Back to Links Page

June 3, 2003 State's Planned Outlet is a Waste of Money

September 10, 2003. The Arrogance of the State Water Commission

September 17, 2003 The State Intends To Pay...

From the Benson County Farmers Press, June 3, 2003, editorial by Richard Peterson.
http://www.bensoncountynews.com/


The Devils Lake problem is incredibly complex. People who say there are
simple solutions are sadly mistaken.
The state's planned outlet on the west end is a waste of money. I've said
that for a couple years because when the Sheyenne is low not much water can
be let out because of water quality problems and when the Sheyenne is high
not much water can be let out because of water quantity problems. It turns
out that the west end outlet will only remove a couple inches of water per
year under ideal conditions. If we have lots of moisture, the outlet is
virtually meaningless. If we have a drought does it make sense to lower the
lake more than what Mother Nature does with evaporation? The west end
outlet will only degrade the quality of water in the lake.
Some think the west end outlet should go forward because it could be the
first step toward stabilization of the lake. Water from the outlet could be
let into Devils Lake when it drops again. I don't think so. The anemic
outlet being planned will cost something in the neighborhood of a million
dollars a year to pump two inches off the lake. That water has to be pumped
from an elevation of 1447 to about 1560, a distance of about two miles. To
pump two inches of water off the lake up 100 feet for two miles will cost
approximately a million bucks per year.
The elevation of the Sheyenne River is about 1425. If one were to reverse
the flow for an inlet, one would have to pump the water up from the
Sheyenne about 135 feet for 6.5 miles. How many millions per year do you
think that would cost? It might cost $3 million or more annually to get an
additional 2 inches on the lake. You can dream on, but it isn't going to
happen because it's obviously cost-prohibitive. Finances are not the only
problem with such an inlet. There's the political problem of Canadian
opposition.
When people start realizing what a terrible waste this really is, the
politicians are going to take the heat. Maybe the State Health Department
will take this hot potato off the politicians' hands by denying a permit
for the west end outlet. It's a long shot, but let's hope so.
I agree that an east end outlet is far more desirable. But that has
problems as well. The cost of the east end outlet does not end at the
construction of a gate to let water out into the Sheyenne. That water on
the east end is of very poor quality.
A 1998 study showed that the dissolved sulfates in Devils Lake water were
approximately as follows: West Bay 500 milligrams per liter (mg/l), Main
Bay 650 mg/l, East Bay 1200 mg/l and East Devils Lake 3100 mg/l. They
didn't check Stump Lake, but that figure is likely to be in the 6000 mg/l
range. Sheyenne River water is a little better quality than water in West
Bay. Water in Pelican Lake Bay is roughly equal in quality.
So letting water out the east end of the lake is going to have
ramifications. Putting that Stump Lake 6000 mg/l water into the Sheyenne
River, which has maybe 450 mg/l will degrade the river water severely. Only
small amounts can be put into the Sheyenne because of this problem. But a
small amount going out the east end is a step in the right direction.
A pipeline could also send east end water to the Goose River, which would
flow into the Red River. During a couple months when the Red River is high,
but not flooding, a significant amount of Devils Lake water could be
blended into the red. After 10 or 20 years of controlled releases from the
east end, the water in Devils Lake would be of such quality everyone would
want it.
Allowing east end Devils Lake water to run uncontrolled into the Sheyenne
would be a disaster. That is not the answer to the problems in the Lake
Region.
Quite frankly, there is no way any outlet is going to keep us from flooding
if Mother Nature wants to dump water on us.
I think we have to forget about flood control and concentrate on improving
the lake's water quality.

From "Poor Richard's Almanac" (Ed: Richard Peterson)
Benson County Farmer Press. Vol.120 No. 32
Wednesday September 10, 2003


