North Dakota = North Korea, No Difference!

[star2city]

"North Dakota is acting like some rogue state," Martin was quoted in Thursday's Winnipeg Free Press. "Instead of North Dakota, they should be called North Korea, complete with a department of misinformation."

From GF Herald

Martin had said Manitobans are so frustrated with the U.S. position on Devils Lake they were ready to "let the bastards freeze in the dark" and resort to trade sanctions such as withholding energy exports.

Martin said in an interview he told listeners he was sorry for using "intemperate language."

"But I refused to apologize for the level of frustration expressed."

From Maclean's

The governments of Manitoba and Minnesota argue the project will introduce new parasites and pollution into the Red River.

From Winnipeg Sun - MP Says Sorry, Sort of

It would be helpful to the discussion if the governments of Manitoba or Minnesota could name one species that exists in Devils Lake that doesn’t already exist in the Red River basin. All those zebra mussels, sea lamphreys, Loch Ness monsters, and walleye-consuming bacteria are already creating such havoc within Devils Lake. As far as pollution, if Lake Winnipeg’s ecology could survive 1997, when floodwaters brought in everything, including the kitchen sink, tons of pesticides, fertilizer, fuel oil, and rotting carcasses, it conceivably could withstand a non-measurable increase in salinity.

[whockeyfan]

It would be helpful to the discussion if the governments of Manitoba or Minnesota could name one species that exists in Devils Lake that doesn

[star2city]

Having all that cramp washing into your lake accidently is one thing...but dumping all that pollution on purpose - is another!!  I sure wouldn't be happy if the shoes were reversed!

As for Martin's comments - he's a jerk! Consider the source!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It also would be helpful if Minnesota and Manitoba politicians showed some concern for the residents and farmers in the Devils Lake area. Their community is threatened, and yet the out-of-state politicians are all upset about an "environmental threat" that has not been defined. Merely stating something is an "environmental threat" does not make it one. The fish in Devils Lake seem to be thriving.

[ScottM]

"North Dakota is a progressive, warm, wonderful, non-polluting place. We would never intentionally dump our filth into the water and harm our pig-dog neighbors to the north."

[CoteauRinkRat]

Having all that cramp washing into your lake accidently is one thing...but dumping all that pollution on purpose - is another!!  I sure wouldn't be happy if the shoes were reversed!

As for Martin's comments - he's a jerk! Consider the source!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What study can you cite showing "all that pollution" in Devils Lake?

This guy will not help Canada's case at all.

[PCM]

What study can you cite showing "all that pollution"  in Devils Lake? 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I wish I could find a link to the story that ran in the Grand Forks Herald which cited Canadian scientists as saying that the environmental threat from Devils Lake water wasn't nearly as serious as it's being portrayed by officials in the Canadian government. I believe the story was originally published by a Winnipeg newspaper.

The increased amount of fertilizer runoff which, it's feared, will create algae blooms in Lake Winnipeg was under 1 percent, I believe. As far as new biota being introduced, wildlife biologists have said all along that the greatest transporters of biota from one ecosystem to another are migrating waterfowl, which can't be controlled. If there's anything in the Devils Lake basin that would harm Lake Winnipeg, it would already be there by now.

Having been involved in the controversy over Clean Air Act legislation intended address Canadian complaints about US sulfur dioxide emissions that were allegedly causing acid rain and ruining Canada's environment, I know that this type of hyperbole and overblown rhetoric is standard operating procedure.

[CoteauRinkRat]

Having been involved in the controversy over Clean Air Act legislation intended address Canadian complaints about US sulfur dioxide emissions that were allegedly causing acid rain and ruining Canada's environment, I know that this type of hyperbole and overblown rhetoric is standard operating procedure.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Mr. Martin's comments make me laugh and are very comical.

[star2city]

The increased amount of fertilizer runoff which, it's feared, will create algae blooms in Lake Winnipeg was under 1 percent, I believe. As far as new biota being introduced, wildlife biologists have said all along that the greatest transporters of biota from one ecosystem to another are migrating waterfowl, which can't be controlled.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Perhaps the fertilizer runoff and risk of new biota into Lake Winnipeg would be massively reduced if the City of Winnipeg dealt with its raw sewage a little better. Not sure I would want to eat fish downstream from Winnipeg or swim at the beaches of Lake Winnipeg. Kind of ironic "justice", a sort of theater of the absurb, that these stories came out the same day Martin was accusing ND of polluting Manitoba.

Massive Sewage Spill into Red Swept under the Rug

Looks like nobody is going to be held accountable for one of Winnipeg's worst environmental disasters when 427 million cubic metres of untreated sewage was dumped into the Red River in 2002.

