Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Inspired by some of the issues being brought up on other threads. By my title, yes, I believe that is fact.

I can attest to the ugly scene at Ft. Peck Reservoir in Eastern Montana, if you have never considered what that place might look like with miles and miles of mudflats showing, please at least take a look at the State of Montana and get a handle on the sheer size of Ft. Peck, it is huge. Yes, Griza is right, even during the drought, the corps continued to drain down Ft. Peck for the purpose of putting water in the lower Missouri and Mississippi systems for navigation. Shouldn't need to worry about upper Missouri flood control.

I live in a place that is situated near the upper reaches of Big Horn Reservoir, on the Big Horn River, dam is located at Ft. Smith, Montana. Big Horn Canyon National Recreation area is one of the least known about, but most beautiful areas in the the Nation.







Big Horn Lake impounds the super muddy Big Horn River which flows from the south out of the Wind River Range, and in fact, is known as the Wind River until it leaves Boysen Reservoir and the Wind River Indian Reservation and becomes the Big Horn River at a point just outside of Thermopolis called "wedding of the waters."

Now, below (north of) Thermopolis, the river becomes silted by irrigation, and runoff as it passes through a vigorous farming area stretching from Thermopolis past Greybull which is about 60 miles downstream. By the time the river flows into Big Horn Lake, it appears as muddy as big muddy herself.

Here is where the Montana/Wyoming water wars begins. What once was a free flowing river to the Yellowstone muddy as hell, now becomes a pristine clear water trout fishery below Ft. Smith, and in fact is one of the most widely marketed and recognized blue ribbon fly fishing waters in the world. Fly and float guide services erupted not only in Ft. Smith, but impacted the area all the way to Billings, etc.

We too have been having some drought issues, and guess what, not enough water to supply the trout fishery, and keep water in Big Horn Lake, so the upper end,(south) Wyoming's end of the lake became an ugly mud flat, and the war was on.

That was a well thought out, professionally articulated, intelligent post. The photographs and map are wonderful and I noticed many points on the map, that is nice. But, in your post I see you failed in one area.

Where is the buried treasure and nearest Waffle House?

This all could have been avoided. We shouldnt be radically changing rivers and ecosystems to accomodate humans. Time for population control and time to give mother nature a breather.

D1B wrote:This all could have been avoided. We shouldnt be radically changing rivers and ecosystems to accomodate humans. Time for population control and time to give mother nature a breather.

YES!


If I could, i'd high five you.

MarkCCU wrote:That was a well thought out, professionally articulated, intelligent post. The photographs and map are wonderful and I noticed many points on the map, that is nice. But, in your post I see you failed in one area.

Where is the buried treasure and nearest Waffle House?

Wha'd you expect, did you not notice my siggy image?

Fellas, the dams have been built, the municipals have been watered, the agriculture is being produced.

What now, blow up the dams?

Yellowtail Habitat Area, created by the headwaters of Big Horn Lake, where the Shoshone and Big Horn Rivers intersect. 15,000 acres of wildlife area for conservation, hunting, and fishing. Public access, no charge.





Tis, where WB, OB, ole' Snuff, Jager-Bomb and all the friends congregate every November and December to chase wily rooster pheasants.

Ariel photo of the upper end (south) end of Big Horn Lake-



The rectangular body is Crooked Creek Bay, the largest water body is Horseshoe Bend, home to the upper end marina, docks, and campground. This entire area was drained down to nothing but silt for about six years until about a year ago.

Thanks Wedge for backing up my argument.

Again, these are problems inherent with resevoirs, which by defintion are water-storage devices.

If there was a guarantee of consistant rainfall, with no floods or droughts, there would be no need for them.

What is your solution, Grizza? Not release ANY water? Dry up the downstream river?

Wedgebuster wrote:Fellas, the dams have been built, the municipals have been watered, the agriculture is being produced.

What now, blow up the dams?

Yes.

That's the plan.

The Progressive's agenda is to destroy America and make it uncompetitive.

Read Mao.

D1B wrote:This all could have been avoided. We shouldnt be radically changing rivers and ecosystems to accomodate humans. Time for population control and time to give mother nature a breather.

OK, Ted.

All reservoirs have a stated purpose as far as I know, and they differ. The Big Horn Lake dispute was settled because the purposes originally stated was 1. Flood Control, 2. Recreation, and 3. Downstream irrigation.

Never was the intent to manufacture a blue ribbon trout fishery in the filtered waters below the dam. Much to the chagrin of the trout industry, the recreation of the lake took priority to keeping outflows at maximum benefit for the trout below the lake.

