Grand Forks Herald

Posted on Sun, Sep. 01, 2002

EDITORIAL: Canals to nowhere
OUR VIEW: Let the Garrison Diversion canals' idleness be a warning to those who'd like a state-built
outlet for Devils Lake.


The McClusky and New Rockford canals count as two of the biggest public works projects in North Dakota. Built in
the 1960s and '70s as segments of the Garrison Diversion, the canals stretch more than 110 miles across the central
part of the state. With their sloped walls, concrete bridges and steel pumping stations, the projects look like the Erie or
Panama canals, rebuilt across the prairie. You half expect to see a tug and barge chug by.

But there's one key difference:

The Erie and Panama canals served their original purpose.

North Dakota's canals have not.

Construction stopped on the Garrison works in the mid-1980s and hasn't resumed since. The New Rockford Canal's
status is especially striking: The canal starts in the middle of a field, runs for more than 40 miles - and ends just like it
began, as a “canal to nowhere” in the middle of a field.

There's a lesson in these vast lengths of white-elephant public works, which were built at a cost of millions of dollars
and quite possibly never will be used. The lesson is that water projects in North Dakota aren't built in a vacuum.
Canadian, environmental, neighboring states' and other objections can and have stopped ambitious state projects in their
tracks.

And that's something for Gov. John Hoeven and the State Water Commission to consider, before they proceed with the
state outlet from Devils Lake.

The officials' sense of urgency and frustration is understandable. The Army Corps of Engineers has backed-and-filled
on this project like a drunk driving a bulldozer. First, the Corps' Gen. Robert Flowers in January pledged agreement to
an aggressive timetable for a Corps-built outlet. “You have our commitment,” Flowers said, to a project that bids were
supposed to be let on in October.

Then in March, the Corps' draft environmental impact study came out with a much more ambiguous message, noting
that the outlet's effectiveness hinges on the chance that Devils Lake is in a wet cycle. Then in August, the Corps hedged
again, delaying its final environmental report until January or beyond.

No wonder Hoeven and the commission, with the North Dakota congressional delegation's support, want to move on a
state-built outlet.

The trouble is, good science, good intentions and good politics in this case aren't enough, when they're confined within
North Dakota's borders. For the outlet project affects other jurisdictions, too. Minnesota remains opposed, for one
thing. Even more importantly, our neighbor to the north has refused to budge in its opposition.

And there's just no way that a Devils Lake outlet will start to carry water against the expressed wishes of Canada. Not
only do treaty obligations between our two countries forbid it, but also Canada's too valuable an ally for the United
States to so blatantly snub.

There is a way to resolve this, though. That way is to redouble the pressure on the federal government to act. That
action should consist of three things: First, the Corps must be forced to “fast track” its Devils Lake analysis. Second,
assuming the final scientific and environmental results are favorable, the Bush administration should aggressively press
Canada to relax its opposition.

Third, North Dakota leaders should lobby their Minnesota counterparts to sign off on the outlet, too.

We're not against an outlet. But North Dakota can't do this project alone. This state has tried that expensive route
before - and the McClusky and New Rockford canals were the result.

- Tom Dennis for the Herald






© 2001 grandforksherald and wire service sources. All Rights Reserved.
http://www.grandforks.com