And the city regularly dumps raw sewage into the river every time we get heavy rains.

About 30 to 40 times a year our outdated combined sewer system -- which carries street run-off and sewage -- spews raw sewage into our rivers because it can't handle the volume during heavy downpours.

It doesn't make headlines. But it happens. No one is charged and the law is never enforced.

Heads should have rolled after the 2002 spill. The city should have pleaded guilty to the Fisheries Act charge and taken action against those responsible.

Instead, the entire matter is being swept under the rug.

CBC Manitoba reports that the lesser of two public-health evils, flooding or polluting, is polluting

But as recently as Tuesday, diluted raw sewage was being pumped into the Red and Assiniboine rivers at eight locations in Winnipeg.

High river levels and heavy rainfall make the sewage dumping inevitable, because of the way the city's sewer system was built 125 years ago. Pipes carrying household waste mix with storm sewers in about a third of the city, which means both liquids overflow into the river during heavy storms.

That doesn't sit well with City Coun. Mark Lubosch, who sits on the city's public works committee and is familiar with the system.

"Municipalities downstream drink this water, and it's abhorrent that we should be dumping crap into it," Lubosch said Wednesday.

Mike Shkolny, acting director of the city's water and waste division, says the city has a choice: "The option is either flood out everybody's basement, or discharge it in the river. I guess from a public-health standpoint, the lesser of the two evils is to put it in the river," he said.

[jimdahl]

[sprig]

It also would be helpful if Minnesota and Manitoba politicians showed some concern for the residents and farmers in the s Lake area.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The same ****s Lake farmers have to take a large chunk of the responsibility. Wetlands on the drift prairie historically held much of the spring run-off, but, through the 50's, 60's and 70's, most (or all in much of the DL watershedl) have been drained with various large ditches and organized drainage projects that dump huge amounts of water into the *****s Lake basin, water that once was held up by a vast number of wetlands. Asking someone else, in this case another country, to accept this drained water is a bit over the top IMO.

Can't believe the name of the town is being stripped in this forum. Glad we can still spell out Sioux.

[dagies]

[jloos]

Hoeven has better style, although not by much.

[CoteauRinkRat]

[sprig]

If you want to place the blame on the      s Lake farmers that is fine, but what about all the people who have lost their homes who are not farmers, is it their fault also?  What about the people who were forced to move, not because the water had taken over their house and land, but because the water had taken over the roads that led to their house and what was once a 5 minute drive, turned into a 45 minute route? 

Dumping huge amounts of raw sewage into the Red is something we should overlook? hmmmm

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The point was, fix the source of the problem, rather than passing the problem on to others. The landowners in the basin, including farmers and homeowners, are some of those "others". The upstream owners, are the "source".

Going back to the 70's, the upstream drainage contributed large amounts of water to the GF flood also.

[NDSU grad]

[sprig]

This is a favorite argument of wildlife biologists who have little to no knowledge of wetland hydrology. Unfortunately, there's really little data to support this. Years before any wetlands were drained water levels of s Lake were much higher than they are now.

The hydrology of the region is much too complicated to matter-of-factly point to one cause and lay all the blame at their feet.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Always thought you were a rocket scientist. Now we know your expertise is hydrology.

Years before any wetlands were drained Lake Agassiz existed also. The Pleistocence wasn't the 20th century.

And don't forget the dinosaurs.

[DamStrait]

[IowaBison]

[IowaBison]

[sprig]

with all due respect Sprig, why don't you take a moment to educate yourseflt before making a completely ignorant post.

The lake has gone up over twenty feet in the last decade or so. How much water do you think farmers' actions affect the height the lake?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You might do the same (obviously your SU education has not). Drainage alone certainly did not cause the rise in the lake. Repeated excess snowfall, runoff, and rainfall has created a large part of the problem. However, the upstream drainage has contributed, and large currently flooded acreage could be dry right now if the upstream drainage issue was solved. There is a number, I believe it's in the 4-5 foot range, that is attributed to upstream drainage. Taking 4-5 feet off the top dries a large amount of land in the basin.

I'm not sure why passing this excess water on to Canada to let them deal with it is fair to them. I guess it's to hell with the Canadians, we just want everything just right down here. Neighbor draining on neighbor has continued for years, and finally the only neighbor left to drain on is Canada.

Just over a decade ago the basin was nearly dry, and there was a large political push to bring water into the basin from the west. Wouldn't it be great if any one area could take water from one area during a drought, and pass it on to another during flood events.