The arrogance of the ND State Water Commission (SWC) is almost beyond
belief. I often thought Thelma Paulson's complaints about the commission
were overdone. I'm not so sure anymore. The county commissioners asked the
SWC for a meeting in Benson County concerning the proposed outlet. The SWC
did schedule a meeting, but for 8 a.m. on a Monday morning in Bismarck. I
don't think a more inconvenient time and place for Benson County residents
could have been chosen. The SWC did this on purpose to cut down on the
number of people who would be present.
Not only that, the SWC ran a legal notice in this newspaper stating that
the meeting was called to hear testimony from the Peterson Coulee Outlet
Association and the People to Save the Sheyenne. Apparently nobody else
will be eligible to testify. Talk about stacking the deck! The county
commissioners were excluded. The Benson County Water Board was excluded. I
guess that's par for the course. They've been ignored all along.
Governor John Hoeven, who is chairman of the SWC, could remedy this
situation, but he chooses not to.
---000---
Thelma mentions in her letter to the editor this week that the SWC is not
prepared to offer landowners enough for their land. I'm sure this is true,
but the fault is not necessarily with the SWC, but rather with the system.
Here's how the system works:
The people attempting to purchase the property are employees of the state.
They don't have a great deal of discretion in how much they can offer. They
have to base their offer on comparable land sales and appraisals. They
might add a small amount of money to appease an unwilling seller. But it's
hardly ever enough. If they offer too much, they'll be in trouble with
their supervisors, so they usually try to lowball the offer. Frankly, their
mission is to obtain the property at the lowest cost.
This forces the landowner to take the state to court, along with attorneys'
fees, appraisal fees and other costs. It's an extremely costly and
frustrating situation for the landowner. But juries are generally
sympathetic to landowners and almost always award landowners more than the
government offers.
When a jury awards just compensation, the bureaucrats are off the hook.
That's the way the system works.
---000---
Through all this Thelma Paulson keeps plugging away. I think she's off
base in declaring that the wet cycle has ended, but nobody bats 1000.
Besides, she might be right. Maybe the wet cycle has ended. I don't think
we'll know for several more years.
You simply have to respect and admire her determination to take on the "big
boys." She's got true grit.
---000---
http://www.bensoncountynews.com/
click on 'Editorials'

Benson County Farmers Press
Minnewaukan, ND
| Volume 120, Number 33 | Wednesday, September 17, 2003 |
Poor Richard's Almanac
by Richard Peterson
I was most pleased to read the answer to the million dollar question. I've
been asking for months who is going to pay for the operation and
maintenance (O&M) of the state's outlet to Devils Lake. Dale Frink's answer
finally appears in this issue of the Farmers Press.
Some people are not satisfied with Frink's answer because it is not
ironclad. It is not a promise that the state will definitely pay the O&M
costs. He only says that this is the intention of the state. There is no
question that he is speaking for the governor. Quite honestly, that is as
far as Gov. Hoeven and Frink can go because the final decision will be made
by the state legislature.
So I'm satisfied with Frink's answer. According to him Benson County cannot
be taxed for the outlet without approval by the county commissioners. I'm
confident the county commissioners will not sell us down the river. In
addition, state legislators such as Rep. Gene Nicholas (R-Cando) have
stepped forward to say this is a state project and there should be no local
share. I think Hoeven and Nicholas can sway the state legislature. If they
can't the county commissioners can still say no.
The state is going ahead with its $25 million outlet. But the Grand Forks
Herald pointed out in an editorial September 12 that continued Canadian
objections are likely to cause our own federal government to halt any
transfer of water out of Devils Lake.
The appropriations act for fiscal year 2003 directed the Army Corps of
Engineers to proceed with plans for an outlet, but with certain conditions,
"including the requirement for assurances from the Secretary of State that
the project will not violate the Boundary Waters Treaty."
Canada claims an outlet will violate this treaty. The amount of water which
will flow out of the anemic outlet shouldn't violate the treaty, but who
knows what our own Secretary of State will do?
Thelma Paulson might be right. The state might go ahead and build the
outlet and not one drop of water will be allowed through it. It might be
another New Rockford Canal scarring the landscape.
---000---
Why did it take so long to get an answer from the politicians on the O&M
issue? Their refusal to provide this answer for more than a year worried me
greatly. I feared they wanted the option of pushing the cost onto residents
of the basin. Only after I sent letters to the editors of all newspapers in
the basin telling what that cost would be to each county did we receive the
answer that the state intends to pick up the cost. I think the fear of a
revolt in the basin caused the abandonment of the option of taxing basin
residents. Sometimes the pot has to be stirred to get results.
---000---
Frink is correct that an east end outlet is no answer to the problem. The
quality of water in the east end of the lake is very poor. Sending this
water into the Sheyenne River would create terrible problems for cities
downstream which obtain their water from the River. It would probably
result in a fish kill in the river. Letting that water go uncontrolled into
the Sheyenne and eventually into the Red River would almost certainly
violate the Boundary Waters Treaty.
Quite frankly, I don't think there is any hope for an outlet to the
Sheyenne to alleviate flooding because of water quality and quantity
problems. We have to forget about flooding and concentrate on improving the
quality of water in Devils Lake.
The only hope for sending water out the east end is through a pipeline to
the Goose River, which flows into the Red River. A small outlet, say 50 to
100 cfs blending into the Red River would be lost in the much larger flows
of the Red. Twenty years of this would clean Devils Lake to the point where
people would want the water and then it could go into the Sheyenne.
Politically, this would be a big hurdle because the people living along the
Red River don't want any more water, no matter how small the quantity.