Out flows were cut early last spring, and as the lake began to fill back up to the bottom of the flood pool, the howling from the trout interests boiled to the point it involved the respective Governors and Senators squaring off in an interstate showdown.

Basically, it was decided that by keeping the level at or near full, less the large amount of flood pool, and simply letting out below the dam what is going in the lake from above. There is a fair amount of evaporation involved as well.

Now as for Ft. Peck, I am guessing here, but I think the priority was probably flood control first, followed by downstream navigation, then irrigation and either not mentioned, or too far down the list Recreation.

Correct me Griza here if I am wrong, I'm sure you have visited the Ft. Peck issue much more than I. I have been up there about a dozen times over the years for walleyes. It's 350 miles to Rock Creek Marina from here, 330 to Hell Creek (incl the 30 miles of nasty dirt/mud roads).

What's the deal with Ft. Peck? Is there another thread on that, because I couldn't find it?

AZGrizFan wrote:What's the deal with Ft. Peck? Is there another thread on that, because I couldn't find it?

The GDP thread traveled through Ft. Peck Lake.

Wedgebuster wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:What's the deal with Ft. Peck? Is there another thread on that, because I couldn't find it?

The GDP thread traveled through Ft. Peck Lake.

Thanks. Found it.

Wedgebuster wrote:All reservoirs have a stated purpose as far as I know, and they differ. The Big Horn Lake dispute was settled because the purposes originally stated was 1. Flood Control, 2. Recreation, and 3. Downstream irrigation.

Never was the intent to manufacture a blue ribbon trout fishery in the filtered waters below the dam. Much to the chagrin of the trout industry, the recreation of the lake took priority to keeping outflows at maximum benefit for the trout below the lake.

Out flows were cut early last spring, and as the lake began to fill back up to the bottom of the flood pool, the howling from the trout interests boiled to the point it involved the respective Governors and Senators squaring off in an interstate showdown.

Basically, it was decided that by keeping the level at or near full, less the large amount of flood pool, and simply letting out below the dam what is going in the lake from above. There is a fair amount of evaporation involved as well.

Now as for Ft. Peck, I am guessing here, but I think the priority was probably flood control first, followed by downstream navigation, then irrigation and either not mentioned, or too far down the list Recreation.

Correct me Griza here if I am wrong, I'm sure you have visited the Ft. Peck issue much more than I. I have been up there about a dozen times over the years for walleyes. It's 350 miles to Rock Creek Marina from here, 330 to Hell Creek (incl the 30 miles of nasty dirt/mud roads).

Reservoir, not lake.

All I know is that the fishing has been bad, to below average the past few years. The boat launch/marina right outside of Glasgow was so low that no boat could be launched from it. Glasgow is not a big town anymore. Around 4000-5500 depending on who you believe. I can only imagine what would/is happening to local businesses if the dam goes bye-bye or they just let it go to nothing and let it go back to a river, as dback wants.

Screw the town, and all the great fishing/sightseeing, TAKE OUT THE EARTHEN DAM!!!

AND dback, I am not sure where I said close the dam and make sure it is at full pool regardless of streamflows. Please let me know if you can find it.

grizzaholic wrote:

Wedgebuster wrote:All reservoirs have a stated purpose as far as I know, and they differ. The Big Horn Lake dispute was settled because the purposes originally stated was 1. Flood Control, 2. Recreation, and 3. Downstream irrigation.

Never was the intent to manufacture a blue ribbon trout fishery in the filtered waters below the dam. Much to the chagrin of the trout industry, the recreation of the lake took priority to keeping outflows at maximum benefit for the trout below the lake.

Out flows were cut early last spring, and as the lake began to fill back up to the bottom of the flood pool, the howling from the trout interests boiled to the point it involved the respective Governors and Senators squaring off in an interstate showdown.

Basically, it was decided that by keeping the level at or near full, less the large amount of flood pool, and simply letting out below the dam what is going in the lake from above. There is a fair amount of evaporation involved as well.

Now as for Ft. Peck, I am guessing here, but I think the priority was probably flood control first, followed by downstream navigation, then irrigation and either not mentioned, or too far down the list Recreation.

Correct me Griza here if I am wrong, I'm sure you have visited the Ft. Peck issue much more than I. I have been up there about a dozen times over the years for walleyes. It's 350 miles to Rock Creek Marina from here, 330 to Hell Creek (incl the 30 miles of nasty dirt/mud roads).

Reservoir, not lake.

