"Not Much More Than A Fire Hose"

Group says outlet wouldn't lower lake by 'any appreciable amount'

Valley City Times Record Thursday, December 20, 2001

Bismarck (AP)

Opponents of a Devils Lake outlet said Wednesday they doubted state officials could satisfy their concerns about the project before construction is scheduled to start next spring.

As planned, a temporary outlet to drain water into the Sheyenne River is not likely to have much effect on the swollen lake anyway, Grand Forks attorney William McKechnie said.

McKechnie, who represents a group called People To Save The Sheyenne, and more than a half-dozen of its members met Wednesday with State Water Commission staffers and Robert Harms, Gov. John Hoeven's staff attorney. The group had hoped to meet with Hoeven himself, but the governor did not attend. Its members have given notice they intend to sue if the Water Commission follows through on plans to build an outlet.

To meet water quality standards, the temporary outlet will siphon only about 100 cubic feet per second into the Sheyenne, McKechnie said. That represents only about 2 to 3 inches of lake water in a year under optimum conditions, he said.

In the summertime, if the Sheyenne River's natural flows are reduced, the outlet''s own flow could be cut down to 20 cubic feet per second, the attorney said.

"If they've got 20...we're not talking much more than a fire hose through there, "McKechnie said. "You're not really going to lower Devils Lake by any appreciable amount."

Hoeven said afterward that the Capitol meeting was meant to allow outlet critics to "come in and present their concerns, and see what we can do to address them." <See Manitoba's position>

McKechnie and Jim Stevens of Valley City, the chairman of People to Save the Sheyenne, said they are worried an outlet will pollute the Sheyenne and cause riverbank erosion and downstream flooding, without solving Devils Lake's problems.

State officials and outlet critics disagree about the impact of upper basin drainage on Devils Lake, which has risen more than 23 feet in the last decade.

Hoeven believes that upper basin storage efforts should continue along with plans for an outlet. The two sides disagree about how much emphasis the state is putting on water storage, Hoeven said.

"They feel more water should be stored in the upper basin," Hoeven said. "We feel a good job of doing that is being done up there, and we're continuing to do it."

McKechnie and other outlet critics think the storage option is not getting enough attention.

"We think if you put a lot of that land back into wetlands (and) block the drains, you'll significantly lower the risk of flooding in Devils Lake," he said. "It's our position that they ought to do that first."

Outlet critics presented state officials at Wednesday's meeting with a 1976 Water commission document that implies an increase in upper basin drainage would hurt Devils Lake.

It was drafted in 1976 as part of the construction of "Channel A," a primary drainage channel into the lake.

"It is the determination of the (Water) Commission that additional drainage of presently noncontributing areas will significantly contribute to increased lake levels in the Devils Lake chain, thereby increasing the flood hazard potential to the city of Devils Lake and thousands of (adjoining) land," the document says.