Piping Mississippi River water west

Allen

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2015
Posts
10,456
Likes
1,466
Points
553
Location
Lincoln, kinda...
Polar ice caps are floating ice, so if all of it melted sea level would not change.

There are these places called Greenland and Antarctica.

- - - Updated - - -

Allen Great Lakes Compact is an international treaty no strictly within the states. SL, yes the ice floating in the Arctic Ocean would not change as it is floating. Greenland ice sheet and Antarctic ice sheets are on land. Now lets all go fishing and enjoy iced beer.

I think you are actually referring to the Great Lakes and Saint Lawrence agreement between the U.S and Canada.
 


ndfinfan

★★★★★ Legendary Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2016
Posts
2,701
Likes
174
Points
293
Location
Minot, ND.
I had a whiskey water last night, or maybe a bunch of them, and the ice melted in the one I didn't finish, and I had to call servepro this morning and have all the water sucked out of the basement.

This one made me laugh out loud John!
 

Davey Crockett

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2015
Posts
13,649
Likes
1,158
Points
553
Location
Boondocks
Another crazy idea right here in ND is to convert oil wells into fresh water wells . It must be a scheme of some sort because it doesn't make a lick of sense .
 

lunkerslayer

Founding Member
Founding Member
Thread starter
Joined
Apr 12, 2015
Posts
18,924
Likes
2,922
Points
748
Location
Cavalier, ND
This idea has been bantered about since the 1980s. Let us not forget just how politically powerful the states that would benefit from this are in Congress, just in case one immediately defaults to "it won't happen".

One thing that is just plain stupid in that article is the mere mentioning of California should do more desalination because of rising sea levels, or how diverting water from the Mississippi would somehow help prevent flooding along the lower Mississippi, or again that diverting Mississippi water would help slow the rising sea levels. The math just isn't on the side of that idiot.

- - - Updated - - -

Just to name a few states where this idea would be popular in the political circles would include: Colorado, Wyoming, Idaho, Oregon, California, Utah, Nevada, and Arizona. One might also be able to easily tack on Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas and New Mexico. All of these states have water compacts with their neighbors that could be reworked in favor of those who don't get Mississippi water delivered to their doors. That's an awful lot of votes in Congress.

Allen this is the reason why I posted this thread becuase of your knowledgeable incite into water, i believe since that is actually what you used to do for a living. The question i have is: when the garrison diversion was being built biologists were concerned with the transfer of foreign bodies not part of that ecosystem. Would the mississippi water that is piped into another watershed need to be treated before it reaches its final destination western states.

- - - Updated - - -

Another crazy idea right here in ND is to convert oil wells into fresh water wells . It must be a scheme of some sort because it doesn't make a lick of sense .

Davey do you have an article for us to read please
 

tikkalover

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
May 10, 2015
Posts
7,929
Likes
882
Points
473
Location
Minot
The NAWS pipeline from the Snake Creek pumping plant to Minot has not had a drop of water in it for 25 years. They are now building a water treatment plant at Max because Manitoba requires it to be treated before it comes to the water treatment plant in Minot just in case it happens to get into the Souris river.

They are building a water pipeline south of Washburn to pump water into the James river which in turn will flow to the Red river to supply water to Fargo and Grand Forks in low water times. I wonder if they have to treat that water as well?
 
Last edited:


sl1000794

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
May 10, 2015
Posts
4,730
Likes
161
Points
298
The NAWS pipeline from the Snake Creek pumping plant to Minot has not had a drop of water in it for 25 years. They are now building a water treatment plant at Max because Manitoba requires it to be treated before it comes to the water treatment plant in Minot just in case it happens to get into the Souris river.

They are building a water pipeline south of Washburn to pump water into the James river which in turn will flow to the Red river to supply water to Fargo and Grand Forks in low water times. I wonder if they have to treat that water as well?

