Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Allen" data-source="post: 50741" data-attributes="member: 389">Per the international agreements (treaties), the simple answer is yes.  However, that has always been deemed a federal responsibility, and I have no idea where those discussions have gone over the past several years.Back when we considered it for the RRVWSP, our Canadian friends basically demanded that it be treated to levels not even found at your local faucet.  Obviously, this is one of the sticking points with Canada.  They literally cited the paddlefish as a species not found in the Hudson's bay drainage that they were concerned about.  Trust me, there are far more legit concerns than a baby paddlefish showing up in Winnipeg, so it was hard to take them serious at times.  Nonetheless, this is an incredible obstacle that not only has implications on this topic, but the Northwest Area Water Supply project that Minot and many other small towns in the Souris (Mouse) River Basin are going to greatly appreciate. And that's why there isn't a drop of water going through the pipeline that has already been laid from roughly Snake Creek pumping plant to Minot.  Canada has been very successful in suing to prevent things from going forward. ND is often kind of a renegade on the international and inter-state water topics.  Note, and not always wrong when doing it, but we certainly have some large WTF's?- - - Updated - - -Umm, it was 2019.  Also, you do know the Missouri River joins the Mississippi quite a few miles downstream of Minneapolis, right?Lastly, permitting of the "natural flows" of water in North Dakota is a ND State Water Commission right and responsibility.  Uhh, sorry...it's now the North Dakota Water Resources Dept (that renaming stuff is normally the shits, and this is no different). Anyway, there will likely be a Corps permit for the intake, but permitting of the water is solely within the rights of ND.- - - Updated - - -Essentially, during a major drought, the pipeline could run 12 months a year and that would be used to supply water to Ashtabula.  When the city of Fargo needs water (river has run near dry), they can call on a release out of Ashtabula to provide municipal and industrial water.  The plus side here is that the pipeline can run in the winter when water demand tends to be at a minimum.  Resizing the pipeline to meet peak demand and running it all the way to Farhole would cost a few more dollars.  However, given the delay on the order of several days, for the water to arrive in Fargo, I don't think it would take but one miscalculation on when to call for water before the push to have a pipeline directly from Ashtabula to Fargo really gains traction.</blockquote>

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

Reply to thread

Recent Posts

Friends of NDA