Now that Lake Sakakawea has plenty of water, those drawing large amounts of water from the reservoir could end up paying dearly for it.

Does that still include the guy drawing water outa Trenton lake & making a profit selling it to the oil co.s ? its still from the Missouri.

Probably nothing more than a sneaky tactic to slow down energy production by the Obama Admin.

So does the Corps of Engineers own this water? If so, they should be responsible for damages. If not, how can they sell it?

Considering out gov't is broke and the management of those damns costs a lot of money, my question would be why shouldn't the users of the resource have to help cover these costs?

44magman Said:
So does the Corps of Engineers own this water? If so, they should be responsible for damages. If not, how can they sell it?

+1

Charging to store the water in Sak???  This is plum crazy. Their gonna run the oil companies right out of here.

gonefshn Said:
Considering out gov't is broke and the management of those damns costs a lot of money, my question would be why shouldn't the users of the resource have to help cover these costs?

You must be forgetting the electrical generation.  Those dams were built with taxpayer money to provide flood relief and water supply.  The energy from hydroelectric is the taxpayer's return on investment along with the downstream protection.

I see this as where Misery may have once again somehow got the Corps arm-twisted into putting ND in its place with respect to the Missouri River.  I wonder if the barge industry downstream will get charged for water released from the dams to float their rusting hulls?  Or are the downstream cities going to get charged for the storing of flood waters that would otherwise create billions in damage.  How about the farmers that take water out of the river for irrigation, or are protected from flooding?

I do not support the Corps' move here in any way, shape or form.  Bob Shaver has it right in my book.  There is water in the Missouri that by law belongs to the state of ND.  The Corps should not be allowed to charge for water permitted by the state of North Dakota.  This is a major, MAJOR, intrusion onto state's water rights and while I am not a constitutional lawyer, there is something in there about state's rights. 

Hope to make the meeting as I would really like to hear the details on where they are getting this authority.

gonefshn Said:
Considering out gov't is broke and the management of those damns costs a lot of money, my question would be why shouldn't the users of the resource have to help cover these costs?

Because we don't have a revenue problem we have a spending problem.    Enough is enough already.

3XGutshot Said:
Because we don't have a revenue problem we have a spending problem.    Enough is enough already.

Yep, whoever told the taxpayers that they could get $1 worth of goods and services for $0.63 in income should be summarily run out of office.

The big question I have always had is:  Since a recent poll suggests that roughly 60% of Americans think we should tax the higher earners more; do even they have enough money to rid us of our debt?  How about just the deficit? 

I don't know the answer to that, but I suspect not.  Entitlement programs have grown far too large, and so is America's obligation to act as the U.N./world policeman. 

Anybody that thinks charging $20.91 for an acre foot of water is gonna mean anything to the oil industry has absolutely no concept of volume or money! I'm not sure the exact amount of water required to frac a well but 5 million gallons seems to stick in my mind so for conversation sake we'll use this. An acre foot of water contains 43,560 cubic feet which translates into 325,829 gallons per acres foot. 5 million gallons divided by 325,829 gives 15.34 times. So $20.91 times 15.34 equals $320.87 per well extra. Do you really think the oil company gives a rip about a whopping $320, i think not! Even if it cost $20k extra per well it really doesn't amount to anything compared to what the well actually cost to bring into production.

The monitary amount really doesn't add up to squat but I am in all ways against this idea for the simple reason that the water that is being used is ours to begin with! This should be rallied against if for nothing else just to make the point clear that we will not be taken advantage of regardless of the cost.
 
For a municipal city like parshal, whoms water usage typically ran between 200 and 250 acre feet per year, the cost to the city from this is going to like be in the neighborhood of $5,227.50 for the entire year. The past couple of years there use is up to about 475 acre feet but the additional usage is strickly from selling water for frac use, not municipal use.  They'll simply pass the additional cost on to the users. Hopefully this puts things into perspective a little bit. Water use information can be found on the state water commisions web site if any body has the query to check on a particular citys use. I'm guessing based on how the acticle is written they'll be charged for the amount they are permited to use, which in most cases is considerably more than many towns actually use. It appears parshalls actually approved to use up to 830 acre feet which is likely what they'll have to pay on, this bumps total cost up to about over $17k. Keep in mind that everything used over 250 acre feet is being sold to the oil field and they are making a large profit on this water, 17k is nothing compared to what is being brought in!

It's always funny how everyone thinks the gov't should do or give them what "they" want for free but either cut or charge everyone else for things if it's something they don't use.

Allen Said:

gonefshn Said:
Considering out gov't is broke and the management of those damns costs a lot of money, my question would be why shouldn't the users of the resource have to help cover these costs?

You must be forgetting the electrical generation.  Those dams were built with taxpayer money to provide flood relief and water supply.  The energy from hydroelectric is the taxpayer's return on investment along with the downstream protection.