There is no Souris River in ND - only the Mouse River. Don't believe me just look at the NDDOT travel info map or better yet drive over the MOUSE River and see what the highway sign calls it. It is known as the Souris River in Sask. and Manitoba. Souris is the French word for mouse and we do not speak French in the US!
 
Last edited:

tikkalover

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
May 10, 2015
Posts
7,929
Likes
882
Points
473
Location
Minot
Oh, go back to California. ;:;rofl I've lived here 61 years an can call it whatever I want to. :;:duel:D
 
Last edited:

db-2

★★★★★ Legendary Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2016
Posts
4,096
Likes
1,054
Points
473
Location
ND
There are signs that say mouse, db
 

svnmag

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2015
Posts
16,809
Likes
2,356
Points
773
Location
Here
I had a whiskey water last night, or maybe a bunch of them, and the ice melted in the one I didn't finish, and I had to call servepro this morning and have all the water sucked out of the basement.

cache.php





https://youtu.be/R3eN6WvERaM
 
Last edited:


Allen

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2015
Posts
10,456
Likes
1,466
Points
553
Location
Lincoln, kinda...
The naming of that stream that starts in Saskatchewan, winds its way through ND and then goes back up into Manitoba is kinda interesting. ND wanted to mark its territory by naming the river the Mouse in the state constitution. However, federally it is referred to as the Souris River and is referenced as such in the international treaty that provides the framework for all issues surrounding it. So it really is a stream with two names, even if they mean the same thing in two different languages.

Hence, I call it the Souris.
 

sl1000794

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
May 10, 2015
Posts
4,730
Likes
161
Points
298
The naming of that stream that starts in Saskatchewan, winds its way through ND and then goes back up into Manitoba is kinda interesting. ND wanted to mark its territory by naming the river the Mouse in the state constitution. However, federally it is referred to as the Souris River and is referenced as such in the international treaty that provides the framework for all issues surrounding it. So it really is a stream with two names, even if they mean the same thing in two different languages.

Hence, I call it the Souris.

I cannot find the document you make reference to - can you give me a link?
 

lunkerslayer

Founding Member
Founding Member
Thread starter
Joined
Apr 12, 2015
Posts
18,924
Likes
2,922
Points
748
Location
Cavalier, ND

Allen

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2015
Posts
10,456
Likes
1,466
Points
553
Location
Lincoln, kinda...

Migrator Man

★★★★★ Legendary Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2016
Posts
3,961
Likes
22
Points
226
The NAWS pipeline from the Snake Creek pumping plant to Minot has not had a drop of water in it for 25 years. They are now building a water treatment plant at Max because Manitoba requires it to be treated before it comes to the water treatment plant in Minot just in case it happens to get into the Souris river.

They are building a water pipeline south of Washburn to pump water into the James river which in turn will flow to the Red river to supply water to Fargo and Grand Forks in low water times. I wonder if they have to treat that water as well?
The James flows into the Missouri. You talking about the garrison diversion project?
 


Allen

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2015
Posts
10,456
Likes
1,466
Points
553
Location
Lincoln, kinda...
So the Cliff Notes version of NAWS and the Red River Valley Water Supply Project.

NAWS is a federally sponsored project being funded through the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. Because of the treaty between Canada and the U.S. and the funding source being federal, there is indeed a requirement of sorts (Canada's insistence) that water coming from the Missouri River into the Hudson's Bay drainage be treated to prevent the spread of Aquatic Nuisance Species, to include things like whirling disease and paddlefish (I kid you not, they actually listed paddlefish as a concern). Canada's position on this was one of the water needing to be treated to the nine 9's, that is 99.9999999% free of any living biota. This is, and always has been, a very disingenuous position of Canada's since that is MUCH higher than you get out of any drinking water faucet in either Canada or the United States. They don't seem to mind that water from the Milk River (a Missouri Tributary) is diverted into Hudson's Bay drainage for their benefit, and that is done with zero treatment.

