Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Allen" data-source="post: 498186" data-attributes="member: 389">Let's clear some things up a little here.  There always has been and always will be resistance to using the Missouri River water outside of the Missouri River basin, or, one could say states that don't have direct access to the Missouri River.  By law, the Governor is mostly correct in that each state is allowed to control the amount of water used from the Missouri River, but it's generally limited to what is considered the "Natural Flow" of the Missouri River.  What this means is that the State of ND can permit the use of an amount of water equal to the natural flow in the river.  What this also means is that the State cannot permit water that is being held in storage by the federal government via the Pick-Sloan dams.  That water is under the control of the federal government.Drier states like Colorado, New Mexico, and Arizona (just to pick on a few) have always dreamed of access to more water.  For example, Colorado is largely considered at or very near the limits of being able to add any new water permits.  Thus, these states are water limited when it comes to population and industrial growth.  For example, there have been proposed water transfers from the Great Lakes into the Missouri/Mississippi for eventual use in Arizona and California.  All it would take would be for one governor/state to be willing to host such a transfer.  However, the river is a national resource and one would be mistaken to think that more populated states and regions of the country will have more voting power in Congress.  Congress tends to tread lightly on these kinds of topics where they would be putting the burden on one state to support another.  Think of how long it has taken to dream up and put into effect permanent storage for nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain!  Bottom line, no way the federal government willingly gives the governor the direct ability to call for increased discharge out of Garrison Dam via its stored water to support any industrial use.  The lowest Garrison Dam goes for any length of time in discharge is about 10,000 cfs.  That is roughly equal to the limitations of Washburn's intake on the river, and maybe Mandan's as well.  It's why Bismarck built the infiltration well system it now uses as an intake.I have never paid much attention to defining ND's share of the natural flow of the Missouri River. Let's just say that I'd have to imagine that's a very sticky legal topic.  However, I know that during the 30s and 40s there were lengthy stretches of time where the Missouri at Bismarck fell well below the existing 10,000 cfs requirement for Washburn.  For reference, there's right around 13,500-15,000 cfs going into the Missouri River above Oahe when one adds up the flow in the Missouri and Yellowstone coming out of Montana, the paltry 100 cfs in the Little Missouri, and all the other small tribs flowing into Sak.    Even with all of the water use in ND, we probably only use about 1.5-2.0% of the 16.7 million acre-feet of water that passes through the state via the Missouri River (including all the straws we've put into Sak and have planned going forward like NAWS and the RRVWSP).  So, yes...the governor is likely very correct in that we have water the State could permit from the Missouri River to use for industry.  As always though, the devil is in the details. I am not a fan of consumptive use of water for cooling data centers, but the State does have the legal ability to permit water from the river for AI or Crypto operations.</blockquote>

Verification: What is the most common fish caught on this site?

Reply to thread

Recent Posts

Friends of NDA