can argue with the other ------ well, it depends on if you think you can hide self serving convictions.


----------



## 6162rk (Dec 5, 2004)

drainage and development both play a role. i think drainage more than anything. just add up the acres lost to drainage. does anyone know how many acre feet of water are sitting in the valley right now from the canadian border south to lake traverse? also does anyone have a wag as to how much money ( straight up money ) not lost time at work, or worth of volunteerism, etc. this flood is going to cost? just the dollars that will be spent by government agencies.


----------



## Conservit (Mar 25, 2009)

anyone have a wag as to how much

Probably somewhere near a million bushels of something


----------



## 6162rk (Dec 5, 2004)

the reason i ask is every time you talk to an engineer they take about how many acre feet of water there are in a given area. they talk about how much storage is need to alleviate a problem area. the other question is how much do you spend time and time again and say that a few super projects are to expensive, but it is ok to pizz away smaller amounts of money time and time again with poor results. i am just asking the question of those that have way more knowledge than i do on the subject. i know there are some great minds using this website. let's have your input.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

That's interesting. I wish I had Google Earth Pro now. I just upgraded the one I have, and can only do line and path. So for a very rough estimate and giving the benefit of the doubt to those who disagree with me I come up with: North to south starting at the Canadian border on the continental divide to the southern border following a straight line between contours on my topo I get 235 miles. Across the northern border I get 185 miles from that point to just the Minnesota border (someone else do Minnesota), and I get 119 miles from the continental divide between the James River and the Sheyenne east to the Minnesota border. So since I forget the formula for a trapezoid I just averaged the east west and come up with about 17,500 square miles (North Dakota is about 70,000 square miles). Times 640 acres per square mile gave me 11,200,000 acres. Since there are 43,300 square feet in an acre this would be 484,960,000,000 square feet. Since the average precipitation is about 18 inches I multiplied by 1.5 ft. and get 727,440,000,000 acre feet of water. Consider that half is naturally drained I divided by 2 and get about 364 billion cubic feet of water added to natural flow. We do know that about 75% or more of the wetlands are drained so a conservative estimate is an additional flow of 273 billion cubic feet. That's just North Dakota.

Please consider that this estimate is extremely rough, but to be more than fair I made all estimates to give this estimate minimal impact. I sure would like to know what the real answer is. I have no doubt it's higher than my guesstimate, even considering we must eliminate the Devils Lake basin, but add whatever they want to pump.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

magnum3.5 said:


> The corp of eng have publicly said less than 3 feet of Devils Lake is from Draining of upper basin. The proof came in 96-98 when the water storage payments came through for the farmers from the upper basin to store water too relieve flooding. Didn't matter more was lost. Another little observation the upper basin from north of Leeds to Edmore Got a hell of a storm late last spring over 9" in several areas and the lake went down. That very storm covered over 70 square miles. Leed's, Cando, Bisbee, Egeland, Starkweather, Garske, Webster, Penn, Edmore, and Hampden. The level of the lake went down. No storing of water free flow and the lake went down.
> 
> Magnum


Here is a bit of info for you to digest in regards to the 3ft rise. I attend a meeting in which this statement was made by someone using the Corp report. I do not have the figures but I do know they are out there. The person asked how many cubic feet of water that 3ft was based on. The answer was the level of the lake well after the flooding and expansion had taken place. The rise relative to the 100 year average of the lake was somewhere around 12-14ft based on cubic feet of water.

To understand this a bit more, the amount of water for the Red to rise a foot when inside its banks which is under 18ft is a lot less than when it is at 35ft! The land is like a funnel in that respect, more water can be stored in the top of a funnel than the bottom.

I have not read the entire thread, but will relate an observation made by my father before he died. I grew up north west of Jud ND. My father was born and raised on our farm and lived to be 85 years old. Like Dick pointed out our farm is typical of the events concerning drainage of wetlands. In the late 70's we had a 12" rain event in under 8 hours and while there was some flooding of fields and water going over roads no major damages where sustained. Back then the only row crops grown where sunflowers, but small grains still dominated the rotation. Most farms also had cattle.

Fast forward to 2004 in August, a less severe rain event occurred in the area about the same time of year. The city of Edgeley was overrun with water. Countless roads and bridges where washed out, water over the top of roads Bonehill Creek which our farm is the headwaters reached levels never seen before. On our farm we have an elevated grade that has been there since the 40's with a large culvert running through it. In the 60+ years that the grade has existed, never had the water run over the top of the grade, not even in the spring of 97!

But in less than 5 years water has went over that grade 3 times. In looking back at aerial photos at the county FSA office what I see is numerous wetlands now drained, native prairie gone as well as pasture land and probably the most important, is the fact that almost all of the land now is in row crop. What struck my Dad was the fact that more water is not moving through the creeks and drainage areas than before, but it is coming a faster speed.