And I do enjoy the education you're providing myseflt.

[sprig]

you know it takes a helluva lot of gall to be a fan of a team located in Grand Forks and to post something so heartless regarding a natural disaster.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Heartless to whom. If the DL basin water is drained into the Red River, how much extra flooding might be caused in the RRV during a 100 year flood event due to the Red's inability to handle the water in a short amount of time? How much deeper might the water get and how much longer might the event last? Solving one's perceived water problem always creates new problems for others.

[CoteauRinkRat]

I'm not sure why passing this excess water on to Canada to let them deal with it if fair to them. I guess it's to hell with the Canadians, we just want everything just right down here.

There is no one making the argument that "passing" the water on to the Canadians is fair to them. Is it fair to all the landowners and farmers in North Dakota who continue to have their land and in some cases, homes, taken away from them due to the rise in the lake? Have you seen in any of latest interviews on television with people who have lost their houses and farms this year because of the water? This isn't exactly something made up in the press, this stuff is real.

For some reason, the Canadians and some in their media have tried to shape this argument into an us vs. them, Canada vs. US argument. The tired idea of "we are the little guy and you are always picking on us" thing doesn't fly with me, because there are no real winners in this whole situation.

[UND92,96]

I might actually have some sympathy for Manitoba if this were primarily a matter of passing on a flood from one area to another. But based upon what I've read, the volume of water really isn't their beef. Rather, it's some hypothetical threat based upon foreign biota and how that would supposedly affect Lake Winnipeg. Never mind that there seems to be little, if any scientific evidence to back this theory up. If this were, in fact, an issue with the volume of water being transferred from Devils Lake into the Sheyenne, it would seem that we in Grand Forks should be more up in arms than anybody considering what happened in 1997. And yet, there seems to be practically no vocal opposition whatsoever from this part of the state. What little empathy I had for Manitoba's position evaporated once star2city posted the link regarding raw sewage being dumped into the Red in Manitoba. Talk about having mixed-up priorities. Thank God the Red flows north or we would have a heck of a lot more of a legitimate concern compared to what Manitoba currently has.

[sprig]

I might actually have some sympathy for Manitoba if this were primarily a matter of passing on a flood from one area to another. But based upon what I've read, the volume of water really isn't their beef. Rather, it's some hypothetical threat based upon foreign biota and how that would supposedly affect Lake Winnipeg. Never mind that there seems to be little, if any scientific evidence to back this theory up. If this were, in fact, an issue with the volume of water being transferred from      s Lake into the Sheyenne, it would seem that we in Grand Forks should be more up in arms than anybody considering what happened in 1997. And yet, there seems to be practically no vocal opposition whatsoever from this part of the state. What little empathy I had for Manitoba's position evaporated once star2city posted the link regarding raw sewage being dumped into the Red in Manitoba.  Talk about having mixed-up priorities.  Thank God the Red flows north or we would have a heck of a lot more of a legitimate concern compared to what Manitoba currently has.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Can't disagree with this, and I don't understand why Manitoba argues these points, if they have no evidence to support it. I do believe there are concerns in GF about what the extra volume dumped into the RRV might do during a flooding event. I'm not sure that plans to get rid of this water in the DL basin include holding some back and taking some of the flooding themselves during an event that could cause problems in the RRV similar to what has been experienced in the past. Any extra volume during an event like that can't be a good thing.

[sprig]

There is no one making the argument that "passing" the water on to the Canadians is fair to them. Is it fair to all the landowners and farmers in North Dakota who continue to have their land and in some cases, homes, taken away from them due to the rise in the lake? Have you seen in any of latest interviews on television with people who have lost their houses and farms this year because of the water? This isn't exactly something made up in the press, this stuff is real.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

OK, here's a question. Which one place is so special that, during droughts, it gets water from whereever its needed, to keep things "perfect" for that special area, yet, during times of excess water, is able to get rid of it to remain "perfect". In both cases that "special" area remains "perfect", while others in the "nonspecial" areas have to face the extreme drought without their water, or take the floods and its associated economic impacts. Is the DL basin that "special" area?

As I said previously, controlling water will always favor someone, while hurting others.

Should the DL basin owners flood out RRV farms and homes in order to remain "perfect", or be allowed to "dry up" other areas during droughts.

Fixing watersheds is an important first step, and that not only includes fixing drainage, but maintaining vegetation on the landscape to slow the flow of water during runoff events. In the case of farmland, grain stubble substitutes well for vegetation, but turning every square inch of farmland "black" every fall has been common througout eastern ND for decades.