All I know is that the fishing has been bad, to below average the past few years. The boat launch/marina right outside of Glasgow was so low that no boat could be launched from it. Glasgow is not a big town anymore. Around 4000-5500 depending on who you believe. I can only imagine what would/is happening to local businesses if the dam goes bye-bye or they just let it go to nothing and let it go back to a river, as dback wants.

Screw the town, and all the great fishing/sightseeing, TAKE OUT THE EARTHEN DAM!!!

AND dback, I am not sure where I said close the dam and make sure it is at full pool regardless of streamflows. Please let me know if you can find it.

where did I say I wanted to take the dam out?

While you did not say close the dam specifically, the only way to satisify your gripes would be to do exactly that.

dbackjon wrote:

grizzaholic wrote:
Reservoir, not lake.

All I know is that the fishing has been bad, to below average the past few years. The boat launch/marina right outside of Glasgow was so low that no boat could be launched from it. Glasgow is not a big town anymore. Around 4000-5500 depending on who you believe. I can only imagine what would/is happening to local businesses if the dam goes bye-bye or they just let it go to nothing and let it go back to a river, as dback wants.

Screw the town, and all the great fishing/sightseeing, TAKE OUT THE EARTHEN DAM!!!

AND dback, I am not sure where I said close the dam and make sure it is at full pool regardless of streamflows. Please let me know if you can find it.

where did I say I wanted to take the dam out?

While you did not say close the dam specifically, the only way to satisify your gripes would be to do exactly that.

So you think letting more water out of the dam than it takes in until it is just a river again just to satisfy the people that want to run barges, trains are much cheaper, up the Mississippi while the whole time ruining the recreation, fishing, sightseeing that is Fort Peck Resevoir, and the extra business for the surrounding towns by way of tourism? GREAT PLAN. Then once there is no more water left to get all they have to do is take out the dam and that will be that. You also said that the dam is hurting the fishery, when it is actually saving it.


And it isn't a gripe, it is fact. Difference.

AZGrizFan wrote:What's the deal with Ft. Peck? Is there another thread on that, because I couldn't find it?

I am kinda lost here too.

Interesting sidenote: Lake Powell took 17 YEARS to fill.

I am kind of waiting for Ursus' take on this. He has family back that way and he might have some insight on this, being that he was just back there the other week.

grizzaholic wrote:

dbackjon wrote:
where did I say I wanted to take the dam out?

While you did not say close the dam specifically, the only way to satisify your gripes would be to do exactly that.

So you think letting more water out of the dam than it takes in until it is just a river again just to satisfy the people that want to run barges, trains are much cheaper, up the Mississippi while the whole time ruining the recreation, fishing, sightseeing that is Fort Peck Resevoir, and the extra business for the surrounding towns by way of tourism? GREAT PLAN. Then once there is no more water left to get all they have to do is take out the dam and that will be that. You also said that the dam is hurting the fishery, when it is actually saving it.


And it isn't a gripe, it is fact. Difference.

You are losing me...

Trains are NOT cheaper than barging commodities like corn, wheat, etc.

And yes, the economic value of the barges to the United States is thousands of times greater than the recreational value of Fort Peck Resevoir.

I did not say that the dam was hurting the fisheries - I merely pointed out that any ENDANGERED, native species were lost when the dam was built in the first place.

dbackjon wrote:

grizzaholic wrote:
So you think letting more water out of the dam than it takes in until it is just a river again just to satisfy the people that want to run barges, trains are much cheaper, up the Mississippi while the whole time ruining the recreation, fishing, sightseeing that is Fort Peck Resevoir, and the extra business for the surrounding towns by way of tourism? GREAT PLAN. Then once there is no more water left to get all they have to do is take out the dam and that will be that. You also said that the dam is hurting the fishery, when it is actually saving it.


And it isn't a gripe, it is fact. Difference.

You are losing me...

Trains are NOT cheaper than barging commodities like corn, wheat, etc.

And yes, the economic value of the barges to the United States is thousands of times greater than the recreational value of Fort Peck Resevoir.

I did not say that the dam was hurting the fisheries - I merely pointed out that any ENDANGERED, native species were lost when the dam was built in the first place.

Head meet sand.

grizzaholic wrote:

dbackjon wrote:
You are losing me...

Trains are NOT cheaper than barging commodities like corn, wheat, etc.

And yes, the economic value of the barges to the United States is thousands of times greater than the recreational value of Fort Peck Resevoir.

I did not say that the dam was hurting the fisheries - I merely pointed out that any ENDANGERED, native species were lost when the dam was built in the first place.

Head meet sand.

Not even close. I have tried to reasonably debate the issue with facts, not emotion. You are the one that is letting your personal agenda/biases color how you are reading the posts, and are not able to see that I am right on this issue.