can the DNR really allow this

[newtofishing]

appears the DNR will allow an infested lake with invasive species to move its water to a non infested lake if it is filtered. All I can say is WOW and how can they really think there might not be a problem- read the latest Dec 12 minutes from this HSOforum- http://www.lmkp-lid.com. There is a similar topic in the Ottertail forum but wanted to post this here since this seems like it could set a precedent and impact ALL Minnestoa lakes. Thoughts? Would you be concerned if you were downstream?

[BobT]

Are you talking about two lakes already connected by a channel or river or are they considering creating a channel to do this? If they are already connected it's too late. The migration has already taken place.

I don't think I'll ever forget the year zebras were found in Lake LeHomme Dieu near Alexandria. The passage between LeHomme Dieu and Geneva was closed to all boat traffic to "prevent the spread into Lake Geneva." Okay, the passage is the river channel and Geneva is downstream. I couldn't help but wonder who the college failure was that felt this would work to prevent the spread into Geneva. The following year zebras were found in Geneva. Go figure, eh?!

[newtofishing]

these are not connected. The proposal is for them to pipe the water to a separate lake/river system ( Little Pine/ Big Pine / and others in Ottertail. This would then flow to the Ottertail lake.

[Sonicrunch]

Sounds screwy.

Follow the money. Who is profiting from this? I think you will find the answer there.

[newtofishing]

interesting point on the money trail. I do see the engineering companies are getting alot of revenue for their work based on the meeting minutes posted on their HSOforum. . I have heard that the engineering company does have someone that on one of the impacted lakes.

I still don't see how the DNR could even consider this. Since this water eventually heads to Canada maybe they can help

[live4chrome]

Ha! And they are going to make us all take a test to trailer a boat. What a hypocrisy.

[john.wells]

Hypocrisy is right! Over 3 decades of failure in preventing the spread of AIS despite a constant effort with shore inspections, decals, ad campaigns, news stories, etc.. Now we are targeted as potential criminals with unconstitutional and invasive roadside checks and have to pay a fee to "learn" what we already are fully aware of???? Yet they can take some harebrained schemes to transfer water from infested bodies and hope that filtration will always be fail-safe? They want to pull the same b s with pumping water from the Mississippi into White Bear Lake in the metro. I guess we are all held hostage by the morons who know oh so much more than us!

[motley man]

And we have to take a test to pull our boat trailers , etc ? Don't make any sense ! Years ago in the rule book it said never introduce any specie into a enviroment if it was never there, and now we have DNR putting Muskies, Trout, and other species wherever they want ! It's a double standard just like our justice system, the rich have a different standard than the poor !

[newtofishing]

maybe the startribune or some other media outlet will dig into this and shed light on these proposals to the public. If you know someone that works at one of these media outlets pass this stuff on. I am still very surprised people from potentially impacted lakes haven't chimed in.

[crappiewalleyebi]

here's a facebook page dedicated to repeal the new law. there are sample letters to send to your representatives. HF50 is sponsored by Rep. Drazkowski. https://www.facebook.com/pages/Repeal-MN-Statute-86B13/1593672207529357

i'm all for trying to prevent AIS...but simply taxing us more and throwing more money at it is NOT the solution.

[newtofishing]

maybe you could do a show on how the DNR might bless moving millions of gallons of water from a designated invasive species lake

[BTL]

I could understand why they would take drastic measures like that if numerous homes are at stake. Are there any other options for lowering the water level on the lake?

[newtofishing]

I am not aware of the options they have considered. For the money they are looking at spending they could by LOTS of acres- dig a 8 foot hole and move the water there. Wouldn't have to worry about contaminating other lakes are impacting others with the high water.

does anyone know how many properties are truly impacted/threated by the high water. I assume the properties that are having issues are all older properties since you wouldn't think someone would build on low ground.

[delcecchi]

Sounds screwy.

Follow the money. Who is profiting from this? I think you will find the answer there.

Works for snail lake in Ramsey County. Check it out

[newtofishing]

not even close to the same scale. this lake is looking to move 25cfs- which by my calcualtions is-

11250 gallons/minute

675000 gallons/hour

16200000 gallons/day

around 7.5 gallons per CF is base line for this.

[delcecchi]

not even close to the same scale. this lake is looking to move 25cfs- which by my calcualtions is-

11250 gallons/minute

675000 gallons/hour

16200000 gallons/day

around 7.5 gallons per CF is base line for this.

What is your concern? Expense? Filter not working? More water needs a bigger filter, but other than that it should work.

[newtofishing]

i would think people concerns would be

you are changing the NATURAL flow of lakes and river system.

there will be changes and could be negative -

example- water levels- will be higher- they say only a few inches- tell that to the person that has ice heaves or the sump pump runs all the time

water quality will change which could have an impact on fishing- you can tell me by dumping that much filtered water that it will not change the water-

yes- filters do fail which could expose downstream lakes to zebra mussels from an invested lake- also what if 5 years there is a new AIS that is in one of those lakes tat the filter doesn't work on? could happen

[delcecchi]

I read the preliminary engineering report, well the first part anyway. Sounds like there is a problem with the levels of three lakes rising and damaging or getting ready to damage property around the shore.

The proposed solution is to transfer water from the three lakes to a river which runs into some other lakes.

Their conclusion was that the pumping would raise the lake levels downstream by less than 6 inches (considerably less when the water is high). The lakes in july last year were discharging between 240 cfs and 1450 cfs.

So it doesn't have a great deal of effect downstream.

What is your problem? You have a lake home on high ground and don't like the assessment? Or you are downstream?