He lived long enough to realize his view of drain everything that you could and farm what can be farmed and only graze or hay the areas that are left was a major mistake in regards to water issues. The small increases in revenue cannot and do not offset the losses incurred to infrastructure and property down stream.

So as Tk33 points out the waffle system needs exploring, we need to look at moving away from Gov subsidy payments for any acres that are tiled or drained. If in 3 years of farming the land has not raised a crop due to high water, then it as well needs to be removed from insurance coverage, but the landowners need to be compensated in the form of easement payments for at least a 10 year period and if they chose to farm it again, then no coverage the first 3 years.

What this will do is increase natural storage areas and also slow the speed of the water arriving at any one place.

None of this is new information, but until we have leaders in Washington willing to work towards meaningful measures we will instead face the reality that cities like Fargo will need expensive flood mitigation projects that just move the problem down stream to others!!!!!!


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

> He lived long enough to realize his view of drain everything that you could and farm what can be farmed and only graze or hay the areas that are left was a major mistake in regards to water issues. The small increases in revenue cannot and do not offset the losses incurred to infrastructure and property down stream.


So Ron did you fill in the ditches?


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

G/O amazingly some have been, and other areas have been put back into grass areas. Small amount of help on our land, but the surrounding land has had none of these things done and in fact even more of the wetlands have been drained using other methods other than a scraper.

G/O I fully realize that until a landowner is given some reasonable value for water storage we will continue down the path of drain,ditch and tile. The investment many have almost forces the issue.

However G/O rotation and crop selection to me is having much more of an impact now. Like I said in the late 70's maybe 25% of the ground at best was in row crops. Today that is closer to 80%. Rolled soybean fields are almost like concrete or asphalt in runoff speed. Driving early last week west of Colfax I watched as water entered a soybean field. Water moved across the ground like it does when I run the hose on the sidewalk.

Later I watched water enter into wheat stubble field, while it did move across the flat ground towards the Wild Rice, it certainly did not move at the same speed. Granted once the depth rises that becomes less relevant.

G/O one thing about this issue, is I do not blame the farmers for changing crop selection. I will however point to the current farm program as a place where some of these issues can and should be dealt with.

These issues are always hard to deal with in regards to finding good solutions. I was raised on a farm and understand the farmers position, I also know that flooding and fast arriving water is causing problems all across the state. Heck Oakes is getting water from our farm right now along with others upstream. Friends of ours who lost their home south of Fargo returned to her parents home in Oakes only to see flood waters rise there. Valley City is diking to handle the snow pac and runoff coming into the Sheyenne, Kindred has water going over the road tonight. The small town of Nortonville was flooded last week as well and the NG is heading to Cavalier from what I am hearing Thursday.

Granted this year we had special conditions that is causing rapid rises in many rivers, creeks and streams, but each and every watershed has been and will continue to be negatively affected by draining and ditching and tiling. Be it from water leaving to fast to recharge aquifers, to roads and bridges being damaged, to farm sites and cites being flooded.

Fargo and the RRV receive the bulk of the flooding press, but past actions are a major contributor to what is happening.

Two of the engineers I know that have been working on flooding issues in the RRV debate the issues of current river levels compared to the river levels of the past. One feels based on models that more water moved through the RRV during the peak of the 97 flood than did in the 1897 !The other felt that we had less water both in 97 and 09 than 1897 but because of the man made change in the landscape, by elimination of wetlands, ditching etc.. we are pushing more water into the natural drains faster but not necessarily moving more water through.

Can we undo what has been done? I doubt it, but we can advocate for policy regarding land use that will not cause additional problems for all.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

Ron, No till farming has stopped the majority of your fear of erosion. I know that in the valley not as much of that practice is being used as it is elsewhere. I can't believe how draining is being blamed for the flooding yet in many parts of the state we had record snow fall. You don't suppose that when that snow melts it may attribute to flooding? Or are you like one of good buddies who told me last winter that the snow didn't have much moister in it.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Ron and g/o I like your discussion. To make myself clear I don't expect the landowners to save the communities in trouble without compensation. I would like to see more responsible farm programs. Programs that didn't make tearing up more land enticing, but rather rewarded good land stewardship. I think we could pay landowners a very attractive price for restored wetlands, and it would be much cheaper than building dikes and all the other expenses that are incurred trying to cure the symptoms rather than take precautions. 
Also, if this cap and trade goes through we should allow farmers to reap some benefit from power companies even though the government has already paid them. If the combined payments are more than farmers can make with any crop they will respond. More money less work is attractive to everyone. Its cheaper for the taxpayer, better for the environment, and everyone is happy. -----well maybe not everyone, but you know what they say about keeping everyone happy. *&&&^^(


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Todays Fargo Forum has an interesting suggestion for a "Watershed Authority".
http://www.inforum.com/event/article/id ... roup/home/

I wonder if wetland acquisitions might play into this? (Go Game and Fish!)
If and when the various agencies search for solutions I hope they take a look at the Wetland Reserve Program under NRCS also. The Federal money is already in the kitty for it.

