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

John J Ready Comments to the USACE re: Fargo Moorhead Dam and Diversion

<< Read and Download Original John J. Ready Comment Letter >>

John J Ready Comments USACE FEIS Fargo Moorhead Dam and Diversion

John J. Ready
15115 S. 70th St.
Sabin, MN 56580
(h) 218.585.4218
(c) 701.361.8014

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
7701 Telegraph Road
Alexandira, VA 22315-3860

ATTN: CECW-P (IP)

November 6,2011

Dear Army Corps of Engineers:

It sure is nice to have the opportunity to comment on you, the city of Fargo, and the Metro Flood Study Work Group, flooding part of my farmland and destroying some of my nelghbor’s homes and farms, including the cities of Hickson and Oxbow. It would be even better if someone would listen and take action, to stop the dam. But “NO, WE HAVE TO THINK OF THE GREATER GOOD,” protecting Fargo’s future development in the flood plain. Flood waters should and naturally do go to the lowest elevation, unless held back by a dam and economic interest of a few.

Why wasn’t the Northern Inlet chosen? (FEIS Appendix 0 8.4.2.1.6, attachment: 5, proposal #3, pages, 23-24). This option would not have negatively affected Hickson, Oxbow, and Comstock areas as bad and would be less expensive. To protect Horace is not a legitimate reason, if Hickson, Oxbow, and Comstock are expendable … Horace can be too.

The Northern Inlet would prevent futuristic development area for Fargo. The current plan works out so well for Fargo.

Why are you encouraging the development of a flood plain and caving in to the economic interests of Fargo, Mayor Walaker, and his political cronies. Why should their poor planning and reckless development be rewarded? Their past development decisions have proven extremely negligent and stupid.

If the powers at be shove this down our throats are they prepared to pay for it? Fargo has paid an average of 128% of assessed home values, for flood buy-outs within the city (Fargo Forum, June 13, 2011). Hopefully buy-outs in the affected dam/reservoir area will be equally as generous. If you want a Cadillac diversion/dam to protect future development in the worst of the flood-plain, you need pay the price. Farm buildings, grain bins, shops, and sheds should be paid for using replacement costs, not depreciated value (YOU BREAK IT, YOU BUY IT).

Your one-time payment (flowage easements), for indefinite losses, places too many risks on the victims, as the variables are countless. Crop losses should be paid by those benefiting as they occur. Because, how do any of us know what the future costs to produce a crop and the value of it will be?

Will the storing of water slow down the drainage in our legal ditch-systems, therefore, affecting the drainage outside of the staging area?

As Clay County Commissioner, Jon D. Evert stated in the Fargo Forum, 11/07/2011, “I, however, cannot support the current plan to use my home community as the ‘sacrificial lamb’ to increase the comfort level of the metro area. It is time to go back to the drawing board and look for a way to protect us all.” 

I concur.

Thank You.

John J. Ready

 

Views: 7

Leave a Reply

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