The Red River Valley Water Supply Project started out much like NAWS in the sense that it was a part of the original agreement between the federal government and the State of North Dakota as a reach around for ND hosting so much of the Lake Sak and Lake Oahe projects. That river bottom land was considered very valuable, but after the dustbowl drought, ND was anxious to acquire a steady, or at least a dependable backup water supply for the RRV. Canada, Missouri, and Minnetucky all fight tooth and nail to prevent ND from supplying water to the RRV, each for their own reasons that they will usually not admit to. Missouri is arrogant and thinks the Missouri River belongs to them, so they fight any withdrawals from the Missouri because they want to be able to exert and unusually large influence on water projects that may hinder their precious barges. Canada, much like Minnetucky, fights any export of water from the Missouri to the RRV because they've gotten on their high horse and think it will be the end of the world. Yet they were still importing rainbow trout from SD even though SD has whirling disease, but then they turn around and claim whirling disease (or some other yet undescribed virus) will devastate their fisheries. Their position is well entrenched at this point. Minnetucky is far more insidious when it comes to supplying water to the RRV. If you look up and down the Red River, you will notice that the ND cities are much larger than their Minnesota sister cities. Wahp/Breckinridge, Farhole/Moorhead, GF/East GF, etc. The most likely reason this is true is because if you have to live in the RRV...most people generally find ND more to their liking, especially if you are going to build a BUSINESS. So, one of the things we have seen take off in the RRV over the past decade or more is the growth in water intensive agricultural processing. Minnetucky can't compete in the business world with most of these projects because of their onerous MN-DNR, MN-Health Dept, etc, etc. In order to attempt to lure these industries over to MN, the one thing they can offer is a fairly secure water supply, yep...I've been to the meetings and seen their scientists and politicians be very disingenuous in their objections to ND supplying water to the RRV.

I actually worked for Reclamation back when they were doing all the environmental and engineering studies for the RRV water supply. All that work has now been sitting on the desk of the Secretary of the Interior who has to sign off on the preferred alternative. No Secretary has been willing to do that, so it just sits and collects dust. Fast forward to the past few years and ND has basically said f*&k it and is going to go with some bastardization of the Missouri alternative. Since it is no longer a federally funded project (so far as I know), that may relieve the State from the need for a biota treatment plant for water eventually sent east. BTW, it is going to end up in the Sheyenne River which is STILL a part of the RRV and even Hudson's Bay drainage. This would suggest that if there is no federal requirement for a biota treatment plant akin to the one planned for up by Max, it is possible that there will be two diversions from the Missouri River into the Hudson's Bay drainage, one with a water treatment plant before the water crosses the divided, and the other without.

Of course, I no longer work for Reclamation, so my understanding on the finer points of the above are a little dated at this point and there may indeed be some plan for a treatment plant on the RRV diversion, I just have not run across anything mentioning it in detail. I am quite sure if there is no treatment plant, there will be plenty of lawsuits from Canada and Minnetucky, and their favorite judge in DC is not known to be a friend of North Dakota.
 
Last edited:

snow1

★★★★★ Legendary Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2021
Posts
1,875
Likes
16
Points
151
you folks west don't want mississsloppy water coming your way,several years back a couple north metro city lakes water table dropped over 10' to make things worse "aquifer" that fed these lakes could know longer produce so here comes the water from big muddy,today one lake is a cess pool of zebra mussels and milfoil.
 

johnr

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2015
Posts
19,948
Likes
3,445
Points
803
Location
Dickinson
I never believed in 1803 any white male explorer would follow around a young native girl, but history says otherwise
I was also once referred to by a Canadian as a Gohlie, turns out its slang for cunt.
 
Last edited:


Recent Posts

Friends of NDA

Top Posters of the Month

  • This month: 105
  • This month: 99
  • This month: 86
  • This month: 76
  • This month: 63
  • This month: 56
  • This month: 56
  • This month: 56
  • This month: 55
  • This month: 55
Top Bottom