I see this as where Misery may have once again somehow got the Corps arm-twisted into putting ND in its place with respect to the Missouri River.  I wonder if the barge industry downstream will get charged for water released from the dams to float their rusting hulls?  Or are the downstream cities going to get charged for the storing of flood waters that would otherwise create billions in damage.  How about the farmers that take water out of the river for irrigation, or are protected from flooding?

I do not support the Corps' move here in any way, shape or form.  Bob Shaver has it right in my book.  There is water in the Missouri that by law belongs to the state of ND.  The Corps should not be allowed to charge for water permitted by the state of North Dakota.  This is a major, MAJOR, intrusion onto state's water rights and while I am not a constitutional lawyer, there is something in there about state's rights. 

Hope to make the meeting as I would really like to hear the details on where they are getting this authority.

I suspect the Corps is banking on a lotta folks not having any clue regarding water rights.  I'd fall in that camp.  Before reading Allen's post I'd have guessed that since the Corps manages the resevoirs they'd have the power to do this.  Allen and Shaver tell us that the water is permitted as "ours".  If that's the case then ND should be making any profit to be had.  I'd be mighty irritated to hear that Omaha Corps or the state of Missouri was balancing their budget with water permitted to be ND's.  Especially considering that in the dryest of times they won't let us keep what we need.

This will affect more than just the oil folks people.  It hinders future irrigation development, rural water issues, livestock, how the lake is managed, etc.  The Corp never makes things easy.  They see a "tool" and that is merely what they are doing with this.  Pure and simple.

To sleep on this issue would be dangerous.

Tim Sandstrom Said:
This will affect more than just the oil folks people.  It hinders future irrigation development, rural water issues, livestock, how the lake is managed, etc.  The Corp never makes things easy.  They see a "tool" and that is merely what they are doing with this.  Pure and simple.

To sleep on this issue would be dangerous.

Here's going to be your major issue, educating the ignorant regarding water rights.  I be in the ignorant crowd.  Clean tap water and public access to public lakes have only ever really been my water concerns.  I haven't the first clue as to what the Corps does or doesn't have the right to do, nor what we (ND) have legitimate claims for.

Can you suggest some reading for me?

Well, that will take some doing but throughout the years there has been conversations regarding:
 
1. livestock and use of Corp of Engineer shores.  - If cattle end up off limits then water will need to be pumped.

2. the land transfer - The Corp winning this battle will show it is the master of Lake Sakakawea and we will lose ability to protect our public lands.

3. irrigation - For years and years the major battle in irrigation country around the Missouri River and Lake Sakakawea was how expensive power was.  Well, there is 3-phase everywhere in oil country now.  No longer is power the major burden.  Water now is.  We lose ground in water supply we are now once again, going backward.

4. Rural Water - There are numerous rural water systems tapping into the Missouri River.  What will this do to them?  Costs will go up and so will the political power the TAT possesses with fighting water to Fargo, water used within the reservation boundary, etc.  We should be pretty certain or confident or maybe NOT surprised the TAT will most likely strike a separate deal with the Corp versus the state.

These are some of the biggest issues.  There are numerous articles out and about.  Many discussed among FBO talk forums.  The point is, water is one of the biggest weapons in negotiation, law, regulation and survival.  The Corp gaining yet more power over our water will strengthen some and weaken others.  We will be the folks weakened.

By the way, what does this charging for water rule do to all the thousands of water wells taping aquifers in North Dakota.  Does this start a whirl wind of litigation??

 

Horsager Said:

Tim Sandstrom Said:
This will affect more than just the oil folks people.  It hinders future irrigation development, rural water issues, livestock, how the lake is managed, etc.  The Corp never makes things easy.  They see a "tool" and that is merely what they are doing with this.  Pure and simple.

To sleep on this issue would be dangerous.

Here's going to be your major issue, educating the ignorant regarding water rights.  I be in the ignorant crowd.  Clean tap water and public access to public lakes have only ever really been my water concerns.  I haven't the first clue as to what the Corps does or doesn't have the right to do, nor what we (ND) have legitimate claims for.

Can you suggest some reading for me?

+1   I also be in the ignorant crowd here.

I'm not for this in any way, shape, or form but the moniatry amount is not what concerens me, more so is the win or lose of another rights battle.

YarcraftStorm Said:

You know what the old saying is; "Whisky’s for drinkin; water's for fightin!"

Tis true and forever will be.

Allen Said:

3XGutshot Said:
Because we don't have a revenue problem we have a spending problem.    Enough is enough already.

Yep, whoever told the taxpayers that they could get $1 worth of goods and services for $0.63 in income should be summarily run out of office.

The big question I have always had is:  Since a recent poll suggests that roughly 60% of Americans think we should tax the higher earners more; do even they have enough money to rid us of our debt?  How about just the deficit? 

I don't know the answer to that, but I suspect not.  Entitlement programs have grown far too large, and so is America's obligation to act as the U.N./world policeman. 

Allen,

This article is a little old as we know the deficit is higher, but it pretty much sums up the fact that the "rich" americans can't rid us of our deficit.
http://finance.yahoo.com/taxes/article/107662/taxing-rich-would-not-close-the-gap-but-would-shrink-it.html