Additional Content 1234567891011 Last »
FM Diversion and Dam Increases national debt

Charles Christianson Comments to the USACE re: Fargo Moorhead Dam and Diversion

<< Read and Download Original Chuck Christianson Comment Letter >>

Chuck Christianson Comments USACE FEIS Fargo Moorhead Dam and Diversion

Dear Sirs,

I am writing in regards to the Fargo Moorhead flood diversion south of Fargo N.Dak. I can not figure out how you can take the flats and some of the most highly productive land in Minnesota and North Dakota and use it for a place to hold water. Seems to me it would make more sense to store water where we have a valley in southern North Dakota that the Wild Rice river runs through that is pasture land already, and hardly any dwelling. There is also low area’s in Minnesota and South Dakota that doesn’t produce anything except waterfowl, that can be used for retention.

These are the area’s the water comes from that ends up in Fargo N. Dak. Also you are taking an area to hold water that is very populated maybe more so then any area in the whole Red River Valley.

I don’t think it makes much sense to build a dam in an area that has two interstate highways and state highways that will have to either be raised or in danger of flooding. Also a railroad to raise, not to say many rivers to cross. Why does Fargo want to keep building in a low area behind a big body of water this would be. Do you think this issafe.

I do believe the dollar amount put on this project is not very accurate because at the meeting I have been to the questions about property values, the answers are not very complete.

Retention in more remoter area’s so you have less home’s and farm site’s to deal with, that way you will have more money per home or farm site to they can be treated fair.

There is also a safety factor in raising highways in North Dakota, as in the winter’s there are a lot of vehicles that go off the road. The higher the road the worse these accidents will be for life and injuries.

To start holding water south of Fargo will create another problem, when the Sheyenne River is flooding, this area will get a lot bigger then is planned.

Fargo and Moorhead should get to diking their cities with permanent dikes as dikes have been working. Then get busy and work with a retention plan to slow down the flow.

With costs of this proposal I believe it will be short dollars, can the cities afford more or will the people affected not get there fair value.

There is also the problem with schools that loose the tax base and students which also hurts the town’s there in.

The roads within the flooded area will have to be repaired each time there flooded. Who pay’s the bill. We know the townships don’t have the money.

There is the problem with churches and cemeteries. Who pays the bill and where to they move to.

Please consider all the people, business’s and land owners that will be hurt by this project.

Remember Fargo keeps building in low area and they expect the people on higher ground to sacrifice homes and business so some body can make money on development and there growth.

Grand Forth N.D. flood plan after 1997 flood is working well. There land is flat like Fargo and there having no trouble with dikes.

The Red River Basin Commission has already located places to hold about half of the acre feet of water you’re talking about needed for protection already.

Please remember this generates a lot money that is spent in Fargo from this area they want to be a dam.

Thank you

Charles Christianson
16934 52 ST SE
Kindred ND 58051

Leave a Reply

You can use these XHTML tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <strong>