With that comes the unimaginative predictability of proponents claiming victory in a process that has not yet run its course.
What do you expect from the very hucksters that falsely claimed the 2009 flood was a “50” year event, those that embraced every overstated flood forecast to heighten anxiety, those that routinely treat impacted property owners as second class citizens with no rights to protect their financial interests, those that have the audacity to divert $65-$90 million on the OHB project (golf course, clubhouse, pool and house relocation’s) for a community that IS NOT at immediate risk – which provides ZERO flood protection for Fargo, while simultaneously leaving areas of Fargo exposed to an immediate risk, flood insurance requirements and potential tax assessments.
These are the same social deviants that choose to leverage the threat of flood insurance and tax assessments to compel support for a project that does not protect the city that currently exists rather than providing a real-time internal flood protection solution before looking to the horizon for a future city boundary, economic expansion area and perilous reduction of natural flood plain attenuation capacity.
( UPDATE: 6:43pm 1/3/2015 fmdam.org rec’d permission to share the MN DNR report )
It is interesting that the Preliminary Draft EIS Review Version – Distributed Storage Alternative dated December 31, 2014 that was shared with a select group was leaked via the Fargo Diversion Authority public relations mill as fodder for empty media assumptions, taunts and self serving bloviations.
In a nutshell, the thirteen page report touches on several points relating to DSA (Distributed Storage Alternative) and clearly indicates that:
PDEIS DSA Excerpt (page 13):
“Distributed Storage is an excellent basin-wide approach to provide local flood protection and
should be pursued wherever feasible.”
PDEIS DSA Excerpt (page 13):
“However, the analysis further states that the DSA:”
1) does not fully meet the project purpose; and
2) is not a feasible or practical alternative to the proposed project.
Curiously, the report does not take a position on whether the criteria of the project is justified, appropriate or acceptable or the fact that neither the Red River dam control structure nor the 36 mile diversion channel are practical stand alone features by themselves.
The draft report also fails to indicate that the 96 retention sites cited in the HURS (Halstad Upstream Retention Study) are upstream of Halstad, MN and not exclusively Fargo, ND – which would require about half of the 96 stated locations, which would provide more than 19 inches of flood reduction benefit to the Fargo-Moorhead area.
The DNR draft report indicates that 137,220 acres feet of distributed retention has been built since 1997.
So why hasn’t Fargo completed internal protection over the same 18 year period?
A concern relating specifically to the DSA is that:
PDEIS DSA Excerpt (page 9):
“The project proposes to take areas out of the 100-year flood plain; an action, which in turn,
has the potential to attract building and development in those areas. The potential for
constrictions or catastrophic floods to overtop the levee has a high residual risk.”
A well founded concern. As distributed retention for flood protection has been constructed, Fargo has recklessly and greedily destroyed the protection benefits achieved by upstream storage. Fargo’s actions of encroachment has displaced additional water from the natural flood plain creating a greater flood risk for the remaining city residents.
How inept or corrupt are local leaders to intentionally place residents at risk in pursuit of future growth areas in their multi-billion dollar gamble against flood insurance and tax assessments?
Call it reckless gloating or simply poor sportsmanship, the recent taunts via media against project opponents living upstream, downstream and in the Fargo, Moorhead, West Fargo area are being done by those bullies in love with their own voice, keyboard or pen. Their singular focus is to justify the theft of equity from impacted property owners by parliamentary procedure adopted by a pseudo authority and not a direct decision of the voter(s).
The December 31, 2014 Distributed Storage Alternative Screening Analysis is neither a fatal blow to opponents or a victory for proponents. It is simply the Minnesota DNR following it’s process and laws to ensure that their final permit determination, which is supposed to come after a public comment period, is both legal and defensible for the 5 million plus taxpayers that it represents.
( UPDATE: 6:43pm 1/3/2015 FAQ MNDNR – Read DSA FAQ )
If Fargo wasn’t really that “concerned” about the process, then why would they commit $36,000 in tax payer dollars for a lobbyist through April 2015 to specifically focus on the MN DNR?
Project proponents have to stop blowing bubbles and living in one too…