Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Read an article about this lake enlarging itself (because its waters had nowhere to flow, i.e., into another river to absorb the water) and overflowing, and towns are in danger of being destroyed (flooded) by it. One suggestion was to move an entire town to higher ground. How would that be done?
(Sorry if this sounds awkward...long day today).
The article touched on it a little, but I still don't fully understand why they don't use the water for irrigation. Is the water in the lake polluted? As someone commented on the Yahoo article, why not pump it out further west. In parts of Wyoming water is worth as much as natural gas.
Pumping water that far would be really cost-prohibitive. In Utah, the huge water pumps they installed on the west side of the Great Salt Lake to pump just a few miles were astronomical in price. Then the wet cycle turned to a dry cycle... and the pumps have been setting idle for years. They were hardly used.
For the crops grown in the area, there's little use for irrigation considering the current weather patterns.
As far as Minnewaukan goes, I have my doubts that the town itself will ultimately be moved. As of right now, it's pretty much a peninsula. Considering the population vs. the cost of moving the population to a new townsite, which I would imagine to be a good mile west...I'd imagine it would wind up coming down to FEMA buyouts and very little else.
Read an article about this lake enlarging itself (because its waters had nowhere to flow, i.e., into another river to absorb the water) and overflowing, and towns are in danger of being destroyed (flooded) by it. One suggestion was to move an entire town to higher ground. How would that be done?
(Sorry if this sounds awkward...long day today).
Well, it's been done before. Sanish and Van Hook were both relocated to New Town in 1953, before being inundated by Lake Sakakawea. So it can be done again.
Also I take issue with the statement that water from Devils Lake has nowhere to flow. Anyone who is familiar with the natural history of that area of North Dakota, knows that water from Devils Lake historically, naturally flows into the Red River. The problem has been that for a very, very long time (since before white people came to the area) the lake has been too dry to have any water to out flow.
Personally I think they should let nature take its course. Let the lake fill to the top, and start flowing the way it's supposed to. Move the buildings to higher ground. It's a cheaper, easier, and more environmentally sound solution. Plus water is valuable, so why try to get rid of it?
It makes no sense to me. First the Government builds the Garrision Dam, and in the process destroyed hundreds of miles of prime wetlands in North Dakota, along with many farms, and several entire towns. Now to try to save another town, they want to drain another natural lake. I just don't get it.
The article touched on it a little, but I still don't fully understand why they don't use the water for irrigation. Is the water in the lake polluted? As someone commented on the Yahoo article, why not pump it out further west. In parts of Wyoming water is worth as much as natural gas.
The article that I read stated that the lake is similar to the Great Salt Lake in that it is very salty since it doesn't have a rive to provide outflow. I looked it up on Wikipedia and that is, in fact, part of how Devil's Lake got its name.
Discussion about digging a channel along the natural outlet, into Stump Lake and then into the Sheyenne River started 15 years ago when the flooding first started becoming serious. Not only does it come to the question of communities downstream along the Sheyenne river, but also those along the Red River.
Since the Red flows north, then it becomes an international issue because the Canadians apparently don't want the water from Devil's Lake. There are questions of the pollution levels and also the fauna of the lake, and how that would mesh with those downstream and eventually in Lake Winnipeg. So, that's been a major problem in anybody actually doing anything beyond the drinking straw of an outlet that's already been built.
Well, it's been done before. Sanish and Van Hook were both relocated to New Town in 1953, before being inundated by Lake Sakakawea. So it can be done again.
Also I take issue with the statement that water from Devils Lake has nowhere to flow. Anyone who is familiar with the natural history of that area of North Dakota, knows that water from Devils Lake historically, naturally flows into the Red River. The problem has been that for a very, very long time (since before white people came to the area) the lake has been too dry to have any water to out flow.
Personally I think they should let nature take its course. Let the lake fill to the top, and start flowing the way it's supposed to. Move the buildings to higher ground. It's a cheaper, easier, and more environmentally sound solution. Plus water is valuable, so why try to get rid of it?
It makes no sense to me. First the Government builds the Garrision Dam, and in the process destroyed hundreds of miles of prime wetlands in North Dakota, along with many farms, and several entire towns. Now to try to save another town, they want to drain another natural lake. I just don't get it.
I have no dog in this fight, but why would it be necessary to "move" buildings.
Wouldn't it be easier and cheaper to simply "buy out" the current residents and business owners and allow them to re-build in a safer location?
It may not be directly relevant to this situation, but since you asked about how a town might be moved, there's another town relocation effort in progress in Alaska: Planning and Land Management
I have no dog in this fight, but why would it be necessary to "move" buildings.
Wouldn't it be easier and cheaper to simply "buy out" the current residents and business owners and allow them to re-build in a safer location?
That sounds fine. But it's pretty easy to pick up houses and move them to a new location. I think buildings are often moved from flood prone areas. Plus I'd guess that some people might have an attachment to their homes. And might be more comfortable with having the houses moved to a new location, and continuing to live it them. There might also be some historical type buildings that people would want moved. I guess, what ever the affected residents want, as long as they move. Just don't try to fight nature. Because more often then not, nature wins.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
