Devils Lake Level Dilemma

Migrator Man

★★★★★ Legendary Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2016
Posts
3,961
Likes
22
Points
226
https://www.inforum.com/sports/outd...e-wages-lonely-fight-to-keep-water-level-high

I really do feel for the farmers whose land has been flooded because of the actions of upstream draining, but the dollars flowing into Devils Lake is so much bigger than the loss of farming the flooded land. Devils Lake was a boring small town with nothing to offer until the fishing picked up in the region. Now the small community has many big town amenities that are there for one reason and that is the fishing/tourism industry. There is world class fishing in Devils Lake and the surrounding bodies of water.

What could be a solution for this problem? Offer to pay the people for the land they lost to the flood and turn the pumps off. They don’t have to sell out but they can if they want to end the issue. The region can afford to lose this tourism industry. The region does not need to be farming anymore land to subsidize growing soybeans to feed China.
 


Walleye202

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2015
Posts
124
Likes
3
Points
103
I think if nothing was done to stop the rise of DL that nothing should be done to stop the fall of it. The farmers in the upper basin took it on the chin when the water started going up, if it is headed the other way now, nothing should be done to slow the relief on them. There is no way other than finishing Garrison Diversion to stabilize this lake. Even if you shut the pumps off and we go into a 5-10 year dry cycle, it is dropping fast no matter what you do.

The old Garrison Diversion plan was to stabilize DL at a MUCH lower elevation than we currently sit. Unfortunately that project never reached completion.
 

Migrator Man

★★★★★ Legendary Member
Thread starter
Joined
Feb 3, 2016
Posts
3,961
Likes
22
Points
226
I think if nothing was done to stop the rise of DL that nothing should be done to stop the fall of it. The farmers in the upper basin took it on the chin when the water started going up, if it is headed the other way now, nothing should be done to slow the relief on them. There is no way other than finishing Garrison Diversion to stabilize this lake. Even if you shut the pumps off and we go into a 5-10 year dry cycle, it is dropping fast no matter what you do.

The old Garrison Diversion plan was to stabilize DL at a MUCH lower elevation than we currently sit. Unfortunately that project never reached completion.
We can’t help nature but we can help if we keep running the pumps. To pump or not pump that is the question.
 

dean nelson

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2015
Posts
8,270
Likes
66
Points
308
Location
Bismarck
I'm pretty sure Amtrak had a train called the Perch Express back in the eighties when the lake was around 1925 20 ft lower then they're talking now. All the good old days conversations people have are referring to water levels in the 1920 to 1925 range so to act like it'll be a dead sea if it drops down to 46 seems a little overblown.
 
Last edited:

Auggie

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2015
Posts
2,496
Likes
627
Points
373
Location
Dickinson, ND
As much as I like fishing, farmers need their livelihood. Problem is since the land was flooded for so long, a lot of the soil productivity will be greatly reduced from salinity and anerobic conditions. It'll take a few growing seasons to bring them back.
 


buckhunter24_7

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
May 15, 2015
Posts
1,327
Likes
120
Points
258
Finish the diversion! The amount of money that would flow into dl in the long term would be astounding. Have lake levels stabilized so people can build lake homes, marinas, and resorts without the worry of being flooded or 2 miles away from the lake in 5 years. A stabilized water level would have a huge benefit for all parties
 

dean nelson

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2015
Posts
8,270
Likes
66
Points
308
Location
Bismarck
Finish the diversion! The amount of money that would flow into dl in the long term would be astounding. Have lake levels stabilized so people can build lake homes, marinas, and resorts without the worry of being flooded or 2 miles away from the lake in 5 years. A stabilized water level would have a huge benefit for all parties
Well you go and teach those guys how to make water flow uphill and I'm sure they will get right on it. You know other than a little sticking points like the fact that it's basically impossible at this point to legally mix water from two different basins or you would be artificially holding Farmers land under water which I have to believe would be a highly entertaining court case. And even then you would still be looking most likely at a four foot drop because they're going to still aim for that same level.
 

ShootnBlanks

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2015
Posts
1,241
Likes
9
Points
176
Location
Alice ND
So, does anyone know what its costing ND (us) to run these pumps daily?? Maybe if farmers want it lower, they can be the ones flipping the bill.
 

Wags2.0

★★★★★ Legendary Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2018
Posts
1,514
Likes
18
Points
191
I'm pretty sure Amtrak had a train called the Perch Express back in the eighties when the lake was around 1925 20 ft lower then they're talking now. All the good old days conversations people have are referring to water levels in the 1920 to 1925 range so to act like it'll be a dead sea if it drops down to 46 seems a little overblown.

The fishing got better as the lake was on the rise as it flooded trees and cattails. Nutrient levels through the roof. Devils will be a shell of itself I think as it continues to drop. The water clearing up alone has changed fishing a lot. The main lake fishes more like a MN lake every year
 

KDM

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2015
Posts
9,650
Likes
1,582
Points
563
Location
Valley City
The land loss issue came up when the lake first started to expand and the landowners started complaining. Then they started looking at the original deeds to the land when it was first purchased and discovered that as the lake waters receeded those same landowners gained acres to fields and pastures and were farming/ranching those same acres for decades that they ONE: didn't pay for, TWO: hadn't paid taxes on, and THREE: were getting govt. payments on for all those years when they didn't own the land in the first place. So, things aren't always as they seem up there.
 


