Back to Draft Page

Draft Comments by Minnesota Department of Health

May 7, 2002

District Engineer
St. Paul District, Corps of Engineers
Attention: Dave Loss, PM-A
190 Fifth Street East
St. Paul, Minnesota 55101-1638

Dear Mr. Loss:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft Integrated Planning Report and Environmental Impact Statement for the Devils Lake, North Dakota, Outlet Study. The Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) acknowledges that the recent rise of Devils Lake water levels has posed, and continues to pose, risk to development and community services in the area, and has created a difficult situation for area residents. The efforts to address these risks need to be effective, efficient, and environmentally sound. We offer the following comments for your consideration.

Purpose and Need of the Proposed Action. The Corps has identified the purpose and need of the proposed action as: “The purpose of the proposed action is the reduction of flood damages related to the rising lake levels in the flood-prone areas around Devils Lake and to reduce the potential for a natural overflow event.” The original purpose set forth in the February 1999 Corps Scoping Document was confined to reduction of flood damage and flood protection costs. Congressional interests were successful in expanding the scope to evaluate possible downstream impacts of a natural overflow. USGS Fact Sheet FS-089-00 published in June 2000 states that the natural condition for Devils Lake is either rising or falling, and the lake should not be expected to remain at any one elevation for a long period of time. Page 2-2 of the EIS agrees with that conclusion. This is substantiated by the fact that as recently as the early 1990’s Devils Lake interests supported an inlet structure to increase lake levels. Any flood damage reduction strategies that rely on attempting to artificially control the lake’s levels will constantly be at odds with the lake’s natural condition and consequently have less potential for success. Further, the draft EIS demonstrates very clearly that the potential for a natural overflow is extremely remote. Minnesota has experienced success with an evacuation and protection model, which acknowledges natural conditions and also avoids passing the problem downstream. It has the added benefit of being a responsible, locally based solution.

Stochastic Model. The stochastic model cited in the EIS showed a very low probability of a natural overflow event of 9.4%. A large number of traces were generated as a way of dealing with the uncertainty regarding future lake levels. The first 15 years of the model were based on the assumption that the climatic conditions would be similar to those experienced during 1980-99, reflecting the generally wetter conditions Devils Lake has been experiencing since 1980 (EIS p. 3-4). Despite this “wet start” assumption, an outlet would only reduce the chance of an overflow from 9.4 percent to 4.1 percent. Does this reduction amount to a statistically significant change? The model predicted a “dry” future with average peak lake levels of 1448.1 for 35.6% of the time, a “moderate 1” future with average peak lake levels of 1450.2 for 29.9% of the time, and a “moderate 2” future with average peak lake levels of 1454.9 for 25.0% of the time. Thus, more moderate lake levels are far more likely to occur as evidenced by the modeling results (EIS Appendix B, p. B-12). Any analysis of a constructed outlet should examine more closely the downstream impacts resulting from

these more moderate lake levels. This analysis is critical because of the greater likelihood of their occurrence and the fact that more moderate lake levels will significantly change the water quality in Devils Lake from that predicted in the “wet scenario,” and consequently impacts to downstream water users will potentially be more severe.


Cost Benefit Ratio. The draft EIS acknowledges that no outlet plan showed a positive cost benefit ratio under standard procedures. An outlet can only be shown to be economically justified when the model assumes the extremely wet period from 1993-1999 is repeated three times. It is very improbable that such unique events will be repeated three times in 21 years. MDH objects to the use of a scenario that relies on repeating the seven wettest years of recorded historical data until the lake spills in order to justify the costs of the project.

Low Risk of Natural Overflow. Our position is that there is little need to “reduce the potential for a natural overflow event” since there is already a low probability of occurrence. On p.1-S-7 of the draft EIS the Corps states that although there is a low probability of occurrence, the risks associated with a natural overflow, together with the opportunity to reduce the damages around Devils Lake with a reduced rate of rise on the lake, may make the outlet plan an attractive option. This seems to be a circular route to justify an outlet. The only alternative demonstrated to be economically sound using standard procedures was expanded infrastructure protection. In addition, a constructed outlet has only limited value in preventing the lake from rising and expanded infrastructure protection would need to be implemented regardless.

Downstream Water Quality Impacts. Any of the outlet alternatives would have adverse effects in downstream receiving waters. The adverse effects would include: degraded water quality; increased erosion; increased sedimentation; reduced aquatic habitat value; higher river stages; minimal increased overbank flooding; extended duration of inundation; impeded river access; loss of aquatic resources; loss of riparian habitat; effects on agricultural uses; effects on water treatment facilities; social effects; cultural resource losses; effects on irrigation; and, effects on Tribal resources (EIS P. 1-S-8.). As it is apparent that none of the outlet alternatives can meet the primary goals of flood damage reduction, lowering lake levels, or even prevention of rising lake levels, the construction of an outlet with downstream water quality impacts is a questionable course of action at best. On page 1-S-2 of the draft EIS the Corps states that: “further coordination is needed to determine if outlet alternatives are in compliance with various environmental standards such as the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909 and the Clean Water Act.” Please explain what the term “further coordination” means and why the important issue of compliance with environmental obligations found in treaty and statute is not fully analyzed in the EIS. MDH also wonders how the above statement can be reconciled to the conclusion reached on p. 1-S-7 that an outlet would result in increases in the frequency and duration of events that exceed water quality criteria on the Red River of the North.

Water Supply Impacts. Impacts on drinking water treatment facilities have been identified as a major adverse effect of a constructed outlet.

At the current time, Minnesota does not have any municipal surface water intakes on the Red River of the North. However, the March 1999 Barr Report: “Devils Lake, North Dakota Downstream Water Users Study,” acknowledges that the city of East Grand Forks has expressed an interest in using the Red River of the North in the future and has concerns over the future river water quality (pp.3-5). Because of this interest Barr gathered necessary data from East Grand Forks but failed to develop cost estimates for water supply impacts from a constructed outlet. In a letter dated April 18, 2001, MDH requested that effects on the City of East Grand Forks water supply be considered because of the very real possibility that the Red River could become a source for the city’s drinking water. In addition, in previous correspondence dated March 23, 1998, multiple Minnesota state agencies requested that the modeling should assess the impact of a Devils Lake outlet on water treatment systems assuming that future water supply demands require withdrawals from the Red River. The additional cost of treatment that would be required for Minnesota cities to deliver drinkable water for their communities must be assessed. We consider the lack of this information to be a serious deficiency of the draft EIS. Further, Barr concluded that groundwater is not a likely alternate source water for municipal users because the only usable water is contained in surficial aquifers, is of poor quality, and has insufficient yields. We concur with that conclusion and believe it is irresponsible to exclude a major city in the region from the consideration of impacts.

An outlet would result in increased water treatment costs. Barr concludes cost increases will result from increased softening costs and increased capital and operations costs if treatment or an alternative water supply is required to restore the treatment facility finished water quality to without-outlet conditions (p.1-1). Barr is careful to qualify their conclusions by acknowledging that changing the location or operating regime for the pump station would likely result in a change in downstream river water quality (p.2-4). The lack of an operating plan is significant at this juncture because it does not allow full and adequate analysis of downstream water quality impacts and impacts on water supply. The Barr report took a two-phased approach to developing mitigation strategies for water treatment facilities. Phase I estimated operating costs to reduce hardness. Phase II estimated costs of additional hardness removal and additional treatment needed to bring the with-outlet water to the without-outlet finished water quality. This analysis was inadequate in the following respects. The water quality model used tracked only conservative substances such as TDS, sulfate, chloride and hardness. The model was not used to track non-conservative substances such as nitrogen, phosphorus, total organic carbon, dissolved oxygen, biochemical oxygen demand, and pH. However, these constituents are also of interest for water treatment investigations but were not studied by Barr (p.3-7) The impacts of these substances on water supply should also be determined to truly understand how a constructed outlet would impact water supply. None of the constituents tracked by the model are currently regulated under the U.S. Primary Drinking Water Regulations. However, sulfate, TDS, and chloride do have applicable secondary standards. In addition, sulfate has been placed on the May 2000 Contaminant Candidate List for potential regulation. Because of the uncertainties with respect to sulfate regulation, Barr chose not to estimate treatment costs to reduce sulfate. We question this approach as not protective of public health and request that future analyses consider any additional treatment costs for sulfate removal. The Phase I approach that assumed only existing treatment processes would be used only removed some of the TDS and had no significant effect on sulfate concentrations. As a result, secondary standards will likely be exceeded for sulfate and TDS. It is distinctly questionable whether consumers would tolerate these exceedences. A more realistic approach would follow the methodology used in Phase II where all constituents were removed to pre-outlet operation concentrations or alternative water sources were identified. Consequently, our position is that the cost estimates derived from Phase II model reflect more accurately the mitigation costs of an outlet and should be used instead of Phase I results in future analysis. The additional cost of treatment that would be required for Minnesota cities to deliver drinkable water for their communities must be assessed.

Finally, an alternative water supply for Grand Forks was assumed to consist solely of increased withdrawals from the Red Lake River. However, no analysis was completed to ascertain if the Red Lake River, under low flow conditions, would be negatively impacted or capable of meeting the increased demand. This analysis should be completed.

Alternative Analysis. The alternative analysis was not complete. The EIS states that all of the impacts and associated mitigation needs have not been quantified, but the Corps considers the information adequate to address the decision to be made at this time, which is identification of alternative(s) for implementation (p. 1-S-12). However, the Congressional authorization specifically requires an outlet to be technically sound, economically justified, environmentally acceptable, and in compliance with NEPA. In addition, the economic justification must be fully described, including the analysis of the benefits and costs, in the project plan documents. Increased water treatment costs are potentially very significant for downstream users and should be included in the cost analysis.

Source Water Protection. Source water protection is an accepted principle of drinking water protection. The construction of an outlet would adversely affect the ability to use the Red River of the North as a drinking water source and is not beneficial to downstream interests. This source is of regional and statewide significance and the extremely limited benefits of a constructed outlet do not outweigh the risks associated with it. The strategies of expanded infrastructure and upper basin storage offer the most effective, efficient, and environmentally sound alternatives.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the Environmental Impact Statement for the Devils Lake Outlet Study. As you can see, MDH has some serious concerns regarding the conclusions of the study, concerns which are shared by several other Minnesota state agencies. We encourage you to address these concerns before making a final decision on any action to be taken by the Corps. If you have any questions about the issues raised in this letter, please contact Beth Kluthe of our Bemidji Office at 218-755-4173.

Sincerely,




Patricia A. Bloomgren, Director
Environmental Health Division
P.O. Box 64975
St. Paul, MN 55164-0975


cc: Ron Harnack, Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources
Kent Lokkesmoe, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
Rod Massey, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Senator Mark Dayton
Senator Paul Wellstone
Representative Gil Gutknecht
Representative Mark R. Kennedy
Representative Jim Ramstad
Representative Betty McCollum
Representative Martin Olav Sabo
Representative William Luther
Representative Collin Peterson
Representative James Oberstar
Senator Byron Dorgan
Senator Kent Conrad
Representative Earl Pomeroy
Susan A. Thompson, Canadian Consul General, Minneapolis
Gerald Galloway, International Joint Commission, Washington, D.C.