Archive for February 2012
You are browsing the archives of 2012 February.
You are browsing the archives of 2012 February.
I oppose the above mentioned proposal for many reasons. Obviously, upstream communities were not asked to participate in the decision making process. I know alternatives do exist that address flooding basin wide. These have not been studied or addressed by the Corp nor have areas affected by the issue been included in the planning stages. Although the Corp acknowledges that there will be impacts outside the 33,390 acre staging area, these issues have not been assessed and these costs are not included in the project.
[ Click Image for Full Size View ] Original 100yr vs 500yr Flood Outline of Fargo, ND Cited Source: 2008 Reconnaissance Study Views: 22 Tweet
Minot flooded and Fargo took that ball and ran. Saying look what could happen. Fargo hasn’t had a 100 year flood yet but now they want to be protected to 500 year, do they even know what number a 500 year flood is. Moorhead has been doing a good job of protecting themselves. Fargo is working on it and maybe have most done before this project can even get started. I hope they weren’t just looking at it as a stimulus project to create a lot of jobs to help the economy.
Residents and farmers south of Fargo Moorhead should not have to be punished for the mistakes of those who chose to build in a flood plain in the Fargo-Moorhead area. Consider options of widening, straightening, dredging the river, erecting permanent flood walls, or erecting a ring dike around the city. We have a small family cemetery high on the riverbank of our property from my great-grandfather’s days. With the diversion, this would be flooded. And if the Eagle Valley cemetery is affected, the adjacent newly built Eagle Valley Evangelical Free Church along the Red River two miles east of Christine, ND would also be affected by the diversion.
Fargo, Cass County and the USACE may have overplayed their misinform, divide and conquer hand. The USACE, Cass County and Fargo will need to come to the table with previously excluded opponents and provide answers to defiencies and impacts evident in the current FEIS. A tough pill to swallow for those that have routinely marginalized opponents with denigrating disregard: “They had no place there. Why would diversion supporters who are trying to get the project funded invite project foes whose goal is to scuttle the project? They were not invited for good cause.”
A small group of Fargo/Cass County individuals has been operating in a feedback loop with the St. Paul District U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to develop the Fargo Diversion. “… the ND alignment is a locally preferred alignment… to accommodate the city of Fargo’s current future plans of development…” This statement is a smoking gun that proves the Fargo Diversion, the Locally Preferred Plan, is all about development of the floodplain on the far south side of Fargo, which recently built a new south side high school in it in anticipation of future development. Although public hearings have been held, these have been strictly pro-forma, with no comments recorded. The general public has been blocked out of the decision making process.
There are a few THOUSAND people who live on farms and small communities south of Fargo Moorhead who are going to lose their homes and livelihoods or have them become unusable/inaccessible. The Fargo dam project as put forth by the Corp of Engineers has a moral problem in both environmental and human terms which will leave behind a legacy of acrimony. The DNR is not in favor of this project. A great, albeit unappreciated, resource will be destroyed.
I witnessed the charade that was thrust upon the residents of Oxbow, Bakke Subdivision, Hickson, Christine, Comstock, etc., that what we thought even mattered. Good comments and proposals for alternative considerations were met with casual disregard, and it was readily apparent that nothing else was going to be considered because it would frustrate corps timelines for proposing their bizarre plan to Congress.
Fargo, ND and the USACE may ignore concerns over National Register of historic buildings that would be destroyed by the construction and operation of the Fargo Moorhead Dam and Diversion. “What are we willing to sacrifice for a project that won’t fully protect Fargo?” – Editorial Team
Based on information available at this time and the impact analysis outlined in the Final Fishand Wildlife Coordination Act Report (July 2011 ), the FWS recommends that, should the Corps and the local project sponsors proceed with the Fargo-Moorhead Metropolitan Flood Risk Reduction Project, the Federally Comparable Plan (FCP or MN 3SK Alternative) Diversion Channel Alternative be the selected Alternative. Adverse ecological impacts will occur with any of the Diversion Channel Alternatives. For the following reason, however, the FCP Alternative would result in less severe ecological impacts than the Locally Preferred Plan (LPP) Diversion Channel Alternative: