According to LAW.COM
Fraud is defined as:
- A false representation of a matter of fact—whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of what should have been disclosed—that deceives and is intended to deceive another so that the individual will act upon it to her or his legal injury.
The Fargo Diversion Authority and U.S. Corps of Engineers have actively utilized the term “Existing Conditions” in relation to 50, 100 and 500 year flood events to evoke fear of alleged future impacts if a Dam and Diversion were constructed and also as fear to outline current “no action alternative” impacts without construction of a Dam and Diversion.
How can “Existing Conditions” be both future and current conditions when the outcomes and impacts are entirely different?
That is a decision for you as the reader to make and either accept or reject.
Now listen to the following statement from Keith Berndt, Cass County Adminstrator:
Keith Berndt 50 Year Flood Event ← Alternate Link to Player
|Keith Berndt: “..I mean we’ve had a number of experts and the…the…between the Corps of Engineers, the private consultants amd the best experts we can find tell us again and again you cannot protect the metropolitan area with levees alone. You need to have a diversion you cannot get the lev…, we cannot get above a 50 year level of protection…for the Fargo area with with levees alone.”|
Now consider the data that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers provided the Minnesota DNR.
|Year Event||RRN Discharge (cfs)
USGS Gage at Fargo, ND
|RRN Stage (ft)
USGS Gage at Fargo, ND
|2009 Historic||29,500||40.8||100-year FEMA||29,300||39.3||100-year USACE EOE (Wet)||34,700||41.1||100-year USACE POR||33,000||40.8|
DNR – Department of Natural Resources
EAW – Environmental Assessment Worksheet
FEMA – Federal Emergency Management Association
USACE – United State Army Corps of Engineers
USGS – United States Geologic Service
EOE – Expert-Opinion Elicitation
POR – Period of Record
RRN – Red River Valley of the North
CFS – Cubic Feet per Second
If the historical observation of the U.S.G.S Fargo, ND gauge in 2009 indicated a 40.8 feet crest while using dikes and levees and the preceding data from FEMA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers cites a 40.8 foot elevation meeting or exceeding a 100 year flood, why would Keith Berndt and others persist in disseminating contrary information?
If the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers are to be accepted as experts in their field, why do they embrace a 3,500 cfs disconnect with a non-factual 33,000 cfs flow at 40.8 feet when the historical observation in 2009 was a 40.8 foot crest at 29,500 cfs flow under “Existing Conditions”.