Walleye202

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2015
Posts
124
Likes
3
Points
103
Well you go and teach those guys how to make water flow uphill and I'm sure they will get right on it. You know other than a little sticking points like the fact that it's basically impossible at this point to legally mix water from two different basins or you would be artificially holding Farmers land under water which I have to believe would be a highly entertaining court case. And even then you would still be looking most likely at a four foot drop because they're going to still aim for that same level.

They must have figured it out when they nearly completed the diversion back in the day :)
 

dean nelson

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2015
Posts
8,270
Likes
66
Points
308
Location
Bismarck
They must have figured it out when they nearly completed the diversion back in the day :)
Except the mcclusky canal was never intended to go to Devil's Lake that's the reason why you see it just north of New Rockford when it goes under 281 South of the Cheyenne River putting it on the wrong side of the Continental Divide at that point. They had a plan for a smaller secondary pipeline to run up towards Devil's Lake but considering the main point of the entire thing was for irrigation the vast vast majority of the water was headed out south east of the lake and would only have as they put it freshen DL.
 

buckhunter24_7

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
May 15, 2015
Posts
1,327
Likes
120
Points
258
Except the mcclusky canal was never intended to go to Devil's Lake that's the reason why you see it just north of New Rockford when it goes under 281 South of the Cheyenne River putting it on the wrong side of the Continental Divide at that point. They had a plan for a smaller secondary pipeline to run up towards Devil's Lake but considering the main point of the entire thing was for irrigation the vast vast majority of the water was headed out south east of the lake and would only have as they put it freshen DL.

Is that why there is a giant sign at the entrance of grams island that says Garrison diversion? And yes part of the diversion was supposed to go into devil's lake

- - - Updated - - -

O yeah I forgot you already know everything ;:;banghead
 

dean nelson

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2015
Posts
8,270
Likes
66
Points
308
Location
Bismarck
Yeah the little pipe! The signs you see popped up around Devil's Lake have far less to do with moving water and far more to do with putting in critical infrastructure such as this one i posted here. And you know why I know these things is because I actually bother to look the s*** up instead of just going off on wild ass guesses. they have a whole big website that will tell you exactly what they were going to deal with and what they weren't going to do it. You might try reading it.

east.jpg
 

espringers

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
May 18, 2015
Posts
8,173
Likes
879
Points
428
Location
Devils Lake
Pumps are inoperable at 46. Thats good enough for me. And they did do something to stop the rise. They put in 2 huge pumps that run a million plus to run every month.

- - - Updated - - -

And like it or not, AG is still king.
 


dank

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2016
Posts
92
Likes
9
Points
93
I really do feel for the farmers whose land has been flooded because of the actions of upstream draining, but the dollars flowing into Devils Lake is so much bigger than the loss of farming the flooded land.

Have you ever seen actual data supporting this? With over 150,000 acres lost to water since 1993, there is a giant loss of economic activity in the DL basin related to ag. I genuinely wonder if the impact of the increase in tourism has offset the ag losses.
 

ndlongshot

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2015
Posts
1,777
Likes
112
Points
258
Rob Peter to pay Paul.

Lets look at cumulative effect. 150k acres lost in the LOWER basin. How many acres GAINED in the upper by all the wetland drainage?

Anyone?

Moral of the story: It sucks to get the shit end of the stick (all the landowners at the bottom who are helpless to stop water from the North).

Must be nice to drain unabated in the North.

Also landowners in the North: "drains? what drains?"
 

Migrator Man

★★★★★ Legendary Member
Thread starter
Joined
Feb 3, 2016
Posts
3,961
Likes
22
Points
226
Have you ever seen actual data supporting this? With over 150,000 acres lost to water since 1993, there is a giant loss of economic activity in the DL basin related to ag. I genuinely wonder if the impact of the increase in tourism has offset the ag losses.

Devils Lake has transformed into a small boring town into a town with nice new hotels, huge new resorts, many new campgrounds, a new Walmart, busy downtown, and more nice places to eat all while the lake was rising to historic high levels. If losing 150,000 acres of farm land was that big of hit I would not have noticed because Devils Lake has been growing and not regressing. Have you been there over the last 20 years ?
 

Wildyote

★★★★★ Legendary Member
Joined
Jan 21, 2016
Posts
568
Likes
7
Points
138
Devils Lake has transformed into a small boring town into a town with nice new hotels, huge new resorts, many new campgrounds, a new Walmart, busy downtown, and more nice places to eat all while the lake was rising to historic high levels. If losing 150,000 acres of farm land was that big of hit I would not have noticed because Devils Lake has been growing and not regressing. Have you been there over the last 20 years ?

News article quotes economic loss from ag land in devil's lake being flooded is approx $130 million and outdoor impact $59 million.
 


Recent Posts

Friends of NDA

Top Posters of the Month

  • This month: 159
  • This month: 133
  • This month: 116
  • This month: 108
  • This month: 103
  • This month: 86
  • This month: 82
  • This month: 76
  • This month: 75
  • This month: 74
Top Bottom