Defending Richland and Wilkin counties July 5th, 2012

Fargo cannot expand south as the land south of Davies High School is a natural flood plain that collects water when we have even moderate flooding. Fargo’s solution: protect the extra 40-square miles for development by building dams on the Red and Wild Rice and back up the water that would normally and naturally spread out into the floodplain.

Continue Reading

Defending Richland and Wilkin counties June 28th, 2012

Minnesota Flood Hazard Mitigation Grant funds were not intended to be Fargo development funds for flood- prone areas south of Fargo. There are better solutions that have been ignored, primarily because it may restrict Fargo expanding to the south. I would suggest 52 Street South in Fargo. In the past, that is where Fargo has successfully placed a temporary levee.

Continue Reading

Red River Diversion Information Guide – What will the Diversion Cost You?

What will the Diversion Cost You? ** SHOCKING TAX ASSESSMENTS ** that officials have kept from property owners. Fargo-Moorhead can be protected without destroying Red River Basin communities. This plan will lead to the destruction of farms, communities and businesses south of the diversion channel, Clay and Cass counties and northern Richland and Wilkin counties. A Dam & Reservoir is not needed!

Continue Reading

Why was a diversion channel, rather than levees or water retention, recommended?

The question as presented, is speculative, leading and incorrect. The original flood reduction proposal located on the Minnesota side of the Red River included a diversion channel as a main feature to convey water from south to north of the metro area. The proposal released in the SDEIS and FEIS utilizes high risk dams, levees […]

Continue Reading

Dean and Paula Swenson Comments to the USACE re: Fargo Moorhead Dam and Diversion

I believe that the project, as put forth, is an unsustainable project. I don’t believe that the ACE is capable of either designing, building or maintaining a man built water system that will go over or under 5 different water sheds in a 36 mile man made route around a metro area.

Continue Reading

Senate Bill 2039 exempts ND from floodplains building restrictions

Letter from: George Sorvalis Water Protection Network, Coordinator Dear WPN Listserve, Having already passed the Senate, we are very concerned about S. 2039 «Read More», which is scheduled for a House vote today (under suspension of the rules – which means limited debate and ¾ vote to pass). It is a stand-alone bill that would […]

Continue Reading

Marcus Larson “Loss of Life” Comments to the USACE re: Fargo Moorhead Dam and Diversion

The staging area presents a greater threat to the city of Fargo, ND due to excessive water levels held above the elevation of the entire city on historically unstable ground. It is generally accepted that populations that have permanent protection in place are less likely to evacuate because the flood protection offers an unwarranted sense of security that does not reflect a true flood risk specific to the given area.

Continue Reading

How high would the water be in a 500 year flood event?

<<< Return to FAQs >>> The USACE indicates a variety of 500 year flood levels in the FEIS and supporting documentation, without embracing any specific 500 year flood level as an absolute. Craig O. Evans, P.E. Chief, Plan Formulation Section, attributes the disparity as “…not an inconsistency, but rather an outcome of the uncertainty analysis.” There […]

Continue Reading

Hugh J. Trowbrige Comments to the USACE re: Fargo Moorhead Dam and Diversion

<< Read and Download Original Hugh J. Trowbrige Comment Letter >> November 6, 2011 To: The Corp of Enginers Last week the city of fargo voted 3-2 to keep future building 450 feet from the center of the Red River. To get the third vote they have an exception clause. that is feet not yards! […]

Continue Reading