To: Letters to the Editor August 14, 2002

Times-Record

From: Richard Betting
11630 39 St. SE
Valley City, ND 58072

701-845-4905

Editor:

"Pomeroy condemns delay of Devils Lake outlet" read the headline on the congressman's WEB site August 12, in
response to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers delaying its final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) until at least
January 2003.

Pomeroy went on to say that objections raised by Minnesota, Canada and the EPA are irresponsible and that the Corps
must "work quickly to disprove the baseless assertions raised by these detractors. . . "

It is a shame that Congressman Pomeroy has still not read the Corps' Draft EIS and understood the questions
Minnesota, Canada, the EPA, Missouri, People To Save the Sheyenne, the National Wildlife Federation and more than
thirty others raised about that document.

Had he done so, Pomeroy would realize that many key questions remain unanswered. Here are some of them: Why build
a project that has a .37 benefit-to-cost ratio? In other words, for every dollar spent (and the Corps' project had an
estimated $ 97 million or so price tag) taxpayers receive thirty-seven cents in benefits.

Why build a project that has a 75% chance of not being economically beneficial? That is, three chances out of four an
outlet won't be economically beneficial.

Why build a project that will not guarantee preventing a natural overflow into the Sheyenne? "A controlled outlet . .
. would not be able to prevent the natural overflow . . . and would have a very low chance of avoiding or even
significantly reducing the natural spill potential."

Why build an outlet that will not guarantee to reduce Devils Lake flooding? "Under some climatic futures, the lake
would continue to go up and overflow even if an outlet is constructed."

Why build an outlet that will cause downstream environmental damage-no matter what the proponents promise. "An
outlet would have adverse effects in downstream receiving waters, including degraded water quality, increased
erosion, increased sedimentation, reduced aquatic habitat value" and more.

Why build an outlet that won't significantly reduce Devils Lake flooding? An outlet that will be 'constrained' by water
quality in Devils Lake and water levels on the Sheyenne will normally only be able to pump enough to lower Devils
Lake by about three or four inches a year. Evaporation will typically take more than that off every month of the
summer. Besides, any amount of Devils Lake water degrades the Sheyenne and increases the potential of biota transfer
to Canadian waters.

In its final analysis the Environmental Protection Agency said that the Corps' outlet plan is "environmentally
unsatisfactory (EU)." It went on to say: "The basis of our rating is the significant, long-term, adverse environmental
impacts from the construction of the proposed outlet and its subsequent operation."

Since the Corps has not been able to create a project that answers these objections-that is, a project that will be
economically sound and environmentally feasible-why should either we or the EPA support it? Why shouldn't the
questions be answered first?

By the way, the only such project that the EPA says is viable is upper basin storage, returning drained wetlands to
their former condition.

Since the questions raised about the downside of outlet construction are not "baseless assertions" as Pomeroy
suggests, perhaps he should find a project that does not need personal name-calling, threats and political
arm-twisting to get it done. A worthwhile project will stand on its own two feet, economically, environmentally,
politically.

Until he can propose a viable project, Pomeroy should quit asking downstream Sheyenne River citizens and
landowners to sacrifice the river to support a political and social boondoggle.

(Signed)

Richard Betting