[newtofishing]

I can't imagine anyone downstream would want millions of gallons of potentially invested water with zebra mussels.

as far as water level - how much will it raise when water is low downstream. i bet it is more than 6 inches- which means the downstream lakes water level will ALWAYS be higher than what nature would have it at.

Ask the people on Rush lake that were flooded last year if 6 inches higher is an issue.

And yes if I was on a high lot I would not like this at all.

[newtofishing]

also please tell the people that are either downstream or the people on Little Mac that are on high lots 1 direct benefit to them- I struggle to find 1.

[SkunkedAgain]

I could understand why they would take drastic measures like that if numerous homes are at stake. Are there any other options for lowering the water level on the lake?

I can not understand why they would take drastic measures to protect some homes, that are clearly built too close to the water. I don't care if you're home is 20ft or 200 yards away from the water. If the water impacts the home, you are too close.

Houses can be rebuilt. Lakes and rivers rarely can be rebuilt. This seems like poor decision making, or more likely influenced decision making.

[newtofishing]

the other big difference from the Ramsey county example is the lake without the zebra mussels in Ramsey County asked for the water. I don't see Big/Little Pine Lake, Rush or Ottertail saying please send me your water.

[delcecchi]

You seem to be pretty dismissive of the concerns of those who are being damaged by high lake levels, even though the downstream lake level changes during periods of high water will be really small. Did you read the report from the engineers hired to analyze the down stream level changes?

[newtofishing]

I believe everyone feels bad for the people that suffer from high water-

1) I did read the report - what I see is the lakes will always be higher than they normally would be. As I said before tell the people on Rush that were flooded last summer that its only a little more water.

2) I didn't see you list any benefit for the people downstream?

3) I only see negatives for them- higher water and risk of zebra mussels and who knows what else in the future

look forward to your comments

[delcecchi]

I believe everyone feels bad for the people that suffer from high water-

1) I did read the report - what I see is the lakes will always be higher than they normally would be. As I said before tell the people on Rush that were flooded last summer that its only a little more water.

2) I didn't see you list any benefit for the people downstream?

3) I only see negatives for them- higher water and risk of zebra mussels and who knows what else in the future

look forward to your comments

In the report it appeared that the impact at high water would be like one inch. More at low water but that would be a good thing to my way of thinking. So reducing the swing should be a good thing for those downstream.

But overall you are correct. There is really no benefit for the people downstream. But the negative stuff is small or unlikely and the benefit to the folks upstream is large.

So I guess it depends on how you feel about dealing with a very minor or unlikely negative vs your fellow citizens getting relief from a big issue.

Your position seems sort of self-centered to me, but I don't know you so can't say if that is really true.

[newtofishing]

the issue is there is a risk that zebra mussels or some other invasive species being passed. There is that risk and the negative impact would be HUGE. This has never been done on this scale in Minnesota- not even close. People may think this is self centered but I would say the people that object are just trying to protect their own precious lakeshore.

please answer the following

1) how many homes are currently facing high water issues?

2) how many of those have been built since 1990 when you started having high water?

3) would the 10 million you are looking to get from your fellow tax payers be better of spent to buy those impacted houses and let mother nature take it course?

regards

[delcecchi]

the issue is there is a risk that zebra mussels or some other invasive species being passed. There is that risk and the negative impact would be HUGE. This has never been done on this scale in Minnesota- not even close. People may think this is self centered but I would say the people that object are just trying to protect their own precious lakeshore.

please answer the following

1) how many homes are currently facing high water issues?

2) how many of those have been built since 1990 when you started having high water?

3) would the 10 million you are looking to get from your fellow tax payers be better of spent to buy those impacted houses and let mother nature take it course?

regards

1) I have no idea. I think it is in the documents.

2) Beats me. I presume no one built in floodable places next to rising water but could be.

3) From what I read the project is primarily funded by assessment to the upstream property owners.

4) That would take a bunch of taxpayer money and would have to be voluntary.

Many municipal water systems filter much more water than they are talking about and do it reliably for years. St Paul gets its drinking water out of Lake Vadnais. Filters it and the whole city drinks it.

Is it going to cost you something?

[newtofishing]

not sure I follow the drinking water thought- that water is purified and consumed. Not dumped into a lake.

yes it could cost my lake to be contaminated with zebra mussels from the designated infested last that water will be dumped into our lake system.

Yes it will cost my fellow lakshore owners to run their sump pumps more

yes it will cost our lakes more erosion- higher water mean more erosion

yes if the legislature funds this- it will cost every taxpayer

yes it could cost us the quality fishing we have today- addding a diffenret water quality could have a impact.

I guess I just dont want to deal with any of these possibilities. so yes there is a cost to me.

[delcecchi]

But no money out of your pocket?

Will a few inches of lake level make your sump pump run that much more? How high above the lake is you basement floor?

Why do you think the filter won't work? It isn't like filtering water is rocket science.

[newtofishing]

no there will not be an initial monetary cost- unless my tax dollars are used to fund this.

Any yes I do not trust filters to catch something that is measured in microns when you are pumping 16 MILLION gallons per day.- let me know if my math is wrong.

the real cost which I guess we differ on is the potential impact cost-

erosion- you didn't comment on this- higher water mean more erosion.

cost of higher water- yes 6 inches to a person who's house was flooded last year is a cost. Ask people on Rush lake if 6 inches more water would have been a "cost"

what IF the filter fails and the lakes get zebra mussels- Is this a cost? I think so.

so you are correct- there most likely will not be a monetary cost but there will be a cost to me.