CAP Press Release On Devil's Lake Ruling

Such selective Canuck vision. Devils Lake has been in the works since 1992. Canada has done absolutely NOTHTING to address the issue, beyond spending money on last-minute legal battles. Too bad, but the time for any compromise has passed.<br />
<br />
Meanwhile:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.mineweb.net/sections/sustainable_mining/444060.htm">http://www.mineweb.net/sections/sustainable_mining/444060.htm</a><br />
<br />
"...Montana's Governor has asked U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to get the International Joint Commission involved in the fight between his state and the British Columbia Ministry of Mines over a proposed open-pit coal mine near Fernie, B.C.<br />
<br />
This is the second time in less than a year that a U.S. state has gone to the International Joint Commission to resolve a dispute concerning alleged U.S. pollution generated by Canadian mining operations..."<br />
<br />
What are you B.C. greenies going to do? Somehow figure out a way that B.C. mines polluting the U.S. are the Americans fault?<br />
<br />
<br />

Anything that can be done to stop this project should be done. Just because "they" have been laying the groundwork to sweep this under the rug since the 1990's is no reason for us to not protest in any way possible, including lawsuits. Way to go Connie!
I think the Anon commenter should submit the open pit mine story for the front page.

This project is simply another example of unilateral action taken by a US State without consideration of the consequences. And in response to the last minute legal remark by the other poster, Canada has been formally requesting an International Joint Commission review of the Devils Lake project since April 2004. North Dakota seems especially adept at ignoring Canadians when it comes to cross border issues. This one just happens to violate an international treaty as well. The people of Grand Forks should also be thrilled that the water flowing through their city will be contaminated with high levels of phosphorous. MMM yummy drink up. I am pretty sure that if this project even hinted at draining into the James River/ Missouri it would have been shoved right where the sun doesn’t shine by angry Americans.

Finally somebody has the strength to stand up. This article makes a great point to other trade issues, and border treaties; if they won't recognize this one...the rest are soon to fall.<br />
<br />
This from the news today, " OTTAWA (CP) - Manitobans are so frustrated with the U.S. refusal to stop the Devils Lake water diversion they're ready to "let the bastards freeze in the dark," a New Democratic MP says.<br />
<br />
Pat Martin, the Winnipeg Centre member of Parliament, says diplomatic efforts to stop the North Dakota project have failed dismally and it's time to take off the gloves to stop the project, scheduled to begin operating in July." <br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.mytelus.com/news/article.do?pageID=canada_home&articleID=1953558">http://www.mytelus.com/news/article.do?pageID=canada_home&articleID=1953558</a><p>---<br>If I stand for my country today...will my country be here to stand for me tomorrow?

The Devils Lake Outlet has been a topic of debate since the 1990's. Manitoba has been invoved in those debates. Thay have had plenty of time to suggest it to the IJC, but have failed to do so to till the 11th hour. Poor planning is not reason for lawsuits. There have been many meetings between US, ND, and Manitoba officials durring the last few years: why wait till the last month?

JG

Just FYI... The Missoui is already poluted more than Devils Lake is. I don't understand how putting clean water in to a pollouted river would cause a problem. The issue here is that the water is crossing into Canada. One of the few rivers that does. More poluted water from Canada enters the United States every day than this outlet will in a month.

<p><b>Anonymous</b> wrote:</p> <p><i>Just FYI... The Missoui is already poluted more than Devils Lake is. I don't understand how putting clean water in to a pollouted river would cause a problem. The issue here is that the water is crossing into Canada. One of the few rivers that does. More poluted water from Canada enters the United States every day than this outlet will in a month.</i></p> <p>Your comments are rather non-sensical. You start talking about the "Missoui" River, when the water from the outlet will end up in the <b>Red</b> River. Then you throw in a totally unsubstantiated comment about more polluted water from Canada entering the US than the other way around. Unless you can come up with even a single fact to support that supposition, your comment falls just a little sort of lame.</p> <p>—Brian</p>

My previous comment about the Missouri River was in reply to this quote a previous comment

"I am pretty sure that if this project even hinted at draining into the James River/ Missouri it would have been shoved right where the sun doesn’t shine by angry Americans."