This program has flaws IMHO, that a large portion of the funds go to surveying the wetland and recording the abstract. Wasted money. GPS the bounderies like CRP measurements, write a contract just like CRP and then use the money saved for more wetlands.


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

I read it cost two billion dollars to clean up the RRV after the 97 flood. That amount of money would cover quite a bit of land acquisition.


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

g/o said:


> djleye, them damn farmers draining land, you don't suppose for one second the development of the area around Fargo would have anything to do with the flooding do you? I thought this was caused by global warming, now it's the draining.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


> I love this discussion. I cannot believe the amount of wetlands that have been drained in this area in the past 50 years. I do not trust flood walls, look at what happened at Oak Grove. That breach was in their permanent flood wall!! The diversion has been a godsend for West Fargo, and I think it could be for Fargo as well, but most stidies say it would have to go through MN and the legislative red tape would hold it up forever. I like the waffling plan, but why not use a more natural waffling plan of temporary wetlands like nature intended. Reduced crops would be a benefit as that would naturally up prices.
> Great discussion guys!!


Once again, you are reading into mypost what you feel will get you an argument Jim!! I never said that it was all farmers that drained the land. You just ****ing want to argue every time I make a post on here. :eyeroll: 
I remember when my family moved into the house (around 1968 or so) my parents still live in in WF. Lots of the old timers told my dad that they used to hunt ducks in what is now Cherry Court in WF. So yes Jim, I know that it isn't all farmers that drained the land, I know that tons of it was drained in the name of development for all of us spoiled big city rich kids or whatever the hell we used to get called!!! :eyeroll: 
Look elsewhere for your arguments, I am pro farmer Jim, sorry to burst your bubble!! :wink:


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

djleye, as defined by the great one* cootkiller*



> It is slbck, standing for "spoiled little big city kid".


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

g/o said:


> djleye, as defined by the great one* cootkiller*
> 
> 
> 
> > It is slbck, standing for "spoiled little big city kid".


Did any of you guys ever meet cootkiller? I was working up there for a couple of weeks. I bet a guy who I worked with that I could figure out who he was in three nights. It only took one. We had a real good visit, I met his wife, seen the pictures of her moose etc. Nice guy when he didn't know who I was.  Well actually he does know me, he just didn't know I was the Plainsman. I suppose he will now.  Without his attitude that outfitters have more rights to the animals than Joe Public I would have really liked the guy.


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

One very bothersome thing that has come to the forefront during the flood is the issue of drain tiling. There is a lot of anti-drain tiling rhetoric right now, and I, like Mr. Gilmore found it rather ironic to hear a drain tiling company advertising during the flood coverage on KFGO.

Drain tiling if done ethically and responsibly can help. Drain tiled fields can hold more water than non tiled fields, the valves can be closed and the water kept in. The water in the fields can be held and pumped out at a later date, or earlier, whatever the governing body wants. Personally I would rather see more drain tiling and less ditching. I have done my fair share of ditching and it is not an exact science, in fact none of this flood/water control is an exact science. It is mainly guesstamating and probabilities. Anyway drain tiling could be used as the first part of waffling. Like pretty much every other issue we have there are laws/rules in place, they need to be followed and enforced. The penalties need to be stiffer also. Too often the agricultural governing bodies are way too easy on violators.

I agree the farmers need to be compensated because of potential loss and the fact their land is being used for gain other than their own. Farmers also need to realize that they have responsibilities outside of their own farm, I know that is easier said than done. Wetlands need to be restored, I would like to see the state/feds get Ducks Unlimited into this, I know they build wetlands. These wetlands need to be built to grade so they serve their purpose, not just cobbled together overnight.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Good points. I know little about tiling and wondered if the tiles wouldn't be frozen shut anyway in the spring? Thus no discharge until the ground thaws? How deep are they?


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Dick tiling depth from what I have seen installed varies. I will try and find the article that supports TK's comments on flood control use with tiling and post it if I can.


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

Dick Monson said:


> Good points. I know little about tiling and wondered if the tiles wouldn't be frozen shut anyway in the spring? Thus no discharge until the ground thaws? How deep are they?


Correct.

The issue with drain tiling right now that is pertinent is the draining from last fall. As far as depth I have heard anything from 3'-5'.


----------

